The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !


Greenockjack says: June 14, 2013 at 12:20 pm Scapa @ 12:02 ‘we have …

Comment on The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies ! by ecobhoy.

greenockjack says:
June 14, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Scapa @ 12:02

‘we have many Celtic supporters who have been stood on the morale high ground for so long that for them to dismiss the fact their club is ‘complicit’ or ‘silent’ will surely make for an uncomfortable shuffling of thoughts. This is where many are at present and seems to be already producing 2 different sub-groups on TSFM’.

I doubt if any individual nor matter what club they support and who only views their position from the moral high ground will seldom achieve the results that are called for in the real world. However I would rather join with another group of morally-minded people than whom I may have some disagreements with than those who appear to have no morals at all.

However it would be a great pity if the strength which TSFM can achieved through a unity of a broad church approach was dissipated through fragmentation. For a number of years I have looked at the Rangers support and its bitter divisions and camps and I firmly believe the factionalism and fight to get their particuclar blazer wearer or even bearer on the Board has been the biggest roadblock to the decent fans of that club ever managing to gain control.

It has also allowed a series of flag wavers and drum beaters to inflame passions for their own ends which is usually to take money off the Bears by cleverly playing the factions off against each other. But these are matters for Rangers fans to firstly recognise and then decide whether they want to do something about it.

ecobhoy Also Commented

The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
Looks as though CF is going hunting for Big Game 😥

Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 11m

@JackIrvine @George_Osborne @Cayman_Islands @tom_watson Jack, tell us more about You, Rangers and the secret photographs of HMRC officials.

The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
Castofthousands says:
July 14, 2013 at 7:49 pm

2. Daniel Stewart & Co. Ltd – Nominated advisors and brokers : David Hart/James Felix. Is this ‘Hart’ the same one that’s just been appointed to the Ranger’s board.
Ian Hart the RIFC Plc director has been on the Board since the company was formed last year and was previously a member of the Blue Knights and prior to that had a long term interest in promoting youth development at Ibrox. He is a retired Scottish businessman and I’m not aware of any connection with David Hart although haven’t checked it.

I have always been more interested in Mr Hart’s shareholding in RIFC Plc and the strange confusion over how he apparently became involved as one of Charles Green’s original investing consortium.

The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
Drew Peacock says:
July 14, 2013 at 7:46 pm
Why was this owner jetting off around the globe on a low value personal trip when his International “Empire” was crumbling?
And finding time to email CW to tell him the trip was ‘worthwhile’ – I’m sure CW would have been ecstatic to know a lot of wine had been sold a week before the club went into admin. And to make arrangements to ‘compare’ notes two days later back in the UK – were they really going to work out how many cases of wine had been sold?

Somehow I think the ‘note comparing’ might have been on another subject and at some stage we might find out exactly what was discussed when CF produces the audio.

But it truly was a high-powered sales mission – the man himself and his two sons all in Singapore flanked by their Japanese and Indonesian sales teams. Sounds as though there’s more money in plonk these days than steel 😆

Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
Couldn’t agree more!

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.

About the author