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

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:55 pm - Dec 17, 2012


jimlarkin says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:40
0 0 Rate This
why did sevco not play any games during the summer?

because they were a new team at the time and did not have an sfa licence 1

a new team + no licence.

i stand to be erected, but –

[isn’t that why all the ‘pre-season’ friendlies got cancelled]
======================================
It was not the licence – they still don’t have that. The new club have still to apply for a club licence – both national and UEFA. The club licence is absolutely non-transferable. The licence conditions explicitly refer to the club as the legal entity.

It is the lack of UEFA club licence that prevents the new club from entering UEFA competitions for three years.

It was lack of SFA membership – when they were not a member of any league – that caused the new club problems pre-season.

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on11:56 pm - Dec 17, 2012


jimlarkin: It was another punishment. well according to this piece it was.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-in-crisis-ibrox-boss-ally-1166144

On top of that, Rangers have no pre-season fixtures planned after their summer tour of Germany was cancelled yesterday.

Games against Le Havre, Southampton and Arsenal have also been scrapped – due to the financial mess and cloud of uncertainty which is engulfing the Govan club.

McCoist said: “It’s appalling for our fans the pre-season trips have been cancelled. They’ve paid money to go to Le Havre, Southampton and Germany on buses and boats.

“All of a sudden they’ve been cancelled due to circumstances outwith their control and ours. Who does it hurt most? Our supporters.

View Comment

Avatar

goosyPosted on12:17 am - Dec 18, 2012


bogsdollox says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 15:55
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 shareholder 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.
,,,,,,,

I stand corrected by honourable Accountant posters reading below
But
I think this is what may have happened
1. RFC assets move from D&P to Sevco 5088 and then to (let’s say Sevco1872) together with floating charges over these assets held by CW, and Close Leasing. A separate deal is done moving all the Ticketus debt to Sevco 1872. This excludes Ticketus debt becoming due in July 2012.
2. Sevco 1872 renegotiate the CW and Close Leasing floating charges to a lower figure but agree that they will not net off one against the other until a later date. This avoids RFC (IL) having to report to Companies House that these FCs have been satisfied and raising doubts over the asset sale agreement.
3. Sevco1872 immediately transfer the RFC assets to Sevco Scotland together with the SSC charge over MP. However Sevco1872 continue to hold the CW and CL floating charges (still to be netted off) on their books. Thus TRFC is debt free but its holding Co Sevco 1872 owes a bundle to CW, Close Leasing and Ticketus
4. Sevco1872 award its investors shares in Sevco Scotland (later TRFC) on a one for one basis for nothing or a nominal sum (say £1)
Pre flotation we thus have a situation whereby
The Green Consortium own TRFC and RFC assets in the same proportion as they own Sevco1872
The Green Consortium via Sevco1872 has net debts to CW, Close Leasing and Ticketus
5. RIFC is floated on AIM and immediately buy all shares in TRFC(which were originally shares in Sevco1872 that were swopped for TRFC shares)The price paid is higher than the Green Consortium paid for RFC assets (which was around £2.75m after deductions for loss of transfer fees).This brings a paper profit to the Green consortium which can be realised immediately by selling shares if some legal means can be found…..Spivs will know how)The share sale will cause the price to fall through Jan 2013
6. The End Game
Either
CW, Close Leasing and Ticketus are paid off during the fund raising with shares in RIFC via nominees to hide their identity.
and/or
TRFC is offered for sale by RIFC with a declared debt to 3rd parties to be repaid over x years
The sale of TRFC gives a second bite at the cherry for any members of the Green Consortium who haven’t managed to dump their RIFC shares on the AIM market before TRFC are sold
The Final Sale of TRFC
Either
Minty returns to pump at least £40m into backing RFC to restore former glory and hold onto his knighthood
Or
TRFC are sold for around £10m to genuine Bears willing to fight for a top 6 place with limited prospects of CL football until at least season 2019- 2020

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on12:18 am - Dec 18, 2012


paulsatim says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 22:02
‘Their saviour, Charles Green, is now charging them £10m for 20%. What a great guy.’

I really love this blog!

What a brilliant observation, paulsatim.

And, when you think of it, what a shocking indictment of the type of ‘entrepreneurial’ supposed ‘fans’ who, at the time it mattered most, did not put their money where their professions of loyalty were!

And, given that most of these ‘entrepreneur’ types are actually sharper than sharks’ teeth when it comes to seeking profit at all and any cost, perhaps the fact that they lost out to CG is an indication that they were somehow put at a disadvantage in the administration process?

It would of course be arrant nonsense -and, heaven forfend, defamatory!-to suggest that the administration process was conducted in anything other than a scrupulously fair manner, fully in accordance with law and all accepted professional codes and practice.

As the Blue Knights and Singaporean gentlemen bidders and United States truckers would surely asseverate.

But hark the sound, emanating from east to west! As of the spitting of blood.
What may this portend?

I wait, and wonder.

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on12:54 am - Dec 18, 2012


jimlarkin says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:40
‘[isn’t that why all the ‘pre-season’ friendlies got cancelled]’
—-
What a very useful reminder!

A reminder that sensible clubs have people on board who actually look at the rules and try to abide by them, even if it is only to make sure they aren’t penalised, rather than from any higher motive.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:50 am - Dec 18, 2012


HirsutePursuit says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:55

jimlarkin says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:40
0 0 Rate This
why did sevco not play any games during the summer?

because they were a new team at the time and did not have an sfa licence 1

a new team + no licence.

i stand to be erected, but –

[isn’t that why all the ‘pre-season’ friendlies got cancelled]
======================================
It was not the licence – they still don’t have that. The new club have still to apply for a club licence – both national and UEFA. The club licence is absolutely non-transferable. The licence conditions explicitly refer to the club as the legal entity.

It is the lack of UEFA club licence that prevents the new club from entering UEFA competitions for three years.

It was lack of SFA membership – when they were not a member of any league – that caused the new club problems pre-season.
==================================

Checking back I came across the SFA response to the Celtic Trust on the licensing question.

The original letter and reply can be found under both “here” links at

http://www.celtictrust.net/?func=d_home_article&id=375

In the intro to the first letter it states

” The information on the SFA web site introduction, and in the actual licensing documentation, states that SPL clubs are subject to the UEFA FFP Rules/criteria and SFL clubs are subject to National Club Licensing.”

thus only National Club licensing applies for The Rangers as they were not voted into the SPL.

In his reply Regan said

” 2) A UEFA Licence is not transferrable and this is highlighted in the UEFA Regulations at Article 14 para 3 which states unequivocally “ A Licence cannot be transferred”.

3) All clubs are required to provide financial information for a 3 year period as per the terms of 8.1.2 of the National Criteria. All clubs are assessed against the terms of the criteria and it is then a matter for the Licensing Committee to determine compliance or otherwise.”

This was when an SPL parachute looked possible. However with hindsight it looks as if a licence could not have been granted by the SFA for The Rangers as an SPL side without the SFA getting exceptional UEFA approval and I’m betting UEFA were informally asked and said “no chance”, thus we had the SFL 1 route as fallback because UEFA rules apply only to SPL clubs and National Club Licensing applies at the other levels.

National Club Licensing is not as prescriptive in terms of refusal of a club not complying and is of course totally under SFA control, so The Rangers need a National Club licence and I am assuming that has been granted in spite of not having 3 years accounts, something UEFA would not have granted because of the risk of any dodgy club going belly up during a CL or EL tournament.

An interesting offshoot of this licensing aspect is to reduce the value of the ECA statement regarding recognising Rangers history. It would appear the ECA allow membership to be transferred so they can do what they like about recognition, but UEFA’s recognition criteria is bound to annual club licensing not a lifetime membership award based on other criteria.

Thus UEFA did not recognise Rangers as the same club as The Rangers or it would simply have looked at any licensing application formally put forward by the SPL for The Rangers in the SPL and possibly exceptionally granted one.

Nope it said they have no financial history record to present as Rangers so they are not Rangers. To all intents and purposes history for The Rangers, as far as UEFA are concerned, started when they were formed this year.

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on2:06 am - Dec 18, 2012


john clarke says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 00:18

Wasn’t me JC, I found it on another forum!

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on2:17 am - Dec 18, 2012


Grandmastersuck has just posted on FF that £175,290 (approx 1400 peepul) has been paid to the RST for shares…….

This was followed by these posts

ChristineRST
1st Team Regular
Join Date: 30-07-2006
Location: Lanarkshire
Posts: 1,754

Re: BuyRanger now at £175,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl of Leven
I am also confused…someone said RST were buying into IPO tonight but IPO is open until 1pm tomorrow. I also would like to invest through RST but see that cash go to RFC and the 70p offer.

We are handing in a cheque at 12.59p.m.
============================================

What would be reason for the timing of handing chq in?

View Comment

Avatar

layman00Posted on2:23 am - Dec 18, 2012


12 thumbs down for saying if that was a genuine leggit blog the writer must be drinking too much caffeine and not getting enough sleep!?

Are comments like that to offensive these days for this site or have i been thumbed down 12 times by leggit??

View Comment

Avatar

Humble PiePosted on2:46 am - Dec 18, 2012


Doublethink FC – Ignorance is Strength

‘Cognitive Dissonance’ is that feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time. The level of distress tends to increase depending on how important the subject is to us, how contradictory the dissonant thoughts are and how difficult we find it to rationalise or explain away the conflict between the two.

Dissonance is at its strongest when it relates to ‘self image’, when we believe something about ourselves (e.g. we don’t do walking away) and then do something against that belief (i.e. walking away). If I believe I am good person but then do something bad, the anxiety I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.

CD is a very powerful motivator which, more often than not, leads us to changing one or other of the conflicting beliefs or actions. To release the tension we can usually take only one of three actions, either:
Change our behaviour;
Justify our behaviour by challenging the conflicting understanding; or,
Justify our behaviour by adding new understandings.

In reality, almost everyone suffers from some form of CD in their day to day lives and it is probably as well that we do as, otherwise, we would tend to act without conscience (like the 3-5% of psychopaths and sociopaths that live among us.) CD is visible in virtually all our appraisals and decision-making and is the main mechanism by which we experience new differences in the world. When we see other people behave differently to our images of them or when we hold any conflicting thoughts, we are experiencing dissonance.

Extreme examples of CD could be:
A soldier carrying out orders to bomb civilians, children, elderly people – all in the name of fighting for peace for his country;
Social workers snatching children from loving parents, again because they have been instructed to do, and they are just doing their job;
Journalists who professes to stand up for truth and ethics, printing PR pap (lies in other words) in order to improve circulation figures.

Whilst much of the mainstream media must certainly experience CD on a daily basis (no doubt why so many of them are drunken blowhards) I have often heard this same condition applied to Rangers fans, based on their unfounded ‘belief’ that The Rangers (2012 model) are still the same club which was playing in the SPL last season, despite the ‘fact’ that Rangers FC, which incorporated in 1899, is now officially in liquidation owing creditors multi-millions of pounds. Whilst this diagnosis is certainly popular and generally accepted throughout the blogosphere, it is far from an accurate analysis.

Despite our best efforts to convince these ‘Rangers’ fans (and, it should also be said, most of the msm) of the true situation, the majority of them (in my experience at least) show absolutely no signs of any ‘conflict’ in their thinking and instead appear to be reasonably ‘comfortable’ with the ‘Then, Now and Forever’ fantasy that they are being fed by those with CD. The ones I speak to are quite happy to dismiss or ignore that honest information offered which does not fit with their fixed views. In my humble opinion, these fans are actually suffering from a condition which is the exact opposite of cognitive dissonance, a ‘dis-ease’ most often wreaked on the masses by the ‘powers that be’ as a not too subtle means of mind-control, which George Orwell, in his seminal masterpiece 1984, dubbed ‘Doublethink’ and described thus:

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”

Unfortunately doublethink is now seen as a ‘mandatory’ condition of entry into some sections of our society. Any signs of recovery from this illness are quickly slapped-down by the rest of the doublethinkers using intimidation and threats of exclusion from the ‘club’. In this environment the condition is almost certainly untreatable and, barring a major revolution or upheaval, likely to be terminal. Try telling that to a sufferer and you might find yourself on the wrong side of a boycott.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” Carl Sagan”

View Comment

luoanlai

luoanlaiPosted on4:05 am - Dec 18, 2012


HP.

I think you’re correct, but you overlook one thing, which I suspect is the target of the Carl Sagan quote.

Cognitive dissonance is most often found when a person cannot logically reconcile their deeply held belief with reality. It allows people to accept the reality as reality, but not take the logical next step of questioning their own beliefs. They cannot take the next step, because the belief is too strong.

The most common example is perfectly sensible people who believe in religion, even when the basic tenets of their religion contradict reality. The belief is so deeply held that it cannot be shaken by things like the sun not revolving around the earth.

There are so many examples at play within The Rangers support that it is difficult to know where to start. The adversarial nature of supporting football leads fans to defend the people who happen to be in charge of the real estate where their club play, rather than question their motives or abilities.

So, perfect sensible fans of The Rangers believe:-

1. That Rangers did not cease to exist
2. That the new club playing in the third division was relegated as a punishment
3. That David Murray did not terminally wound Rangers FC
4. That Ally McCoist may be a competent football manager
5. That the SFA and SPL that are on record as conspiring to save Rangers are actually plotting their demise in some way
6. That Charles Green somehow has their interests at heart
7. That people object to their behaviour due to religious belief, rather than objecting to the objectionable

The difficulty for someone ‘outside looking in’ who doesn’t share the belief is that often rational argument will not change someone’s mind. Usually the believer has to gradually ‘wake up’ to reality on their own. For many people this never happens.

Unfortunately for fans of The Rangers the moment of realisation may only come once Charles Green and friends have disappeared over the horizon with their pension funds nicely topped up for the foreseeable future with rental income from Ibrox.

View Comment

Avatar

stmileyPosted on5:09 am - Dec 18, 2012


The ECA ‘statement’ continues to puzzle me.

– an exclusive by STV as yet still unclaimed by any journalist;

– they remain the only major sports news outlet to run the story;

– no statement on ECA website or the rangers website;

– the spokesman/source is conveniently unnamed;

– the timing of this news, the run up to the IPO is also convenient;

– then last night, Charles Green lets slip that he received a letter from ECA last week;

Is he the source then? have STV actually seen the letter? can we trust their reporting?

I confess to having a serious mistrust of STV and their reporting of everything rangers related, but questions need answered.

View Comment

Avatar

stevensanphPosted on5:44 am - Dec 18, 2012


Stunney – I had the exact same thought and have spent the best part of 2 days googling to see what I can find. The only reference to Rangers on the ECA page is that ‘Glasgow Rangers’ are an associate member. There is no official statement on their website from them.

Elsewhere, news agency’s have used a rehash of the STV report. It really does look like Charles Green is the source of this story, which backs up my initial suspicion given the statement contradicts itself throughout…

What I also find interesting is the ‘apology’ from Montrose is from the same media source, and the rangers website… the Montrose official site, updated since the Rangers game, makes no such apology…

View Comment

luoanlai

luoanlaiPosted on6:24 am - Dec 18, 2012


The following headline appears in today’s Scotsman

“Ally McCoist set for talks with Charles Green over Rangers signing funds”

Can there be any more blatant last minute PR for the IPO I wonder? Do these newspapers even have editors?

View Comment

luoanlai

luoanlaiPosted on6:29 am - Dec 18, 2012


3 of the top 5 stories on the Scotsman website relate to The Rangers. One of the others is idle speculation over Neil Lennon moving to England.

Plus another 2 The Rangers stories further down the page.

I think their previous incarnation got less coverage in the SPL.

View Comment

luoanlai

luoanlaiPosted on6:36 am - Dec 18, 2012


The damage limitation PR begins…

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-supporters-unlikely-to-take-up-full-share-quota.19706803

The Rangers share issue will close today with the likelihood that supporters will not have bought up the full £10m worth of shares set aside for them.

Expectations are that around between £3-5m will be raised from fans, to add to the £17m generated by selling stakes in the club to institutional investors.

The deadline for the Initial Public Offering could, in theory, have been pushed back, but it remains the case that shares will stop being sold at 1pm today. The club initially sought to raise £20m, for working capital, investment in the club and the stadium, and to maximise the property assets. The response from institutional investors was oversubscribed, but sales were capped to allow fans to buy £10m worth of shares.

That value was based on more than £20m of pledges having been made. However, with the IPO coming so close to Christmas – because chief executive Charles Green had promised fans the chance to buy into the club before the end of the year – many fans were unable to spend the £500 minimum. Others, including former chairman Alastair Johnston, have invested by putting money into the Rangers Supporters Trust scheme, which will buy a block of shares on behalf of their members. Ally McCoist, too, will also become a shareholder.

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on6:39 am - Dec 18, 2012


stmiley and stephensanph

Very good points and I do think chuckie’s making it up as he goes along before 1pm today!! But why do our ‘journalists’ not check these ‘stories’ out or the people/organisations he’s making the claims about not deny them?? 1pm should be fun today 🙂 and there is definitely something in the air 😉 ……. All has been quiet for too long!!!

View Comment

Avatar

sixtaesevenPosted on8:09 am - Dec 18, 2012


Mr Green has obviously studied Quantum theory, and believes his cat is alive and dead at the same time.

However, he fails to mention that it’s only when when the phenomena is “observed” that the status can be finally determined.

The only serious observers up till now are the internet bampots.

Until fitbaw authorities finally make credible observations and state otherwise, the current reasoning is:

“Chuck has two cats: one is deid and the other isnae very well.”

View Comment

Avatar

iamacantPosted on8:34 am - Dec 18, 2012


It was HMRC’s fault

It was the printers fault

It was everyone else’s fault that we didn’t raise as much as I predicted

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-charles-green-hails-1495159

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on8:42 am - Dec 18, 2012


Sad news – Charlie Adam has passed away, [SFM Edit – Charlie Adam’s dad]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-20765579

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on8:59 am - Dec 18, 2012


john clarke says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 21:52

It is not for nothing that Cicero, whom I have mentioned before, is a hero of mine.
——
On a side note, JC, I just finished “Rubicon” last night. Well written and a great read – fair amount of the author’s own opinion traded as fact, though. A couple of things are treated poorly e.g. the deaths of Cleopatra and Antony, and also events leading to that of Cicero, which kind of casts a light of doubt across other stuff he says.

As with any historical narrative, can’t be taken alone, but fits in nicely when you’re reading around the subject.

Thanks. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

stevensanphPosted on9:03 am - Dec 18, 2012


Brenda, remember this has happened before with STV, and stories about the Falkirk announcer being ‘sacked’ for calling TRFC the ‘Sevco Franchise’…

The true story was rather different, although it took a TSFM reader to contact Falkirk direct to find out they had suspended him not for breaching rules, but to protect his own safety!! No organisation will make a statement like that to the press, as otherwise they would be in fear of their own safety. Best to just let the asylum THINK that’s what you mean…

http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/did-the-msm-learn-anything-from-the-rangers-saga/

…and that is where the SFA are completely failing to protect Scottish Football.

View Comment

Avatar

stevensanphPosted on9:05 am - Dec 18, 2012


“Others, including former chairman Alastair Johnston, have invested by putting money into the Rangers Supporters Trust scheme”

Sorry? Wasn’t he a former shareholder… of the old, liquidated club. He will now have a share in the ‘newco’…. isn’t there some rule on phoenix’s that cover this???

View Comment

luoanlai

luoanlaiPosted on9:07 am - Dec 18, 2012


From that Daily Record article…

“We’ve recently seen the big tax case thrown out…”

“…expecting a CVA to go through but HMRC at the last minute decided not to go ahead with it…”

Just once, could one reporter not call him on this threadbare deceit?

View Comment

Avatar

TommyBPosted on9:13 am - Dec 18, 2012


Instead of spending time and effort in attempting to convince the msm that they are promoting lies and pandering to the people who think they are; We should simply ignore them and use modern technology and media to inform the world of the truth. The msm do not actually believe most of what they try to push, but are fearfull of even further erosion of their shrinking customer base. That they have already alienated most right thinking football supporters by their stance is now seen as an almost fatal error on their part.
Failed journalists and radio pundits appear to think that it is incumbent on them to inform us that we are mistaken and that the events at ibrokes have been exaggerated. We are told that we are being unreasonable by not allowing the people who think they are to believe that they are unchanged and that the new club are actually the old club with a new structure.
We are not going to change the views of the deluded man in the street who only reads the tabloids or who listens to ssb.
I wonder what propoganda will be served up regarding the undersubscribed share issue. I’m sure that there will be a positive spin put on it and it will be deemed successful in some way or another.
I dont know the derivation of the expression “There are none so blind as those who will not see” but seldom has it been more appropriate.

View Comment

Avatar

stevensanphPosted on9:15 am - Dec 18, 2012


Didn’t Green say he only got involved just before the purchase… now he ‘wasted’ months expecting a CVA???

“we lost two months at the start of the process expecting a CVA to go through but HMRC at the last minute decided not to go ahead with it.”
——————–

We’ve been telling you that for 6 months… you should read TSFM more often. You also promised the fans they would hold a controlling interest, that no one would ever have more than 10% and that they would be buying the club, not a holding company…

“It’s before Christmas and the timing is awful. The main reason we are doing it is because in May when I was unveiled as the buyer of Rangers I made a promise to fans we would list this year and they would be allowed to buy shares.”
————————-

So you don’t have the internet in Glasgow yet? You only need a paper application if over 10k

“Some of the prospectuses and application forms that were posted didn’t reach families in Glasgow until Wednesday or Thursday. That denied precious time.”
——————

No Charlie… they have appealed… its not over yet

“Then we’ve seen recently the Big Tax Case thrown out. I’m particularly frustrated that if we had been allowed a free rein this could have been done months earlier.
—————–

At last, something correct… its the poor fans that are being fleeced AGAIN for YOUR gain…

“Yet again it’s the poor fans who are having to stump up at the last minute.”
————–

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on9:16 am - Dec 18, 2012


layman00 says:

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 02:23

12 thumbs down for saying if that was a genuine leggit blog the writer must be drinking too much caffeine and not getting enough sleep!?

Are comments like that to offensive these days for this site or have i been thumbed down 12 times by leggit??
=================================================
layman00, I think you’re just getting a bit of stick because it’s a spoof site and this was pointed out a few times yesterday before you posted. It’s also been pointed that it would be a mistake to visit the ‘original’.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on9:23 am - Dec 18, 2012


madbhoy24941 says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 22:11

Once again Angus, I have to remind you… It was never a goal as the whistle was blown immediately, you cannot disallow something that never was
——
Of course it was – the ref saw what was going to happen. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

Richard Wilson (@timomouse)Posted on9:24 am - Dec 18, 2012


http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/38217386272/administration-part-deux

On why fans failing to plough their money in completely changes the game for Charles Green.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on9:24 am - Dec 18, 2012


jimlarkin says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:40

I stand to be erected, but –
——
Another choice phrase for Senior’s ever-expanding vocabulary. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on9:30 am - Dec 18, 2012


stmiley says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 05:09
35 0 Rate This
The ECA ‘statement’ continues to puzzle me.

– an exclusive by STV as yet still unclaimed by any journalist;

– they remain the only major sports news outlet to run the story;

– no statement on ECA website or the rangers website;

– the spokesman/source is conveniently unnamed;

– the timing of this news, the run up to the IPO is also convenient;

– then last night, Charles Green lets slip that he received a letter from ECA last week;

Is he the source then? have STV actually seen the letter? can we trust their reporting?

I confess to having a serious mistrust of STV and their reporting of everything rangers related, but questions need answered.
===============================

poster on CM similarly puzzled and had this dialogue with@stv…..

This ECA Statement?
Looking for the statement from the ECA regarding The Rangers on there website, could @STV_Andy help me out?

@Swan70 Wasn’t a public statement.

@STV_Andy Where did it come from?

@Swan70 An answer to a question we asked to clarify their status.

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on9:38 am - Dec 18, 2012


angus1983 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:24
1 0 Rate This
jimlarkin says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:40

I stand to be erected, but –
——
As the prospective chinese politician said!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:44 am - Dec 18, 2012


From Richard Wilson’s link above

“Only one thing is certain – should Rangers choose to antagonise the SPL and SFA further and should the SPL or SFA choose to carry out league reconstruction less favourable to Rangers than the current proposals then the choice will be simple: Administration now or Administration later and fans will be forced, once more, to watch their club slowly die.”

I’m struggling to see exactly how ra’peepil could antagonise the SPL and SFA further without using the words “bend” and “over,” and perhaps “some” and “more.”

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:48 am - Dec 18, 2012


Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 01:50
17 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:55

jimlarkin says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:40
========================================

Just in case there is any doubt about the relationship between the “club” and “company”, here is the SFA’s view in relation to the National Club Licencing Criteria:

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartTwo-NationalClubLicensing/3.%20The%20Club%20and%20the%20Licence%20Award%20(2)b.pdf

Part 2 – National Club Licensing
Section 3 – The Club and the Licence Award
3.1 Definition of the Club
The club is a full member and/or an associate member of the Association and the expression “membership” shall be construed accordingly.

3.8 Withdrawal of a Licence or an adjustment of the award
A licence may be withdrawn or adjusted after it has been awarded by the Scottish FA if the licence applicant:
• Is presented for its winding up or where the member club in question shall convene a meeting to pass a resolution for voluntary winding up or shall enter into any form of liquidation.;

So, the club (as the Licence Applicant) will face sanctions if it is “presented for its winding up or where the member club in question shall convene a meeting to pass a resolution for voluntary winding up or shall enter into any form of liquidation.”

Of course, as we all know, these are legal events that can only happen if the club is an incorporated legal entity. AKA a company.

In relation to the UEFA Club Licensing (as implemented by the SFA), the definitions are even more explicit:

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20(2).pdf

Part 3 – UEFA Club Licensing
Section 3 – The Club as Licence Applicant and the UEFA Licence
3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant
3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria.

…and just in case you think the SFA may have misunderstood or mis-quoted UEFA on this, here is what UEFA have to say:

Article 1 – Definition of terms
1
For the purpose of these rules, the following definitions apply:
a) Licence applicant: football club, i.e. legal entity fully and solely responsible for a football team participating in national club competitions, which has applied for a licence to enter UEFA club competitions.

The fiction that The Rangers Football Club plc (founded in 1872/3 and incorporated in 1899) was not a football club is simply not evidenced by any article or rule that I can find.

Of course, the same articles and rules are testament to the fact that Rangers International Football Club plc (founded & incorporated in 2012) is not a football club.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on9:50 am - Dec 18, 2012


“The main reason we are doing it is because in May when I was unveiled as the buyer of Rangers I made a promise to fans we would list this year and they would be allowed to buy shares.”
——

What a guy. Made a promise and kept it.

Do we really have to dig out all his other promises (renaming of Murray Park if you buy a season ticket, for a start) and wonder why this is the only one he’s actually kept?

I thoroughly believe that Mr Green timed this share issue very deliberately. As said before, he’s far from being a stupid man business-wise.

He didn’t want the supporters buying in huge numbers.

View Comment

Avatar

neepheidPosted on9:52 am - Dec 18, 2012


ordinaryfan says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:34
16 2 Rate This
Neepheid: Green didn’t purchase a business, company or entity, so he couldn’t have bought the Goodwill from RFC. And he also didn’t pay an inflated price on what he did purchase.
===================
Thanks for your reply.

As I understand it, Green & Co agreed with the administrators to buy all the assets of RFC. The price paid was at huge undervalue by almost any standards, and no doubt BDO will be investigating the bona fides of the whole transaction.

However I don’t see that it follows that Green acquired no goodwill, certainly under head 1 of the dictionary definition you quoted. Head 2 of the definition appears to be an American technical definition for US tax purposes, which I am completely unfamiliar with. Here is the relevant UK definition from the Oxford Dictionary:

“Definition of goodwill

2 the established reputation of a business regarded as a quantifiable asset and calculated as part of its value when it is sold.”

That is exactly what I remember being taught 40+ years ago (which is a relief!). Just as Green acquired the fixed assets (property) at a huge discount, he also acquired the intangible assets (intellectual property and goodwill) at a huge discount.

There must have been goodwill (in the UK sense) associated with RFC. Green is now exploiting it to the full, because in essence that is a lot of what he is punting this week. And just as he acquired it at huge undervalue, he is now hoping to sell it at huge overvalue.

My view, anyway. I stand to be corrected by anyone with more recent accountancy or legal experience.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on10:19 am - Dec 18, 2012


HirsutePursute

Thanks for digging deeper and bringing out that as far as SFA and UEFA are concerned the legal entity that entered liquidation is both club and company at the same time and so both have ceased to exist as legal entities.

At which point the history of club and company stops and there was never any rational need for a distinction to be argued. The only need was a marketing one to play on the club’s supporters emotions.

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on10:28 am - Dec 18, 2012


angus1983 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:50

I thoroughly believe that Mr Green timed this share issue very deliberately. As said before, he’s far from being a stupid man business-wise.

————————————————————

based on what? his string of highly successful, international businesses that touch our lives daily?

or a string of insolvencies, liquidations and asset stripping operations?

He may be smart, but who benefits from his smarts? the employees, small shareholders and customers of Sevco?

View Comment

Avatar

Ian58Posted on10:29 am - Dec 18, 2012


angus1983 @ 09:50

Is there any evidence that he made this ‘promise’?

Or is it the case that the only promises that Charles Green keeps are the ones he never makes.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:30 am - Dec 18, 2012


Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:24

http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/38217386272/administration-part-deux

On why fans failing to plough their money in completely changes the game for Charles Green.

=======================================================================
Can anyone reply on the following?
Maybe its a silly one or something I’ve missed –

We know the prospectus details who held what shares at the time of the issue of the document.
However that is then followed by the proposed shareholding after Admission.

However do we know for certain that the new names (marked * on the list below) have actually parted with their cash?
Or
Are they, just like the fans, pledges that have yet to materialise and they could be holding off until 1pm tomorrow?

If they hear that the fans are not buying is there a chance they keep their cheques in their well feather pockets?
OR
Will they be happy to, as Mr Charles says, to take up the slack. If so does that mean that from the list below some could end up owning more than 10%?
(Of course the 10% criteria was an intention – not a promise)

“So far as the Company is aware, immediately following Admission, the
following persons will hold directly or indirectly three per cent. or more of the
Company’s voting rights, assuming no Offer Shares are issued:

No of Shareholder Ordinary Shares Percentage
Charles Green 5,000,200 8.67%
*Hargreave Hale Limited 4,949,000 8.58%
*Artemis Investment
Management LLP 4,286,000 7.43%
Blue Pitch Holding 4,000,000 6.94%
Mike Ashley 3,000,000 5.20%
Margarita Funds Holding Trust 2,600,000 4.51%
*Cazenove Capital Management
Limited 2,450,000 4.25%
Richard Hughes 2,200,000 3.82%
Imran Ahmad 2,200,000 3.82%
*Legal & General Investment
Management Limited 2,000,000 3.47%
*Insight Investment Management
(Global) Limited 1,900,000 3.30%
Craig Mather 1,800,000 3.12% “

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on10:34 am - Dec 18, 2012


Do we need to make a definitive list of promises made by Charlie that haven’t materialised? Will give the MSM something to work with when they are condemning the man when the club goes into admin next.

Maybe we should compile a list of blacklisted/threatened clubs and individuals so that when someone if finally hurt, they can easily point to the evidence that the sfa should have acted sooner and that this was always going to happen.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on10:36 am - Dec 18, 2012


The share issue will obviously be a “success”.

The figure to be raised has always been quoted as £20m. With his “institutional investors” (whatever/whoever that means) having apparently coughed £17m, and this morning’s fan figure quoted at £3-5m, then that figure would appear to have been reached.

Of course, Mr Green must have had a good idea all along that he’d be able to use that £17m figure.

He knew all along how this was going to pan out. The share issue to fans is nothing but a smoke screen designed to keep those of blind faith onside, whilst raising a relatively unimportant few quid on the side.

View Comment

Avatar

smartbhoyPosted on10:36 am - Dec 18, 2012


” Only between £3m and £5m had been brought in from fans by last night.”

From the article in the DR.

Why is there a £2m discrepancy in how much they say/know/estimating has been bought by fans?

More claptrap by Green. He’ll know exactly how much the Sevco Fans have invested.

With the figures he’s stating, I’d say it’s more likely to be around maybe £2m or under.invested by them.

I still can’t get my head round the institutional investors, surely these men/companies, whoever they are, are experienced investors and would not touch this with a barge pole. Unless there’s been nothing near to £17m invested and there’s no way they’ve paid over 35p a share.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on10:37 am - Dec 18, 2012


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20765983

history comes to an end – for comet

View Comment

ismellafix

ismellafixPosted on10:39 am - Dec 18, 2012


Neepheid says;

“2 the established reputation of a business regarded as a quantifiable asset and calculated as part of its value when it is sold.”

That is exactly what I remember being taught 40+ years ago (which is a relief!). Just as Green acquired the fixed assets (property) at a huge discount, he also acquired the intangible assets (intellectual property and goodwill) at a huge discount”.

That’s just it Neepheid, Green’s consortium didn’t buy the business. They bought some of the assets of the business. In order to be able to claim to have the goodwill of the business, it needs to be bought as an entirety.

If someone bought one of the lawnmowers or the wee bogey that paints the lines on the pitch, can they claim the goodwill? If the administrators had carried out their duty to protect creditor interests, then the business may have been broken up and sold in parts to different entities, (e.g ASDA, Tesco or property developers) to maximise returns. While there is no doubt that Green has purchased the vast majority of the business assets, (with a loan!) there is a serious doubt as to whether he can claim to have bought the goodwill. To do that he needed to buy the whole business, all assets, liabilities included.

That’s my understanding anyway. Prepared to be corrected.

View Comment

Avatar

briggsbhoyPosted on10:43 am - Dec 18, 2012


24 hours ago I had never heard of the ECA and I doubt anyone at STV had known much about the either. In common with other associations or group bodies as long as you pay your membership your in. As associate members it highlights the fact that Rangers in whatever form had no active involvement in the ECA. Obvoiusly couldn’t pay the full membership these past fews years. As for recognising Rangers and their history, aye whatever who cares

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:45 am - Dec 18, 2012


wottpi says: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:30

However do we know for certain that the new names (marked * on the list below) have actually parted with their cash?
======================
The prospectus only states that:

Cenkos Securities has received firm placing letters from placees in respect of the Placing Shares.

I guess that means that they weren’t 100% confirmed, but a strong indication that the investment would be forthcoming.

View Comment

Avatar

SeniorPosted on10:48 am - Dec 18, 2012


I stand to be erected, but –
——
Another choice phrase for Senior’s ever-expanding vocabulary.
____________________________________

Angus, ran this one past the wife, got a slap for my troubles – I think I will leave it out of the list!

View Comment

Avatar

goosyPosted on10:52 am - Dec 18, 2012


Humble Pie says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 02:46
‘Cognitive Dissonance’ is that feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If I had a history i wanted to keep I would want fans of other clubs to recognise it
Otherwise its pointless
Cognitive dissonance at its simplest

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:58 am - Dec 18, 2012


easyJambo says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:45

Many thanks.
So as I thought the money may not be in the bank.
I am sure that people will have shaken hands but there is still the possibility of pulling out, as business is business after all.

If I were a fan I’m not sure how to view this multi-ownership model.
Is it not normally the case that most clubs have a major shareholder or owner who tends to steer the ship?
Could it be the case of too many cooks spoiling the broth?

View Comment

Avatar

hangerheadPosted on11:00 am - Dec 18, 2012


HirsutePursuit says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:48

__________________________________________

3.8 Withdrawal of a Licence or an adjustment of the award
A licence may be withdrawn or adjusted after it has been awarded by the Scottish FA if the …etc

I think it is advisable to note that the may be does not mean that it will be.

View Comment

Avatar

spanishceltPosted on11:00 am - Dec 18, 2012


easyJambo says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:45

Could it be the case of too many cooks spoiling the broth?
………………………………………………..
More like too many CROOKS !!!

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on11:05 am - Dec 18, 2012


HirsutePursuit says:

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:48

10

0

Rate This

Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 01:50
17 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:

Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:55

jimlarkin says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:40
========================================

Just in case there is any doubt about the relationship between the “club” and “company”, here is the SFA’s view in relation to the National Club Licencing Criteria:

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartTwo-NationalClubLicensing/3.%20The%20Club%20and%20the%20Licence%20Award%20(2)b.pdf

Part 2 – National Club Licensing
Section 3 – The Club and the Licence Award
3.1 Definition of the Club
The club is a full member and/or an associate member of the Association and the expression “membership” shall be construed accordingly.

3.8 Withdrawal of a Licence or an adjustment of the award
A licence may be withdrawn or adjusted after it has been awarded by the Scottish FA if the licence applicant:
• Is presented for its winding up or where the member club in question shall convene a meeting to pass a resolution for voluntary winding up or shall enter into any form of liquidation.;

So, the club (as the Licence Applicant) will face sanctions if it is “presented for its winding up or where the member club in question shall convene a meeting to pass a resolution for voluntary winding up or shall enter into any form of liquidation.”

Of course, as we all know, these are legal events that can only happen if the club is an incorporated legal entity. AKA a company.

In relation to the UEFA Club Licensing (as implemented by the SFA), the definitions are even more explicit:

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20(2).pdf

Part 3 – UEFA Club Licensing
Section 3 – The Club as Licence Applicant and the UEFA Licence
3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant
3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria.

…and just in case you think the SFA may have misunderstood or mis-quoted UEFA on this, here is what UEFA have to say:

Article 1 – Definition of terms
1
For the purpose of these rules, the following definitions apply:
a) Licence applicant: football club, i.e. legal entity fully and solely responsible for a football team participating in national club competitions, which has applied for a licence to enter UEFA club competitions.

The fiction that The Rangers Football Club plc (founded in 1872/3 and incorporated in 1899) was not a football club is simply not evidenced by any article or rule that I can find.

Of course, the same articles and rules are testament to the fact that Rangers International Football Club plc (founded & incorporated in 2012) is not a football club.

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

great post.

sevco did not play any “friendlies” over the summer, ’cause they were not allowed to.
they were a new team and had no licence, until they were granted a licence status
(“conditional”) – which is not in the sfa rules.

sevco are a new club in the scottish leagues.

View Comment

Avatar

SeniorPosted on11:07 am - Dec 18, 2012


‘……………for whom the bell tolls, another CVA on the way.
Spokesperson cannot understand the shortfall between original commitment of over £20 million and the meagre amount, less than £1.5 million so far invested by the FF fans.

View Comment

Avatar

neepheidPosted on11:11 am - Dec 18, 2012


ismellafix says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:39

While there is no doubt that Green has purchased the vast majority of the business assets, (with a loan!) there is a serious doubt as to whether he can claim to have bought the goodwill. To do that he needed to buy the whole business, all assets, liabilities included.
======
Sorry, I really don’t get it. Why would Green have to acquire the liabilities to acquire the goodwill?

Let’s say that a local business, say a bookshop, becomes insolvent for whatever reason (feckless owner?) and goes into administration. I approach the administrators and make an offer for all the assets, which is accepted. Of course I don’t acquire any liabilities, the administrators use the money they get from me to pay the creditors 10p in the pound or whatever. The shop has traded throughout. The same regulars come in to browse or buy, most of them neither know nor care who owns the business. Surely I’ve acquired the goodwill along with the stock, fittings, etc? Or is there something really obvious that I’m missing here?

View Comment

luoanlai

luoanlaiPosted on11:20 am - Dec 18, 2012


Question for those versed in these matters.

I assume that the result of the AIM listing will be full disclosure of the amount raised and the source of funds?

Does anyone know the timing?

View Comment

Avatar

redetinPosted on11:30 am - Dec 18, 2012


smartbhoy says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:36

I still can’t get my head round the institutional investors, surely these men/companies, whoever they are, are experienced investors and would not touch this with a barge pole. Unless there’s been nothing near to £17m invested and there’s no way they’ve paid over 35p a share.

__________________________________________

Because…Capital losses can help cut your tax bill!

There’s nothing wrong with losing money on some of your shares. You just set it against gains you make on other deals. If you sell at a loss at the right time you can get quite a reduction in your tax bill.

(David Low hinted at this on Radio Scotland this morning in relation to the RIFC offering).

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on11:30 am - Dec 18, 2012


luoanlai says: at 11:20

• Issue of VCT Placing Shares 8.00 a.m. on 18 December 2012
• Latest time and date for applications under the Offer 1.00 p.m. on 18 December 2012
• Results of Offer to be announced through a Regulatory Information Service 18 December 2012
• Admission of Offer Shares and Placing Shares to AIM 8.00 a.m. on 19 December 2012

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/new-and-recent-issues/new-recent-issue-details.html?issueId=8816

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on11:30 am - Dec 18, 2012


hangerhead says:

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:00

HirsutePursuit says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:48

__________________________________________

3.8 Withdrawal of a Licence or an adjustment of the award
A licence may be withdrawn or adjusted after it has been awarded by the Scottish FA if the …etc

I think it is advisable to note that the may be does not mean that it will be.
——————————
Yup which is why in my posts I made the point that National Club Licencing was less prescriptive than UEFA’s in process and consequence terms and so afforded the SFA more wriggle room.

Had the scenario been Rangers in the SPL UEFA rules would have applied and the SFA would have to have gone the exception route under UEFA rules. Chances of UEFA approval would imo been nil with serious social tax avoidance being investigated and valid unpaid tax (the wee tax bill) not settled not to mention the risk at the time that Rangers would not survive as a UEFA recognised football entity (as duly happened).

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on11:31 am - Dec 18, 2012


Now who does this remind you of?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9752148/Government-launches-probe-into-Comet-collapse.html

Government launches probe into Comet collapse
Vince Cable’s department has launched an investigation into the demise of Comet as it emerged that OpCapita and its backers charged Comet millions for fees despite the chain racking up losses.

Comet collapsed into administration last month in the most high-profile retail failure since Woolworths in 2008. Photo: ALAMY
By Rachel Cooper, and Graham Ruddick8:57AM GMT 18 Dec 201230 Comments
The probe will be conducted through the Companies Investigations Branch at the Insolvency Service, which is part of Mr Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Sources indicated that an investigation into the collapsed electricals chain launched a few days ago.
It is understood that the investigation will look at the circumstances around the acquisition of Comet and its administration.
Comet collapsed into administration last month in the most high-profile retail failure since Woolworths in 2008. The final 49 shops are expected to close on Tuesday, ending the company’s 79 years of trading.
Robert Halfon, MP for Harlow, tweeted on Tuesday morning: “Good news, after meeting with Vince Cable and my questions in Parliament glad he initiates inquiry into Comet closure.”
Related Articles
Could Comet collapse be followed by worse in 2013? 17 Dec 2012
Comet cuts another 735 jobs 19 Nov 2012
Comet administrators cut another 735 jobs 19 Nov 2012
More than one in 10 shops standing empty 19 Nov 2012
Comet administrators confirm closure of 41 stores 17 Nov 2012
Comet administrators work to save 50 stores 17 Nov 2012
News of the probe comes after it emerged that OpCapita and its backers charged Comet £12.8m in just nine months for financing and “monitoring” fees, despite the electrical retailer racking up losses.
The administrators report for Comet shows that Hailey Acquistions Limited (HAL), the vehicle OpCapita used to buy the retailer, received £11.5m in interest and arrangement payments while OpCapita and another Hailey vehicle collected £1.3m for “quarterly monitoring fees”.
There is anger among the retailer’s employees at OpCapita and its founder Henry Jackson for allowing the business to fail just months after the private investment firm bought Comet for £2 and received a £50m dowry from previous owner Kesa.
Deloitte’s report shows that the secured creditors – led by HAL – will receive payments of £49.7m from money raised by the sale of Comet’s remaining stock and assets. Deloitte and lawyers associated with the administration will share £10.4m.
HAL, funded by a group of US and British investors brought together by Greybull Capital, was a secured creditor to Comet because it lent the company money. It then charged Comet interest on the loaned money.
According to the report, HAL was owed £110m at the time of Comet’s collapse on November 2. This means that HAL faces a shortfall of at least £60.3m on the funds its provided.
However, it is unclear from Deloitte’s report whether OpCapita and its backers will lose money because the source of the £145m is not brokend down. For example, it is thought to include the £50m dowry from Kesa and a £30m asset-backed loan from a bank.
HAL and OpCapita declined to comment on Deloitte’s report.

Wonder if D & D will face similar enquiry?

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:34 am - Dec 18, 2012


luoanlai says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:20

Does anyone know the timing?

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

i believe folk who signed up to the IPO will get confirmation of the number of shares they were successful in buying in early January (just over 2 weeks)

Obviously, the fans will get all they bought – 14 shares – and the institutional investors who wanted more than they were allocated will be invited to take up the slack

we’ll hear nothing but how successful it was – numbers will be sketchy/unreliable/changeable – until audited (haha, stop laughing at the back there) accounts are published – November 2013 i reckon.

I reckon those accounts will show that there has been a sale and lease back of at least Ibrox.

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on11:35 am - Dec 18, 2012


I emailed the ECA last night asking why RFC were on their website as Associate members when they are in the process of liquidation.
Unfortunately you are limited to 1000 characters in your email so I could only give rough details of administration and liquidation.
I’m awaiting a response.
I’m dissapointed by Montrose appology as this is now the situation we have all been led into by a useless, impotent, corrupt governing body.
The truth is the enemy of these people but the cannot be allowed to win.
When confronted by ‘The Rangers’ fans claiming to be the same club here are a couple of questions to ask them:
Why were you not allowed to play any friendlies during the summer?
Why did ‘The Rangers’ need a licence to play football if they were the same club?
Why did so many of your players leave for nothing when they were not out of contract?
If you are the same club what happened to all the debt?
What was the name of the holding company that went bust that I’m always hearing about?

Please feel free to add your own.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on11:39 am - Dec 18, 2012


john clarke says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:18
26 2 Rate This
StevieBC says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 22:44
‘Dear Santa,
for Christmas could you please bring me a new blog post for the ‘TSFM’ website…’
——-
“Santa, to write it, could you find an Italian football journalist with a particular knowledge of the Scottish Press scene and of SFA , SPL articles, rules, constitutions etc AS WELL as a pride in his dislike of succulent lamb matched only by his contempt for fellow ‘professionals’ whose chins are aye dripping with mint sauce?

————————————————————————————————————

Dear Santa
Can you bring me a new MSM and not a make believe one.
Also can I have an SFA with real men in it and not puppets.

Ho Ho Ho

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:40 am - Dec 18, 2012


looks like my comments on IPO confirmation can be ignored. I thought there would be no details for a couple of weeks. Seems i’m well off the mark and i can expect some teatime chuckles tonight!

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on11:52 am - Dec 18, 2012


smartbhoy says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:36
—————————————————-

Charles on STV last week stated the SFA had done a fit and proper test on all the institutional investors….

Now I would be amased if they had for 2 reasons…

1. They never carried it out for Craig Whyte and they allowed Dave King to continue as a Director without sanction.

2. They would be unable to know who the individual investors are within such Companies as the shell company in Lichtenstein.

So one can assume that either Charlie has taken a flier with a phrase he knows provides credibility…a fit and proper test or the SFA have confirmed to him they have completed the fit and proper test…which would be highly unusual as the person or people behind the shell Companies do so for the anonymity it provides and have no legal requirement to release that info to the SFA?

My conclusion…there has been no fit and proper test…my guess is Charlie has provided the list of Insitutional investors and ASSUMED the SFA would carry out such a task and on that basis he is stating it has been.

View Comment

Avatar

arabest1Posted on11:56 am - Dec 18, 2012


Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:24

10

0

Rate This

http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/38217386272/administration-part-deux

On why fans failing to plough their money in completely changes the game for Charles Green.
———————————————————————————————————————-

A good read Richard, it raises some questions for me.

Are the ‘institutional investors’ vulture capitalists who CG convinced to pick clean the bones of RFC? Will, as this article alludes, they now be off for richer pickings elsewhere?

on the other hand as many on here have claimed,

are the ‘institutional investors’ actually an amalgam of Blue Knight types who intend remaining for the long haul to rebuild the brand, after all now that they have jettisoned the debt RFC is eminently more viable than most football clubs?

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on11:57 am - Dec 18, 2012


Kilgore Trout says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:29

Is there any evidence that he made this ‘promise’?
——
Mr Green (6 June 2012):
“We will be taking Rangers forward to better days and one idea I put forward today is my plan to rename Murray Park.

‘Following discussions with the supporters, we will be asking season-ticket holders to vote on whether to rename Murray Park either the Moses McNeil Academy or the Davie Cooper Academy. We will be asking supporters to vote when they renew their season tickets.”

——

Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:28

angus1983 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:50

I thoroughly believe that Mr Green timed this share issue very deliberately. As said before, he’s far from being a stupid man business-wise.
———
based on what? his string of highly successful, international businesses that touch our lives daily?

No.

or a string of insolvencies, liquidations and asset stripping operations?

Yes.

He may be smart, but who benefits from his smarts? the employees, small shareholders and customers of Sevco?

None of the above.

I cannot believe that Mr Green felt morally compelled to organise the share sale for the week before Xmas simply because he promised it’d be before the end of the year.

When he actually “promised” this, I’m not sure. In August, he said in the Herald: “We are hoping to announce our plans in the next couple of weeks, which are on track for it being done before the end of this year.” Mr Green voiced his flotation hopes as he unveiled a major merchandising joint venture with billionaire Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct retail chain.

Meanwhile, Rangers Megastore appear to be selling replica kit at half price across the board. I wonder why only the Away and 3rd kits have the five stars on them?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:01 pm - Dec 18, 2012


paulsatim says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:31

As I read it…No, because Opcapita were the Charles Green of their scenario whereas Deloite were the D&P. Deloitte’s report with no background, I understand, of any assertion of conflicted interest has commented, presumably fairly without fear or favour etc etc that it does seem a little off how the new Comet (sevco) could have paid significant fees to the new owners whilst operating at considerable, and fatal, loss. Vince Cable appears to have picked up on Deloitte’s report, agreed, and ordered an enquiry.

Should there be any similarities in the treatment of Deloitte and D&P in this regard. Hell no.

View Comment

Avatar

Scott RobertsPosted on12:08 pm - Dec 18, 2012


http://www.valuadder.com/glossary/business-goodwill.html

Because Mr green claims he bought the goodwill and therefore it’s the same club doesn’t make it true. Goodwill, can’t see any applying to SEVCO

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on12:22 pm - Dec 18, 2012


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:34
—————————————

Does AIM not have to declare how many shares have been issued. the only issue will be what was actually paid for each share by the Institutions?

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on12:32 pm - Dec 18, 2012


From RM … how to quickly double the money you extract from simple bears:

“No biggie . . . but i went through the online payment there to make a £500 payment, when i got to the end it said ‘payment was unsuccessful, please return to Rangers website’ (or thereabouts)

so i did it again, this time it took me to the final page and payment was accepted, all good.

just checked my bank there and it looks like it took £1000 (fly bassa Charlie) but my email confirmation is just for £500 (confused), don’t mind if it ends up being £1000 but i’d like some sort of confirmation.”

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on12:37 pm - Dec 18, 2012


Chuckie’s blaming HMRC for the share issue nose-diving lol lol and lol again……….. He’s not sounding quite as confident any more ………. Why doesn’t he give the shares to the fans for free like he’s doing with the match tickets 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on12:39 pm - Dec 18, 2012


angus1983
LOL 🙂 😉

View Comment

Shooperb

ShooperbPosted on12:52 pm - Dec 18, 2012


smartbhoy says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:36

The best bit is that the ‘between 3 and 5 million’ is actually a quote from Green himself, saying that ‘INDICATIONS are that between 3 and 5 million’ WILL BE raised. So they haven’t actually collected the money, and yet the DR are claiming as fact that it’s raised this amount.

To be honest, I’ll be very surprised if we ever find out what the true amount raised was.

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on12:56 pm - Dec 18, 2012


neepheid says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:11
5 1 Rate This
ismellafix says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:39

While there is no doubt that Green has purchased the vast majority of the business assets, (with a loan!) there is a serious doubt as to whether he can claim to have bought the goodwill. To do that he needed to buy the whole business, all assets, liabilities included.
======
Sorry, I really don’t get it. Why would Green have to acquire the liabilities to acquire the goodwill?

Let’s say that a local business, say a bookshop, becomes insolvent for whatever reason (feckless owner?) and goes into administration. I approach the administrators and make an offer for all the assets, which is accepted. Of course I don’t acquire any liabilities, the administrators use the money they get from me to pay the creditors 10p in the pound or whatever. The shop has traded throughout. The same regulars come in to browse or buy, most of them neither know nor care who owns the business. Surely I’ve acquired the goodwill along with the stock, fittings, etc? Or is there something really obvious that I’m missing here?

……………

You can buy all the assets, but unless you are buying the business, company or “entity” as a whole, you cannot purchase the goodwill.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/svd/practice-note.pdf

View Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.