The Real Battle Begins?

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

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

Danish PastryPosted on9:23 am - Dec 15, 2012


liveinhop says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 20:44
20 1 Rate This

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/106-a-sceptical-review-of-the-prospectus
————–

Interesting article – and not a single follow-up the comments section. Odd that. Seen through the sceptical eyes of ForlansSister it looks as though everyone involved stands to make a nice payoff, no matter what transpires. A sense reality too:

——-
“The paragraph titled “Exposure to litigation” raises other risk factors the main one being in relation to the purchase of assets from the administrators of RFC plc, the Directors while conceding that any action raised could have “a material adverse effect” with regards to “business growth, prospects, sales, results of operations and/or financial condition” and that any claim may not be covered by insurance, are of the opinion that time has mitigated the risk and any material liabilities would be known by know. The potential impacts of the consequences of the Directors opinion being wrong are such that the possibility cannot afford to be discounted.

“The following paragraph covers much the same ground as the one above but more specifically relating to the possible actions of the liquidators of RFC plc under the Insolvency Act 1986 to challenge the acts of the administrators (Duff & Phelps) once again the Directors are of the opinion that everything is in order however concede that should such an action occur it would have an impact on the management’s ability to properly run the business, given the relatively recent appointment of the liquidators and the potentially lengthy job ahead of them I’m not convinced enough to share the Directors apparent confidence.”
——-

If we could look past the author’s apparent gleeful dismissal of RTC and the ‘Irish Football Prefect’ jibe, it could be an interesting guest blog here. It would certainly illict a few more responses than the grand toal of zero it has garnered thus far on gersnet 🙂

View Comment

ExiledCeltPosted on9:33 am - Dec 15, 2012


This is price you pay

BY ANDY DEVLIN

RANGERS boss Ally McCoist has told Ibrox exodus stars Kyle Lafferty and Steven Naismith: I’d never have treated this club the way you did.

McCoist rapped FC Sion striker Lafferty and Everton hitman Naismith for quitting the stricken Glasgow giants and leaving them without a penny in transfer fees.

And he insisted the fact that seething supporters won’t welcome the pair back to Ibrox is the price they pay for their summer actions.

McCoist stressed: “It’s the easiest thing in the world for me to sit here and tell you I would have done it differently.

“And Ian Durrant would have done it differently. But we WOULD have done.

“People make their own decisions and have to live with them.

“I’m not criticising them, I just have to deal with the aftermath and that’s fine, move on.”

Lafferty spoke exclusively to SunSport last weekend of his hurt at not being able to go to Ibrox to support his boyhood heroes.

Naismith echoed those sentiments but McCoist insists they have only themselves to blame.

Both players turned down the chance to join Charles Green’s newco when Rangers went bust.

The Ibrox gaffer said: “There’s no use moaning about it now.

“They had plenty of time to make the decision and now the fans have made theirs. It’s not as if the fans are doing anything wrong.

“They made the decision which they felt was right for them — and that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that.”

Meanwhile, McCoist has urged the ruling bodies to make a quick decision on league reconstruction.

A series of options are on the table and he does not want the issue to drag on into the New Year.

Coisty said: “Effectively we’re in the same position as last year — we don’t know where we will be.

“It looks like it will be SFL2 if we get promoted, fingers crossed, which will be great. But the way things are shaping up, we would have to prepare for either SFL2 or 3.

“It’s incredibly difficult.

“I was reading Rod Petrie — and maybe I’m reading too much into it — but I think from Rod’s point of view we would be in the 18 (remaining SFL clubs), so effectively everybody would benefit from that apart from us.

“In an ideal world we’d know at the turn of the year so we can prepare.”

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/feeds/smartphone/scotland/4698802/This-is-price-you-pay.html#ixzz2F6vv6f1Z

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on9:39 am - Dec 15, 2012


Morning all.
Just wondering if anyone knows how share issues normally work.
Do most applications come in during the first few days or is there normally a rush at the end?.
If the former,can we assume that the reported figure of £1.25m raised up to now is not good?.
Add the £90k pledged through the RST and there’s probably not even enough to pay the costs of the issue.
Would there normally be a rush before closing date?.
When does trading start?.

View Comment

ExiledCeltPosted on9:41 am - Dec 15, 2012


Ally getting his excuses ready just in case….

McCoist saw Celtic struggle past Arbroath in the Scottish Cup in midweek and last night he told Neil Lennon: Welcome to my world.

Coisty said: “It was maybe a wee reminder to everybody in Scottish football — although we don’t need a reminder, as you know — that there are extremely difficult places to go.

“Neil would admit his team were in a very difficult Cup tie. You go up there at night, it’s cold and icy and the pitch was freezing up. It’s a leveller.

“It’s a little taste of how we feel. Maybe now people have a realisation that these places are difficult to go to.”

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/feeds/smartphone/scotland/4698576/Edu-got-Gers-money-Laff-and-Naisy-turned-their-backs-on-the-club.html#ixzz2F6xTfR7Z

View Comment

ExiledCeltPosted on9:44 am - Dec 15, 2012


From KDS – here is the whos who of the FTT

Alright, here’s the ready reckoner – see if your favourite hun is written up in the FTT(T) document! There is some doubt over anyone with a question mark, but that’s a best guess.

THE BOARDROOM AND PALS
Red – MIH Goon – Former Chartered Tax Advisor
Yellow – MIH Goon
Turquoise – Tax advisor at PWC, advised Klos
Green – Colin Mitchell – MIH Goon
Grey – Blair Morgan – Agent/Solicitor to McCann, G. Rae
Crimson – Trustee
Silver – Jorge Lera – Agent to Novo
Blue – Donald Wilson – MIH Goon
Black – David Murray – Sub-Trust (ST) #1
N/A – Graeme Souness – ST #2 (not mentioned in the document, but we haven’t forgotten you, Graeme)
Violet – Alex McLeish – ST #29
Burford – John Greig – ST #40
Indigo – John McClelland – ST #46
Magenta – Andrew Dickson (It’s not Alastair Johnston, as the dates don’t match)
Scarlet – Martin Bain
Elgin – Campbell Ogilvie (Dates/roles match, non-player with EBT)

PLAYERS
Eversham – Stefan Klos – ST #? (A ton of evidence)
Ipswich – Barry Ferguson – ST #? (As above)
Winchester – Fernando Ricksen – ST # ? (Dutch, termination of contract discussed)
Coventry – Arthur Numan/Lorenzo Amoruso? – ST #5 (v. early number, sought indemnity, which is common amongst foreigners, esp Dutch)
Purple – Neil McCann – ST #13 (works in media, client of Blair Morgan, even the departure date from Rangers to another club (Soton) fits)
Gold – Vidmar? – ST #15 (didn’t access EBT funds, Assistant with an age group national team – about the only candidate that fits)
Skegness – ? – ST #38 (no further info, and no numbers around his number to try and work out an era)
Ely – Tore Andre Flo – ST # 43 (ton of evidence)
Norwich – Dan Eggen – ST #47 (dates match, small sum, signed from Spanish club, though not sure why his number is out of order in the chronology)
Newark – Bert Konterman? – ST #52 (Dutch lawyer, paid to leave. Aside from being paid to leave, interchangeable with the next person)
Lichfield – Ronald de Boer? – ST #56 (Dutch, but not paid to leave – doubt the huns would have had to give him a top-up to join a rich Qatari club)
York – Kevin Muscat? – ST # 61 (fits the chronology, paid a large %age through the trust, matching with Muscat’s 1m for 1 season, paid to leave)
Manchester – Egil Ostenstad/Paolo Vanoli – ST # 62 (paid 20k to leave – most likely Egil)
Berwick – Jean Alain Boumsong – ST #63 (documents seized by police (!) paid to leave)
Bristol – Jesper Christensen – ST #64 (Foreigner, sought indemnity, trust established to pay him to “return to” [Denmark] (par 107 of judgement))
Cardiff – Gavin Rae – ST #65 (Agent is Blair Morgan, so most likely a Scot, paid a large %age through trust)
Inverness – Nacho Novo – ST #72 (Ton of evidence)
Selby – Dado Prso – ST #73 (Paid a large %age through trust, paid bonus through trust, sums match amount listed by BBC, ST # fits chronology)
Dundee – Zurab Khizanishvilli – ST #76 (Foreigner, indemnity, paid large % through trust, sums match amount listed by BBC, ST # fits chronology)
Newport – Alex Rae – ST #79 (Dates match, fits chronology, sums match)
Carlile – ? – ST #81 (Paid part wages through EBT)
Whitehaven – ? – ST #82 (Paid part wages through EBT)
Birmingham – Marvin Andrews – ST #87 (Paid large % through trust, fits chronology)
Bath – Sotirios Kyrgiakos? – ST #88 (Higher profile player, paid large %age through trust, fits chronology, paid to leave)
Glastonbury – Thomas Buffel – ST #91 (Dutch lawyer (by this point all the Dutchmen were exhausted, and Buffel was ex-Feijenoord), fits chronology)
Doncaster – Julien Rodriguez/Olivier Bernard – ST #92 (Paid wage+CL bonus through trust, fits chronology, process of elimination)
Dorchester – Alan Hutton?/Peter Lovenkrands? – ST #95 (Paid CL bonus through trust – Hutton/Lovenkrands are tough to fit anywhere, TBH)
Warwick – Bob Malcolm? – ST #96 (Most likely old “FTP”, given he was the only one to have a trust opened for a CL bonus and then be paid to leave)
Hampstead/Highbury – ST #97-98 (Un-used, most likely opened for the likes of Hemdani and Fanfan, but these players were paid bonus through payroll)
Camden/Islington/Kensington/Balham/Brixton – Chris Burke, Federico Nieto, Ian Murray, Steven Smith, Kris Boyd ST # 103-108 (these guys were eligible for CL bonuses and we know they had EBTs for small sums. I suspect Boyd’s contract was upgraded in 05-06 and then EBT funds were then thrown in on top of the bonus money, giving Boyd a larger sum)
Beverley – ? – ST +109
Maidstone – Sasa Papac – ST # 112 (One of the last 2 trusts still active late in the piece)
Guildford – Steven Davis – ST #113 (as above)

To be continued…………

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=11882019&t=8748656.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on9:52 am - Dec 15, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 09:39

tj – AIM for CFC trading data:-
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=GB0004339189GBGBXAIMI

To the left a blue box menu containing `new and recent issues` – try that for the TRFC listing
Think it`s scheduled for Wednesday 19 am

View Comment

redetinPosted on9:56 am - Dec 15, 2012


abigboydiditandranaway says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 08:44

Humble Pie,

The questions suggested by you above would cut no mustard with any of the footballing authorities in this country, and to be fair neither should they
_______________________________________________

A survey of this type does indeed need to pose exactly the right questions, in the right format to get to the information that is needed, with some free space for comments. It is always better if an independent body conducts the study. There are a number of academics who are involved in football research. Supporters Direct may be able to fund such a survey, as they have some Scottish Government funding, I believe.

We would also need to design a survey that could be used with the same questions at some future date to gauge any changes in opinion.

What action will we take on the basis of the findings?

For sure we can do a more relevant survey than SFA, the finding of which are unlikely to produce any actions that the fans will support.

I very much support the comments of Auldheid and Humble Pie, too.

p.s. abigboy, the 1997 devolution referendum was also an “I agree” and “I disagree” format,

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:59 am - Dec 15, 2012


Exiled,
The Sun is trying very hard to be the new tabloid of choice for Gers fans. Articles like this probably boost sales more than advertising campaigns.

Prize quote:

“I’m not criticising them…”.

🙂

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on10:04 am - Dec 15, 2012


on espn website, entitled

KNOW THE RULES

Rangers nearly pay the penalty (1971)

In 1972, Rangers lifted the Cup Winners’ Cup – the only European trophy in the club’s history – but only after manager Willie Waddell highlighted a considerable refereeing blunder to UEFA.

Rangers had won the first leg of their second-round tie with Portuguese side Sporting 3-2 but succumbed to a 4-3 defeat in Lisbon, leaving the scores tied at 6-6. Referee Laurens van Ravens, failing to realise that Rangers had won the tie on away goals, ordered a penalty shootout, which Sporting won.
Willie Waddell had to inform UEFA of the blunder

“It was unbelievable,” Rangers winger Willie Henderson told the Daily Record in 2008. “We were sitting in the dressing room with our heads in our hands. There was something in my head about away goals but it seemed we were out.”

A member of the Scottish press knocked on the dressing-room door, held a conversation with Waddell, and the newly enlightened Gers boss headed off to find a UEFA official so that he could highlight the appropriate section in the rule book.

Van Ravens recalled: “After the penalties I returned to the dressing room. There, the UEFA officials showed up and told me the good news and the bad news. The good news was that I had controlled an excellent game well. The bad news – Rangers should have won the match.” Rangers were awarded the victory and went on to lift the trophy

Read more at http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story/_/id/1261075/first-xi:-a-failure-to-read-the-rules?cc=573#zdkqJ8mztZkFO2xQ.99

ERM…BUT SPORTING WON ON THE FIELD OF PLAY

[just the same as the players with dual contract won on the field]

View Comment

ExiledCeltPosted on10:16 am - Dec 15, 2012


exiledcelt says:

Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 09:52

Reminder about the history and what liquidation would mean from CG’s lips

LOL – TSFM delete prior one – The Beancounter may take umbrage

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on10:25 am - Dec 15, 2012


“I can’t become a shareholder in RFC because I’m not being offered the opportunity to, rather I’m being offered shares in some holding company seemingly for no other reason than because some “investors” want to maximise tax breaks for themselves, how f*cking ironic is that? Far from answering questions for me the prospectus just raises lots more.”

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/106-a-sceptical-review-of-the-prospectus

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on10:37 am - Dec 15, 2012


Danish Pastry says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 09:59
 3 0 Rate This
Exiled,
The Sun is trying very hard to be the new tabloid of choice for Gers fans. Articles like this probably boost sales more than advertising campaigns.

Prize quote:

“I’m not criticising them…”.
______________________________________________
Quite right, Danish.

“I’m not criticising them..”, criticised McCoist
“..move on” , reflected McCoist
“..I don’t have a problem with that”, complained McCoist

Newspaper interviews man with nothing to say.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on10:45 am - Dec 15, 2012


“First of all I suppose it’s worth mentioning that I won’t be
contributing to this current IPO.. This is mainly because I’m a
young man with little control over my own finances currently
and I already have a season ticket very generously paid for.
£500 is not cheap for most people so it’s unlikely to be
happening for myself this time, unless I win a something on a
scratch card or lottery tomorrow!
However, that is personal circumstance and something we all need to consider. What I have considered, because this share
issue is very important for the club, is the prospectus. The aim
of the prospectus is of course to sell the idea of buying shares
in Rangers and answering pertinent questions. My own
conclusion is that 122 pages manages to do that very well.

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/107-a-positive-outlook-on-the-rangers-share-issue

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:00 am - Dec 15, 2012


Lord Wobbly says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 10:45
1 0 Rate This

“The aim of the prospectus is of course to sell the idea of buying shares
in Rangers and answering pertinent questions. My own
conclusion is that 122 pages manages to do that very well.”

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/107-a-positive-outlook-on-the-rangers-share-issue
———-

I’m not sure how closely these two articles were posted but the sceptical view has had multi facebok ‘likes’, tweets, and ‘shares’. Shows that there are critical thinkers out there.

Can’t fault the principle though – of posting opposing arguments. Thumbs up to them for that. The weakness of the ‘positive outlook’ is that it seems a wee bit more like a statement of faith rather than an objective analysis.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:05 am - Dec 15, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says: Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 09:39

Morning all.
Just wondering if anyone knows how share issues normally work.
Do most applications come in during the first few days or is there normally a rush at the end?.
If the former,can we assume that the reported figure of £1.25m raised up to now is not good?.
Add the £90k pledged through the RST and there’s probably not even enough to pay the costs of the issue.
Would there normally be a rush before closing date?.
When does trading start?.
===============================
There is a current example with Hearts although the situation and the appeal for funds is a bit different. Hearts share offer opened on 27th Oct and will end on 19th Dec, a period of 7.5 weeks.

Hearst reported that they had raised £500K in the first three weeks. The last report was that the total had reached £800K after 7 weeks, so there is a clear drop off after the initial surge.

I said that the circumstances are a bit different. By that I meant that there have been a number of fund raising events which took a week or two to organise, thus there was a substantial amount raised between two and three weeks into the offer.

Will a straight share offer like RIFC, I’d expect the take-up to fall off more rapidly, with maybe a little peak in the last couple of days. As a rule of thumb, I’d adopt the 80/20 rule. i.e. they will receive 80% of the funds in the first 20% of the offer period.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on11:06 am - Dec 15, 2012


mccoist of the opinion, it’s ok for the “club” to take legal action against the “players”, but it is not acceptable for the players to get legal representation from their union, which they needed to do.

why – because their employers went into liquidation… bust…doon the pan
and they were effectively made redundant. (same as woolworths, JJB sports, waterstones etc)

this happened a few months after they agreed to a pay cut/deferrel to allow their employer to reach the end of their season.

then they found a new employer who wasn’t insolvent and who offered security that their old employer could not.

who wouldn’t do the same if your employer went into liquidation and you got made redundant.

other examples…hoover, singer, vion meats, etc

this myth that mccoist is spouting is one that will hopefully put to bed when the employment tribunal sits.
they will dispell the myth that it is the same “club”.

it will clarify in law…the employer (rangers fc) went bust. they were wound up. the rangers fc, now rangers international, are a new team which play in the same stadium, but essentially, the rangers are not the same as rangers – as rangers fc went out of business
leaving behind a hell of a lot of debt]

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on11:07 am - Dec 15, 2012


http://www.gallowaygazette.co.uk/sport/scottish-sport/mccoist-reveals-concerns-over-pfa-action-1-2693213

oops

View Comment

abigboydiditandranawayPosted on11:24 am - Dec 15, 2012


I think that trying to organise a survey is apointless exercise as I don’t think it would be taken seriously by those we would be attempting to influence.

And anyway,as we all know, surveys will always give you the answers you want…

Far better to take a leaf out of the militant tendency book and infiltrate an already existing body who have influence at the top table…

So it’s either Supporters Direct or it’s time to get the apron on…

View Comment

finchleyflyerPosted on11:32 am - Dec 15, 2012


Re McCoist’s comments on Naismith & Lafferty, surely the journo should have asked “Wouldn’t it have been morally correct if Duff & Phelps had done their job properly, and sold as many of the playing staff as possible, to raise as much money as possible to try and allow oldcom to survive, or at least boost the creditors pot?”

But I guess we’ll be a long time waiting for that sort of question to be asked.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:33 am - Dec 15, 2012


jimlarkin says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 11:07
1 0 Rate This
http://www.gallowaygazette.co.uk/sport/scottish-sport/mccoist-reveals-concerns-over-pfa-action-1-2693213

oops
———–

If my job was to examine the actions of the administrators I’d be very interested in the £30m figure quoted by McCoist. Were D&P aware that there were player assets they could sell, or did they want just £5.5 for infrastructure and players? This is old chestnut of the ‘club’ being due money for players owned by another club that was in ruinous debt.

“McCoist said: “I think the club and Charles in particular have every right to pursue financial benefits where they think we are legally entitled. I can totally understand that. The club have taken legal advice on it and feel the club are possibly due money and I would absolutely back that.

“We have probably lost in the region of £30million of players and the club feel they have the right to pursue that legal case. Players left for absolutely nothing, which they feel they were entitled to do.”

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:35 am - Dec 15, 2012


finchleyflyer says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 11:32
1 0 Rate This
Re McCoist’s comments on Naismith & Lafferty, surely the journo should have asked “Wouldn’t it have been morally correct if Duff & Phelps had done their job properly, and sold as many of the playing staff as possible, to raise as much money as possible to try and allow oldcom to survive, or at least boost the creditors pot?”

But I guess we’ll be a long time waiting for that sort of question to be asked.
———–

Snap!

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on11:40 am - Dec 15, 2012


twopanda says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 09:52

Cheers,Twopanda,
Did as suggested and there it was.
19th Dec for trading.
Mind you,it also says expected sum raised £27m!

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on11:48 am - Dec 15, 2012


easyJambo says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 11:05

torrejohnbhoy says: Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 09:39

Morning all.
Just wondering if anyone knows how share issues normally work.
Do most applications come in during the first few days or is there normally a rush at the end?.
If the former,can we assume that the reported figure of £1.25m raised up to now is not good?.
Add the £90k pledged through the RST and there’s probably not even enough to pay the costs of the issue.
Would there normally be a rush before closing date?.
When does trading start?.
===============================
There is a current example with Hearts although the situation and the appeal for funds is a bit different. Hearts share offer opened on 27th Oct and will end on 19th Dec, a period of 7.5 weeks.

Hearst reported that they had raised £500K in the first three weeks. The last report was that the total had reached £800K after 7 weeks, so there is a clear drop off after the initial surge.

I said that the circumstances are a bit different. By that I meant that there have been a number of fund raising events which took a week or two to organise, thus there was a substantial amount raised between two and three weeks into the offer.

Will a straight share offer like RIFC, I’d expect the take-up to fall off more rapidly, with maybe a little peak in the last couple of days. As a rule of thumb, I’d adopt the 80/20 rule. i.e. they will receive 80% of the funds in the first 20% of the offer period.
————————————————————————————————————
So if the figures reported are correct,then there’s around another £300k only.
That’s a total somewhere around £1.75m.That’s not enough to cover the costs of the issue(£2.5m I think).
how does this impact on Chuckles “Stadium Upgrade” and “Working Capital” projections?.

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on12:02 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Further to McCoist’s comments, the journalist could have asked how a Rangers (IA) employee could have “signed” for Sevco, given that they were not a football club until around (just after?) their first ever match. Until then, Sevco were just a company that owned RFC(IA)’s former assets (not including players’ registrations). Hell of a gamble for a professional unless there were guarantees that Sevco would have a league to play in.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:40 pm - Dec 15, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says:Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 11:48

So if the figures reported are correct,then there’s around another £300k only.
That’s a total somewhere around £1.75m.That’s not enough to cover the costs of the issue(£2.5m I think).
how does this impact on Chuckles “Stadium Upgrade” and “Working Capital” projections?.
===================================
The £2.5M was the total cost of the placing for institutional investors (£2M out of £17M) and the offer for the punters (£500k out of £10M).

The truth is that we don’t know for certain what the take up will be from the Bears and I’m sure that Chuckles will have his excuses ready for next week should the offer realise less than expected.

Much of the prospectus was actually based on a zero uptake of the offer to punters, so at least the initial plans for the upgrade should be unaffected. I think that the money raised from the offer was intended for further improvement work on the stadium and the ability to explore other investment opportunities.

View Comment

ordinaryfanPosted on12:55 pm - Dec 15, 2012


McCoist said: “I don’t know all the facts and figures so I stand corrected if I’m wrong, but if I’m one of the players and I was against the action, I would probably be a little bit disappointed that I had possibly been put in a compromising situation, especially with our own fans.”

The players are probably terrified, the last thing they want is an angry, potentially violent mob on their case. ..

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on1:17 pm - Dec 15, 2012


flocculent

very good point.

why let the truth spoil a “good argument”

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on1:30 pm - Dec 15, 2012


mark hateley on sky – blaming the low sun for sevco losing a goal to montrose. 1-1 half time.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on1:46 pm - Dec 15, 2012


ordinaryfan @ 12:55

McCoist, if you don’t know all of the facts and figures, you should keep your mouth shut until you do

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on1:49 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Why should any footballer or manager be expected to have a sound grasp of employment and insolvency law?

Dunno why McCoist is asked, don’t know why he answers, don’t know why anyone is bothered.

View Comment

sixtaesevenPosted on2:14 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Re: McCoist

The most worrying thing for me is the “column inches” being devoted to Ally, Chuck et al.

Living abroad, I consult the “kwality newspapers” on-line.
I am amazed at the articles that are given prominence compared with genuine newsworthy sports/fitbaw stories.
When I say amazed, what I mean is that, even I am astonished at how it is now so blatant.

View Comment

ordinaryfanPosted on2:15 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Night Terror says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 13:49
2 2 Rate This
Why should any footballer or manager be expected to have a sound grasp of employment and insolvency law?

Dunno why McCoist is asked, don’t know why he answers, don’t know why anyone is bothered

………….

How else would Mcoist get out his veiled threats and dog whistles if he isn’t asked the question?

View Comment

sixtaesevenPosted on2:55 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Re McCoist’s comments on Naismith and Lafferty, players that I never had any respect for, openly accusing them of being disloyal.

Didn’t these self same players take a 75% wage cut, somehow orchestrated by D&D, in order that RFC could actually finish their season?

Or maybe it’s it me with the defective memory.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on4:07 pm - Dec 15, 2012


The honorable mentions for Duff and Duffer (copyright acknowledged) reminded me – has Lord Hodge returned with an assessment as to whether the administrators undertook the administration of Rangers Football Club Ltd without a conflict of interest?

View Comment

ordinaryfanPosted on4:21 pm - Dec 15, 2012


http://twitter.com/Schwantz72/status/279973811301003264/photo/1

Montrose look like they might be forced to sack people and order in extra security.

View Comment

obonfanti88 (@obonfanti88)Posted on5:32 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Hopefully Montrose don’t do the cowardly thing and sack their programme guy for merely pointing out the inconvenient truth.

View Comment

smartie1947Posted on5:53 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Long Time Lurker says:

Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 16:07

8

0

Rate This

The honorable mentions for Duff and Duffer (copyright acknowledged) reminded me – has Lord Hodge returned with an assessment as to whether the administrators undertook the administration of Rangers Football Club Ltd without a conflict of interest
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Going by previous examples of Lord Hodge’s timeous attention to deadlines, I’ll forecast a decision sometime about 1/5/13, with any appeal by D & D scheduled for 11/12/13 approx. By which time D&D will have changed identities about 3 times and RFC/TRFC/Sevco several times more.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on7:03 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Well done to the mOnmtrose programme guy.

Over at Rm, they don’t like it up ’em … truth hurts, and all that.:lol:

—–

Lets see how you like no Rangers fans turning up next match.
—–

That seems the only way to make these wee teams realise if they want the money we can bring for the short window it will be available to them, they should treat us with the respect we deserve and not stick knives in us at every corner. They can’t have it both ways.
Back to top
—–

I said boycott re Stirling albion and their banner

I still say boycott to any team that smirks at rangers and Purposely strikes low blows such as this comment in todays match programme.
—–

Charles Green, you know what to do!
—–.

Honestly, what next ? Boycotting someone else for using a small r at the start of Rangers in their match programme ? We’re starting to look like a very pitiful bunch.
—–

I disagree, this issue has come down to spreading blatant lies. There are no grey areas at all after the ECA stuff yesterday.
—–

We don’t do dignity no more – fight fire with fire.
—–

They must come to Ibrox. We can write the truth about them, the magazine can compare honours between the two clubs. Shove it right down their timmigrant necks.
—–

View Comment

angus1983Posted on7:06 pm - Dec 15, 2012


I should say, the “pitiful bunch” comment from RM was posted by a chap going by the name “King Jela”, who appears to be taking a sensible view of things.

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on8:08 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Have to say – respect to Gersnet for actually offering the alternative viewpoints, rather than reaching for the ‘Rangers Hater’ accusation (at best!) if someone actually questions the prospectus. I must admit, I haven’t ventured any further into their website, so I don’t know how the pieces went down, but anyway, kudos to them.

View Comment

stmileyPosted on8:09 pm - Dec 15, 2012


So here we are, a few short months into New Rangers ‘Great Adventure’ in the 3rd Division and their quest to make new friends. Friends who voted to allow them entry into a league without the need for the proper paperwork.

Swanning around like the Big I Am and referring to their opponents as ‘diddy teams’ and ‘hammer throwers’, claiming the title of Champions elect, debating how many points they will win the title by, how many times they will hit 5,6 or 7 goals in a game. Slating the standard of stewarding and hospitality of their hosts. I could go on, I’m sure others will. Suffice to say, this has not gone down well.

The ‘wee teams’ are hitting back.

Stirling had a little banner ‘MORE LIKE 140 DAYS’, which was met by a hail of coins.

The Montrose programme pointed out some facts that haven’t went down well, the threats of boycotts and official action have begun.

The honeymoon is over – No-one likes them, and boy do they care!

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on8:12 pm - Dec 15, 2012


What did the Montrose programme have to say?

View Comment

stmileyPosted on8:17 pm - Dec 15, 2012


http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/701/montrose.png

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:24 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Current issues notwithstanding, I long for the day when this blog gets on to matters outwith Govan. The reason I say that is, having watched both Arbroath and Montrose this week, I am more convinced than ever that the SPL is a horrible invention. We have a whole country of clubs cut off from a greedy, exclusive elite. What a show Arbroath and Montrose put on! Okay, cup finals for them, but both teams played honest-to-goodness football with a degree of skill, and not least, commitment, that would put some teams in the English Premier League to shame.

It is appalling that so much time and energy is used on the travails of a basket case of a football club when teams and communities much more worthy of our attention and support are left to wither through neglect. If this Rangers business teaches us one thing it is that we should believe more than ever in the innate virtues of Scottish football. Blood and snotters it may be, but good grief, how much more entertaining it can be than the sight of overpaid La Liga players going to ground every 30 seconds. The very reason Scotland is respected as a football nation is because of the unique qualities that were on show in Arbroath and Montrose this week. Bless them.

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on8:24 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Seriously? That’s what they are getting so wound up about?

I suppose if you’ve convinced yourself that every other club in the SPL got together and somehow threw you out, it must jar a bit when this impinges into your little world.

View Comment

olemungobhoyPosted on8:26 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Chere Violet Carson

I picked up your comment on another site (Phil McC) about the legality or otherwise of institutional investors being offered shares in “Rangers International” at a discount to the 70p per share being offered to ordinary punters .

Did you get anywhere with this line of enquiry ?
Regards

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:27 pm - Dec 15, 2012


A bit of fun…

Can’t believe we missed this story.

McCoist MUST be told about this – absolutely. 😉

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-20681624

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on8:34 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Danish Pastry says:

Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 20:24

Have to agree (although getting away from TRFC can prove very difficult, given the determination of the media to report every Green utterance). I’ve attended a couple of games in the 3rd division this season, Some of the stuff was diabolical, but very often you get 5 minutes of absolute quality, and you can see why these players started out at the top clubs – although the other 85 minutes tells you why they didn’t make it! It’s still exciting stuff though.

View Comment

bobferrisPosted on8:36 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Danish Pastry says:

Current issues notwithstanding, I long for the day when this blog gets on to matters outwith Govan. The reason I say that is, having watched both Arbroath and Montrose this week, I am more convinced than ever that the SPL is a horrible invention. We have a whole country of clubs cut off from a greedy, exclusive elite. What a show Arbroath and Montrose put on! Okay, cup finals for them, but both teams played honest-to-goodness football with a degree of skill, and not least, commitment, that would put some teams in the English Premier League to shame.

It is appalling that so much time and energy is used on the travails of a basket case of a football club when teams and communities much more worthy of our attention and support are left to wither through neglect. If this Rangers business teaches us one thing it is that we should believe more than ever in the innate virtues of Scottish football. Blood and snotters it may be, but good grief, how much more entertaining it can be than the sight of overpaid La Liga players going to ground every 30 seconds. The very reason Scotland is respected as a football nation is because of the unique qualities that were on show in Arbroath and Montrose this week. Bless them.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Wonderful post, sir.

The only error I can see with that programme feature is that they were never called Glasgow Rangers. Everything else is spot on and is what every programme editor should be saying. If the thugs among their support cannot handle it, I’m sure they will out themselves before long and the authorities can take the necessary action. Funny though that RM users think the perpetrator must be a Celtic fan or that Montrose themselves are a timmy club. As if it’s only Celtic fans who could possibly feel strongly about this subject.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on8:45 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Piece in the Scotsman today about Phil’s book, in a Top 20 football books list. Not particularly congratulatory, but I don’t think he can have many complaints at the end of the day given that it wasn’t exactly written from a diplomatic viewpoint. 🙂

View Comment

angus1983Posted on8:50 pm - Dec 15, 2012


bobferris70 says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 20:36

Funny though that RM users think the perpetrator must be a Celtic fan or that Montrose themselves are a timmy club. As if it’s only Celtic fans who could possibly feel strongly about this subject.
——

I don’t think it’s even a case of feeling strongly.

The programme simply printed the truth (apart from the Glasgow Rangers bit which they seem to have picked up on despite singing that there’s “not a team like the …”, erm, “Glasgow Rangers”.)

If there’s any comeback on Montrose, I should hope the SFA take the opportunity to clear the matter up.

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on8:52 pm - Dec 15, 2012


bobferris70 says:

Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 20:36

Bob, I don’t think they actually believe that Montrose are all Celtic fans or that they are a timmy club – its more about the ‘if you’re not for us, you’re against us’ mentality of some of their support. To their mind, that’s the biggest insult they can think of. It also smacks a bit of laziness as well – why put any thought into it and depart from your usual line of decrying?

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on9:21 pm - Dec 15, 2012


stmiley says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 20:17

Printing the truth and sometimes the truth hurts.

Watched bits of the game today and seeing those 5 tin pot stars had me shaking my head, I was thinking can they not afford new strips!

View Comment

stmileyPosted on9:28 pm - Dec 15, 2012


briggsbhoy

I believe with everything that happened over the summer, the new club were too late to the party to organize and release 2nd and 3rd kits. The home strip was in celebration of the 40th anniversary of the ECWC victor and was released in May. I’m sure if he’s still around, Chuckles will have 3 new kits in the summer, Home Away and Ramsdens.

View Comment

chancer67Posted on10:27 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Loks like the guy who printed the programme has had his personal detai;s posted on RM, no doubt he will be receiving a few christmas cards more than usual.

I think its time the issue of same club and same history was settled as its becoming CGs only weapon when rallying the hordes, a simple statement from a legal point of view would be all thats needed to shut the moaning sevconians up.

I know its not as simple as that but we need to keep on the front foot and the thing that annoys them more than anything is that they know that we know they are not the same club as last season.

Guidi was on SSB on Friday deriding a caller for daring to question the validity of Greens rant that they are the same club and that he purchased the history when he took over, Guidi said he was bored with the whole thing and that seems to be the MSM mantra that if they say its boring then we will forget all about it.

Well we on this forum know that the first newspaper to print that they are not the same club is effectively signing their own death warrant because it suits them to keep the bears onside ie it sells papers, and that is where the compliant media has the upper hand over us bampots for now. We need to keep chipping away at the MSM and keep phoning the radio shows to get our point across it will be a long war but the victory will be all the sweeter for it.

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on10:30 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Now, over at RM, the suspected Montrose programme editor’s address has been revealed, with the suggestion to “Contact info if anyone wants to send him a review.”

Wonder if the polis will be interested.

Someone else posts “Never forget, when we drew Dundee Hibs in the cup they called us “NEW Rangers”. Irony lost, since it seems OK to call Dundee United by a name which the Ibrox supporters see as disparaging.

And, I must have ‘forgot’, for when did anyone from Tannadice call Green’s club ‘NEW Rangers’? In fact, I’m still struggling to remember what it is that Dundee United did that was any different from 10 other spl clubs…….

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on10:36 pm - Dec 15, 2012


borussiabeefburg says:

Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 22:30

I may be wrong, but wasn’t it RM where the adminstrators were warning their posters to watch what they were publishing, as the police were showing an interest? Good to see that advice was heeded…..

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on10:40 pm - Dec 15, 2012


areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 22:36
0 0 Rate This
borussiabeefburg says:

Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 22:30

I may be wrong, but wasn’t it RM where the adminstrators were warning their posters to watch what they were publishing, as the police were showing an interest? Good to see that advice was heeded…..
====================================

they arra peepul though, they do what they want 🙁

View Comment

nostarsandbarredPosted on10:47 pm - Dec 15, 2012


All this aggression by the Sevco support; the biggest problem is that its defended by the management – from McCoists “I want to know these names” to Chuckles various comments, the “bigotry” one being the worst IMO, but he’s got several others. Now with Smith back, supporting the position against Dundee United, all supported by a compliant MSM and gutless set of authorities.

They are literally on the warpath with every other club and their supporters (apart from their friends who they have to name specifically – what is that all about ?). They’ll keep it up as well. I hope they do boycott every club in the land: I hope they do keep up with the “we’ll never play in the SPL” nonsense; the less they are involved in Scottish football, the better off that Scottish football will be.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on11:12 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Here’s a couple of tweets from Andrew Dickson re the Montrose programme, saying “we’re all about making new friends, those who play nice” FUD !

http://i.imgur.com/kv2uv.png

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on11:13 pm - Dec 15, 2012


Now, over at RM, the suspected Montrose programme editor’s address has been revealed, with the suggestion to “Contact info if anyone wants to send him a review.”

Wonder if the polis will be interested.

Someone else posts “Never forget, when we drew Dundee Hibs in the cup they called us “NEW Rangers”. Irony lost, since it seems OK to call Dundee United by a name which the Ibrox supporters see as disparaging.

And, I must have ‘forgot’, for when did anyone from Tannadice call Green’s club ‘NEW Rangers’? In fact, I’m still struggling to remember what it is that Dundee United did that was any different from 10 other spl clubs…….

—————————————————————————————————————

i vaguely remember a dundee utd tweet after the scottish cup draw and the tweet did say that they had been drawn at home in the next round . . . dundee utd -v- the rangers

[= first ever scottish cup game between the teams]

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on11:19 pm - Dec 15, 2012


stmiley says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 21:28

I think you are correct on the stip thing, they obviously weren’t in a position to dump them. That said how can you wear a strip belonging to a team you are not ?

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on11:45 pm - Dec 15, 2012


briggsbhoy @ 23:19

Quite simple
By pretending that you are, and taking brasso to your brass neck

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on11:53 pm - Dec 15, 2012


http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/701/montrose.png

one thing which will settle the “argument” of sevco rangers, the rangers, rangers international, being the same “club” as rangers fc –

if you are the same “club” you will pay all the debts.

if the debts are not paid, why would that be?

it would be because they are different “clubs”.

simple enough for the sevconians to understand ?

View Comment

goosyPosted on12:20 am - Dec 16, 2012


To paraphrase Winston Churchill after WW1
Then came death and the sale of RFC assets. Every club, from Forres to Annan were affected. Great rivals were separated. The whole map of football was changed. The position of clubs was violently altered. The modes of thought of fans, their whole outlook on football, the grouping of parties, all encountered violent and tremendous changes in the aftermath of death.
But
As the deluge subsides and the waters fall short, we see the dreary prospect of bogoted football rivalry emerging once again. This old disease may be replaced by a more virulent strain. One which wipes out the joy that engulfed Scottish football in the Summer of 2012.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on12:39 am - Dec 16, 2012


campsiejoe says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 23:45
My half bros Mr larkin & goosy

Newco Oldco Sevco, The Ranger etc etc It’s really all about Denial and I think the undernoted sums it up entirely.

Denial is simply refusing to acknowledge that an event has occurred. The person affected simply acts as if nothing has happened, behaving in ways that others may see as bizarre.

In its full form, it is totally subconscious, and sufferers may be as mystified by the behavior of people around them as those people are by the behavior of the sufferers. It may also have a significant conscious element, where the sufferer is simply ‘turning a blind eye’ to an uncomfortable situation.

Rangers have a history but that is exactly what it is, a History, 140 years of the good the bad and the ugly.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:48 am - Dec 16, 2012


rab says:

Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 00:53

Auldheid.

You don’t need a wordsmith, you are more than capable of composing a guest blog, you are active and knowledgeable about the workings of the trusts and could quickly organise and advise us in the best way to move this excellent idea forward.

Thanks.

stmiley says:

Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 01:02

Auldheid

I echo Rab’s sentiment, start the ball rolling. You have a captive and motivated audience here on TSFM.
============================
I appreciate the encouragement and am working on a draft.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on12:56 am - Dec 16, 2012


God the internet is great when you ask it a question, continuing on the them of denial by Sevco fans and The Rangers now etc etc and the big hoose must stay open

Denial is probably one of the best known defense mechanisms, used often to describe situations in which people seem unable to face reality or admit an obvious truth (i.e. “He’s in denial.”). Denial is an outright refusal to admit or recognize that something has occurred or is currently occurring. Drug addicts or alcoholics often deny that they have a problem, while victims of traumatic events may deny that the event ever occurred.

Denial functions to protect the ego from things that the individual cannot cope with. While this may save us from anxiety or pain, denial also requires a substantial investment of energy. Because of this, other defenses are also used to keep these unacceptable feelings from consciousness.

Those other defenses in the case of Sevco would be intimidation, violence and accussing everybody of being a Tim.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on1:14 am - Dec 16, 2012


Danish Pastry says:
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 20:24
‘… I am more convinced than ever that the SPL is a horrible invention. ..’
——-
My gut feeling is that your conviction is increasingly being shared by the general run of clubs.

There is, I think, the beginnings of a realisation in the SFA membership as a whole that by acceding to the requests/threats of the ‘breakaway’ would-be SPL clubs, and by accepting the tawdry compensatory measures offered, they really shot themselves in the foot!

If the SFA membership had at the time exercised their authority and been ready to deny the would-be secessionists membership of the SFA if they chose to go ahead and try to form a new league, it’s possible that the game would have been altogether in better shape today.

That’s just a gut feeling-I have done no real research into the subject.

Perhaps someone who knows more about it might give us a view?

View Comment

iceman63Posted on1:38 am - Dec 16, 2012


Time for the SFA for the sake of public order and sanity to issue a clear and unequivocal factual statement of the status and origins of the Newclub, coupled with the contents of the 5 way agreement, then time to haul CG and McCoist in for their rabble rousing nonsense and ban the pair of them for the rest of the season. The SFA needs to get its act together or risk complete meltdown. Sitting ostrich-like, head deep in the manure pile you created is no solution.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on2:14 am - Dec 16, 2012


Why can chuckie (owner) lol and mcCoist manager(allegedly) of pretendgers say what he likes about who to anyone but as soon as any other manager speaks the truth they are hauled over the coals? but he gets a slap on the wrist?? Many moons later. Is the programme guy from Montrose ok?

View Comment

FinlochPosted on8:13 am - Dec 16, 2012


There is a a sad certainty to Greene’s machinations to get the Rangers fans on his side in his tawdry pursuit of his personal financial pay off.

Someone innocent will be hurt.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on9:33 am - Dec 16, 2012


Regarding share offering for the Rangers International Football Club Ltd – will there be any announcement from or to the AIM commenting on how many shares were sold through the flotation?

View Comment

hayzaboyPosted on9:41 am - Dec 16, 2012


The authorities by their very nature will NEVER make a statement into the true status of sevco and particularly the details of the 5 way agreement unless the member clubs vote out the cabal of Regan,doncaster,Ogilvie and Longmuir and replace them with men of strength and integrity………………Im not holding my breathe.

View Comment

lochonePosted on9:47 am - Dec 16, 2012


Is this too simple?
if they are the same club why did CG need to buy the history?
If he hadn’t bought it could it have been sold to someone else?
Would Sevco fans be happy with another long established club buying the titles that RFC won and claiming them as part of their recently purchased history?

View Comment

Leave a Reply