Good Evening.
As we ponder the historic vote to create a new Governing body to oversee Scottish League football, I cannot help but wonder what brilliant minds will be employed in the drawing up of its constitution, rules, memorandum and articles of association?
Clearly, Messrs Doncaster, Longmuir and even Mr Regan as the CEO of the SFA will be spending many hours with those dreaded folk known simply as “ The Lawyers” in an attempt to get the whole thing up and running and written down in the course of a few short weeks.
In truth, that scares me.
It scares me because legal documentation written up in a hurry or in a rush is seldom perfect and often needs amendment—especially when the errors start to show! The old adage of beware of the busy fool sadly applies.
It also scares me because the existing rules under which the game is governed are not, in my humble opinion, particularly well written and seem to differ in certain material respects from those of UEFA. Even then, adopting the wording and the approach of other bodies is not necessarily the way to go.
I am all in favour of some original thought– and that most precious and unusual of commodities known as common sense and plain English.
Further, the various licensing and compliance rules are clearly in need of an overhaul as they have of late produced what can only be best described as a lack of clarity when studied for the purposes of interpretation. Either that or those doing the studying and interpreting are afflicted with what might be described as tortuous or even tortured legal and administrative minds.
If it is not by now clear that the notion of self-certification on financial and other essential disclosure criteria necessary to obtain a footballing licence (whether European or domestic) is a total non-starter — then those in charge of the game are truly bonkers.
Whilst no governing body can wholly control the actions of a member club, or those who run a club, surely provisions can be inserted into any constitution or set of rules that allows and brings about greater vigilance and scrutiny than we have at present—all of course designed to do nothing other than alert the authorities as early as possible if matters are not being conducted properly or fairly.
However, the main change that would make a difference to most of the folk involved in the Scottish game – namely the fans— would be to have the new rules incorporate a measure which allowed football fans themselves to be represented on any executive or committee.
Clearly, this would be a somewhat revolutionary step and would be fought against tooth and nail by some for no reason other than that it has simply not been done before—especially as the league body is there to regulate the affairs of a number of limited companies all of whom have shareholders to account to and the clubs themselves would presumably be the shareholders in the new SPFL Ltd.
Then again to my knowledge Neil Doncaster is not a shareholder in The SPL ltd– is he?
I can hear the argument that a fan representative on a league body might not be impartial, might be unprofessional, might be biased, might lack knowledge or experience, and have their own agenda and so on—just like many chairmen and chief executive officers who already sit on the committees of the existing league bodies.
Remember too that the SFA until relatively recently had disciplinary committees made up almost exclusively of referees. I don’t think anyone would argue that the widening of the make up of that committee has been a backward step.
However, we already have fan representation at clubs like St Mirren and Motherwell, and of course there has been an established Tartan Army body for some time now. Clubs other than the two mentioned above have mechanisms whereby they communicate and consult with fans, although they stop short of full fan participation– very often for supposedly insurmountable legal reasons.
As often as not, the fans want a say in the running of their club, but also want to be able to make representations to the governing bodies via their club.
So why not include the fans directly in the new set up for governing the league?
Any fan representative could be someone proposed by a properly registered fan body such as through official supporters clubs, or could be seconded by the clubs acting in concert with their supporters clubs.
Perhaps a committee of fan representatives could be created, with such a committee having a representative on the various committees of the new league body.
In this way, there would be a fan who could report back to the fan committee and who could represent the interests of the ordinary fan in the street in any of the committees. Equally such a committee of fans could ensure that any behind the scenes discussions on any issue were properly reported, openly discussed, and made public with no fear of hidden agendas, secret meetings, and secret collusive agreements and so forth.
Is any of that unreasonable? Surely many companies consider the views of their biggest customer? This idea is no different.
Surely such a situation would go some way towards establishing some badly needed trust between the governing bodies and the fans themselves?
If necessary, I would not even object to the fan representatives being excluded from having a right to vote on certain matters—as long as they had a full right of audience and a full right of access to all discussions and relative papers which affect the running of the game.
In this way at least there would be openness and transparency.
In short, it would be a move towards what is quaintly referred to as Democracy.
Perhaps, those who run the game at present should consider the life and times of the late great Alexander Hamilton- one of the founding fathers of the United States of America and who played a significant role in helping write the constitution of that country.
Hamilton was a decent and brilliant man in many ways—but he was dead set against Democracy and the liberation of rights for the masses. In fact, he stated that the best that can be hoped for the mass populace is that they be properly armed with a gun and so able to protect themselves against injustice!
Sadly, Hamilton became embroiled in a bitter dispute with the then Vice President of the nation Aaron Burr in July 1804. Hamilton had used his influence and ensured that Burr lost the election to become Governor of New York and had made some withering attacks on the Vice President’s character.
When he refused to apologise, the Vice President took a whacky notion and challenged him to a duel! Even more whacky is the fact that Hamilton accepted the challenge and so the contest took place at Weehawken New Jersey on the morning of 11th July 1804.
The night before, Hamilton wrote a letter which heavily suggested that he would contrive to miss Burr with his shot, and indeed when the pistols fired Hamilton’s bullet struck a branch immediately above Burr’s head.
However, he did not follow the proper procedure for duelling which required a warning from the duellist that they are going to throw their shot away. Hamilton gave no such indication despite the terms of his letter and despite his shot clearly missing his opponent.
Burr however fired and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen with the result that the former secretary to the treasury and founding father of the constitution died at 2pm on the twelfth of July.
The incident ruined Burr’s career (whilst duelling was still technically legal in New jersey, it had already been outlawed in various other states).
In any event, in Hamilton’s time full and open democracy in the United States of America would have met with many cries of outrage and bitter opposition. Yet, today, the descendants of slaves and everyone from all social standings, all ethnic minorities and every social background has the constitutional right to vote and seek entry to corridors of power.
In that light, is it really asking too much to allow football fans to have a say and a presence in the running of a game they pay so much to support?
We can’t [at least I can’t] put this 2011 take-over together after 2 years. One must assume that either there’s bits missing – or some of what’s been `put out there` is shall we say `nuanced`. I think everyone would agree there’s a sustained effort to keep some elements confidential from the take-over. Bringing that theme up to date – notably understated in the BDO creditors report: See Item 9:
http://static.migration.bdo.defacto-cms.com/assets/documents/2013/05/RFC_Report_to_Creditors_22_May_2013.pdf
“ Future Reports
It is our intention to make an application to the Court of Session for future reports to creditors to be made available through a website. All creditors will be notified of the future process to be followed should the order be granted.”
This suggests the possibility that future 6-month creditor reports could only be accessed through a secure website possibly under confidentiality restrictions. I`ll be interested how the CoS treats such an application – that’s supposing we’re even allowed to know of any such decision [as taxpayers].
Whatever the reasons – it will suit some to keep as much out of the public eye as possible – that proved.
Sticking to the `official` CoS – reported that [We`re told] 20 odd million transferred to a client account in the name of RFC Group [around May 2011] – but what happened afterwards to that money? [Is there definitive `official` proof LBG were paid?]. People have paid a quid to get out of something. Noted TU tried to defend their claim in the CoS – but their claim is not linked to a bank?
Trace-ability could be VAT – but VAT noticeably absent in the narrative – and at 20% very surprising
Going back to the 20 odd millions – creditors reports indicates on page 6:
20,030,000 now listed as a debt to `Directors` – this a bit new. Most have put this down to DK – but is that necessarily so that DK `Lent` 20m [unsecured]? – That don’t make sense for such a sum. And Which `Director(s)` involved? Also no specific definition of the `uncertain – unsecured `E.P.A.` All very vague.
Then: Page 2:
“After taking legal advice in respect of the Company’s entitlement to the debts, and to avoid the costs and risks involved in determining the matter through litigation…………….”
A cynics view would be that taking legal advice to avoid legal costs is a first in this story. Avoiding litigation by legitimate reasoning will still at the end of the day avoid litigation exposure of the facts. Indeed these elements transferred by the admins to the newco are substantial monetarily. When legal costs / risks are so high it can prohibit litigation it rather makes nonsense of the whole justice process.
Would it not be proper to itemise the legal costs and risks involved in any litigation to justify that call?
But the big element – that made all this possible is the 20m – is that as clear cut as presented?
– and VAT?
Just throwing a bit of spurious speculation out there 😉
john clarke says:
June 20, 2013 at 11:30 am
I looked up the Companies House site, but, frankly, there seems to be so much ducking and diving with companies that I can’t work out which company with Airdrie ( eg ‘Airdrieonians’, ‘Airdrie FC and Events Ltd’, etc) in its name might be the Airdrie club in question.
I have to say that since all this started, I’ve developed a deep scepticism about businesses and business men.
Can they all be cheats and shafters at heart?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Only 99% of them. That’s Capitalism baby!
twopanda says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm
———————————————————————————————-
Totally respect your post but the infamous ‘BDO’ are nothing more than a firm of accountants.
Whooooooooaaaaaa
International – a global beginning
BDO was founded in 1963 with five original member firms in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, the US and Canada. These firms formed the Binder Seidman International Group. In 1973, the British, German and Dutch member firms adopted a common name whose acronym has endured for the entire global network.
That name was: Binder Hamlyn (UK) Dijker & Co (Holland) Otte & Co (Germany). Literally, BDO stands for Binder Dijker Otte.
twopanda muttered something around June 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm
Trace-ability could be VAT – but VAT noticeably absent in the narrative – and at 20% very surprising
————————————————————————————————————————————–
Clip art invoices – I wonder who could have been involved?
I’ll set the next tweet in motion, as well as the supporting evidence.
John Clarke
By amnesty I meant a period in time in which a law is suspended to allow the offenders to admit their crime without fear of prosecution.
They cough and leave, we get on with repairing the damage.
After the ire has died down we have to do that anyway so why delay getting at the truth?
Fear of the repercussions of admitting it is one of the reasons imo for the ridiculous contortions to avoid the spirit of the rules/law that would do the Pharisees proud.
That the SFA’s tactics of secrecy and subterfuge will fail is inevitable. We are seeing signs of questions being asked about how this mess can have happened on their watch but from football, not bampots.
When what CF has made known eventually reaches the general public consciousness those responsible will bite yer hand off for the opportunity to come clean.
Its all unfolding nicely.
Lets not forget the objective of monitoring Scottish football is to change it for the better.
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:48 pm
=========================================
Mate I’m over on Twitter waiting for this one. Please hurry up and release the squirrel!
Sam says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:39 pm
International – a global beginning BDO was founded in 1963 . Literally, BDO stands for Binder Dijker Otte.
=============================================================
That Djiker sounds awful like Celtic’s new signing, could start a new conspiracy theory there!
@Hirsuite Pursuite @ 12:33am
Thanks for your response.
I follow your reasoning, but again think there may be an issue with it. I agree that Article 6 needs to be read in conjunction with Article 3, and I accept therefore that the “person” for the purposes of Article 6 can be a company. I think we’re in agreement that the “Member” is the club’s company (to use a neutral expression, hopefully) for the purposes of the Articles (or at least should be.)
I think there’s a problem with your argument in 2 respects though.
(1) You are using the SPL rules as a guide to interpretation of the SPL Articles.
You refer to the SPL rule that (where the context allows) that a Club “includes the owner and operator of such club;” and from that seek to show that there isn’t an issue with Article 6, since Club = company = owner/operator of Club = Member.
The problem I have with that is that the Articles don’t allow for the Rules to be used as an aid to interpretation. There isn’t the equivalent “club includes owner and operator” provision in the Articles. The Articles have an interpretation section, and the only external source for interpretation is the 2006 Act (in the October 2012 version of the Articles.)
Generally speaking, we can’t use a definition in one document as a guide to interpretation of another, and from the point of view of construction, all the more so where there is a specific interpretation section which refers to a particular external source, but not the one we are seeking to use.
(2) Principles of Construction of documents
Linked to the above is a general issue on construction of documents. Where a document is being interpreted, there is a presumption against 2 different words having the same meaning. That’s to say if the drafter has taken the time to define “Club,” and separately to define “Member,” we are entitled to infer that Club and Member are not the same thing – otherwise the use of different words with different definitions would be superfluous.
The same point can be made regarding “owner and operator of a Club” being the same as “a Club,” i.e. both the body corporate. There would seem to be no need for the distinction to be made within the Articles if the intention is that they mean the same thing.
Your interpretation requires the meaning of club to be synonymous with the meaning of Member, and synonymous with “owner and operator of a Club,” since all are simply the body corporate, and that sits badly with Club and Member being separately defined and used throughout, and a distinction being made between the Club and its owner and operator throughout the document.
It’s quite possible for “Club” to have one meaning in the context of the Articles (which primarily deal with the SPL company and the rights and obligations of the Clubs as shareholders of that company), and a different meaning in the Rules (which deal with the organisation of the League itself, and the terms under which the Clubs can play football in that League.) That’s why it’s inappropriate to use the Rules definition as a means of interpretation of the Articles.
In the Articles, it seems to me the owner and operator is deliberately separated from “Club,” because it is the owner and operator of the Club which has the SPL share, rather than the Club itself. It strains the wording of Article 6 too far to read both “a Club” and “the owner and operator of a Club” as the same thing.
In the Rules, Club is equated with owner and operator where required – I suspect simply to make it clear for example that the disciplinary rules apply to both the Club and its owner and operator.
Anyone know what Phil alluding to…
Phil MacGiollaBhain @Pmacgiollabhain 1m
Has the Daily Record taken enough brave pills to enable them to run their exclusive on Brian Stockbridge?
Just as a wee aside, and as people are talking about Kings, albeit in a different context.
There seems to be an expectation that Dave King is going to come back to Ibrox, buy everyone out, put in a load of money and set the World to rights. Rangers will once again stand at the top of the pile in Scotland, reigning over everyone.
Now that may well be the case, i have no way of knowing. However do the people who assume this also know what settlement figure he arrived at with SARS to finalise the matter. What amount of money he agreed to pay over so that the long running saga would come to an end. In other thoughts do they know what declaration of assets he made to them, that he may not want them looking into further.
The king may indeed return, he may not however have the bottomless pit of money some people think he has.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/celtic-fan-s-sectarian-song-charge-recalled-to-court-1-2972307?
…the appeal judges said [of the original judge’s decision] that “Heh had fallen into error”
can the LNS decision not be appealed ?
Exiled Celt says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:07 am
———-
Aye its a fair point. But its not really comparable when you dig deeper, and its the big difference between the Rangers administration and all the other ones we compare them to.
Duff and Phelps had some cash to play with, the RFC bank balance was relatively healthy which gave them some breathing space, we might all disagree that how they acted was correct, and their behaviour was to the detriment of creditors, but they had the flexibility to make that call. Hearts don’t, they’re skint.
———
easyJambo says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:24 am
———-
We all went cried foul when Rangers fans came on RTC trying to deflect away from their own troubles by talking about other teams, you were as vocal about it as anyone. Yet, now you’re doing the same. It does you no credit.
For Dupleses – apologies to everyone else.
The Original Companies Act 1985 contained no specific definition of undertaking.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/6/pdfs/ukpga_19850006_en.pdf
However, as part of significant changes within the 1989 Act, the following change was made:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/40/section/22/enacted
This gave us the updated version of the 1985 Act.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/6/contents
S. 259 remained in force until 6th April 2008 when the relevant parts of the 2006 came into effect.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/6/section/259
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1161
So, between 1989 and 2008, the meaning of undertaking could be derived from the updated 1985 Act and from 2008 to the present day the meaning is given in the 2006 Act. In both cases it is:
The SPL was founded in 1998, so at the time the definition of a “Club” (when words or expressions contained in the Articles bear the same meaning as in the 1985 Actt):
would have been interpreted as
in the context of an incorporated association football club.
Under the current SPL Articles referring to the 2006 Act, the meaning is exactly the same.
http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=1965332.html?
actonsheep says:
June 20, 2013 at 2:47 pm
———
easyJambo says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:24 am
———-
We all went cried foul when Rangers fans came on RTC trying to deflect away from their own troubles by talking about other teams, you were as vocal about it as anyone. Yet, now you’re doing the same. It does you no credit.
=+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Ach -c’mon the boyz hurtin’ gie ‘im ah brek.
http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/143-ockham-s-broom?
has this guy ever heard of – trigger’s broom ?
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:48 pm
“twopanda muttered something around June 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm”
——————
I thought that was tawdry speculation of the highest order twopanda. Seems to have illicited the desired effect to whit.
Duplesis says:
June 20, 2013 at 2:24 pm
2 2 Rate This
@Hirsuite Pursuite @ 12:33am
=============================
I don’t think I was saying that Club = Member or Club = Owner & operator.
What I did say (I think) was that:
undertaking = body corporate = Owner & operator
When the undertaking/body corporate/owner & operator holds a share in the SPL then it is also a Member
A Club (according to the SPL Articles) has 3 constituent parts:
It is an undertaking
It is an association football club
It is entitled to participate in the SPL
A Club (according to the SPL Rules) has 3 constituent parts:
It is an association football club
It is entitled to participate in the SPL
It includes the owner & operator
If the owner & operator is the company (and thankfully we agree on that) then Rules are in accord with the articles.
A Club (in SPL terms) must be a company that is a football club that is entitled to play in the SPL.
The original Rangers FC are no longer an association football club and are not entitled to participate in the SPL. They ceased to be a Club (in SPL terms) on June 14th 2012 when ceasing operations as an association football club.
Even if you ignore the club/company argument Rangers (as the exist at the moment) have never been a member of the SPL. They have never been an owner & operator of a Club. They have never been entitled to participate in the SPL.
The new Rangers simply have never been a Club (in SPL terms).
I see BDO have had staff in at Hearts already – backroom/admin staff likely to go and now talking to players.
I understand Administrators have powers to terminate contracts within 1st 2 weeks, but these boys aren’t hanging around.
I remember we were all quite shocked that the deadline passed at rangers without anyone going (apart from Gordon Bankrupt and Mervin Celtic (who both walked) then the wage cuts were negotiated.
Amazing the difference in approach by the 2 admins
Poor Sevco have been landed with some expensive players because of D&P#s failure.
HirsutePursuit says:
June 20, 2013 at 12:33 am
I will raise a few points wrt your latest post which I think are worth considering. I will not address in-depth any of the points raised in the Duplesis post and leave that to you to save confusion.
It’s tempting to amalgamate the two very distinct SPL definitions of a ‘club’ as the SPL Rules definition adds ‘owner and operator’ to the SPL Article definition. However, I think it always worth remembering they are separate.
For the moment, in a bid to progress the debate, I will accept that ‘undertaking’ as used in the SPL Articles’ definition of ‘club’ means ‘body corporate’ and obviously the Articles are legally binding with regard to its members.
I think a major point arising from the ‘Club’ definition in the SPL Articles is the phrase ‘entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League’. Does this mean that SPL Rule I1 which includes ‘owner and operator’ in the ‘club’ definition applies and effectively expands the SPL Articles ‘Club’ definition beyond the Companies Act meaning of ‘undertaking’ to encompass owner and operator .
A difficulty for me is that the SPL Rules ‘Club’ definition drops the term ‘undertaking’ and introduces the new terms ‘owner and operator’ and these could lead us into difficulty – Duplesis has raised these issues so I’ll try not to stray too deeply there but it’s an important area to explore.
Let’s look at some other relevant SPL Rules to see if they can assist:
A2.1. The League shall consist of 12 leading association football clubs in Scotland.
Membership Criteria:
A2.5.1. A Club participating in the League must be a member of the SFA [NB the SFA Articles definition of a ‘Club’ viz: ‘A football club playing Association Football’]
Therefore to play in the Scottish SPL you must be one of the country’s 12 leading association football clubs and be a member of the SFA. So far, so good but then we have:
Membership Criteria:
A2.5.3.1. A Club participating in the League must itself, or through a subsidiary or holding company of such Club, own its Registered Ground;
Membership of the Company:
A4. The owner and operator of a Club participating in the League shall become a member of the Company by acquiring one Ordinary Share . . .
The term ‘owner and operator’ as far as the SPL Rules are concerned are synonymous and don’t appear separately. As a ‘Club’ isn’t a legal entity then I think the context of A2.5.3.1 allows us to accept that a club’s owner and operator can own the Registered Ground as could a subsidiary or holding company of the ‘Club’.
But A4 restricts SPL membership to the owner and operator of the ‘Club’ through the purchase of a share. I think this is interesting because the fact that A4 doesn’t mention a subsidiary company IMO means such a company is ruled out.
It also rules out IMO a holding company purchasing the SPL membership share. Firstly, because it isn’t mentioned in A4 and secondly because it doesn’t meet the ‘owner and operator’ requirement. Obviously I speak in the context of Rangers here because it is possible that the structure of other SPL clubs could lead to different outcomes. It should always be borne in mind that arriving at ‘body corporate’ via ‘undertaking’ does not necessarily end up with ‘owner and operator’.
I realise this has been a long road to get to a point which are your statements:
1) If the club is liquidated it ceases to be a Club
2) If the club ceases to operate as a football club, it ceases to be a Club
3) If the club is relegated or otherwise leaves the SPL, it ceases to be a Club
1) A club isn’t a legal entity and therefore cannot be liquidated. Obviously it’s ‘owner and operator’ if they are a company can be.
2) I think it’s self-evident if a club stops playing football it ceases to be a football club but you appear to have forgotten that its ‘owner and operator’ might very well continue as a company. That’s because a ‘club’ and its ‘owner and operator’ can be two distinct entities within the whole with one part having a legal personality and the other one no legal personality.
3) That is only correct if the club ceases playing football – see below.
You state:
1) Dundee are no longer a Club (in SPL terms) but of course, remain as a club recognised by the SFL & SFA.
1) An interesting example with Dundee’s various financial difficulties although I have never heard anyone – well except their city rivals – question the club’s unbroken history to 1893.
However, my understanding is that Dundee is the same club as it was in the SPL last season and probably, although I haven’t checked, has the same ‘owner and operator’. And if promoted next season will still be the same club.
2) RFC plc are no longer a club . . .
2) RFC Plc were never a football club but the ‘owner and operator’ of Rangers football club.
3) TRFC Ltd have never been a Club – never having been entitled to participate in the SPL
3) Correct that TRFC Ltd have never been a football club – they are, in fact, the ‘owner and operator’ of Rangers football club. You would be wrong to state that Rangers are not a football club on the basis that they are not members of the SPL. The SFA and SFL both regard them as a football club and so will the SPL, or successor body, if they gain promotion.
I fully understand the sub-text of your argument towards the end of your post but would prefer the LNS Commission position which in plain language without jumping through hoops states: ‘In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator.
‘In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not . . . ‘.
I realise you will never accept the above but I do. In dealing with legal issues one should always strive to follow the law to find a solution rather than adopt the required solution and tailor the law to suit. I do not say that is what you have done but it’s a trap easily fallen into and gives rise to the saying: ‘A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client’. I have been that ‘fool’ many times in my life and am much more wary these days about having absolute certainty in any legal issues or processes.
However to finish, I think that LNS puts the argument nicely in a way that most football fans would accept: ‘It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League’.
Being me I’m never quite finished and would remind everyone that the LNS Commission was actually formed to investigate IMO much more serious and important issues and the definition of a football ‘club’ was a relatively minor event prior to the main act.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:52 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is there some action that will come from all this theorising? If so, what?
Castofthousands says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:48 pm
“twopanda muttered something around June 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm”
——————
I thought that was tawdry speculation of the highest order twopanda. Seems to have illicited the desired effect to whit.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not really not a single squirrel has yet been released on Titter and neither have any Range Rovers been spotted from the Board room window.
HMRC were a bit concerned about the VAT paid by Ticketus to RFC in the correspondence CF released the other night. They seemed to think it wasn’t going to appear on a VAT return. Saffreys were very keen for them to put it on the return so that it was correct and then “worry” about paying it later. Very much later or in fact never.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:48 pm
I see BDO have had staff in at Hearts already – backroom/admin staff likely to go and now talking to players.
I understand Administrators have powers to terminate contracts within 1st 2 weeks, but these boys aren’t hanging around.
I remember we were all quite shocked that the deadline passed at rangers without anyone going (apart from Gordon Bankrupt and Mervin Celtic (who both walked) then the wage cuts were negotiated.
Amazing the difference in approach by the 2 admins
Poor Sevco have been landed with some expensive players because of D&P#s failure.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
D&P didn’t fail. Those players would have been required in the SPL. It was the other clubs ably assisted by the moaning minnies in the fanbase that stopped them reappearing in the SPL or SFL1.
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm
“Is there some action that will come from all this theorising? If so, what?”
———————
The point is whether we can legitimately exercise an opinion on whether the BBC were correct to disregard LNS definition of a football club when they issued their recent appeal findings. The debate suggests to me that you can hold an opinion since the situation appears far from cut and dried. If, as seems likely, Rangers fans go through the appeal process again then there are any number of arguments that might be employed to justify the BBC’s stance. There will likely be an equal number of arguments that run contrary to the BBC stance.
The moral of the story is; if you write rules in a vague manner to allow you to construct a partial interpretation, don’t be surprised when someone else does exactly the same thing.
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:08 pm
“Not really not a single squirrel has yet been released on Titter and neither have any Range Rovers been spotted from the Board room window.”
—————–
I look forward to your analytical deconstruction of whatever Charlotte chooses to publish in this regard.
I’m fed up with Dundee United being lumped in with the “Can’t afford their debt/next to go into admin” BS being bandied about, usually by Sevco sympathisers, but now they are named here as carrying unaffordable debt. Even this morning, I read someone stating elsewhere that United had a debt of £10m
Rubbish.
They have a bank loan of £4.625m. It’s stated in the last audited financial statements (June 2012). The bank seem very happy with United, which is why they allowed a renegotiation of the loan. United, like others, are cutting their coat due to economic circumstances, and pretty successfully too. So please, do not lump us in with the Killies of this world, much as Sevco and its acolytes would like to see us go under.
HirsutePursuit says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Even if you ignore the club/company argument Rangers (as the exist at the moment) have never been a member of the SPL. They have never been an owner & operator of a Club. They have never been entitled to participate in the SPL.
The new Rangers simply have never been a Club (in SPL terms).
——————————————————————————————————–
It’s quite interesting how your statement illustrate the problems and link with the BBC Trust decision finding against BBC Scotland for basic sloppyness in its reporting. My understanding of the BBC Scotland position was that they – to assist viewers’ comprehension – used different terminology depending on whether the story involved the business side or footballing side of Rangers.
I think everyone accepts the oldco company and newco company reasoning but obviously some people want to have a dead Rangers club and newco Rangers club division.
I obviously don’t fall into the latter position and neither does BBC Scotland IMO but they broke their own guideline by reporting on footballing matters and not just business ones by differentiating between newco and oldco as regards the club and footballing activities.
I sympathise with BBC Scotland because their policy was not to differentiate between an oldco and newco Rangers football club but in live broadcasting a slip of the tongue is easily done.
Tbh
Castofthousands says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:21 pm
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:08 pm
“Not really not a single squirrel has yet been released on Titter and neither have any Range Rovers being towed away been spotted from the Board room window.”
—————–
I look forward to your analytical deconstruction of whatever Charlotte chooses to publish in this regard.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m pleased to hear that and deconstruct it I certainly might do. Sometimes it’s the small things in life that keep us going.
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:11 pm
1 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:48 pm
I see BDO have had staff in at Hearts already – backroom/admin staff likely to go and now talking to players.
I understand Administrators have powers to terminate contracts within 1st 2 weeks, but these boys aren’t hanging around.
I remember we were all quite shocked that the deadline passed at rangers without anyone going (apart from Gordon Bankrupt and Mervin Celtic (who both walked) then the wage cuts were negotiated.
Amazing the difference in approach by the 2 admins
Poor Sevco have been landed with some expensive players because of D&P#s failure.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
D&P didn’t fail. Those players would have been required in the SPL. It was the other clubs ably assisted by the moaning minnies in the fanbase that stopped them reappearing in the SPL or SFL
===============================================================
well, how much more income might Sevco have had in SPL? maybe £6M more in ticket sales and would the “deserters” have stayed further adding to their wage bill?
I don’t think the additional income in SPL would have been enough to cut the losses
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:52 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is there some action that will come from all this theorising? If so, what?
————————————————————————————————-
Well – that’s a BIG question!
I have no idea what may or may not ultimately come from anything I post so really I can’t answer your question.
However, I travel hopefully through life and adopt the glass half-full philosophy with the intention of emptying it quickly and getting another full one.
Essentially I post for my own pleasure and I leave it to others to make their own judgements – some will ignore me, some will read some of my posts, some might even respond.
I am interested in responses and it doesn’t matter whether they are favourable or not as there is almost always something to be learnt from listening to others although on rare occasions there isn’t.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:52 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is there some action that will come from all this theorising? If so, what?
————————————————————————————————-
Well – that’s a BIG question!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m going to take that as a no.
jimlarkin says:
June 20, 2013 at 2:40 pm
can the LNS decision not be appealed ?
——————————————————————————–
Probably more of a Judicial Review situation if you want a chance of something sensible.
But any appeal would require to be made to the SFA although I’m not sure whether the right to appeal would only apply to the parties represented before the Commission or whether it would be open to all SPL Clubs or even all SFA Clubs.
Tbh I don’t see anyone going down that road.
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:47 pm
1
0
Rate This
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:52 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is there some action that will come from all this theorising? If so, what?
————————————————————————————————-
Well – that’s a BIG question!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m going to take that as a no. Carry on clogging up the interweb.
======================================================
Thankyou and please do whatever you wish – but I don’t need your permission and WILL carry on.
If TSFM feels I am clogging up anything he will no doubt let me know and I will abide by his instructions. I realise the discussion with HP recently joined by Duplesis are detailed, complex and open to differing interpretations and not everyone’s cup of tea. But it has been mature, informative and hasn’t stalled with lots of ways of looking at old and new issues being explored.
But if I or the topic is getting under your skin it might be better just to ignore my future posts so as not to cause you any aggravation.
Re VAT, while we wait for Charlotte, this link gives a reminder of the ‘clip art’ issue.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/claim-ticketus-invoices-made-using-clip-art.17574876
Unanswered questions:
– what were the bank account details on the suspicious invoices
– did HMRC ever get the £5m to net off against the Ticketus refund claim?
– or is it in the creditors pot?
– or in somebody else’s pocket?
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:59 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Relax – I was only wondering if something was going to come of all this debating but as you note above on things like LNS it is up to the SFA/SPL/clubs to take action and as you rightly say that won’t happen.
On the oldco/Newco debate we’ve had that on here a million times. We think its a new club. Rangers fans don’t and until we can accomodate each other on those differing views we won’t unite all Scottish football fans for a campaign against the SFA demandin root and branch changes.
jimlarkin says:
June 20, 2013 at 2:40 pm
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/celtic-fan-s-sectarian-song-charge-recalled-to-court-1-2972307?
===========================================================
I have grown-up possibly never really appreciating the meaning of the phrase: ‘He could cause a rammy in an empty hoose’.
However, Lord Brodie said the legislation provided that people who might be capable of being incited need not be present for the purposes of deciding whether specific behaviour would be likely to incite public disorder.
He said: “As it does not matter whether persons likely to be incited to public disorder are there in sufficient numbers or are there at all it cannot matter whether or not the persons who are present (whether likely to be incited to public disorder or otherwise) actually became aware of the relevant behaviour.”
So you can be guilty of inciting public disorder and yet any people there might not have heard youor there might not be anyone there at all – sounds like utter madness.
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Carry on clogging up the interweb
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Relax – I was only wondering if something was going to come of all this debating but as you note above on things like LNS it is up to the SFA/SPL/clubs to take action and as you rightly say that won’t happen.
On the oldco/Newco debate we’ve had that on here a million times. We think its a new club. Rangers fans don’t and until we can accomodate each other on those differing views we won’t unite all Scottish football fans for a campaign against the SFA demandin root and branch changes.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
I am always relaxed except when I’m drunk and then I’m usually unconscious.
As I say I am fairly ambivalent about the Rangers old/new club issue because, as I have said before, if Celtic was in Rangers shoes then like the vast majority of Celtic fans I would be declaring that the old club lived on and hadn’t died. On emotive issues I always try to understand the opposing viewpoint to try and find a balance.
But on the oldco/newco club debate I have been trying to present what I see as the salients points as impartially as I can. It obviously has attracted a lot of TDs and if only a tiny fraction of those TDs have actually read any of my posts then I will be happy as they may have provided some food for thought.
If they have TD’d just because they have a fixed position and closed mind on the subject well that’s up to them. Having nearly seen Celtic die as a business I know I would have thought to retain the unbroken existance of the club just as Rangers supporters are currently doing.
Typo – 2nd last line should read ‘fought’ not ‘thought’
actonsheep says: June 20, 2013 at 2:47 pm
easyJambo says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:24 am
———-
We all went cried foul when Rangers fans came on RTC trying to deflect away from their own troubles by talking about other teams, you were as vocal about it as anyone. Yet, now you’re doing the same. It does you no credit.
================================
Go back to the sequence of posts today and you will find that it was another poster who asked Hearts fans to respond to a question about Hibs. That’s what I did. Then I put it in context when I named other clubs who have financial concerns.
I admitted in previous posts the Hearts were guilty of financial doping. I said that it was unacceptable for Vlad not to honour contracts he had sanctioned. I said that it left a bad taste regarding the successes achieved during the Vlad years. I said that I was sorry that Vlad exploited his bank’s depositors in order to fund Hearts and other businesses. I went as close as I can to stating that Vlad is a crook and should do time. I stated that I was saddened by the fact that people will be losing their jobs (some I know personally).
What sort of apology are you looking for? I am a single fan stating what I feel about the situation. I can’t speak for anyone else or the club.
If you don’t feel that points deductions, transfer registration embargoes and a high probability of relegation in the coming season is not enough of a punishment for the club, then fair enough, there may be a discussion to be had on that subject.
One thing that you can be sure about is that you won’t find a substantial body of Hearts fans claiming that they deserve better or complaining that it’s all someone else’s fault. The fault lies solely with Hearts and Hearts alone.
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 2:35 pm
…………………………
The glib liar still faces a mountain of other charges including bribery…fraud…forgery.. etc…
SouthernExile pointed out a hyperlink on June 20, 2013 at 5:04 pm
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/claim-ticketus-invoices-made-using-clip-art.17574876
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
The financial controller might have been under a bit of stress. I suppose his Christmas bonus might have helped though.
well ,well……Duff and Duffer @ company are deep in the doo doo ! braw!
Sort of OT but…..
Why is the punishment for an insolvency event a points deduction?
The punishment should be relegation to the bottom tier of the league system.
I’m not attacking Hearts or Sevco in particular, but if a club can’t manage it’s finances properly it should be sent to the bottom of the pile.
hehehehehehehe
BBC Scotland has uncovered new evidence showing Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps knew Craig Whyte had sold season tickets to buy the club.
The recording of a conversation indicates they were intent on denying it because they thought they could get away with it.
A Duff and Phelps spokesman said the words were taken “out of context”.
The BBC reported Duff and Phelps partner David Grier may have known about the Ticketus deal last April.
This was before Mr Whyte’s takeover.
Mr Grier denied any knowledge of the deal until August 2011.
The BBC has obtained a recording of a meeting between Mr Whyte and Mr Grier, which show Duff and Phelps did know.
Mr Whyte bought Rangers from Sir David Murray for £1 and paid an £18m debt to Lloyds Bank by selling three years of season tickets to finance firm Ticketus for £25m.
As well as being involved in Mr Whyte’s takeover, Duff and Phelps were appointed as Rangers’ administrators after the club plunged into insolvency in February 2012.
In May, a BBC Scotland investigation suggested that Mr Grier may have known that about the controversial Ticketus deal before the Whyte takeover was complete.
Mr Grier, and Duff and Phelps, denied the claims and said he was unaware of this particular Ticketus deal until August 2011.
Last week, in a BBC interview, Mr Whyte said that “everybody who was involved in the deal team at the time knew about” the Ticketus deal.
He added: “They (Duff and Phelps) knew everything, they attended meetings, they were copied into all the emails, they were there on the day of completion. They knew from the start.”
BBC Scotland has now received a secret recording that Mr Whyte says he made at a meeting between him and Mr Grier in a private members’ club in London on 31 May, after its investigation was broadcast.
The recording, which is to be used in a forthcoming court case involving Duff and Phelps and Mr Whyte’s former lawyers Collyer Bristow, has been obtained legitimately by BBC Scotland.
During the exchange Mr Grier and Mr Whyte discuss Ticketus and Saffreys, one of the companies of lawyers involved in the transaction. Saffreys were acting for Mr Whyte with responsibility for dealing with Ticketus.
Mr Grier said: “I’ll tell you what we’re doing with that just so you…”
Mr Whyte: “Yeah.”
Mr Grier: “We, we went to see counsel yesterday and had a full sort of debrief of all the email correspondence.”
Mr Whyte: “Yep.”
Mr Grier: “Now, the fact is that we probably did know what was going on with Ticketus. There’s no email traffic whatsoever.”
Mr Whyte: “That says that you did?”
Mr Grier: “That says that we did.”
Mr Whyte: “But we all know that you did and f****** hell.”
Mr Grier: “Yeah, yeah. There’s no…we were not involved in dealing with Ticketus directly.”
Mr Whyte: “Yeah. So you knew the structures of the deal. You were dealing with Lloyds.”
Mr Grier: “Absolutely.”
Mr Whyte: “And the Ticketus part was Saffreys.”
Mr Grier “Yeah. So we’ve maintained that line quite rigorously.”
BBC Scotland has been able to confirm with a voice recognition expert that the recording is of Mr Grier.
Duff and Phelps spokesman Marty Dauer said: “As we have previously stated, Duff and Phelps maintains that our conduct of the Rangers administration was carried out to the highest professional standards.
“We do not respond to information that is taken out of context, as we believe is the case in the BBC story.
“We welcome the opportunity to review a complete copy of the information that the BBC references in its story.”
just had a nasty Storm here ….but this blog is wonderful …braw!
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 7m
@pmcn888 Duff and Phelps relied upon no email trail, hence difficulty proving. Several at Duff and Phelps are cheats. Mistakes were made.
So David Grier knew in June 2011(not Aug as claimed) Ticketus deals were in excess of £20m acc to @CharlotteFakes
I would say that is deep deep doo doo ! but then again everyone in this fiasco seems to float ! braw!
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 13m
@pmcn888 I was being generous, try April 2011. He’s lied here with regards to Data Room Access/Due Diligence info. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20074388 …
easyJambo says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:54 am
22
9
Rate This
resin_lab_dogH says: June 20, 2013 at 12:23 am
Good luck to Hearts… and to their Creditors.
Honest hypothetical question for the Hearts fans out there:
If you could have your club restored to you (no newco), solvent and in good standing, with a clean financial slate, and with all your creditors paid in full, your obligations met, and your good name in tact: the price? Hand over the 2012 Scottish cup to Hibs, with good wishes and apologies… Would you ‘Deal’ or ‘No Deal’?
I hope I know the answer… but am asking the question nevertheless!
_________________________________________________
Thanks for the thoughtful response EJ.
My own view is that honesty, credibility, decency and the spirit and soul of a club is worth far more than titles and on field honours.
The only titles that really mean anything are those that are won with honest endeavour, and without imperiling the innocent livelihoods of bystanders.
I’d rather my club was both honest and successful. But if forced to choose between the two, I would take honesty over success… The fact that your club has come unstuck in this way is, if anything, all the more reason why Hearts fans should – in my opinion- take the same view.
Not least because the theory is that the rules should be structured such that clubs that favour success over honesty will – one way or another – be found out and eliminated.
Unfortunately, it becoming increasingly apparent just how far fetched that ideal is in relation to governance of the Scottish sport.
Clearly I do not blame hearts fans for the predicament their club faces, they were not in much of a position to influence it, and they seem to have conducted themselves with concern and decorum reflecting the gravity of the situation, to face up to facts and responsibilities.
But the titles won recently must be tainted by the insolvency in my mind – if only in an ethical sense. I think to 2012 Scottish cup victory is therefore pyrric.
The adminsitration is something of a black mark on the otherwise proud history of your great club. It will always be that, come what may.
But I sincerely hope you manage to emerge with your club continuing and your history in tact.
Because if ‘The Rangers’ shambolic and shameful epsiode provides a cynical template which enables other clubs to escape their responsibilities to society, then I wouldn’t give you the toss of a coin in the centre circle for the whole of Scottish football.
Rangers are no more in my eyes, and the ghost of their history is not worth the financial black hole they created in their implosion. No one wants Hearts to go the same way.
easyJambo says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:24 am
6 10 Rate This
Are you suggesting that any club that goes into administration is cast aside for their profligacy until all the debts are paid, or are they given the opportunity to rebuild themselves to be managed sensibly? If the former is the case then there would be no TRFC, Dundee, Livingston, Hearts, Motherwell, Dunfermline etc
============================================================
Sorry for taking so long to get back E.J.
No, I am not suggesting what you say at all. Interestingly two of those you mention did it all over again! Motherwell seem to have got their act together but the Jury will remain out on the others.
My main issue was you suggesting Hibs finances should somehow come under scrutiny. While I acknowledge they do have a debt level (so do my team, Celtic) my view is no scrutiny is required as long Hibs and indeed other clubs manage their debts, and pay their taxes and other bills on time. There is no suggestion Hibs are not doing that and until such a time comes they are entitled to tell anyone who wants to scrutinise their finances to take a hike.
Did RIFC reply to Worthington wrt the LBC?.
I believe the deadline was yesterday.
Will we now actually see someone suing someone else after all?.
bogsdollox says:
June 20, 2013 at 4:34 pm
“Sometimes it’s the small things in life that keep us going.”
——————–
Puts me in mind of the roll and black pudding I had for lunch today.
the problem with football these days and it’s all football not just Scottish football is that it is no longer seen as a Sport but as a Business, ever since Rupert (*****) Murdoch and Sky got involved, thats the root cause of all the problems today with the whole system IMHO.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:30 pm
Celtic saved the club by someone actually buying it and paying off the debt. Fergus could have waited and bought off the assets, for substantially less, he didn’t as he knew it would be a new club and didn’t want that to happen. He wanted the original club and he wanted it debt free, so he paid the debt himself.
Rangers are trying to say it is the same club after it being placed into liquidation and shafting people out of tens of millions of pounds. No one bought the original club, no-one paid off it’s debt. The victims are still there and will get nothing or as near it as makes no difference.
The two scenarios couldn’t be more different.
Missed this email earlier from CF – thought the comment about the rust was a hoot although there are serious health & safety issues. The email was 2011 so I trust that the necessary work has been carried out as it’s a poor show when roofs are too dangerous for workers to access and what about the tens of thousands of fans siting underneath?
IBROX ROOF approx. £150,000
We have recently completed a survey of the all of the stand roofs at Ibrox and the results were not positive. As a result of many years of limited expenditure the roofs are now in a dilapidated state and in places have become unsafe to the point that contractors have indicated they may not be safe enough to continue working on.
The “dirty” state of the roofs was noted and when asked if we could clean it we had to point out that you can’t clean rust!
Broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 6:51 pm
“Why is the punishment for an insolvency event a points deduction?
The punishment should be relegation to the bottom tier of the league system.”
———————
Perhaps I’m stating the obvious but the rules stipulate a points deduction for an insolvency event comprising administration. If Hearts administration turns into a liquidation because a CVA cannot be negotiated or a buyer found then I would anticipate a similar outcome as Rangers enjoyed.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Maybe that’s why there isn’t a big Sports Direct sign on it.
The structure couldn’t take the weight of the extra paint.
Castofthousands says:
June 20, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Do you really think that Replacement Hearts would just get into SPFL 4 on the nod, or would there have to be some sort of application process where they and other were invited to put a case forward, for the members to vote on.
THT @TheHumanTorpedo 6m
I’ve doubted the Polynesian ability to defend ever since I noticed those Gary Caldwell statues on Easter Island #tahiti
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 8:11 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:30 pm
Celtic saved the club by someone actually buying it and paying off the debt. Fergus could have waited and bought off the assets, for substantially less, he didn’t as he knew it would be a new club and didn’t want that to happen. He wanted the original club and he wanted it debt free, so he paid the debt himself.
Rangers are trying to say it is the same club after it being placed into liquidation and shafting people out of tens of millions of pounds. No one bought the original club, no-one paid off it’s debt. The victims are still there and will get nothing or as near it as makes no difference.
The two scenarios couldn’t be more different.
==============================================================
@ Gaz – I suggest that you re-read my post as you have either misread it or totally misunderstood it.
Point 1) I stated: ‘if Celtic was in Rangers shoes then like the vast majority of Celtic fans I would be declaring that the old club lived on and hadn’t died’.
That is me talking about a hypothetical situation. If you think that if Celtic ever end-up in liquidation and a Celtic team continues playing in whatever League that Celtic fans will regard it as a new team with a new history then the Celtic fans you know are obviously nothing like the ones I do.
Point 2) I stated: ‘Having nearly seen Celtic die as a business I know I would have fought to retain the unbroken existance of the club’.
At no stage did I mention Fergus or him saving the club and I really don’t know who you mean when you say ‘Celtic saved the club’. One person saved the club and that was Fergus – no one else. I had a professional relationship with Fergus and also know quite a bit about the period before he arrived.
I was also one of the Celtic fans who was utterly ashamed at fellow supporters when they booed the Wee Guy and that truly brought me to the brink of walking away permanently.
So when I say that I nearly saw Celtic die as a club that means I had first-hand knowledge for a lengthy period as to the financial black-hole that Celtic had fallen into and the the reasons for it before Fergus arrived.
There really is nothing in my original post that deserve the comments you have made but it certainly seems I have stirred a hornet’s nest with my position on the newco/oldco/sameco club with a lot of Celtic supporters. I have no problem with that as long as the comments are accurate representations of what is actually stated in my posts.
As to your own comments – say what you want and it’s helpful if they are fact-based unless, of course, they are emotionally or partisan-based. I have no problem with the latter either but it always helps if we are all being open and transparent because that is surely what we seek in others.
Well, there you have it in the Oldco v Newco argument!
On tonight’s Pointless a contestant, when asked what he does in his spare time, declared that he supported Glasgow Rangers then qualified this by explaining to Alexander Armstrong that he believes they are now known as Newco Rangers
Auldheid says:
June 20, 2013 at 2:01 pm
”By amnesty I meant a period in time in which a law is suspended to allow the offenders to admit their crime without fear of prosecution….’
——
Fair enough, maybe.
Be better if some villain would turn ‘queen’s evidence’ and helps finger the rest of the villains for any actual crimes ( of conspiracy to defraud,etc etc) and let the criminal justice machine do its bit.
For those who may only(?!) have broken Scottish Footballing Rules, an amnesty , apologies, and complete withdrawal from active footballing involvement might do.
Gaz says:
June 20, 2013 at 8:45 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Maybe that’s why there isn’t a big Sports Direct sign on it. The structure couldn’t take the weight of the extra paint.
=================================================
Having spoken to a few of the St James’ guys who were fizzing at the number and size of signs I reckon that’s why SportsDirect were mooted for Ibrox to hide the rust and also shore up the structure 🙂
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 8:57 pm
I was actually agreeing with you and trying to reinforce the difference between the two situations.
When I said “Celtic saved itself” I fully appreciate that was Fergus. However by the time he did it he owned the club. So Celtic (or it’s owner if you want to be really accurate) saved itself by paying off it’s own debt. As opposed to what happened to Rangers.
Sorry if that came across the wrong way. I really was with you on this one.
CF [Chat (3)] – Funds from a Zebra? – Blimey
bect67 says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Well, there you have it in the Oldco v Newco argument!
On tonight’s Pointless a contestant, when asked what he does in his spare time, declared that he supported Glasgow Rangers then qualified this by explaining to Alexander Armstrong that he believes they are now known as Newco Rangers
=====================================================
Oh Dear – I can see the complaint to the BBC Trust right now about a mad Celtic fan posing as a Bear to blacken the Rangers’ name. They will be demanding that every contestant from now on must produce their ST to ensure the Bears remain supreme in numbers.
twopanda says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:09 pm
CF [Chat (3)] – Funds from a Zebra? – Blimey
=======================================
Is that not the Rangers ST Finance mob for paying in instalments – it might be Celtic’s as well.
On the Invoices CF has made available, two points to make.
1, It is interesting to compare the unit prices for each of the season. I was told about the dramatic reductions by someone else who has some knowledge of these things. However as I have said elsewhere, it is nice to see the documents and have these things confirmed.
2, These invoices include VAT and as such the tax would be due on them. Rangers issued the invoices and in addition were paid for them. This might be a lot of the VAT which formed part of the debt which forced them into administrations and subsequent liquidation. The money they received and simply didn’t remit to HMRC.
These are very important documents in the story of why and how Rangers died.
As an aside, I have reason to believe that HMRC were monitoring Ticketus’ relationship with various football clubs very closely and actively at that time.
It’s unusually quiet down Govan way.
No Traynor inspired nonsense, nothing from Green, Ahmad or Murray, Easdales not saying anything – and even our very own favourite billionaire from Motherwell is maintaining a low profile, [CF excepted]…
Is there some sort of truce in place – at least until all of the season ticket money has been hoovered up ?
Whilst on – respect for Hirsute Duplesis and Ecobhoy on LNS and interpretations – following every word.
ecobhoy says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:12 pm
no
StevieBC says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm
Makes a pleasant change tbh – free thinking evident overall on this blog without that `noise`
StevieBC says:
June 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm
3
0
Rate This
It’s unusually quiet down Govan way.
===================
Walter seems to have re instilled the old values of the establishment. Silence being the main one.
I believe however that there may well be trouble ahead very shortly.
From a guy just about to pocket £12 500 ( having generously agreed to give the same amount to CW. ( cf. Charlotte’s ‘invoices’)
” Very interested in those Wimbledon tickets if you don’t want them and they are not too expensive.”
Shyster, shafter, and cheapskate!
What a crew for anyone to get involved with.
Sam says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:39 pm
————————————–
Sam, I was in Binder Hamlyn when we adopted the BDO moniker at the end of 1987… Then a couple of years later we heard that the Dutch guys – Dijke & Co – were pulling out, so it seemed we were going to be working for BO. Then in 94 we ourselves were bought by Arthur Andersen (whatever happened to them??) so all that was left really was ‘O’.
And that’s really how they should be referred to today but no doubt they claim they are still the same BDO that existed back in the 80s, except they aren’t…they are most definitely a newco
On the day’s other news, I think the Court of Appeal decision in relation to the Celtic supporter established that we are now formally in a police state.
Under their ruling, a man can be sitting by himself in his car, with the windows closed, singing from the ‘Police Scotland verboten’ list – green or orange it matters not the hue of the song.
The point is, if that man is driving to Murrayfield to watch a game of rugger, he’s fine. If however he’s on his way to a football ground, then he will be committing a criminal offence if some polis subjectively decides what he’s singing is offensive – even if no-one can hear it.
Scottish football fans of all colours are being targeted as criminals; it is time football fans of all teams stood up and opposed this attack on democracy and attack on football.
That subject, to my mind, is at least as important as the other matters being debated on here.