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

nickmcguinnessPosted on11:30 am - Dec 17, 2012


Spanishcelt:

How do they complete their offload if no one is buying shares at this time of the year?
The nature of football shares means there is traditionally very little trading in them.
That’s why they are always such a bad investment. And I do mean “always”.
The fact there has been little uptake may mean that the real person or people behind the investment trust share purchases will have taken control of the club for comparatively little outlay.
The final piece of the “Switcheroo” is almost in place.
By the way, Traynor starts at Ibrox in January.
Who do you think persuaded him to drop the Record and BBC and move there?
It sure as hell wasn’t Green.

View Comment

Avatar

doontheslopePosted on11:35 am - Dec 17, 2012


Like others, I’ve had posts modded. I do feel for Tommythehat though because his post was long, very well thought out and contained some excellent analysis. It was also very well written. When alot of time is put into a post like that, it must be extremely frustrating to have that work removed. The merit of the post far outweighed the perceived misdemeanour imo.

Tommy, why not repost and give the person you refer to, his proper surname? The post deserved a wider readership. It would also force the Sevco fans on here to respond less dismissively to such an excellent post.

View Comment

ismellafix

ismellafixPosted on11:44 am - Dec 17, 2012


C’mon Keith,

If your going to stick your head above the parapet at least get your terminology right;

“These same supporters, remember, have already been paying hand over fist to keep their club alive since all its troubles began to crystallise at the start of a year that will go down in history as Rangers’ annus horribilis. That’s Latin for Craig Whyte”.

For annus horribilis insert “annus et dies obitus”

View Comment

Avatar

arabest1Posted on11:47 am - Dec 17, 2012


nickmcguinness says:

The fact there has been little uptake may mean that the real person or people behind the investment trust share purchases will have taken control of the club for comparatively little outlay.

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

Excuse my ignorance Nick, but is that how it works? If a projected share offer is say 20 million, but only 10m is raised, those investing the 10 million ‘take control’ and the 10 is ‘diluted’ to fit the original plan? (hope you follow my question!)

View Comment

AllyJambo

AllyJamboPosted on11:51 am - Dec 17, 2012


paulmac2 says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:26

Totally agree, Paulmac. This is not an article showing Jackson’s awakening, it’s a thinly veiled rallying call to the faithfull, hence the reference to NL, and the ‘humour’ is just there to make his true meaning less blatant to non TRFC fans. Note the reference to the £9m raised by Celtic fans – a challenge to those not yet investing? His efforts to make Green sound like a shining, if grumpy, light on Scottish football is sickening! This is either his version of a draft sent to him by his old buddy, or he’s gone along to Charlie and asked ‘how can I best help your IPO, Mr Green?’

If, as seems likely, the fans don’t take it up in the numbers anticipated, it’ll be interesting to see how the likes of Jangles squares it with the ‘loyal support’ versus ‘great investment opportunity’ bull****. Could it be that enough of the more intelligent bears realise that the criticism of Green and his prospectus on sites like this hold more common sense than the whole of the MSM?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on11:52 am - Dec 17, 2012


Well if the share issue does not go too well then there is no one to blame but themselves……

Is there an irony font?

Being serious, what is needed her is the administration of two or three spoonfuls of reality castor oil. Worked a treat when my first child did not want to be born.

In a couple of days Rangers men may have to face the reality that the necessary capital to enable The Rangers to become a force again in Scottish football is not to be found within the fan base and the club does not represent a sound enough financial investment for institutions and emotional £s have no wage currency.

Oh there will always be enough cash coming through the gates to pay for a team to play at a certain level of affordabilty, but never enough fuelled by the right amount of readies to make them the force in the picture Green paints in the IPO.

Now I might come back with egg on my face in a couple of days but if not and it is reality castor oil time I commend the following for its thoughts. Whilst set at a personal level there is much in it that could apply to the emerging reality true Rangers supporters may find themselves in.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B62m3ggkEX2Rdmt3QzZfR3dBNjQ

(and I hope the document sharing options allow access this time with apologies for the last link I provided)

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on11:56 am - Dec 17, 2012


layman00 says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 06:58
19 4 i
Rate This

Brenda on Monday, December 17, 2012 at 02:00 14 1 Rate This

Was offered tickets for the sevco v Annan game on Tuesday …….. Free tickets!!! As many as I could use??? I declined the offer

full houses my ass

I wonder how many free tickets have been handed out this season. I am assuming this is to maintain the facade to ensure a healthy subscription to the share issue.

Out of interest how were you offered, had you registered your details with The Rangers?
——————————————————————

Funny you should say that…a family friend was offered free tickets to TRFC’s next home game…when he said he supported Celtic and declined…they called him a bigot?

At first he thought they were mucking about…but dawned on him they were serious?

Things must be bad when they don’t even bother to ask what team a person supports or if they are even interested in Football when throwing these tickets away?

View Comment

Avatar

cowanpetePosted on12:01 pm - Dec 17, 2012


allyjambo says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:22

No inside info on Hearts’ shares but they should have my application this morning
========================
Well done that man. I’m a hibby, so won’t be investing :-), but I feel for those of the maroon persuasion who feel compelled to do so.
I still think the long term perspective isn’t great down Gorgie way but with fans like AJ there will be some sort of HOMFC playing football at some level for years to come.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:02 pm - Dec 17, 2012


allyjambo says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:51

paulmac2 says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:26
==================================
If say £9m is needed to meet the target that article needs to galvanise 18,000 supporters to pony up or 9 millionaires to step up to the plate by Wednesday.

Oh no they won’t

Oh yes they will.

We’ll see. Whatever happens the spin will be a positive one.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on12:02 pm - Dec 17, 2012


doontheslope says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:35
==================================================
doonthelope, I’ve also had posts moderated – including one acknowledging Tommy’s reasoned response to me and concluding that I believed that self-policing had managed the situation. I’m just a bit sorry that you’ve made reference to Sevco fans in relation to this discussion as it’s not relevant.

Anyway, life’s hard enough for the site moderators and I’ll leave this one alone now, I think, although if you were good enough to take up doontheslope’s suggestion and re-post Tommy, I’d get to read it.

blu

View Comment

Avatar

doontheslopePosted on12:02 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Night Terror

Again I find myself taking issue with you. This is the second time you have jumped from ‘the particular to the general’, as it were, and accused the blog of being, shall we say, ‘tainted.’

I have read FF, VB and RM when a link has been provided on here with reference to a particular subject being discussed. I have found the experience sickening. Those blogs go way beyond bias and often enter a very dark world.

I used to post on one of my own teams blogs but stopped a while ago. It was biased. (The recent accusations against St Mirren for ‘parking the bus’ when my own team did exactly that against Barcelona, being a case in point.) I have no interest in reading such comment or in wasting my time responding to it. But that blog comes no where near the bile which gets spewed every single day on Sevco blogs.

I have found TSFM to be at least attempting to be fair – a difficult task, you will agree. I think you are attempting to undermine the blog – and not for the first time. Its very easy to claim that a poster is playing to the gallery and make accusations of ‘groupthink’ etc.. Not so easy to back that statement up though.

I have seen posts on here get large amounts of thumbs up. Then a post arguing the exact opposite receiving just as many thumbs up. That tells me that bloggers on here are willing to be swayed by good argument and less inclined than other blogs to operate on bias.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:04 pm - Dec 17, 2012


arabest1

kind of, is my reading of it. Chuckie has confirmed that if 20m are offered then 20m will be taken up by these mythical institutions. If “the institutions” are actually, lets choose a completely random name and give him a title for fun, King Dave, then he will own the 15m or so including those not taken up. Remember at no point I understand has anyone committed what these underwritten shares will cost, my guess is a lot closer to the penny shares that Charles has so far. Chuckie and his band of merry men then just need to offload their MAJORITY holding at the price they need and voila les switcheroo is complete.

The purchaser will need absolute certainty however as to what it is he’s actually buying (and more importantly what he isn’t) and also whether or not anything might be coming in the future that would affect the actual revenue stream negatively or otherwise.

I don’t actually have a problem with ‘the switcheroo’ by which I mean essentially the old Rangers brand minus the debt per se, in fact I say good luck to who ever takes it on. As long as he’s using his own money to do it, both now and going forward, AND that no-one in authority is holding his hand, paving his way, throwing rose petals in front of him and expecting me to pay for it. Again.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on12:06 pm - Dec 17, 2012


allyjambo says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:51
0 0 Rate This
paulmac2 says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:26

Totally agree, Paulmac. This is not an article showing Jackson’s awakening, it’s a thinly veiled rallying call to the faithfull, hence the reference to NL, and the ‘humour’ is just there to make his true meaning less blatant to non TRFC fans …
—–

Perception is everything.

I took the article at face value, I see critique where others see a rallying call and anti-NL bias. Isn’t it quite ‘brave’ for a DR reporter? Or am I just naive old fool? (rhetorical question) 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

arabest1Posted on12:12 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Thanks for the reply smugas, I have no idea how these things work.

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on12:13 pm - Dec 17, 2012


paulmac2 says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:56

I would urge anyone offered free tickets for ‘The Rangers’ to accept them.
Take 20 or 40 at a time and then shred them.
This is the only way to dispell the myth that there matches are being well attended.
Huge swathes of empty seats made up of free tickets.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on12:15 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Montrose apologise for programme notes:

“What can i say? I am utterly devastated and disappointed that someone within my club was responsible for this and i can personally ensure you that after being informed I apologised to Ally in person before Rangers left the ground and have requested an internal enquiry to find out who was responsible for this stupidity and embarrassed myself and all at Montrose. Rest assured we are not happy about this at all and gutted after all efforts to make the day a day to remember. I will keep you informed and can assure you and all involved with Rangers that an official apology will be made. Once again my sincere apologies.” John (Montrose Director, apparently)

… and the response from RM:

Let this be a warning to all Chairmen! Brief your staff, and make sure they know the consequences.

Good response … hope he follows through with the appropiate disciplinary action against the said member of staff

You would have thought some would have proof read that article before it went to print. Its a good response from their Chairman. but more than one person involved i think. Get them named and shamed.

Personally, I think it’s a poor show by whoever John at Montrose is. A very poor show.

View Comment

Avatar

doontheslopePosted on12:21 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Blu

I hope that Tommy rethinks and reposts.

I made a decision a while ago about how I would refer to Rangers(IL)/Newco/Sevco etc.. I decided on Sevco.

I base that decision on the following: If Sevco wish to be known as Rangers, they must pay the debt. I will be quite happy to accept them as a continuation of Rangers if this is done. Until such time, as far as I am concerned, they are Sevco.

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on12:26 pm - Dec 17, 2012


doontheslope says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:02

Night Terror

Again I find myself taking issue with you.

I’m not disappointed. You were one of the folk I had in mind.

I didn’t really understand what the rest of your post was about – could you be a bit more specific?

View Comment

Avatar

borussiabeefburgPosted on12:26 pm - Dec 17, 2012


That K Jackson article opens:-

“DESPITE claims he could earn the club up to £22m buy selling shares to Rangers fans, Charles Green may have to amend his target as many supporters struggle – or refuse – to stump up the cash.”

Is ‘buy selling’ a Freudian slip? Offload, offload………….. 😉

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on12:28 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Danish Pastry says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:06
1 0 Rate This
allyjambo says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:51
0 0 Rate This
paulmac2 says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:26

Totally agree, Paulmac. This is not an article showing Jackson’s awakening, it’s a thinly veiled rallying call to the faithfull, hence the reference to NL, and the ‘humour’ is just there to make his true meaning less blatant to non TRFC fans …
—–

Perception is everything.

I took the article at face value, I see critique where others see a rallying call and anti-NL bias. Isn’t it quite ‘brave’ for a DR reporter? Or am I just naive old fool? (rhetorical question)

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

there was a thread on FF regarding Jingle Jacksons article this morning (now pulled – no idea why)

there was no condemnation of “the Rhebel” or Jackson. No Threats, no intimidation

They accepted that the take up was “less than £2M” and the bulk of the responses fell into these broad categories

1. wrong time of year – should have either been cheaper or had a finance package to spread payments (little comment about eh RST £125 deal)
2. Chuckles has “shot himself in the foot” by saying the institutional investors had i covered…several posters highlighting that there was “no appetite for fan ownership” and that it was an “alien concept” to Sevconians.

the thread certainly had a lot more replies from bears who said “i’m out” than the corresponding thread of people who has bought shares.

Didn’t seem to be much bear on bear action condemning those who had not proven their loyalty by selling all their worldly goods to hand over to chuckles

in short – they pretty much have no interest in buying into chuckles dream

no idea why the thread was pulled….certainly seemed to have lots of people condemning the offer/timing….wonder what Dark Mi….sorry, Mark Dingwalls agenda is???

View Comment

Avatar

borussiabeefburgPosted on12:29 pm - Dec 17, 2012


And from the Ibrox official site:-

“RANGERS were in action against Montrose on Saturday and as ever there was an army of supporters in attendance to roar the team to success.”

‘as ever’ until they boycott?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:30 pm - Dec 17, 2012


From today’s Scotsman

Charles Green faces sweat over Rangers shares

‘Rangers chief Charles Green may have to rethink his plans for securing financial backing for the club – after supporters failed to take up a share offer outlined by Green that saw £10 million worth of shares ringfenced for fans. However, Ibrox sources are suggesting that despite online pledges, few fans have taken up the offer, leaving Green with a total far lower than his intended target’.

And why would Ibrox sources reveal the share sales were poor? Only reason I can think is to gee up Bears into digging deeper. But does that mean previous share sales have been poor – who knows? He has nothing to worry about anyway as he claims the institutional investors originally pledged £25 million but he only gave them £17 million with the other £8 million being provided for the bears.

But it will all eventually surface and as I keep saying the actual measure of flotation success isn’t the number of shares ‘sold’ but the net capital actually raised. One could also add – and how that capital is spent.

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on12:32 pm - Dec 17, 2012


If Keith Jackson thinks Geoff Boycott was an aggressive batsman constantly hitting sixes…

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on12:36 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:28

wonder what Dark Mi….sorry, Mark Dingwalls agenda is???

Excellent spoonerism. +1

View Comment

AllyJambo

AllyJamboPosted on12:38 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Danish Pastry says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:06

While Jackson’s post is certainly different from the days when Jabba seemed to be calling the shots, I don’t consider bumming up Green, making a fool of Lennon and stating what appears to be a fact – the fans aren’t buying into the IPO – as being in any way brave. He’s even provided excuses, Xmas etc, as to why the fans aren’t investing rather than to say that the fans haven’t bought into the Green revolution, nor believed his prospectus. HIs mild criticism of Green’s TV show last week still provides the faithfull with an excuse and his greatest criticism is for the internet. Now there’s a surprise, where’s the change in that?

I have to admit, though, Danish, that I am not familiar with Jackson’s previous work so you are very possibly right in reading into this article something far more positive than I do. Just like with Whyte, I’m sure there will come a time when the press turn on Green, but they’ll never be critical of the supporters, and they’ll never be critical of Green until the support are ready for it ie ‘it was all a big boy’s fault, and he ran away’ and ‘we were duped’ 😉

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:39 pm - Dec 17, 2012


angus1983 says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:15
Personally, I think it’s a poor show by whoever John at Montrose is. A very poor show.
—————————————————————————————————————-

I believe ‘John’ is the club mouser at Montrose. If not, then John is an astute person in not revealing his surnmame – I wonder why? Although, I can already hear the chant: ‘We demand to know his surnmame’.

The Blue Pound at work – a transitory currency methinks.

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on12:42 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Montrose join Rangers on the “grow a pair” list.

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on12:43 pm - Dec 17, 2012


oops

further to my last post. there was a 3rd reason for the lack of investment….Charles green didn’t really want them too….hence why it was this time of year and £500, he didn’t want to give the fans a real say in the club….but wanted tolook like it had been offered (knowing it couldn’t be taken up)

got to hand it to them, they have a story for any eventuality………..guess that is what being in denial is all about

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on12:45 pm - Dec 17, 2012


LOL. from @henrikvegetable on twitter, a baby bear gets his christmas present!!

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

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on12:46 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Danish Pastry says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:06

allyjambo says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:51
paulmac2 says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:26

Totally agree, Paulmac. This is not an article showing Jackson’s awakening, it’s a thinly veiled rallying call to the faithfull, hence the reference to NL, and the ‘humour’ is just there to make his true meaning less blatant to non TRFC fans …
—–

Perception is everything.

I took the article at face value, I see critique where others see a rallying call and anti-NL bias. Isn’t it quite ‘brave’ for a DR reporter? Or am I just naive old fool? (rhetorical question)
————————————————————

Fair play…maybe I have a blind spot for Jangles that skews my take on anything he writes…maybe it was the Billionaire off the radar piece..I’m not sure..

Brave?…not sure about that…he praised Charlie for his calling everyone out approach…he questioned Charlies timing of the flotation…he suggested the timing in the middle of a recession a week before christmas with a minimum lump of £500 and that Charlie would bail them out…quoting the STV interview being the main thrust of why they couldn’t buy shares…all this of course is perfectly true…which begs the question WHY did Charlie ignore all these factors…

Sevco fans have previously shown they don’t do buying shares…so throw in all those other points and hey presto you will have a dead share issue…

Why do we think he chose Lennon as the hoax applicant of online shares knowing how volatile their fans can be?…and why mention Celtic’s £9 million share take up in 1995?

In summary..it was a…what a wonderful guy you are Charlie…you could have thought this through a bit better…come on lads…ignore the wife and kids…buy the shares..

View Comment

Avatar

doontheslopePosted on12:48 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Night Terror

Could I be more specific?

Last week I posted about corruption in Scottish football governance. You responded extremely sarcastically and claimed that Rangers get blamed for everything. In response, I took the time to be specific and made four specific arguments and specifically asked you if you agreed with my points or not. You didn’t reply.

You’ve made your point today and I’ve made mine.

View Comment

Tartawulver

TartawulverPosted on12:48 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Maybe the Greenites will spend a couple of days spreading tales of woe about the takeup only being in the regrion of £1.5m or so. Then when it turns out to have actually raised £3m, this will be trumpeted as “well above what our critics were saying we would get”. Both Green and the MSM will forget the original projections. You will read that somehow another victory will have been be won!

Plus, if the takeup from fans is low, if Rangers fans ever get critical in the future, Green will be able to say “I gave you your chance to have a stake in the club and you turned it down”.

Lots of tactical possibilities, even from a failure.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on12:53 pm - Dec 17, 2012


doontheslope says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:21
7 1 i
Rate This

Blu

I hope that Tommy rethinks and reposts.

I made a decision a while ago about how I would refer to Rangers(IL)/Newco/Sevco etc.. I decided on Sevco.

I base that decision on the following: If Sevco wish to be known as Rangers, they must pay the debt. I will be quite happy to accept them as a continuation of Rangers if this is done. Until such time, as far as I am concerned, they are Sevco.

==============================================================
doontheslope – I’m sorry for dragging this sorry matter out further but I should have been clearer. I inferred from your post that you believed that all of those who posted about the use of the term “Mingwall” were Sevco fans. This isn’t so, and even if it was, I still believe that winning an argument by force of evidence and reasoned argument is the best way to go. RTC did a pretty good job using that approach.

View Comment

Shooperb

ShooperbPosted on12:54 pm - Dec 17, 2012


I don’t see what the problem is as regards the deletion of posts. We’ve been told many, MANY times on here by the moderators that they don’t want abuse, name calling or anything that detracts from the quality of debate.

Their aim is for this blog to carry the sort of credibility that can’t be ignored, and you set about achieving that credibility by making yourself whiter than white. I would suggest that if you can’t make a point without being unecessarily derogatory about someone, then don’t make it. There’s plenty of other forums and blogs where you can get all over-exited and incandescent.

Tommy’s post is a great example – from what I can recall it was certainly a worthwhile piece, but why spoil it? The RTC blog’s calling card was cool and un-emotional analysis of what was going on, without resorting to name-calling, and I believe that we need to get back to that.

It could just be that there’s no new blog to focus the thought process that things have started to slip…..

View Comment

AllyJambo

AllyJamboPosted on12:55 pm - Dec 17, 2012


cowanpete says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:01

allyjambo says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:22

No inside info on Hearts’ shares but they should have my application this morning
========================
Well done that man. I’m a hibby, so won’t be investing , but I feel for those of the maroon persuasion who feel compelled to do so.
I still think the long term perspective isn’t great down Gorgie way but with fans like AJ there will be some sort of HOMFC playing football at some level for years to come.
___________________________________________________________________

Thanks for that cp, no need to feel sorry for us though, we’ve all made our donation with our eyes open.

It now seems as though many more TRFC fans have their eyes open too and are maybe holding onto what cash they do have until such times as some other, genuinely Rangers minded, saviour comes along. I can see a time coming when that genuine Rangers man comes along and buys TRFC from RIFC and the investing fans are left with shares in a far more successfull company than they ever imagined, while those who didn’t invest are ready to buy into a new Rangers’ company, one we can all hope has a different ethos than Green’s.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on12:58 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:28

wonder what Dark Mi….sorry, Mark Dingwalls agenda is???

=================================================
NTHM – if I’d only known it was a spoonerism!

View Comment

Tartawulver

TartawulverPosted on1:00 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:43
a 3rd reason for the lack of investment….Charles green didn’t really want them too….hence why it was this time of year and £500, he didn’t want to give the fans a real say in the club….but wanted tolook like it had been offered (knowing it couldn’t be taken up)

And Keith Jackson says
Yes, with hindsight, Green may well be wishing now that he had not chosen to launch this issue in December, in the middle of a recession. He may also be thinking he was asking for too much when he set the minimum asking price at a monkey. Now I’m no Lord Sugar but wasn’t that all rather bleeding obvious
—————————————–
As KJ says, it was indeed rather bleeding obvious, there is no question about it. In fact, blatant might be a better word. It has been mentioned many time on this site that a hastily-arranged share issue with a high entry level cost, in the middle of a recession, the week before Christmas doesn’t smell of someone seriously seeking investors, but quite the opposite. And, other than the most diehard, dim or affluent, Rangers fans will be hard pressed to find money to back it when it could be spent on more essential things. I don’t, however, agree with KJ that there will be any element of ‘hindsight’ about the timing of the share offer.

View Comment

Shooperb

ShooperbPosted on1:02 pm - Dec 17, 2012


areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:54

“Over-exited”?!? Over excited! Although, with the threats to stop posting here, maybe I was right the first time!

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on1:03 pm - Dec 17, 2012


angus1983 says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:15
————————————–

Strangely enough ….no mention that what was written was inaccurate or false…just sorry it was printed!

I guess the chairman was concerned as to the consequences…which is fair enough…

View Comment

AllyJambo

AllyJamboPosted on1:04 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Just noticed one of my posts, in reply to Danish Pastry, is in moderation. I’m not complaining but have read it over and the only word that might have caused it was my use of a character from Star Wars to describe a previous writer on the DR. Is there now a number of, mildly insulting, words we are not allowed to use? I only ask so we can all make sure we avoid them in future.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on1:06 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Did anything come of the huge news that was supposed to be in the Soaraway this morning according to Agent 86 or whoever it was?

Don’t see anything on their website.

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on1:07 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Maybe the Montrose Chairman could be asked…what was it that was written that was so embarrassing?

So other clubs can have a heads up when preparing programmes.

View Comment

Avatar

doontheslopePosted on1:11 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Blu

Sorry for the misunderstanding too. In general, ad hominums, foul language etc.. on here will be criticized regardless of club affiliation. I accept that point. In fact, I’m kinda arguing that point with NT at the moment.

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on1:16 pm - Dec 17, 2012


And another thing…he apologised to Ally?…Not Charlie who was at the game…one would think as fellow directors they would have been sharing a drink or 2 in the boardroom before during and after the game?

View Comment

Avatar

chancer67Posted on1:17 pm - Dec 17, 2012


We can add the FT to the list of boycotted things gauging the reaction to the article by the sevconians on RM(is there a collective noun for boycotted things)
The writer of the article will no doubt be getting christmas cheer from the hordes this morning as her details were posted on the RM site, did she not also mention something about a turkey surely they wouldn’t would they? the week before Christmas oh well its fish for Christmas dinner…oh wait

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on1:21 pm - Dec 17, 2012


one reply from FF re the jackson article,

Originally posted by NulliSecundus
Total pish article. Ring-fencing £10mil for the fans buy up is not the same as assuming that they will take the lot. The bulk of the share purchase was always going to come from the institutional heavy weights and the club has done well to pull in apx £17million from them at this stage.

If the support take up “only” a few million as the article suggests that would be an excellent first step towards the ultimate goal of a majority fan shareholding. The journey of a thousand miles always begins with just a single step.

LOL!!

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on1:22 pm - Dec 17, 2012


I wonder if Chas will call ‘The Rangers’ fans bigits for failing to support the share issue.
Oh irony of ironies.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on1:34 pm - Dec 17, 2012


paulmac2 says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 13:07

Maybe the Montrose Chairman could be asked…what was it that was written that was so embarrassing?

So other clubs can have a heads up when preparing programmes.
——

Certainly it’ll be interesting to see what’s in the Montrose programme the next time the WATP spread their joy and goodwill there on 30 March …

View Comment

Avatar

iamacantPosted on1:35 pm - Dec 17, 2012


angus1983 says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:15

Montrose apologise for programme notes:

… and the response from RM:

Let this be a warning to all Chairmen! Brief your staff, and make sure they know the consequences.
—————————————————————————————————————-

Aye, just like the threats Raith got eh? Montrose fire station now on permanent standby I’ll bet

View Comment

Avatar

onceabhoyPosted on1:52 pm - Dec 17, 2012


History transfer? Club and company are separate and as such the club wasn’t liquidated? Not according to the definition of Incorporated as per the 1899 move to protect the board and shareholders.

in·cor·po·rat·ed ( n-kôr p -r t d). adj. 1. United into one body; combined. 2. Formed into or organized and maintained as a legal corporation.

Simples.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:53 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Re the programme notes. The Scotsman reports

The introduction to the Rangers team reads: “Playing their first season in Division Three, The Rangers are a newco of the now defunct Glasgow Rangers. Currently top of the table, they will be hoping to go on to seal the title and clinch their first silverware.”

Just to clarify is “defunct” some fancy latin term meaning “in liquidation having been unable or unwilling to meet significant debt that arose from a period of unequalled, unchallenged and unnessecary maladministration”

Just to clarify further, is “maladministration some fancy lat….

You see where I’m going with this?

Disappointing that Montrose felt the need to apologise, I’ll actually commend them that they have – the bigger man and all that. Relevant here though, I forget who asked it earlier, what would be engraved on the cup were Sevco to go and win it?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on2:03 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Let’s not forget that Christmas is a time that most people don’t give two hoots about whats going on the world. News bulletins get dropped to a few minutes and people only buy the papers to see whats on TV.
If the cash isn’t forthcoming from the fans then who, over the holiday period, is going to question what was actually raised and how this compared with Green’s remarks throughout the year.

Will KJ be following up today’s sales pitch with giving us the final result?

By the time people start asking questions it will be too late and things will move on with T’Rangers having to deal with whatever position they find themselves in.

Green and the fans will talk up their position regardless of what it is, because for them it is still the only game in town.

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on2:05 pm - Dec 17, 2012


onceabhoy says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 13:52
0 0 Rate This
History transfer? Club and company are separate and as such the club wasn’t liquidated? Not according to the definition of Incorporated as per the 1899 move to protect the board and shareholders.

in·cor·po·rat·ed ( n-kôr p -r t d). adj. 1. United into one body; combined. 2. Formed into or organized and maintained as a legal corporation.

Simples.

—————————————

following on from this…..

1. What is the name of the EMPLOYER on the player(s) contracts (registered with the SFA) and who did said player(s) receive their monthly wages from?

2. Is this the same or different to the name of the CLUB that has a membership of the SFA?

3. If they are the same…..then, Sevco is a new club……but, if they are different and the club is indeed a separate entity from the company – they guilty of 3rd party payments to every player ever registered with them!

View Comment

Avatar

doontheslopePosted on2:08 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Govan Tesco reporting a run on kippers with turkey’s heads stapled to them.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on2:11 pm - Dec 17, 2012


paulmac2 says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 13:03
1 0 Rate This
angus1983 says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:15
————————————–

Strangely enough ….no mention that what was written was inaccurate or false…just sorry it was printed!

I guess the chairman was concerned as to the consequences…which is fair enough…
———-

Paul,
I reckon Montrose were thinking it was say sorry, or risk a boycott. As I read that apology I remembered the treatment some of us were threatened with when starting secondary school – heid doon the lavy and flushed on. Some bullies never grow up, and it is bullying, there was nothing factually incorrect that I could see in the programme note. If I’d written it though I’d probably have used words about a rebirth and a new beginning. There are other ways to say things that don’t add to anger even proper Gers’ fans feel about their predicament.

The idea for using using Niall L. as a euphemism for Celtic fans may have come from RTC posters, and posters on this blog, who’ve openly admitted making false pledges. I didn’t find that funny or very clever myself. It’s one thing criticising and exposing wrongdoing but actively sabotaging should be off limits and condemned, even though it was meant as a harmless joke. As areyouaccusingme mentioned above, this blog needs to be whiter than white, and that probably also means calling Mr Dingwall, Mr Traynor, and so on, by their real names. I’m one of those who probably feels showing respect and fairness to those with whom you completely disagree – and who perhaps merit little respect – keeps you on the straight and narrow.

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on2:14 pm - Dec 17, 2012


ECA: “Taking into account that the ‘new entity’ also acquired the goodwill of the ‘old entity’, it was held by the ECA executive board that the goodwill, taking into account legal and practical arguments, also included the history of the ‘old company’.

Maybe someone should notify the ECA that Sevco did NOT purchase the “Goodwill” of RFC. Someone appears to have “duped” them into believing they have. The ECA also seem confused here, they say they have taken the legal argument into account, which is strange as they would know it is impossible to purchase the “Goodwill” OF an entity, but only when purchasing an “entity” as a whole.

Now that the ECA have actually defined the reasoning behind accepting a continuation of history, and it is factually incompatible with what has happened in the case of New Co Rangers, I would think they would now need to acknowledge those guidelines they have themselves set out.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on2:23 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Just heard Charlie on the news,justifying the timing of the IPO.
“I promised the fans the issue before Christmas and I’m honouring that promise,my “FINAL” promise to the Rangers fans”

Wonder what he means?.

View Comment

Avatar

bogsdolloxPosted on2:29 pm - Dec 17, 2012


paulmac2 says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:46

Why do we think he chose Lennon as the hoax applicant of online shares knowing how volatile their fans can be?…and why mention Celtic’s £9 million share take up in 1995?
===========================================================================

My take is that literally no question about the Old Firm can be answered without reference to both in the question. It’s a weird sort of attempt to achieve “balance”. They all do it on SSB, Daily Record, Speirs etc. It’s akin to the Vulcan mind meld. Only non OF supporters actually notice it so embedded is it in the culture.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:37 pm - Dec 17, 2012


bogsdollox says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 14:29

As a non OF supporter I do hope you’re not suggesting that whenever one side gets a player in the hall of fame, or a ‘best ever’ 11, or SPOTY (as if) or even an advertisement for a leading grand of scottish lager that a recognisable face from across the divide automatically accompanies them. Shiurley not.

View Comment

Avatar

goosyPosted on2:51 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Nope
Something smells here and it ain`t roses

This is what smells

Why create a holding co for TRFC Ltd if the sole purpose was to launch TRFC on AIM?

This launch would have required TRFC Ltd to change its name to TRFC plc hus having the exact same name as the Co sold by Minty for £1
The cover story for floating a holding co instead of TRFC is that it facilitates RIFC being considered as a tax free investment under HMRC rules
However
I think there is a much more important reason
i.e.
The name TRFC plc has been earmarked for the real floatation of TRFC Ltd at some early future date
Does anything else smell?
Yep
The whole floatation is a con designed to wipe its face in cost terms and maybe even make some money from the Gullible
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Here`s my take on this phoney flotation

This RIFC share issue had one Spiv purpose and one Spiv purpose only

To place a new legal holding company above the assets of the liquidated RFC
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The share issue is phoney because

It is not offerring shares in TRFC

It has a ridiculous share price

It has misleading claims in its Prospectus

It is being launched on the worse date of the year for an IPO
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

So why place a holding Co above the assets of TRFC?

Because TRFC already has a holding co which will sell TRFC to RIFC after the floatation

But
The name of the existing holding company for TRFC cannot be disclosed

Why can`t that name be disclosed?
Because a quick search of Companies House would reveal that it carries floating charges over its only asset ,TRFC Ltd
Floating charges that were agreed as the price of getting Ticketus, Close Leasing and CW support for the sale of assets and RFC giving up the name “The Rangers Football Club plc” This enabled Sevco Scotland to be renamed “The Rangers Football Club Ltd” and guranteed its name could be changed to “The Rangers Football Club plc” when it is floated on AIM at some future date
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The process looking forward?

I reckon
The share issue will flop but the goal will be achieved i.e. A holding co will be placed above TRFC which can do things in private without the publicity TRFC attract
The Gullible will contribute enough to clear the expenses
The institutional investors will buy in at a single figure share price
The Consortium will find legal ways to dump their shares at a profit

The Not So Gullible will await the real share floatationTheir goal is to get real shares in a newTRFC plc
TRFC will be offerred for sale by RIFC once the league situation has been resolved

Some form of deal will be struck to accommodate debts due to Ticketus, Close Leasing and Whyte.These debts will not be for the full amounts declared in the original Creditors List
.But they will still yield a healthy return

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on2:51 pm - Dec 17, 2012


From Twitter@ Took me a second or two……worth a read.

http://swivel-eyeddavieleggat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/montrose-john-francis-xavier-paton-and.html?m=1

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on3:10 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 14:51

From Twitter@ Took me a second or two……worth a read.

http://swivel-eyeddavieleggat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/montrose-john-francis-xavier-paton-and.html?m=1
==============================================================
Not a lot you can say about this piece of dross.
Typical Leggat.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:12 pm - Dec 17, 2012


paulsatim says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 13:21
The journey of a thousand miles always begins with just a single step.
——————————————————————————————-

I have alway found it important to decide at the start of the journey whether to step forwards or backwards 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

TSFMPosted on3:17 pm - Dec 17, 2012


allyjambo says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 13:04(Edit)

Just noticed one of my posts, in reply to Danish Pastry, is in moderation. I’m not complaining but have read it over and the only word that might have caused it was my use of a character from Star Wars to describe a previous writer on the DR. Is there now a number of, mildly insulting, words we are not allowed to use? I only ask so we can all make sure we avoid them in future.
____________________________________________________________________________-

AJ,
Saw that in moderation. A WordPress gremlin I think. I assumed you had changed your email address because it was in the place where first posts go?

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on3:19 pm - Dec 17, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 15:10

0

0

Rate This

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 14:51

From Twitter@ Took me a second or two……worth a read.

http://swivel-eyeddavieleggat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/montrose-john-francis-xavier-paton-and.html?m=1
==============================================================
Not a lot you can say about this piece of dross.
Typical Leggat.
======================
I am sure it’s a wind up.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:19 pm - Dec 17, 2012


goose,

A plan that is just brilliant, in its conception (check) its manipulation (check) its description by you (check) and its wide journalistic reporting (doh!). The only bit I wait to see how it pans out is when the TU/CW debt physically has to be paid off rather than simply shuffled around, how they actually achieve it. It’ll be a balance between the Kings of this world deciding if they can see enough clear air between TRFC and various troublesome enquiries, investigations etc, plus the possibility of a forward cash flow that is anything like positive, or even manageably negative and asking the bearz to dip (double dip?) just one more time, probably using a Whyte-will-sell-Ibrox-to-Tesco strap line.

As I said earlier, apart from disgust at the way it has been reported (notwithstanding that your entirely unsubstantiated play on this is pure guesswork) I actually wish the protagonists the best of luck at pulling it off – as long as the authorities are not actively aiding and abetting (as opposed to sitting with their thumbs in their proverbial)

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on3:21 pm - Dec 17, 2012


smug…
Re the programme notes. The Scotsman reports

The introduction to the Rangers team reads: “Playing their first season in Division Three, The Rangers are a newco of the now defunct Glasgow Rangers. Currently top of the table, they will be hoping to go on to seal the title and clinch their first silverware.”

Just to clarify is “defunct” some fancy latin term meaning “in liquidation having been unable or unwilling to meet significant debt that arose from a period of unequalled, unchallenged and unnessecary maladministration”

Just to clarify further, is “maladministration some fancy lat….

You see where I’m going with this?

Disappointing that Montrose felt the need to apologise, I’ll actually commend them that they have – the bigger man and all that. Relevant here though, I forget who asked it earlier,

what would be engraved on the cup were Sevco to go and win it?

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

very good question

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on3:26 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Making friends and enjoying the fextive season

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/206307-man-due-in-court-over-threat-to-bbc-scotland-journalist-mark-daly/

A man is due to appear in court charged with threatening BBC Scotland journalist Mark Daly.

The 35-year-old man was arrested in Clydebank, West Dunbartonshire, last Wednesday.

It is believed the arrest relates to comments directed to Mr Daly on micro-blogging site Twitter.

Earlier this year Mr Daly and his team won a Scottish Bafta for current affairs programming for his documentary, Rangers: The Men who Sold the Jerseys, which was broadcast in May.

In the show, Mr Daly revealed the details of payments made to players and staff through offshore employee benefit trusts (EBTs) between 2001 and 2010, which was the subject of the ‘big’ tax case.

During the programme he also levelled allegations of a conflict of interest against Rangers oldco administrators Duff and Phelps, who were appointed by former owner Craig Whyte. The insolvency firm has repeatedly denied the accusations.

Last year Mr Daly also investigated former Rangers owner Craig Whyte in a BBC Scotland, where he revealed that the businessman had previously been banned from serving as a director for seven years.

A spokeswoman for Strathclyde Police said: “At around 7am on Wednesday, December 12, a 35-year-old man was detained in the Clydebank area and subsequently arrested by officers from the Football Coordination Unit for Scotland (Focus) in relation to an allegedly threatening online comment.

“He was released on an undertaking to appear at Dumbarton Sheriff Court on January 10, 2013.”

A BBC Scotland spokesman said: “It’s a matter for the police and the courts. We take the safety of our journalists very seriously.”

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:39 pm - Dec 17, 2012


History

It is back to that old chestnut of the Cup draws.

If the history is transferable then last years SPL runner’s up spot must still stand and the status that this holds in relation to the draws for this years cup competitions must apply.

Given they are so keen on boycott’s why were the Bears not banging on the doors of the SFL and SFA at being ‘wrongly’ entered into the early rounds of the cup competitions.

It may all be part of the five way agreement but, as no one has seen that, what stopped the Bears from boycotting the cups until they were given their rightful place in the draws?

Surely being given extra games to play in cup competitions is more important than a few words in a programme?

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on3:42 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:

Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 15:47

37

2

Rate This

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

gentullioPosted on3:43 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Is there a link to the Montrose apology. i see nothing on their website

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on3:48 pm - Dec 17, 2012


CG says they apologised – so they must have 🙂

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/montrose-issue-unreserved-apology-to-rangers-over-programme-jibe-1-2696034

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:54 pm - Dec 17, 2012


Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 15:42

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:

Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 15:47

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.
============================================================

I am guessing that the SFA will be consistent – and engrave ‘Rangers’…

And since you asked the question, assuming the LNS inquiry does indeed recommend the striking off the records of Rangers Scottish Cup wins for fielding ineligible players – would the Cup/base have those years winner’s name erased – or have an asterisk added next to the team name ?

Just curious.

View Comment

Avatar

bogsdolloxPosted on3:55 pm - Dec 17, 2012


goosygoosy says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 14:51

So why place a holding Co above the assets of TRFC?

Because TRFC already has a holding co which will sell TRFC to RIFC after the floatation

But
The name of the existing holding company for TRFC cannot be disclosed

Why can`t that name be disclosed?
Because a quick search of Companies House would reveal that it carries floating charges over its only asset ,TRFC Ltd
Floating charges that were agreed as the price of getting Ticketus, Close Leasing and CW support for the sale of assets and RFC giving up the name “The Rangers Football Club plc” This enabled Sevco Scotland to be renamed “The Rangers Football Club Ltd” and guranteed its name could be changed to “The Rangers Football Club plc” when it is floated on AIM at some future date
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Prospectus talks about TRFC being acquired by RIFC in a share for share exchange. If TRFC has a holding company already then on the share exchange the existing Holdco will become a substantial shareholder in RIFC and should be easy to spot from the sharholder register. If nominees are used then some detective work will be required.

I too remain suspicious that TU/Whyte et al are not out of the picture.

View Comment

Avatar

arabest1Posted on4:02 pm - Dec 17, 2012


StevieBC says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 15:54
0 0 Rate This
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 15:42

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:

Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 15:47

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.
============================================================

I am guessing that the SFA will be consistent – and engrave ‘Rangers’…

And since you asked the question, assuming the LNS inquiry does indeed recommend the striking off the records of Rangers Scottish Cup wins for fielding ineligible players – would the Cup/base have those years winner’s name erased – or have an asterisk added next to the team name ?

Just curious.

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

It’s my understanding that the cup and base have not been engraved for decades, as they ran out of room, one of the last names etched onto the base was Dundee FC…………in……………1910! 😉

View Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.