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

redetinPosted on10:26 am - Dec 16, 2012


lochone says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 09:47

“if they are the same club why did CG need to buy the history?”
____________________________________________________
lochone,
If you consult the CVA Proposal presented at the Court of Session, you will see that the sale included the “business and assets”. There is no mention of “history” in the Proposal. The “history” was a later untruth, distortion or embellishment of the facts. As history is not mentioned in the CVA Proposal you are quite free to say that the history remains with The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. (in liquidation).

CVA Proposal
http://tinyurl.com/d6u25hq

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on10:52 am - Dec 16, 2012


Billy Dodds earning his EBT today – maybe he can now sell time shares since he clearly can repeat what he has been told to say in a sales pitch – apparently its a fantastic share offer in that it guarantees what happened last year will never be able to happen again…….it si wodnerful to have such inside perspective from an ex-footballer on things they apparently trusted to others before – there must be a reason he is employed to give such inside information from the football world………….

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/timing-the-only-issue.19685936

Timing the only issue
Billy Dodds Football columnist.

There are lots of positives to the share issue that Rangers have launched, there’s no doubt about that.

It allows fans to own a portion of their club, they will hopefully be allowed a say in the way it is run, and they will be protecting it, so that it doesn’t suffer the same fate as it has this year.

My only problem with it is the timing. Rangers fans only have until Tuesday to buy shares when they have already shown their loyalty this year by buying around 37,000 season tickets and raising money while the club was in administration.

Factor in the recession and the fact it is nearly Christmas and it’s a difficult time for a lot of people to come up with spare cash. I’m certain many Rangers fans will find the means to buy some shares, but sometimes I just feel the fans have been asked to do enough already.

They played a big part in saving the club, but I know they will step up again, as fans always do in a crisis. Look at Hearts supporters, they’ve stepped up, and Celtic fans did in the past with Fergus McCann.

The share issue is a great idea, though, and it will work in terms of boosting Rangers’ ability to rebuild. Everybody goes back to the Barcelona model, but whatever stake the fans take, it is good for the club and it is good for them.

There’s no doubt it will cement the fact that Rangers won’t go down the route they went down in the past, and we all know where that ended. The fans will know what is happening this time – in fact, a supporters’ representative should be appointed to the board to ensure they have an input.

Rangers are in a stable place now. Going down to the Third Division has allowed them to regroup. It’s a good idea to get the fans on board now, because they were pulled from pillar to post last summer.

They’ve been through a lot. In less than a year, they have had the uncertainties of Craig Whyte’s regime, followed by the move into administration, which left them fearing for their team’s very existence.

They then had to do their bit to try to save the club while getting used to the idea of Rangers playing in the Third Division.

I feel Charles Green has been shrewd. Everybody was talking about how great it was that Walter Smith was coming back as a non- executive director, but people shouldn’t overlook the importance of Ian Hart’s involvement, too.

Ian is a friend of mine and he’s not interested in money. All he cares about is what’s for the good of Rangers. He’s such an unassuming man; you couldn’t meet a nicer guy. It’s good for fans to have the reassurance of both of these men having a presence.

They’re going to have two great Rangers men on the board, and Charles Green seems to have become genuinely caught up in the club. That’s the kind of institution Rangers is – you go there and it does that to you.

Even though Green is a Yorkshireman with no previous connection to the club, it grips you, particularly the passion of the fans. Anywhere you go all over the world – and I know Green and Ian Hart went to Florida and visited all the supporters clubs there – people want to talk to you about Rangers.

Those who are in charge now want to bring in more money to make the club secure and guys like Walter and Ian are Rangers men at heart. That’s not to say things can’t go wrong again, but I don’t believe that will happen under these people.

So if you’re buying shares, you’ll get what you want, positives and the truth. For someone like Ian, it’s not about making money, just making sure Rangers are OK.

Sometimes at a club, there’s only so much you can do when a player’s head has been turned. That’s the case with Ryan Fraser at Aberdeen. I know the Pittodrie club like the back of my hand and it’s one of the best for developing young boys; they really look after them.

Players should really have a long think before making the decision to leave, even if a leading English club is chasing them. But if a player is adamant he wants to leave, particularly if there’s more money involved, there’s very little a club can do.

Fans might ask why Fraser wasn’t on a longer-term contract, but other young players at Pittodrie, such as Peter Pawlett and Michael Paton, got long deals and it didn’t work out with them, so there’s always a balance to be struck

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on10:54 am - Dec 16, 2012


redetin @ 10:26

Below is an extract from D&D’s final report to creditors, and shows exactly what Charlie bought for his £5.5 million (as I understand it)
No mention of buying the”club”, but I suppose you could say the “history” could be included in Goodwill

Goodwill 1
The SPL Share 1
The SFA Membership 1
Leasehold Interests 1
Player Contracts & Registrations 2,749,990
Stock 1
Subsidiary Companies Share Capital 5
Heritable Properties 1,500,000
Plant & Machinery 1,250,000

Total 5,500,000

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:06 am - Dec 16, 2012


As regards the club versus company, or debt versus history arguement. The company had the debt. The club didn’t. The club, this ethereal brand thingy didn’t bother itself with wordly things such as debt, nor does it apparently see any need to recognise such trivial items as transfer of membership (why?) transfer of history (why?) euro ban (why?) etc etc. I assume however they would acknowledge that Nacho Novo, to choose one of several, was kind of, fairly, one might even say inextricably linked to the club as opposed to that funny old irrelevant company thingymejig. Said player “doing the business” when he had no such business being on the park might be considered to be undeniably a bit of a club issue, would it not?

Just a thought.

Oh, and on the debt thing. If you think “no-one likes them” now, just wait till the January cheques have been signed. For me, my contempt is only going to get worse. Assuming I keep paying tax right enough!

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on11:15 am - Dec 16, 2012


Quote from Billy Dodds:

‘There’s no doubt it will cement the fact that Rangers won’t go down the route they went down in the past, and we all know where that ended’

Question Billy. Where do you think it ended? Is it not the same club? Have you just comfirmed that you actually believe that Rangers FC and its wonderful has actually ended? Your words Billy.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on11:22 am - Dec 16, 2012


Another thought
Why did Charlie have to buy the history from the company, when we are told it belonged to the “club”
No matter how they try to dress it up and justify it, the club died with the company

As for Mr Dodds’ fine piece of propaganda this morning, I think he will eventually waken up to the fact, that the shares Sevconians will purchase, are non voting shares
In other words, after the money is in, they will have as much say in running the company/club as they have always had – none

View Comment

Avatar

SouthernExilePosted on11:40 am - Dec 16, 2012


@campsiejoe (and many others)

There seems to be only one class of shares – Ordinary Shares – which all have the same voting rights.

“No holder of Ordinary Shares has voting rights that differ from any other holder of Ordinary Shares and no Shareholder is deemed to have direct or indirect control of the Company.”

Where has the “non-voting” notion come from?

View Comment

Avatar

SouthernExilePosted on11:45 am - Dec 16, 2012


@campsiejoe (and many others)

Re the prospectus:

There seems to be only one class of shares – Ordinary Shares – which all have the same voting rights:

“No holder of Ordinary Shares has voting rights that differ from any other holder of Ordinary Shares and no Shareholder is deemed to have direct or indirect control of the Company.”

Where has the “non-voting” notion come from?

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on11:45 am - Dec 16, 2012


campsiejoe says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 11:22

“In other words, after the money is in, they will have as much say in running the company/club as they have always had – none”

The SFA are not stupid – they can read between the lines of the prospectus – shares in the company that owns the company that owns the football club – we believe the stadium is an asset that belongs to the Club – although we have not seen the deeds.

What gets me is that if the fans get fleeced through the share offering then the regulator of the game in Scotland will not have uttered one word or taken any action to protect the interests of the fans. They will have relied upon the standard wording in the prospectus to the effect that investments can go up as well as down and let the buyer beware.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on11:50 am - Dec 16, 2012


SouthernExile @ 11:40

Perhaps I’m getting confused, which wouldn’t be difficult considering all that has surrounded this flotation
I seem to remember reading, that shares in RIFC which is what the punters would be buying, would not give voting rights in TRFC
I stand to be corrected

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on11:50 am - Dec 16, 2012


campsiejoe says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 10:54
2 0 Rate This

No mention of buying the”club”, but I suppose you could say the “history” could be included in Goodwill.
————-

I would have thought goodwill was more of an indeterminate intangible, such as reputation. History is more of a concrete concept. To me, it’s yet another example of the way the whole thing was given away by D&P as a job lot.

The other day we heard the figure of £30m as being valuation put on the players that got away.

Surely the entire history, trophey cabinet, plus brand and logos must also have been worth multi-millions on their own. They look like quite tangible assets to me. Some internet domain names are sold for more than what Charles gave for the magic assets of Rangers that can become whatever you want them to be 🙂

The mindboggling continues.

View Comment

Avatar

SouthernExilePosted on12:27 pm - Dec 16, 2012


@campsiejoe

I think we are both right.

The company being floated is RIFC and has a single class of shares with equal voting rights.

TRFC is a wholly owned subsidiary, so the issue of voting rights is rather moot.

There is the danger, as others have pointed out, that RIFC might decide to get out of the football business at some point in the future and start, say, making widgets…..not exactly what the fan/investor had anticipated when he parted with his money.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on12:39 pm - Dec 16, 2012


SouthernExile @ 12:27

I would agree with you
There has been a lot of double speak and deliberate muddying of the waters surrounding this
It’s difficult to get at the truth, and one or two of the many veils may be removed after listing

View Comment

Avatar

doontheslopePosted on12:39 pm - Dec 16, 2012


The ordinary fans’ way : Lets try and organize a fans forum. Lets try and get supporters from all teams on board. Lets explore ways where we can challenge the SFA/SPL to listen to the voices of the fans.

The Rangers way: Get their names, addresses and phone numbers, get them published on the net, then threaten them and intimidate them.

Sickening.

I hope they never return.

View Comment

ismellafix

ismellafixPosted on12:48 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Congratulations to the Montrose programme writer for telling the truth. Let’s hope it is the position of the club and this example is followed by future opponents of The Rangers. If Montrose were daft enough to sanction said “employee”, (more likely a volunteer) no doubt it would leave them wide open to legal challenge. Sacked for telling the truth?

On the subject of history, some absolute drivel being spouted.

If Sir Chris Hoy were to fall on hard times and I bought one of his special bikes, his team GB lycra suit and one of his gold medals. Would that make me an olympic champion?

If I won the Euromillions and made Bradley Wiggins an offer he couldn’t refuse for his Tour de France title. Could I get a late entry for sports personality of the year?

If I bought an old set of Jack Nicklaus golf clubs and one of his green jackets, would the Augusta Tournament Committee allow me to tee it up with other past champions at next years Masters?

Of course the answer to all these questions is no and the very idea of buying history is utter nonsense.

For any “The Rangers” fans reading, would your attitude to buying history change if Dermott Desmond had decided to buy the old Rangers club, consign them to history and transfer the titles to Celtic’s already impressive haul.

“Bought the history”. Utter tosh!

If I

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on12:55 pm - Dec 16, 2012


ismellafix @ 12:48

Of course it’s nonsense
However, outwith certain fan groups and the bampots, it goes unchallenged, and is actually encouraged and given credence

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on12:58 pm - Dec 16, 2012


There is another kind of history you cannot buy – its called credit history

Why could MIH be able to borrow money on the same club that CW was able to give as his loan form Ticketus? How come there is no ability to borrow as per prospectus if its the same club and different holding companies.

After all if the club is the same and its the ownership that has changed, the new owners would be able to borrow monwy using the assets it has that worth 50 million on a bad day, 80 million on a good day – correct? Yet the prospectus makes it clear there are no banking facilities…………..

Is that because its a bran spanking new complany that has no credit history?

And if the instituions won;t let you borrow money against those assets, is it becuase the assets are already :topped out:?

Shame – a credit history would of more use now for them than winning a few kettles and pans along the way……..

View Comment

Tartawulver

TartawulverPosted on1:05 pm - Dec 16, 2012


To ‘buy the history’, assuming such a thing is possible, then there must be two different entities – a buyer and a seller. They MUST be separate. It would be pointless if there was only one party involved – I can’t meaningfully make an offer to myself to buy my car, and then accept it, because if I tried to register the change in owner from myself to myself, the DVLC would soon point out the problem with my logic. So to assert that you have ‘bought the history’ simply confirms that you are a different entity from the one that sold it to you.

View Comment

Avatar

goosyPosted on1:10 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Billy Dodds Football columnist.

There are lots of positives to the share issue that Rangers have launched, there’s no doubt about that.

It allows fans to own a portion of their club, they will hopefully be allowed a say in the way it is run, and they will be protecting it, so that it doesn’t suffer the same fate as it has this year.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Dearie me
Silly Billy needs to speak to an accountant

The RIFC share issue provides funds for RIFC not funds for TRFC
The shares on offer are non voting RIFC shares so no say in how RIFC is run
The shares are being sold by Spivs( Remember them?)
With Spivs in charge there is every likelihood that any action bringing a quick profit will be considered legitimate irrespective of how it impacts the long term future of TRFC

View Comment

Avatar

SouthernExilePosted on1:17 pm - Dec 16, 2012


@goosy

The shares on offer are Ordinary Shares, these are the only class of shares, they all have the same voting rights….. see dialogue with campsiejoe above.

View Comment

Avatar

chancer67Posted on1:57 pm - Dec 16, 2012


@campsiejoe
CG was caught with his drawers down in relation to the continuation of the bears history.But Charlie learns quickly and soon put the internet bampots in their place, or so he thought.With the help of the media he has brainwashed the gullable into believing his myth but we know his dirty little secret and when th bears learn the truth Charlie will be running for the dales.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on1:58 pm - Dec 16, 2012


One of the main reasons Charlie gave for going to the market at this time, was to allow Sevconians to buy shares in the club/company/holding company, before they became to expensive for the ordinary Sevconian

I fully expect the share price to head south like a stone within months of listing, and I wonder how he will justify that comment when that happens
I dare say the ordinary punter won’t be too bothered, as he will claim it is an emotional investment

Even if the price halves, those who like Charlie, managed to buy at a reported £0.01 will make a massive killing
Make no mistake he needs cash into the business now, whilst ensuring that the members of the cabal walk away with a more than decent profit
I doubt there is a genuinely benevolent bone in Charlie’s body

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on2:00 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Can we assume that Charlie Green will taking legal action against the editor of the Montrose match programme for stating The Rangers are a new club and not the same club?

On another point the SINISTER publishing of the editors home address by RM has once again highlighted the unacceptable behaviour of that club.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on2:13 pm - Dec 16, 2012


paulmac2 @ 14:00

There is not a cat’s chance in Hades that Charlie will take any kind of legal action
The last thing he would want is this going into court where propaganda would have to give way to facts
No, he will invoke the 5 Way Stitch Up, and ask to the cowards to deal with it

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on2:21 pm - Dec 16, 2012


https://twitter.com/Agent_868/status/280306835607662593

Does anyone know or have a view as to whether this is a legitimate source / story?

View Comment

Avatar

whispererPosted on2:35 pm - Dec 16, 2012


really puzzled as to why ex rfc personnel are coming out and doing PR for charlie and his share issue …. could it be that charlie has some incriminating evidence on some or all of those who are now onside with him … maybe his big hauns are squeezing some nutz ? Aye / Naw ?

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on2:45 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Long Time Lurker – Scottish football being corrupt is not news – the fact that someone may actually print a story with some confimration is defintely a welcome new approach for the MSM.

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on2:56 pm - Dec 16, 2012


redetin says: at 10:26 [edit]
lochone says: at 09:47 [edit]
“if they are the same club why did CG need to buy the history?”
____________________________________________________

you are quite free to say that the history remains with The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. (in liquidation).
_______________
.
Yes, the history of the incorporated company remains with the oldco. It simply cannot remain anywhere else. I`ve been going on at this since day one. You cannot buy or sell or – transfer – that 140 year history or the collective history in titles trophies honours medals and memories. These are not legitimately transferrable – and dishonours to think otherwise. These are not mementos or trinkets.

Goodwill is an accounting term with a monetary value. IP/Brand is a tradable futures commodity.

Hypothetically, TU and the other creditors could challenge the `Goodwill / IP / Brand` sale for a quid – now `fair value adjusted` to over 16m and BDO give Charlie his quid back. Hypothetically, TU and the rest could then agree to make the oldco solvent again before final dissolution. Hypothetically they could apply for a new SFA membership and license deploying the 16m Goodwill IP/ Brand – buy some players – rent a stadium – and start afresh in Division 3 – with an intact and legitimate history of 140 years. Even if hypothetically possible that would require a funding agreement with all the creditors – but if it could be done – there would be one legitimate and one illegitimate RFC history – QED

If however the new company continue to insist that the SFA membership was transferred `legitimately` under this extraordinary and secret `5-way agreement` – then they should reflect carefully on such.

– if you think about it, the very act of `supposedly` transferring a membership – would leave the oldco bereft of legitimacy – and legitimate history would be lost forever due to that 5-way agreement as it stands

For them I venture the Sergeant Wilson maxim `Do you think that`s wise? ` is appropriate. The lack of cohesive intelligible guidance – and disciple – and the helter-skelter rush to push out PR sound bites to placate – is creating an insoluble position for them to repair – no change there then.

Now they want to hang on the words of an ECA `spokesman` [PR ]

“Alike at Scottish FA level, this ‘new entity’ had to re-apply for membership with ECA as according to Swiss law, membership of an association is neither heritable nor transferable (article 70.3 of the Swiss Civil Code).” ECA spokesperson then goes on to include `goodwill` `acquired` which `included the history` – `for practical and legal purposes`. Eh? As stated – Goodwill is an accounting term with a monetary value. Therefore the ECA spokesman believes goodwill includes `history` that can be `acquired` be that bought or sold. CG believes `History` through trophies and titles can be bought and sold. This is not correct. The ECA PR statement is somewhat misleading and incorrect wrt to history, titles and trophies. And what of the SFA – Guardians of the Game?

The SFA seem to support that `conditional` membership, and associated history, can be transferred by the infamous and dishonourable secret 5-way agreement where monetary value was the main factor.

Perhaps the SFA should offer Germany 5m for the 1974 World Cup – and stick the Trophy in their Museum?

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on2:59 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Long time lurker…

What could top avoiding/evading100 million in tax…dual contracts…and all the other breaches we have witnessed over the last 6 months….that could be termed major?

What is the betting the MSM will be running a story of deflection on another SPL club?

Are the shares not selling well?

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on3:05 pm - Dec 16, 2012


FASB 141 142 Goodwill Intangibles.doc
http://www.cbe.uidaho.edu/Acct592/CourseMaterials/FASB%20Update/FASB%20141%20142%20Goodwill%20Intangibles.doc

1. Remember — You only have goodwill if you’ve purchased another entire company

They wouldn’t be trying to dupe us would they? I don’t remember Chuckles buying a company, only “assets” of a dead company.
Also noticed that you can usually only purchase 20 years of the “goodwill” of another company.
Also notice thinks he bought is actually “negative goodwill”.

Definition of ‘Negative Goodwill’
A gain occurring when the price paid for an acquisition is less than the fair value of its net tangible assets. Negative goodwill implies a bargain purchase. Negative goodwill may be listed as a separate line item on the acquiring company’s balance sheet and may be considered income. FOR THE PURCHASED COMPANY, negative goodwill often indicates a distress sale, and the unfavorable sale conditions lead to a depressed sale price.

Investopedia explains ‘Negative Goodwill’
Negative goodwill is based on the concept of goodwill, an intangible asset that represents the worth of a company’s brand name, patents, customer base and other items that are difficult to price but that help to make a company valuable. Most of the time, a company will be purchased for more than the value of its tangible assets, and the difference is attributed to goodwill. When the price paid is less than the actual value of the company’s net assets, you have negative goodwill.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/negativegoodwill.asp#ixzz2FEASD0E7

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on3:09 pm - Dec 16, 2012


This story would seem to implicate the authorities as well as some teams although no proof yet.

Agent 86‏@Agent_868

Certain people at the top of the game and certain clubs are doing everything they can 2 get the story blocked but one paper is set to run it

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on3:14 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Anyone know if the SFA have released the details of the disciplinary hearing of Kenny Shiels?

They hadn’t up until yesterday which is highly unusual.

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on3:33 pm - Dec 16, 2012


* Also noticed that what Chuckles thinks he bought is actually “negative goodwill”.

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on3:44 pm - Dec 16, 2012


I’m afraid I can’t place Agent 86‏@Agent_868.
Has he posted credible stuff before?

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on3:47 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Honest Question. If TRFC win the Scottish Cup what name would have to be engraved on it? They cannot engrave it with the name of a club that does not hold an SFA licence.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on3:49 pm - Dec 16, 2012


By using negative goodwill, Charlie has admitted that he acquired the assets of the business at at an awful lot less than their true value
He is now using that difference to make the business look much more attractive than it really is
The disgrace in all of this, is that those who should have stopped it, and still could, are sitting with their thumbs up their backsides allowing it to happen
D&D have a lot to answer for, and really need to be called to account

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on4:17 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Campsiejoe: Whatever Chuckles thinks he bought, it was certainly not “goodwill”

Purchased goodwill which is the surplus over the fair value of the net assets.

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on4:29 pm - Dec 16, 2012


http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/documents/KSAExpertsGuidetoCreditorsVoluntaryLiquidation.pdf

What is Wrongful Trading?
Am I Guilty of Wrongful Trading, if the Company is Insolvent?”
We are often asked what this means because directors have talked to their
accountants, advisors, insolvency practitioners or a clever man in the pub. They
may have said “be careful if your company is insolvent then you will be guilty
of “wrongful trading”! This is nonsense!
The simple explanation is this: if you act badly when you know the company is
insolvent, then you may have some personal liability if the company is
liquidated.
Worried? Well read this guide in a bit more detail to learn more.
First of all is the company insolvent? To establish the answer to this there are
three tests:
1. Can the company pay its creditors as and when the debts fall due? This is
called the cashflow test.
2. Is there more money owed to creditors than assets? This is called the
insolvent balance sheet test.
3. Is there an outstanding County Court Judgment over £750?
If any of the three tests above are met, then your company is probably
insolvent and you must act properly and act in the best interests of the
creditors (all of them being treated in the same way).
If the directors do not act in the creditors’ interests and they act “wrongfully”,
then they can be made personally liable for the company’s debts from the time
they knew the company was insolvent. So if you are in a hole, stop digging and
get help!
If the company is insolvent and the directors know it is, then other tests for
wrongful trading actions include:
1. Not filing the company’s Annual Returns at Companies House.
2. Not filing annual or audited accounts at Companies House.Page 32 of 49
Experts Complete Guide to Creditors Voluntary Liquidation
2011 V2
3. Not operating the PAYE scheme correctly; in other words failing to pay
PAYE and NIC when due.
4. Not operating the VAT scheme correctly, as above.
5. Taking excessive salaries when the company cannot afford them.
6. Taking credit from suppliers where there was no “reasonable prospect” of
paying the creditor on time.
7. Willfully piling up debt and knowing there was no way out of the
problems.

View Comment

Avatar

AgrajagPosted on4:39 pm - Dec 16, 2012


If they raise money through the floatation, use that to renovate the stadium and re-build the club, get it back to the SPL and competing in Europe then it will be a much more attractive sale. Particularly if it is debt free.

The holding company can then sell the club, 100% of it, without any pesky fans in the way.

The fans will then have shares in a business which they have no interest in. They are not buying shares in their club, they are buying shares in a company which could quite easily sell their club some time in the future.

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on4:41 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Worthwhile read from Angela Haggerty.

http://angelahaggerty.com/why-the-word-sevco-matters/

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:42 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Re landscape changing headlines OK folks, in true SPOTY fashion (and its a quiet evening).

1/ Juninho DID have an EBT
2/ Mark Hately is John Greig’s love child
3/ The Montrose programme writer’s caps lock needs fixed
4/ D&P possibly didn’t manage the admin as well as some might have reasonably expected them to
5/ Apparently you DO have to pay tax on income
6/ Allegedly loans can be reasonably expected to be repaid at some point
7/ The deeds have turned up and apparently somebody called Mr T Esco wants to change the landscape
8/ The SPL is a self serving cabal that doesn’t have Scottish footballs best interests at heart
9/ Some of the players who claimed to have always wanted to play for a club ever since they were a wee boy might not have been telling the whole truth
10/ Campbell Ogilvie accepts that whilst his payment history is currently legit (subject to appeal), its very existence, not to mention his specific involvement in its administration on behalf of others, leaves him with no option but to resign due to the groundswell of popular opinion against him.

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on4:46 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Long Time Lurker says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 14:21
———————————————–
As JC says, the answer to your question is in what track record (if any) this Agent 86‏@Agent_868 has in delivering credible scoops.

View Comment

Avatar

TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy)Posted on4:50 pm - Dec 16, 2012


paulmac2 says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 15:14
———————————————————————————————————————————
Richard Gordon on Sportsound yesterday appeared to be complaining that a statement had been released by the SFA over via PA wire service but had not been distributed to any other outlets. Given that by then they were in reciept of four seperate allegations of fabrication of evidence – backed up by video – against Dallas jnr, I can see why they are trying to keep a lid on it.

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on5:39 pm - Dec 16, 2012


http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cirdmanual/cird30535.htm

“Purchased goodwill is defined as ‘the difference between the cost of an acquired entity and the aggregate of the fair value of that entity’s identifiable assets and liabilities”.

I know I have posted a couple of times on this so apologies for going over it again.
This is from an official HMRC site. It certainly doesn’t tie in with Chuckles description of Goodwill, for starters Chuckles didn’t buy an “entity” but the ASSETS of an “entity”.
From what I’ve read, it looks like Goodwill can only be purchased when buying a business/company as a whole.
Even if this wasn’t the case, what Chuckles has purchased would be classed as “Negative Goodwill”.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/negativegoodwill.asp#ixzz2FEASD0E7

“Most of the time, a company will be purchased for more than the value of its tangible assets, and the difference is attributed to goodwill. When the price paid is less than the actual value of the company’s net assets, you have negative goodwill”.

Whichever way it is spun, there is no way that Chuckles could legally have purchased the “history” of RFC.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:51 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Some numbers from Rangers Media about their share offer. (not the placing for institutional investors)
(disclaimer ….. this is Rangers Media, so sources cannot be trusted) 😀

If true, it puts the response of Hearts fans in a good light. (3,200 individual contributions + collectives)

Date………..Web App..Web Amt..Paper Apps.. Paper Amt..Total Apps..Total Amt
08/12/2012.. 236……. £211,000………. 0 ……………£0…………… 236……. £211,000
09/12/2012.. 143……. £115,800………. 0 ……………£0 ……………143…… £115,800
10/12/2012.. 311……. £270,400………. 0 ……………£0 ……………311…… £270,400
11/12/2012.. 335……. £292,600………. 0 ……………£0 ……………335…… £292,600
12/12/2012.. 278……. £219,700………. 6 ……..£4,600 ……………284…… £224,300
13/12/2012.. 306……. £296,300………. 8 ……..£5,500 ……………314…… £301,800
14/12/2012.. 191……. £162,300…….. 27 ……£14,100 ……………218…… £176,400

Totals …….1,800….. £1,568,100……. 41 ……£24,200 ………….1,841… £1,592,300

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on5:58 pm - Dec 16, 2012


ordinaryfan @ 17:39

Whichever way it is spun, there is no way that Chuckles could legally have purchased the “history” of RFC.
========================================================================
You can omit the legally

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on6:18 pm - Dec 16, 2012


http://angelahaggerty.com/why-the-word-sevco-matters/

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on6:52 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Agent 86 ‏@Agent_868
Have just been told the sun are going to run with this story tomorrow! Groundbreaking stuff!!

I guess we will have to wait and see.

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on7:05 pm - Dec 16, 2012


goosygoosy says:

Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 13:10

Billy Dodds Football columnist.

There are lots of positives to the share issue that Rangers have launched, there’s no doubt about that.

It allows fans to own a portion of their club, they will hopefully be allowed a say in the way it is run, and they will be protecting it, so that it doesn’t suffer the same fate as it has this year.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Dearie me
Silly Billy needs to speak to an accountant
=====================================================================

Goosy….I have always admired your posts, but please in the name of all that is holy, please do not refer him to me…!

I have read his “ghosted” article in the Herald, and much as I could do with a few more clients, this sort I can well do without..and that is before I have to explain the rudiments of the UK taxation system to him!

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:12 pm - Dec 16, 2012


john clarke says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 15:44
9 0 Rate This
I’m afraid I can’t place Agent 86‏@Agent_868.
Has he posted credible stuff before?
———-

Some juicy little tidbits, but it could just as well be a wind up.

The Sun apparently has a story, that may, or may not, be blocked; but if it is blocked in the print media it will come out online.

Speculation running from more CW recordings to agents & transfer embargoes. Mystifying.

The twitter account is: ‏@Agent_868

View Comment

Avatar

goosyPosted on7:15 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Er

In all the confusion surrounding Charlie and his share issue….

Did the Scottish Parliament abolish the law against offensive singing at football matches.?

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on7:20 pm - Dec 16, 2012


tommythehat says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 18:34

Fabulous post Tommy, wouldn’t change or add a thing.Keep fighting the good fight.

View Comment

Bill1903

Bill1903Posted on7:31 pm - Dec 16, 2012


The Sun is trying to be the paper of choice for dimwit berrs everywhere
Can’t see them rocking the boat with a negative report

View Comment

AllyJambo

AllyJamboPosted on7:34 pm - Dec 16, 2012


I wonder how the bears will square the belief ‘I own shares in The Rangers Football Club’ when their share certificates will say ‘Rangers International Football Club plc’, as none but the most enlightened seem to be aware of this? That ever so finacially astute Mr Dodds even confirms this! Surely, if so many actually believe that buying shares in a company, with merely a passing resemblence in the name of their club, can mean they own a part of that club, then none but the most idiotic, could argue against the company=club argument, for they’d surely be saying, on the one hand, ‘my shares mean I own part of the CLUB’, but, on the other Craig Whyte’s shares, that actually said ‘Rangers Football Club plc’, didn’t!

On this puff piece by Billy Dodds, wasn’t it the same Billy Dodds whose defence of his own participation in the EBT scheme was that he was only a footballer and didn’t understand these financial matters so left it to his financial adviser? If it is indeed the same Billy Dodds, why on earth would anyone print this nonsense, and why would anyone, even the thickest of bears, accept it without the biggest pinch of salt ever? Oh but they will, and not just the thickest of them!

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on7:35 pm - Dec 16, 2012


If it’s in the Sun, then in all probability it will be pro Sevco
It will probably be spun that whatever the story is severely damaged RFC(IL) and Sevco
Cynical, you’d better believe it

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on7:40 pm - Dec 16, 2012


campsiejoe says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 19:35

If it’s in the Sun, then in all probability it will be pro Sevco
It will probably be spun that whatever the story is severely damaged RFC(IL) and Sevco
Cynical, you’d better believe it

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

Since it is coming from a football agent and is likely to appear in the Sun, what chance there is going to be an attempt to overturn the transfer ban?

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on7:43 pm - Dec 16, 2012


scottc @ 19:40

I said this weeks ago, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was along those lines

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on7:47 pm - Dec 16, 2012


This ‘big story’ being released tomorrow has to concern the SFA and/or Celtic FC as the Sun would not touch it otherwise.Anything negative about either and the Sevconians will lap it up.

View Comment

AllyJambo

AllyJamboPosted on8:04 pm - Dec 16, 2012


ordinaryfan says:

Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 15:05

I think this shows that far from being particularly ‘clever’, as many seem to consider Green from the way he’s, so far, been succcessfull in his promotion of his Rangers, there is much of his rhetoric culled from areas of business he is totally ignorant of and is only getting away with it because nothing he says is ever challenged by anyone, anywhere, outside of the blogosphere. It’s as though, from somewhere inside his head, the words ‘negative goodwill’ have popped up and he’s thought, it sounds good, and if I don’t know what it means, the gullible fools I’m selling shares to, and those idiots in the MSM, won’t have a clue what it means either. You can almost hear the conversations in the pubs ‘hey, Cuckie says we’ve got negative goodwill! When you think about it, it must be good, coz we’ve had it for 140 years, and it’s served us well all that time’ 😉

View Comment

Avatar

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on8:24 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Is negative goodwill the accountancy equivalent of “no-one likes us we don’t care”? Maybe Charles did buy the history, then.

View Comment

Avatar

SeniorPosted on8:27 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Can anyone on here ever see Sevco back in the premier Div. of Scottish football.
At this moment in time I find it almost impossible to see them compete every weekend in the top flight without violence and threats accompanying them wherever they go.
If Sevco do not change their attitude they will not compete in the top flight ever again – the risks are too great, the landscape has changed, the atmosphere is worse now than at any time in the past forty years. Once it was Celtic who would feel the wrath of these hooligans, but now every club who voted to uphold the rules can expect mayhem at their grounds and surrounding areas. .

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on8:36 pm - Dec 16, 2012


“Sevco is not a demoted Rangers. Rangers went out of business. The club went bust. Sevco is a new club and rules were created on-the-go by the SFA to accommodate it. Sevco is lucky to be in the Third Division, other small clubs which have paid their dues should have been ahead of them.”
=========================================================================

Carfins Finest…many thanks for the link…and indeed a most informative read.

I humbly accept that I should have been able to grasp the Oldco/Newco argument all along and better, but the small paragraph above, has so succinctly, and in words of one syllable that even I and the most intellectually challenged of the MSM can undersyand so lucidly…so I repeat….:

“Sevco is not a demoted Rangers. Rangers went out of business. The club went bust.!….!

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on8:39 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Angela Haggerty @AngelaHaggerty 9m
Overwhelmed at the response to my article, thanks for all the
tweets. It was something that needed to be said and we need
to keep saying it.

View Comment

Avatar

ikiPosted on8:42 pm - Dec 16, 2012


If there is a Sun exclusive that is anti-SFA, or Celtic, I would be wondering if a Head of Communications has started work before his official appointment date.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on8:47 pm - Dec 16, 2012


jean7brodie says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 19:20
tommythehat says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 18:34
Fabulous post Tommy, wouldn’t change or add a thing.Keep fighting the good fight.
============================================================
I’d disagree Jean – couldn’t read much after the first use of the term “Mingwall”. If Tommy can’t present his views in a reasonable manner he shouldn’t bother at all.

Is this the Tommy that’s often referred to having been on radio phone-ins? Something of an MSM guerilla sniper? If that post is evidence of his work I’m glad I miss out on those shows. If not, the tone of the post does nothing for me anyway

View Comment

Avatar

Palacio67Posted on8:54 pm - Dec 16, 2012


blu says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 20:47

In your opinion do you see Mr Dingwall as a reasonable person?
Serious question.

View Comment

Avatar

olemungobhoyPosted on8:58 pm - Dec 16, 2012


T’is the season of goodwill and a’ that so a wee quiet word to any Bears thinking of taking up the 70p per share offer before Wednesdaqy .

Why don’t you just find a dodgy stockbroker ( if there is such a thing – God forfend) and offer him 5000 shares @50p a share deliverable to the purchaser in 3 months time (Legally you don’t have to buy the shares at 70p -your only legal obligation is to deliver them on the agreed date at the agreed price )

After Wednesday you wait till RFIC shares bomb to 35p per share and you buy the 5000 shares you need to match your side of the bargain. Kerching !!! 5000 x 20p less dealing costs .

Why not…………… it’s what Charlies “institutional investors” are doing to you

tra la la . .la la ..la la

View Comment

Avatar

goosyPosted on9:05 pm - Dec 16, 2012


SouthernExile says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 11:40

@campsiejoe (and many others)

There seems to be only one class of shares – Ordinary Shares – which all have the same voting rights.

“No holder of Ordinary Shares has voting rights that differ from any other holder of Ordinary Shares and no Shareholder is deemed to have direct or indirect control of the Company.”

Where has the “non-voting” notion come from?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I take ” a say in the running of the business” as having the ability to contribute to day to day Board level decisions eg major spends major contracts major cutbacks etc etc
Therefore
To have a say in the running of the company the ordinary shareholder needs to be represented on the Board.
In theory he is represented by non exec Directors
But when Spivs set up the business it never works out that way.They only act in their own interest within the margins of the law
RIFC only have Spivs from the Consortium on the Board There is no provision for a fans representative even if these fans collectively own a sizeable number of shares eg £3m or £4m worth
So any Bears buying shares in RIFC will have no say in the running of RIFC
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As for having a say in the running of TRFC

They have no shares in TRFC and therefore zero voting ability in TRFC Board decisions
In the event of Ibrox being sold to Tesco the fans would need to take to the streets to exert any influence
Which is probably what they would do given their track record

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on9:12 pm - Dec 16, 2012


Palacio67 says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 20:54
blu says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 20:47

In your opinion do you see Mr Dingwall as a reasonable person?
Serious question.
================================================================
Palacio – the only thing I’ve got to go on is some reading of the website he runs – so that’ll be a no. I quite like the general mannerliness of this site and of RTC when it was active. It allows for focus on the issues up for discussion. Tommy may have made a number of good points in his earlier post but I genuinely skipped past when I saw the petty abuse of Mr Dingwall.

View Comment

AllyJambo

AllyJamboPosted on9:14 pm - Dec 16, 2012


tommythehat says:

Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 18:34

Excellent post Tommy. Was going to say how much I enjoyed it until it dawned on me just how chilling it was! A bit like enjoying a disaster as it happens. For that is what this shambles is turning into. It’s gone from being a crisis, to a shambles, and now disaster is just around the corner. Together the MSM and the football authorities have allowed a blustering rabble rouser to go unchecked while he sows the seeds of a real Armagedon amongst those all too ready to pick up on what they consider disrespect to what they hold sacrosanct. I suspect it was fear that motivated, or rather demotivated, those with the power to halt Green and his sidekick, McCoist, to move into the trench of appeasement that has had it’s usual effect of worsening the situation while emboldening the main aggressors. And Doncaster, Regan et al are all keeping their heads well below the parapet now!

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on9:23 pm - Dec 16, 2012


tommythehat says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 21:01
blu says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 20:47
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Thanks Jean, and i wouldnt change a thing either.

Blu – It’s just a bit of banter – besides it’s actually quite apt considering – lets be honest here, FF is a rabid website, the person in question is a rabid contributor on said website – Violla!! Dingwall becomes Mingwall – I thinks it’s fair enough – and no – i aint that particular Tommy:)
======================================
Cheers Tommy – thanks for taking the time to reply – each to their own and all that, it just doesn’t appeal to me.

View Comment

Avatar

Palacio67Posted on9:27 pm - Dec 16, 2012


blu says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 21:12

Me Neither, so changing his pronunciation would not have stopped me reading Tommy’s post which in my ( And others ) opinion is a good contribution to the blog.

View Comment

Avatar

The GlenPosted on9:36 pm - Dec 16, 2012


If there is a story in tomorrows papers and it is pro-Rangers then Rangers fans will be proclaiming that at last the media is taking their side. Meanwhile the supporters of every other team will proclaim it as the usual garbage from the MSM.

The exact opposite will be the case should any story be anti-Rangers.

In my humble opinion, obviously.

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on9:45 pm - Dec 16, 2012


blu says:
Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 21:35
A genuine thanks for your reply blu but whether you’re being straight laced (or po-faced!!) I would still recommend that you read it all as it, sadly, sums it all up.
I sincerely hope we can move on from this heinous situation.

View Comment

Avatar

hayzaboyPosted on9:47 pm - Dec 16, 2012


If there is a story and its true I have no problem if its seen as anti-Celtic as long as I can believe the MSM would print if a story that showed sevco in a poor light…………………..although I dont see this happening in the present climate which is poisonous imho.

View Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.