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?
Scottish sports journalists have been getting it in the neck for the past couple of days (deservedly so) but here are a few lines in defence of Hugh MacDonald (Chief sports writer) at the Herald.
Like a number of fellow posters; I read Michael Grant’s piece last week and his parting paragraph giving details of TRFC season tkt books. Rather than be ignored with a complaint direct to the Herald, I thought I would voice my concerns to one of their senior sports journalists, I also threw in a few lines about Andy Murray at Wimbledon. To my very pleasant surprise, Hugh (I can say Hugh now because he addressed me by my first name) got back to me over the weekend with a simple – Dear ##, Mr Grant is an Aberdeen fan so is beyond redemption … And then some casual banter about Andy Murray.
OK, it’s not the libellous acknowledgement that I was wanting, but I’m still in shock that he took the time to reply.
Rangers have(had?) more than one physio, the personality issues within rfc management / physio dept are discussed with Charlottes doc titled ‘Rookie mistakes’
Celtic Paranoia says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:05 pm
and they are being extremely optimisitc with question 25 !
————————————————————————————-
Perhaps he’ll send the tapes which curiously enough they haven’t asked for.
ecobhoy says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:29 pm
0 0 Rate This
Celtic Paranoia says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:05 pm
and they are being extremely optimisitc with question 25 !
————————————————————————————-
Perhaps he’ll send the tapes which curiously enough they haven’t asked for.
============================================================
I suppose that’ll come under “Don’t ask questions when you don’t want to know the answers” category!
Captain Haddock says:
July 1, 2013 at 3:57 pm
5 0 Rate This
You would think the Easdales’ long term business experience would have included using a bank / safe deposit system to stop having lots of cash lying around which might be at risk of being purloined or earmarked by persons unknown for purposes unknown.
————
Yes, if you were of a suspicious mind, you might think that …
ForresDee says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:32 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:29 pm
0 0 Rate This
Celtic Paranoia says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:05 pm
and they are being extremely optimisitc with question 25 !
————————————————————————————-
Perhaps he’ll send the tapes which curiously enough they haven’t asked for.
============================================================
I suppose that’ll come under “Don’t ask questions when you don’t want to know the answers” category!
_______________________________________________________
As the tapes aren’t ‘official’ I doubt they could be requested, even if the Insolvency Service know of their existence. I’d expect they’d only be of value to CW should he feel they would back up his story, at which point he’d be only too happy to volunteer them. I’d imagine forensic verification of tape recording will be expensive and if the IS requested them, it’d be at their expense. Much better to leave it to Whyte to offer them in his defence (if that is required) and leave it to him to foot the verification bill. On the other hand, should CW’s answers to the questionnaire point them in the direction of others, the IS might well be inclined to foot any bill necessary. Whatever, the fact that CW has tapes, and who knows how many, must leave all those involved with rather a lot to worry about 🙂
Re: The bus: It’s kept everyone amused for a few days and, let’s face it, it is hilarious stuff but it is also fluff, smoke, mirrors and a metaphorical squirrel.
One question? Why?
ForresDee says:
July 1, 2013 at 9:58 am
Gaz says:
July 1, 2013 at 9:13 am
From the Herald article
“Frankly, he has already built a squad which should be comfortably good enough to win not only SPFL League One but the SPFL Championship, as well, without the need for further additions.”
That squad is comfortably good enough to win the SPFL Championship, really. I wouldn’t have thought so.
===================================
You need to be careful buying a squad to win the old Div 1, it’s not as easy as everyone thinks. They will need all sorts of special help during the attempt to win that division, especially as there is now more money flowing down. That’s unfortunately 7 years of experience talking.
Now, the Herald has Goian on £8.2K a week, how does that compare to what we have seen through charlotte? I’m guessing that the alleged savings of £2M are actually an expense.
Wonder if Auldheid could do a quick estimation of life expectancy based on 35k season tickets and starting with £4-5M in the bank?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is one on the same lines from CQN.
Auldheid,
Looks like he’s been reading your spreadsheet 🙂
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Aye but I did spread it as far and wide as I could – ouch!
Funny thing is I’ve been waiting for feedback that says its 99% crap but apart from tweaks here and there that did not affect the bottom line too greatly it still stands.
What is interesting is that if the start point this season is £7m in the kitty the figure calculated in the sheet is £12m after deducting expenditure from income.
The impact on the bottom line if they go into this season with £7M as the start point is a red line of -£1,137,757 becomes -£6,998,171 and the following season (which they would not see on that basis) of
-£14,170,552.
They have to enter administration again, budget on a basis of gates of 30,000, pay wages that 30,000 plus any extra income can support, tear up all the contracts as Hearts are doing and do what they should have done, and cut their cloth, although they were planning then on a parachute into the SPL. That did not work and reality is now biting.
The thinking Rangers supporter should abstain from SBs, bring admin closer and wipe out share value in the process in order to stiff the spivs now in charge, although one guy will not make that much impact I guess.
(that very last bit was unworthy of me but I do have a sense of humour and sometimes it beats my judgement into submission, but the bit before is serious medicine)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/146867089/Ticketus-Deal-Sir-David-Murray
This was posted 2 or 3 weeks ago by CF,a couple of things stand out,the date sold is between the 13th nov and 4th dec in which time they only had 1 home euro game left against Man U,
What is a european mini season ticket? and why would 32,000 thousand fans pay over £80?
——————————
These 2 lines also pop out,the prices look like the cost of a season book and as it says below to be sold in A/J 2011,to me that reads as if DM sold season tickets for seaon 2011/2012.
Priced as if sold in December 2010 (actually to be sold in April / June 2011)
Number of Tickets 2,079 Ticket Price(net of vat) 456.17
Additional Funding Number of Tickets 2,218 Ticket Price(net of vat) 536.27.
So if DM did sell future season books,Who paid this debt?,Was it paid before the takeover or after?Having secured nearly 4,300 season books for season 2011/2012 why would ticketus enter into an arrangement with CW for an additional 23,000 season books.Strange.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149001284/Rangers-FC-Invoice-to-Ticketus-11-12
Bangordub says:
July 1, 2013 at 5:22 pm
1 0 Rate This
Re: The bus: It’s kept everyone amused for a few days and, let’s face it, it is hilarious stuff but it is also fluff, smoke, mirrors and a metaphorical squirrel.
One question? Why?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because all the IPO money has been spent, season ticket sales are below target, and costs are still running at over £2m per month. Insolvent by Christmas. Now could we all think about something else, please, and look at the lovely squirrels, while those nice men at Ibrox make off with as much cash as possible before the bears wake up.
Drew Peacock says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:15 pm
Not as I understand it. Though it is the picture Rangers fans have painted.
As I understand it the money was placed in an escrow account by Ticketus. To be released when Craig Whyte bought the shares and as such had control of Rangers. The money was not to be released unless that happened.
He used that money being in the account as a proof of funds and bought the shares. That was the important issue, when he bought the shares. He could then do what he wanted with the tickets.
Once he had them then the money was released to him in order to do the rest.
Whyte did not sell the tickets before he got control of the club. He sold the tickets on the condition that he got control of the club, if he hadn’t then the condition would have failed and the money returned to the person who it belonged to. The tickets would not have been sold to Ticketus. So by the time he sold them he actually did own the shares and as such was in a position to sell the tickets.
That’s the point of an escrow setup.
They’re at it again!!!
Andrew Dickson @rfc_dickson 19m
Want to hear Craig Mather on season tickets, players in/out, SPFL membership, Hearts & RFC’s future? He’s on @RangersTV right now (99p PPV)
ecobhoy says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:41 am
Investigative journalism? Getting the facts right would be a start and I might have given them a real story 4 years absence from Europe?
To The Scotsman (today)
Good Morning
I am writing to inform you that the article by Ewing Grahame at http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/rangers-spfl-status-will-not-open-door-to-europe-1-2984163 re Rangers exile from Europe for three years is inaccurate.
“Contrary to popular myth, that is not the result of any ban handed down by the authorities. It is, instead, a direct result of not having published audited accounts.”
There are no UEFA FFP articles which have to be complied with to get access to UEFA competition that stipulate three years accounts are required. NONE.
The requirement for audited accounts comes under Article 47 which is for Annual Financial Statements. It happens each year and refers only to the prior year not prior three years. Even for Interim Accounts under Article 48 it is only the last set.
The ONLY place in FFP that you find the words “three years” that form part of a licensing requirement with an exile for that time if not met is under Article 12 and the relevant bit says the MEMBERSHIP must have lasted at least three consecutive years. I have copied it below.
In fact there is perhaps a story that it is worse than that in the article in that the SFA membership began in August 2012 which means the three years does not expire until August 2015. However the licensing cycle for 2015/16 is decided by 31st May/1st June so technically speaking the required three years have not been met when a decision is made whether a club qualifies for a UEFA licence.
Given the financial import of this in terms of future budgeting where the Rangers hope is UEFA money will come back on tap in 2015 it would be as well to check this out as well of course as correcting the article and enlightening your readership in the process.
Auldyin
Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company).
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any
alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,
changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings
between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on
sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a
competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.
From twitter;
RetroScot @RetroScot 7m
Hope I’m not betraying confidences, but looks like a fellow creditor is thinking about taking action against the club (not the company) 1/2
RetroScot @RetroScot 5m
Says in common parlance, his contract was with “the club” so either he gets paid or he proves they’re not the same thing. All I can say 2/2
Lets see what comes of this!
(probably not a lot)
It seems astounding that the MSM are quite happy to now state that the IPO money is down to around 8m but fail to examine the fact that ,if they received the reported 22m then it would mean that they have blown 14m whilst getting world record crowds .
I know how gullible your average bear is but figures like this must have even the dimmest bulb in the Ibox getting jittery
ForresDee says:
July 1, 2013 at 6:03 pm
2 0 Rate This
From twitter;
RetroScot @RetroScot 7m
Hope I’m not betraying confidences, but looks like a fellow creditor is thinking about taking action against the club (not the company) 1/2
RetroScot @RetroScot 5m
Says in common parlance, his contract was with “the club” so either he gets paid or he proves they’re not the same thing. All I can say 2/2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m afraid that “common parlance” is going to get whoever it is precisely nowhere in a court of law. His contract is with a limited company. If he hasn’t been paid, he’d be better off suing them, rather than wasting time and money.
Talking of which, didn’t the SFA try to enforce its fine on Whyte in Glasgow Sheriff Court a few months back? Does anyone know what happened to that complete waste of court time? I’ll take it for granted that Whyte didn’t pay a penny, whatever the outcome!
jonnyod says:
July 1, 2013 at 6:17 pm
=======================
It would also appear that their IPO promises haven’t been exactly stuck to.
I don’t remember the IPO being based on “we will use the vast bulk of the money on everyday running costs”.
Re-all the talk of Sevco finances. Can someone, anyone, explain to me what type of governance the SFA have in place? Is it the case they just never have to submit accounts? I know that sounds rather extreme but when exactly did any club from Ibrox last actually submit audited accounts to the SFA? It seems they don’t have to submit audited accounts to anyone and no-one actually cares. All I see is smoke, mirrors, and a club from Ibrox indulging in inexplicable levels of investment in players. It may be small beer compared to previous inexplicable levels of spending but it’s all relative and how is it being financed? Why do other clubs have to submit audited accounts to the SFA and clubs from Ibrox don’t?
If I sound pissed off at seeing history apparently repeating itself, I am.
http://www.pinsentmasons.com/en/media/dco-news/march-2013/13-march-2013/vince-cable-borrowing-may-not-be-as-bad-as-slow-growth/
Small world
upthehoops says:
July 1, 2013 at 7:44 pm
0 0 Rate This
Re-all the talk of Sevco finances. Can someone, anyone, explain to me what type of governance the SFA have in place? Is it the case they just never have to submit accounts? I know that sounds rather extreme but when exactly did any club from Ibrox last actually submit audited accounts to the SFA? It seems they don’t have to submit audited accounts to anyone and no-one actually cares.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Assuming they don’t go bust, first, annual audited accounts (y/e 30/6/2013) are due to be published under AIM rules by 31/12/2013. I believe that a half year report (to 28/02/2013) should have been published by 31 May 2013. I am currently in correspondence with AIM on this apparent compliance failure.
liveinhop says:
July 1, 2013 at 3:38 pm
http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/231534-rangers-investors-james-and-sandy-easdale-have-100000-stolen
———————-
£100,000 lying about the bus garage. Perhaps they have novel banking facilities.
The article had McGills turnover at £35 but their Duedil gives it as £15M. Of course, McGills is not their only business interest.
https://www.duedil.com/company/SC027238/mcgill-s-bus-service-limited/financials
Drew Peacock says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:15 pm
“The “advance” was made to Wavetower at a time when it did not own TRFC and was not therefore in a position to supply season tickets.”
——————–
So RFC borrowed against tickets they didn’t rightfully own, what kind of CW personal guarantee would persuade Ticketus to part with their money. We know Ticketus are still on the scene.They are almost like the single continuous strand in the whole tale.
Robert Coyle says:
July 1, 2013 at 5:39 pm
“?Having secured nearly 4,300 season books for season 2011/2012 why would ticketus enter into an arrangement with CW for an additional 23,000 season books.Strange.”
———————–
I see an opportunity for some wild speculation. Ticketus have morphed from being a capital resource provider in football to being an owner.
Castofthousands says:
July 1, 2013 at 8:26 pm
————————————————
What i see is David Murray using the fans money to escape an insolvency event of his own,and what of craig whyte,over 2 million down before he purchases the club,did he know?As for your quip about ticketus,i doubt it,but perhaps the investors who secretly hide behind companies like octopus/tickets might.
CW was relying on CL or Europa money to bail Ticketus. When Ally crashed that particular bus he was left in the double bind of Ticketus and an unsustainable wage bill. The sale of NJ for +£10M would have gone some way to mitigate the yawning gap that had appeared in his business plan. Steven Davis and Steven Naismith would also have brought in much needed income. A number of elements conspired to bring Plan B crashing to earth like an overweight dodo:
Ally contrived to throw away a 15 point lead
NJ’s price went through the floor probably thanks to the club’s desperation to sell him smelling like they were trying to shift a problem.
Naismith injured himself whilst committing a foul and put himself on the treatment table for nine months
S Davis had just signed a five year contract and had effectively priced himself out of the market.
Internet bampots like RTC were all over CW like a cheap suit and the MSM found itself in the alien territory of having to tell the truth about the shenanigans at Ibrox
HMRC were awake to the fact that Rangers were running on vapour and that they would have to move fast to prevent CW scuttling the ship.
The only thing that helped CW was he was allowed Dumb & Dumber, the rest, as they say is history.
davythelotion says:
July 1, 2013 at 9:34 pm
====================================
I’d have been amazed if they’d ever got £10M for Jelavic. As I recall he scored one goal in Europe against Malmo and the rest of his success was at domestic level. I really don’t see how that made him a £10M player having cost £6M less 18 months previously.
upthehoops says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:15 pm
Sevconomics
campsiejoe says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:21 pm
===============================
Absolutely. I think given what we know about their PR and the influence on the media we are entitled to wonder if any transfer fee, in or out, was over inflated to make them look good.
Re the redundancies at i-brokes…
From FF
The bit about redundancies inside the club is very much true I’m afraid.
Every job is under review and one to one meetings were held last week.
People earning as little as between 15k-25k PER YEAR will be losing their jobs this week.
I find that totally scandalous.
These people’s jobs were managed to be saved when we were actually in administration, and now we are out, had a share issue, again sold fantastic amount of season tickets, these ordinary working folk could be out on their ears.
I’m expecting a phone call today from an employee who was close to tears last week when telling me of the news.
It’s just not right, cutting in the wrong places.
============================================
looks like the bears are beginning to wise up!
More lies, propoganda and veiled threats!!!
We’ll Watch With Interest
WRITTEN BY ANDREW DICKSON
CRAIG MATHER says he’ll watch with interest as Scottish football authorities act after Hearts went into administration recently.
The Tynecastle outfit was today issued with a notice of complaint by the SFA for ‘suffering an insolvency event’ last month.
It has until next Monday to respond to the governing body, with a principal hearing date set for Thursday, July 18.
Many Rangers fans and staff still feel aggrieved at the clamour to punish their own club after it experienced financial difficulties of its own last year.
The feeling among some is that certain penalties issued back then were too harsh after the Light Blues were voted out of the SPL and left to start again in the Third Division.
What happens to the Jambos remains to be seen as their future is still unclear but Ibrox chief executive Mather wants rational thinking rather than impulsive reactions.
The Lancastrian maintains whatever happens must be measured and considered a little more than 12 months after Gers’ own situation was dealt with.
Mather told RangersTV: “The situation at Hearts, putting everything else to one side for a minute, affects people’s livelihoods. From that perspective, I do have sympathy for all of them there.
“I just hope common sense prevails and people aren’t as quick to judge and make rash decisions like they did with us then have to pick up the pieces afterwards.
“It is important time is taken to make the right decisions. I’m not privy to all the information but they need to make an educated decision to avoid the fall-out there was with Rangers.
“That can’t happen again to Scottish football. I will be watching with interest to make sure it is a black and white decision and that it’s fair.
“All points need to be taken into consideration and we have to make sure the decisions made are right.”
neepheid says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:19 pm
”… I won’t be renewing because the unopposed coronation of Ogilvie 3 weeks ago has stuck in my craw, .”
——
Most of us were staggered at Ogilvie’s re-election.
But the likelihood is that there was no other candidate.
In those circumstances, it is difficult to see what any ‘elector’ could in practice, do.
Stand up and object to that candidate’s candidacy? That would be an unheard of departure from normal constitutional procedure.
The absence of any other candidate necessarily results in the only candidate being elected, without a vote.
That is by no means ( as implied by the SFA) the same as ‘elected unanimously’.
There will have been many members of the SFA who would have voted for another candidate had there been one.
You may well deplore the fact that no one else was prepared to stand for election.
Many of us would have liked it if that honourable and able man Turnbull Hutton had stepped forward, or any one of half-a-dozen other honourable men.
But it would not be right or just to castigate them for not doing so.
And, in any event, the way things seem to be going, people will be found out, and changes in presidencies etc will be required as the heat builds up.
Brass can be melted, and rotten smells can stick to Teflon.
paulsatim says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:52 pm
More lies, propoganda and veiled threats!!!
We’ll Watch With Interest
WRITTEN BY ANDREW DICKSON
…
Mather told RangersTV: “The situation at Hearts …
“It is important time is taken to make the right decisions. I’m not privy to all the information but they need to make an educated decision to avoid the fall-out there was with Rangers.
“That can’t happen again to Scottish football. I will be watching with interest to make sure it is a black and white decision and that it’s fair.
“All points need to be taken into consideration and we have to make sure the decisions made are right.”
====================================
Now, you would think that a new CEO with no prior football club experience, [and an Interim CEO at that],
would be far too busy concentrating on his own club which has its own myriad of problems to overcome – to be bothered about making a comment about any another club.
Somebody should inform Mather that if there was any justice at all – his club should have been expelled from Scottish football for their past indiscretions. An acceptable alternative is that the Govan club remains irrelevant in Scottish football in the long run.
“Many Rangers fans and staff still feel aggrieved at the clamour to punish their own club after it experienced financial difficulties of its own last year.
The feeling among some is that certain penalties issued back then were too harsh after the Light Blues were voted out of the SPL and left to start again in the Third Division.”
==============================
Liquidation is not “financial difficulties”
Rangers were not “voted out of the SPL”. That is simply a lie, no more and no less, a lie.
At least we know that the interim CEO is just as bad as the previous ones. A liar and a rabble rouser.
This is really pathetic:
“I just hope common sense prevails and people aren’t as quick to judge and make rash decisions like they did with us then have to pick up the pieces afterwards.
“It is important time is taken to make the right decisions. I’m not privy to all the information but they need to make an educated decision to avoid the fall-out there was with Rangers.
“That can’t happen again to Scottish football. I will be watching with interest to make sure it is a black and white decision and that it’s fair.
“All points need to be taken into consideration and we have to make sure the decisions made are right.”
Excuse me:
It is online for ANYONE to see what HMRC rules are for considering case by case tax issues.
In a nutshell. If you and/or your company puts the paying of tax pretty much up front on your priority list HMRC will cut you some slack. They want all the money but will not put you out of business if you at least try and pay.
Rangers tried every trick in the book to avoid paying tax for a generation. For 4 years they basically put 2 fingers up to HMRC and even shredded evidence of tax dodging.
Hearts, for all Vlads faults eventually stumped up the tax (with fan assistance)………….There is NO similarity.
john clarke says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:55 pm
1 1 Rate This
neepheid says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:19 pm
”… I won’t be renewing because the unopposed coronation of Ogilvie 3 weeks ago has stuck in my craw, .”
——
Most of us were staggered at Ogilvie’s re-election.
But the likelihood is that there was no other candidate.
++++++++++++++++++++
I’m absolutely certain that there was no other candidate. Which is why every single club in Scotland is complicit in this putrid conspiracy to keep this conflicted excuse for a president exactly where Sevco and their allies want him and need him- at the top. Which is why not a single penny of my money is going into Scottish football unless and until this stinking midden is cleaned out once and for all. And that can’t be for at least two years now, following the “coronation” of Ogilvie three weeks ago. I don’t blame Sevco, I don’t blame my club, I blame all 42 clubs who have subscribed to this national disgrace. Whether actively or passively, I really don’t care. None of them will ever see a penny from me, because I truly believe that a stinking midden is what the clubs want. But it’s not what I want, and I’m not paying for it. Hell mend them is my response, and that’s all of them.
paulsatim says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:38 pm
‘..looks like the bears are beginning to wise up!’
——
I had a colleague once, old enough to be my mammy, who, when given the choice, chose to have her own room in the office painted orange and blue.
She was by no means a bad woman, or personally offensive to supporters of other clubs.
She was a die-hard supporter of ‘ the Gers’, with no more knowledge of the incredibly complicated political , social, and religious history of this country or of Ireland than Mr Ng in Singapore.
She was always pleasant and humourous and obliging and so on.
My point, dear reader, is that there will be women (and, of course, men) working in Ibrox who are like my former colleague.
People that you can rub along with, as they can rub along with you.
People doing pretty much the same kind of jobs as she had and earning (relatively) the same kind of money, or less.
Who now are going to be made redundant.
Not because of the harsh economic downtown, that has affected lots of companies run by decent folk.
But because some knight of the realm behaved like a megalomaniac , like some Crassus or Pompey or Darius the Persian.
And, unlike them, and most unchivalrously, hadn’t the balls to face up to what he had done, but deviously and cunningly , ‘off-loaded’ the problem to a low level scheming tyke of a turd, around whom were soon gathered a swarm of sh-te flies.
A turd who was allowed to ‘buy’ their place of employment, run it into the ground and walk away, laughing all the way to the bank.. ( he hopes)
Let’s hope that the Bears are indeed beginning to wise up as to who was really responsible for the death of their club, and his accomplices in the MSM who, eagerly choking themselves on succulent lamb, lost sight of any idea of journalistic truth.
They know who they are.
And, of course, so do we!
john clarke says:
July 1, 2013 at 11:52 pm
If The Rangers supporters start to feel about the whole business as you do then SDM will be a DM in real trouble. History will see him much as you have described him.
StevieBC says:
July 1, 2013 at 11:14 pm
7
0
Rate This
_________________________
Somebody should inform Mather that if there was any justice at all – his club should have been expelled from Scottish football for their past indiscretions. An acceptable alternative is that the Govan club remains irrelevant in Scottish football in the long run.
_____________________________
I hear where you are coming from Stevie. But you are falling into a bear trap there.
The Govan club that committed the past indiscretions is legally and morally dead and persists only in the imagination of the deranged, so could not be expelled from scottish footbal.
The zombie club that stole its shoes and asumed its legacy is a new entity. And it is irrelevant.
This is an unarguable fact. It is not something that we shout about because we don’t want to upset sensibilities unecessarily, but when the bears get out of line, as Mather did in this case, it is the ace in the hole that anyone in Scottish football can use to trump their triumphalism.
Rangers are just as dead as Osama Bin Laden is dead. It trips of the tongue. And we have evidence to prove it.
Mine of 11.52.
Ok, ‘Downturn’, not ‘downtown’!
Shades of Petula Clark!
And hands up anyone who remembers ‘Radio Fun’?
And can I pretend to be a teenaged texter now and say excitedly ” OMG, she’s feckin ten years aulder than me!’
( and you grammar polis can go speak to my English teacher, that sainted man!)
John Clarke and Auldheid
Absolutely spot on.
SDM will not be seen kindly by history.
And the story will start and end with him and his and at his door.
I’d say he like some other Scottish Oligarchs used football to become more famous and fan their own self worth and wealth.
But he was the worst.
The Worcest in fact.
I’d also say he failed when he began to believe his own press releases!
And his plan to use CW as a pals son, and convenient and complicit patsy nearly worked but it is unwinding and will come back to haunt all who were complicit.
None of this has shown our country, economy, football world or media up in a good light.
And to think we used to have some honest, conviction led politicians like Jim Sillars and Margot Macdonald and Denis Canavan but the silence from Holyrood is embarrassing, from all hues of the political spectrum.
I am an optimist who believes there is good in most people and places.
When will someone in parliament, at the SFA, etc blow a whistle!
upthehoops says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:15 pm
7 0 Rate This
davythelotion says:
July 1, 2013 at 9:34 pm
#########
Whilst £10M for NJ may seem astonishing to the average watcher of things footie, when JA Boumsong was sold by Rangers for £8M- having been signed only four months previously on a free- – or when Lorenzo Amuroso was sold by Rangers for £1.4M and subsequently played 18 games or when Rangers sold Barry Ferguson for £7.5M and then bought him back net for £10000, you have to wonder why CW believed he was going to cop his whack for NJ.
Unfortunately for CW, Mr souness was no longer involved in ‘soccernomics’ and Walter was enjoying his well earned retirement.
davythelotion says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:51 am
=============================
Fair point. Had Souness been in charge of an English club they may well have got their £10M for Jelavic. As for the Boumsong farce, I still don’t get why Newcastle so willingly sanctioned £8M instead of asking Souness why he just didn’t snap him up for free six months earlier.
Finloch says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:50 am
13 0 Rate This
I am an optimist who believes there is good in most people and places.
When will someone in parliament, at the SFA, etc blow a whistle!
=========================================================
I’ve always thought there’s far more good people than bad, although the bad people tend to be more visible. Power corrupts though, albeit to different extents, and I’m not sure there’s anyone in power in Parliament or at the SFA who have any stomach to blow the whistle. It was made clear by Parliament and the SFA last year that a club playing in blue at Ibrox is bombproof. If it wasn’t for us pesky fans they might even have got away with it. Yet the patronising tone we hear from those in power is that we didn’t know what was best for us. What is best for us is a club in blue playing at Ibrox with a limitless line of credit from a Scottish owned bank, who also operate elaborate tax avoidance schemes. Given the joyous indulgence of such a club for 25 years by those in power, and their media pals, it’s clear no whistles will be blown.
Since when has an official government agency sent official requests for insormation via email? Whyte has a registered UK address – even if it was only loaned to perpetuate an “off the radar wealth” scam – and has lawyers I’d presume who act for him in UK matters. What next? The Procurator Fiscal serving warrants electronically? You don’t think an official request for information would require certification in the event it was used in official legal proceedings? Charlotte is looking to be a bit of a fake right enough.
I hear Media House are representing the interests of the Easdale’s in their ‘cash in the depot’ theft. Timing, eh? There are scams running scams here. The point was to put the Rangers assets out of the reach of creditors while convincing the fans its the same Rangers, skirting phoenix rules with some nonsense a club is an entity which exists without corporate structure. So it exists as an idea, much like religion, but resale value attached?
The lack of a summer for 2 years has kept the bears in a prolonged state of hibernation ,they need a good summer to waken from their slumber before its too late [again]yawn,yawn
Castofthousands says:
July 1, 2013 at 8:16 pm
They didn’t borrow against anything, they sold tickets.
That was later argued about in the Court of Session in which they argued that their rights to those tickets survived any insolvency event. The Court disagreed under Scots Law and said that if Rangers (through the adminstrator) simply breached the contract Ticketus would become an unsecured creditor like everyone else.
I have never seen anything to suggest that Ticketus lent money to Rangers and it is not how Ticketus operate. They buy Tickets, in advance at a discount to then sell at face value. It is a way businesses can help their cash flow if they are struggling and cannot get proper borrowing elsewhere. It is normally considered a short term fix, for example at the end of the season. it is not a good sign if it happens on a regular basis.
Here is the Octopus Statement, simple and succinct.
http://www.octopusinvestments.com/news.html?ClickThrough=1&newsId=363
Octopus press statement on Ticketus
17 February 2012
Octopus Investments would like to clarify the position of Ticketus with regard to the current Glasgow Rangers coverage.
Ticketus is one of the many entities into which Octopus Protected EIS invests. Ticketus has purchased tickets for Glasgow Rangers games for a number of seasons in advance, as it has done for a number of years previously with the club.
Ticketus does not lend money; Ticketus is the owner of assets – the tickets. Octopus is continuing to work with the administrators and Glasgow Rangers on this matter.
sumproduct says:
July 2, 2013 at 7:41 am
skirting phoenix rules with some nonsense a club is an entity which exists without corporate structure. So it exists as an idea, much like religion, but resale value attached?
=======================================================================
I believe a club lasts as long as there are fans to support it. It has enormous emotional value but not even 1p in financial value. It can’t be sold anyway as it doesn’t belong to any individual or corporate entity but to the entire fan base who collectively hold it in trust for future generations of fans.
And what is a ‘club’ – well to me it’s the receptacle which holds the history and culture of a club and its supporters as well as the future aspirations of its fans and as long as they support it then it lives for ever.
You and the Rangers fans are perfectly entitled to take that stance. That “the club” still exists because if it exists anywhere it exists in their hearts. As such no-one can take it away.
However in the real World The Club was liquidated and doesn’t exist any more. Of that there is no doubt. Nebulous metaphysical argument won’t change that.
sumproduct says:
July 2, 2013 at 7:41 am
Since when has an official government agency sent official requests for insormation via email? Whyte has a registered UK address – even if it was only loaned to perpetuate an “off the radar wealth” scam – and has lawyers I’d presume who act for him in UK matters. What next? The Procurator Fiscal serving warrants electronically? You don’t think an official request for information would require certification in the event it was used in official legal proceedings? Charlotte is looking to be a bit of a fake right enough.
I hear Media House are representing the interests of the Easdale’s in their ‘cash in the depot’ theft. Timing, eh? There are scams running scams here. The point was to put the Rangers assets out of the reach of creditors while convincing the fans its the same Rangers, skirting phoenix rules with some nonsense a club is an entity which exists without corporate structure. So it exists as an idea, much like religion, but resale value attached?
_____________________________________________________________
If you are correct about these latest email from CF I’m sure some intrepid member of the MSM will take a giant leap for Scottish journalism and contact Ms Edgar to see if a) she exists and b) she can confirm she uses email to correspond with those under investigation. I doubt she’d give out much re Whyte but she could be asked to confirm or deny any such contact. If she doesn’t exist then these extreme measures by the journalist will allow him to be the one that blows CF’s scam (if it is one) asunder and gain a permanent place at the succulent table (Mark II, or is it III, or even IV). I am, however, quite sure that these emails won’t be Ms Edgar’s initial, nor only, attempt to get the required info from Craigie (if they are genuine) and, as he tends to move about a lot, and I doubt ever admits to receiving any mail through any of his letter boxes, I’d think trying to contact him via email a reasonable thing to do. Whether certification is required to make it official, I don’t know, but I’m sure Ms Edgar would like to be able to show her superiors that she’d made every attempt possible to get answers from CW and, if he’d answered her and provided any answers, then I’m sure she’d get a much welcomed pat on the back. She has now, at least, been able to establish that CW’s email address has changed! I’m not suggesting that these emails are definitely genuine, nor that CF is kosher either, I’m just suggesting that just because they seem less than professional and open to legal challenge it doesn’t mean they are fake. Without slack procedures like this, how’d you ever expect a fraudster to ever get away with it? 😉
I like your comparison of a club to religion as I expect, to many, their football club is a religion. But who said you can’t sell religion? Just look at all those multi-millionaire TV evangelists in America, they just re-packaged it and made a mint out of selling their new religion! A bit like new Rangers really 😉 and all spivs, the lot of them.
Eco, you were asking about JLT Benefit Solutions yesterday, I didn’t have time to reply.
They are the administrators of the Jerome Group Pension Scheme. The only people who could authorise the transfer of monies from the scheme to the Collyer Bristow account are the trustees of the pension scheme. For that amount of money it would generally be two signatures.
Administrators of a trust based scheme like this one can only follow the advice of the trustees.
Allyjambo says:
July 2, 2013 at 9:12 am
sumproduct says:
July 2, 2013 at 7:41 am
I like your comparison of a club to religion as I expect, to many, their football club is a religion. But who said you can’t sell religion? Just look at all those multi-millionaire TV evangelists in America, they just re-packaged it and made a mint out of selling their new religion! A bit like new Rangers really 😉 and all spivs, the lot of them.
==================================================================
Tbh I think football was way in front of TV evangelists in recognising how useful the ‘club’ concept was in substituting it with the ‘brand’ which of course had enormous commercial potential. The building blocks were also there within the fans and their love of ‘club’ in terms of things like local derbies and even the Old Firm. These rivalries which were woven into the tapestry of a club history and culture were ripe for exploitation and we recently saw it used by Green with Rangers fans.
Sadly there even appear to be modern football fans who believe the ‘club’ is so inextricably linked with its holding or operating company that if the latter go bust then the ‘club’ also dies. I accept that might be the case but as I have explained my concept of a ‘club’ isn’t based on £sd but on whether fans wish it to continue or not and I don’t care what club is involved it is up to supporters to decide whether the ‘club’ goes on and no one else and that’s how it should be.
To those who think a club is something that can be liquidated purely on monetray grounds I feel nothing but sadness as I doubt if they will ever understand that awesome experience of belonging to a club and knowing you are part of its history and although I have no religious affiliation that feeling is akin to what I assume could well be described as a spiritual experience.
On the Insolvency Service list of questions there were a number of things that interest me in terms of provenance and one of those was the mention of ‘JLT Benefit Solutions’ as I had never come across it before and was surprised to do so in view of its extremely prestigious parent company. I actually posted a query yesterday asking if anyone else had come across it wrt Rangers but have had no response.
Things like that to me could be useful in deciding whether the list is genuine or not. I think the writer of the email – who might not be the author/s of the questions was in the main box-ticking. But it seems probable to me that, if genuine, the questions have been lifted from another document and CF has chosen not to reveal that. I would have thought at the very least there would have been a disclaimer on re-use of the material or p[erhaps there was and CF has removed it.
beanos says:
July 2, 2013 at 9:35 am
0
0
Rate This
Eco, you were asking about JLT Benefit Solutions yesterday, I didn’t have time to reply.
They are the administrators of the Jerome Group Pension Scheme. The only people who could authorise the transfer of monies from the scheme to the Collyer Bristow account are the trustees of the pension scheme. For that amount of money it would generally be two signatures.
Administrators of a trust based scheme like this one can only follow the advice of the trustees.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Ta! I had missed that. So the question was to identify the Trustee that authorised the transfer – I can see that the answer might be interesting 🙂
Ecobhoy says @ 8:32
Woolworths is still my favourite store, I don’t believe all the nonsense that it was liquidated what do legal experts and insolvency practitioners know anyway.
No one can tell me I cant get pick n mix out of Woolies on a Saturday.
Woolworth’s then woolworth’s now woolworth’s forever.
“a club lasts as long as there are fans to support it. It has enormous emotional value but not even 1p in financial value. It can’t be sold anyway as it doesn’t belong to any individual or corporate entity but to the entire fan base who collectively hold it in trust for future generations of fans…
And what is a ‘club’ – well to me it’s the receptacle which holds the history and culture of a club and its supporters as well as the future aspirations of its fans and as long as they support it then it lives for ever.”
An idea can live forever but for a football “team” to exist, it has to play, to get 11 guys on the pitch (+subs), it has to have the funds to pay for a pitch, has to pay league fees/referees costs, have a St John’s ambulance, pay insurance etc etc. If it can’t play, it’s not a team. It can be revived as a phoenix, a zombie, an x+1 coming – but for it to do that it has to die. All indicators are that the club, as a practising football team, will die again – because nothing has been fixed. It’s still paying too much for the revenues it brings in.
Couple of observations: edgie: the fact that players are out “on loan” doesn’t make them zero cost – often teams still pay a % of wages (as any Championship Manager fule kno).
John Clarke: employees at Ibrox who are in the redundancy firing line – that is what should have happened a year ago if NewGers were to have any hope of survival. Sorry if that sounds a bit Darwinian but those folk have had an extra year’s wedge and if they didn’t see the writing on the wall (or read this and RTC’s site) and look for alternative emplyment over the past year, well then they rolled their own dice IMO. It’s harsh for anyone to lose a job but it is a commercial reality. Especially in industries/companies in need of modernising. We just had another round of redundos at my work – though as we are in London as far as I am aware most people got a cash payoff and walked into another job…
jockybhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 10:03 am
John Clarke: employees at Ibrox who are in the redundancy firing line – that is what should have happened a year ago if NewGers were to have any hope of survival. Sorry if that sounds a bit Darwinian but those folk have had an extra year’s wedge and if they didn’t see the writing on the wall (or read this and RTC’s site) and look for alternative emplyment over the past year, well then they rolled their own dice IMO. It’s harsh for anyone to lose a job but it is a commercial reality.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree that D&P should have had a complete clear-out 12 months ago, but I think they didn’t because they were absolutely certain that the business would continue in the SPL after being sold to Green’s consortium. Ooops! The problem now is that whereas D&P could have got rid of staff cheaply, the current management will find it very expensive in the short term to get rid of long-serving employees. In any case, this cost-cutting drive is coming far too late, in my view. The IPO money has been squandered on a bloated and unnecessary salary bill, so there is no money left for large scale pay-offs, yet they clearly can’t afford to keep on paying salaries at current levels.
The last 12 months at Ibrox are just a brilliant case study in how not to run a business. To get in £22m by way of an IPO, then blow the lot on running costs in less than a year, must be verging on criminal. Never mind, time for another saviour, I think. He’d better have plenty of money, and not mind throwing it away, though.
Another made up story.
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/411729/Rangers-set-for-Boris-Pandza-arrival-after-Sasa-Papac-advice
Rangers set for Boris Pandza arrival after Sasa Papac advice
BOSNIAN defender Boris Pandza has been sold on a move to Rangers by ex-Ibrox hero Sasa Papac.
Published: Tue, July 2, 2013
0Comments
Pandza is open to the idea of a move to Scotland
Free agent Pandza, has been linked with a switch to Ibrox now that he’s out of contract with Belgian outfit Mechelen.
The Gers are desperate to beef up their backline for the new season and Bosnian media have reported that the 26-year-old international stopper has been recommended to Ally McCoist by Papac.
For now, Pandza is back in his native Mostar waiting for his next move, but is open to the idea of a switch to Scotland.
He met up with countryman Papac and the ex-Ibrox man had nothing but good things to say about the club he played for over the course of six seasons from 2006.
Pandza said: “I know all about Rangers from talking with Sasa. We played together with Bosnia and he’s a friend as we both come from Mostar.
“He always talks very positively about Rangers and I know from him that they’re the biggest club in Scotland – one of the biggest in Britain.
“Of course, moving to Scotland would be an attraction. I’ve heard nothing but good things from Sasa and he’s someone whose opinion I trust.
“I know Rangers have had problems, but in a normal season they’re the top and compete at the top level in Europe.
I know all about Rangers from talking with Sasa. We played together with Bosnia and he’s a friend as we both come from Mostar.
Boris Pandza
“For now, I can say with complete truth that I’ve spoken to no-one at Rangers and there’s nothing concrete for me to consider. If it does come, it’s something I’d look at.
“My next move is very important. I have options but nothing is settled
“I want to play for Bosnia at the World Cup Finals and, because of that, my next club has to be right. We’ll need to wait and see what happens with Rangers.”
Rangers have mostly added attacking options to their ranks so far, with Nicky Law, Jon Daly and Nicky Clark arriving, while keeper Cammy Bell and full-back Stevie Smith have also signed up.
But the decision to pay up the contracts of Dorin Goian and Carlos Bocanegra, coupled with the fact that centre-half was a problem position for McCoist last season, has opened the door for new arrivals at the heart of defence.
Pandza certainly fits the bill for the Light Blues as a free agent and the recommendation of such a solid competitor as Papac will carry weight with McCoist.
Pandza started his career with Siroki Brijeg before moving to Hajduk Split and then on to Mechelen. And, with 21 caps for his country, he would be a quality signing for McCoist.
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 9:41 am
eco, like you I feel a football club is much more than just a company. No company could ever hope to engender the love and faith that a football club does. As a Hearts fan I have hoped throughout the RFC insolvency soap opera that someone would be able to convince me that my club won’t end should it go into liquidation. Sadly, no one ever has, and I regret that your argument, which I feel much empathy with, doesn’t convince me either. If we leave aside the legal arguments and accept your concept of a club and that it continues in the event of the company liquidation because a club is not about £sd, then yes, the club can continue, but can it take the trophies won, and paid for by the £sd of the company (which led to it’s liquidation), or do they remain with the company? I am sure many, or even most, of us would be happy to accept that TRFC and RFC are the same club, if only they’d be prepared to list the SFL3 title as their first trophy, as they acknowledge the club’s previous success was down to the beneficence of the liquidated company who, in effect, won the trophies. To do otherwise would make a club a form of parasite, living off the blood (£sd) of it’s host company, only to continue with it’s trophy gathering, after the death of it’s host, on the blood (£sd) of a newco.
I really do wish I could buy into your concept, and that the whole of football would do so too, but I keep coming to a stumbling block whenever the dilemma arises of do you keep the good, while dumping the bad, or do you lose everything and start afresh, albeit as that same, ethereal, body?
Regarding Charlotte’s latest, I’m pretty sure that the exchange with the Insolvency Service is genuine. There is certainly a person with the name on the emails working as an investigator with the Insolvency Service. I won’t post links, because I really do wish that Charlotte had redacted the name from the emails. This is just going to cause somebody an awful lot of trouble at work over a simple error in an email address. Not good, Charlotte.
Charlotte may have provided a clue to her own location. Although she has redacted it, it is clearly 2 words, the first presumably “the”, the second around 7 letters long. I’m guessing the Bahamas. Do I get a prize if I’m correct?
neepheid says:
July 2, 2013 at 10:58 am
3 0 Rate This
… Charlotte may have provided a clue to her own location. Although she has redacted it, it is clearly 2 words, the first presumably “the”, the second around 7 letters long. I’m guessing the Bahamas. Do I get a prize if I’m correct?
————
I second ‘The Bahamas’, and yes, think there should be a prize for the correct guess 😀
Allyjambo & Ecobhoy mentioning televangelists brought a thought to mind that is a wee bit scary. Imagine, if you will, Charlie let loose in the Bible Belt…………
T’ Ten Commandments are mine, I bought ’em.
When t’hosts of t’faithful crosses that imaginary line, we’re all off to Heaven.
Judas? I bought his registration. He chose to be a traitor.
God gave me big ‘ands. Let me lay them on you(re wallet).
T’Dallas Cowboys have sent me an e-mail, I can show it thee. They want to be saved.
T’church elders are all beyond reproach but wish to remain anonymous.
The moneylenders will be banished from t’temple ……….. if they don’t do their job.
General Synod stole our collection.
500 million faithful? we need a bigger bus!
jockybhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 10:03 am
If it can’t play, it’s not a team. It can be revived as a phoenix, a zombie, an x+1 coming – but for it to do that it has to die. All indicators are that the club, as a practising football team, will die again – because nothing has been fixed. It’s still paying too much for the revenues it brings in.
———————————————————————————–
I was simply explaining what the concept of a ‘club’ personally means to me and some others have chosen to advance their usual position which I have little interest in. I accept some of what you say above except I don’t believe it is the club that ‘dies’ but the company. In my definition the club doesn’t comprise of a ‘practising football team’ as that sits within the operating company which holds the contract of employment for the players. Obviously the players and the achievements of the team form part of the club history and can be partly financed by the fans through a variety of revenue streams but if the company ‘dies’ then so can the team depending on the financial circumstances.
I have long argued for a rewrite of the rulebooks to make crystal clear what a club is and who holds the licence which IMO is based on archaic concepts which seem to work well for spivs.
I agree that, to all external appearances, that Rangers will be lucky to get through the coming season financially. But if rangers again collpase financially I have no doubt that the ‘club’ will survive in the hearts of their support and they will again dig deep to breathe life into their passion. Hopefully this time the Bears will be more sensible and find businessmen and not spivs to back who have a clear business plan based on harsh commercial realities and not on moonbeams and supremacy. But these are issues for Rangers fans to decide IMO.
So supporters will have a huge part to play by questioning any new owners and their ‘plan’ and not blindly accepting it and to be fair I think I have seen more Bears questioning on the financial side in recent times than I have ever seen previously.
If they fail in that then I doubt if Rangers will have too many more chances after that but that is in the lap of the gods and how far fan loyalty can stretch to retain their ‘club’. I don’t know the answers to that and I doubt if anyone actually does at this stage.
Caveat Emptor says:
July 2, 2013 at 11:46 am
Well it has to be said about Green that he is an excellent salesman and his AIM record is testament to his money-raising powers.
I think he would do well in the Bible Belt for obvious reasons 🙂
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 11:51 am
I was simply explaining what the concept of a ‘club’ personally means to me and some others have chosen to advance their usual position which I have little interest in.
====================
That kind of says it all really.
Your usual position is worth repeating and repeating and repeating. However you have little interest in other people’s.
Allyjambo says:
July 2, 2013 at 10:52 am
———————————————————————————————-
You must remember that I am not trying to convince anyone and is more a statement of my position than an argument.
I think you raise an interesting point about who keeps the trophies – I would think that sadly, in legal terms, the trophies are simply assets and can be sold. However it’s possible that an administrator could sell these to fans (club) who I believe would pay more than anyone buying the assets whether football would continue to be played or not.
It might be easier for fans to purchase the trophies if the new purchase intended to continue football operations because I doubt that they would oppose the fans purchasing the trophies. So it could be good that such symbols of the club history are actually owned by fans who IMO already possess the history within their ranks
I hear what you say about accepting the ‘one club’ position but that is not my position despite what some would wish to ascribe to me. I simply look at Celtic and think: ‘Would I accept that if Celtic was in Ranger’s position that Celtic had no history?’
No Celtic supporter I have put that question to face-to-face accepts that. To me that demonstrates that the concept of a ‘club’ can live on beyond the death of operating companies and holding companies in the minds of fans. Others, for their own reasons oppose this concept and good luck to them as I’m really only interest in my concept of my club and not what fans of any other club think – that is up to them. It goes without saying that the outmoded rulebook definitions of ‘club’ should not be used to gain advantage from a failed company situation – that doesn’t fall within my ‘club’ concept.
I don’t buy into your position on: ‘Would make a club a form of parasite, living off the blood (£sd) of it’s host company.’ Particularly in modern football finances I view the opposite as the case that the host company is the ‘parasite’ living-off the cash of the fans.
My ‘club’ doesn’t dump the bad and just retain the good – it keeps the lot because that is its history. As to ‘ethereal’ then most definitely you are failing to fully understand what I am getting at. My ‘club’ is not an other-worldly airy fairy notion but a living, breathing, passionate organism that roars and sings on this earth with only one aim over 90 minutes of a game and that is to WIN and to do it playing good football’.
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 8:32 am
3
23
i
Rate This
Quantcast
sumproduct says:
July 2, 2013 at 7:41 am
skirting phoenix rules with some nonsense a club is an entity which exists without corporate structure. So it exists as an idea, much like religion, but resale value attached?
=======================================================================
I believe a club lasts as long as there are fans to support it. It has enormous emotional value but not even 1p in financial value. It can’t be sold anyway as it doesn’t belong to any individual or corporate entity but to the entire fan base who collectively hold it in trust for future generations of fans.
And what is a ‘club’ – well to me it’s the receptacle which holds the history and culture of a club and its supporters as well as the future aspirations of its fans and as long as they support it then it lives for ever.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
I really want to agree, and do to a degree, but if we follow that logic, then the club is never responsible, indeed cannot be responsible for the activities of the current custodians and can drift onwards and upwards regardless of any of the tangible consequences resulting from the actions of those who are in ‘possession’ of the ‘club’. RFC are not the only ‘club’, there are 42 senior clubs in Scotland all of whom signed up to the articles of association, to be part of a national structure, those articles are what make the whole concept of professional football possible and extended to UEFA and FIFA provide a global framework in which to operate. IMO RFC cheated for a generation, and were simply caught red handed. (no pun intended) They draw support from a community of fans who they have systematically shafted as paying customers, shareholders and tax payers. The continuation of the ‘club’ is of paramount importance to their supporters’ sense of self and identity. That I understand, and they therefore need to believe in the ‘club’ phenomenon as you describe it. The rest of us do not need to buy into such fantasy. To facilitate the seamless transition from Murray to Whyte, Whyte to Green, Green to whoever, whilst driving a coach and horses through the articles of association, and codes of conduct which constrain the rest is not something which is conducive to any semblance of sport or the integrity that should be central to organised sport.
Another thing we should just get right, a business, whether it be a PLC or a Ltd company or a members club is in effect it’s shareholders or members. It is not it’s customers. It is not the people who buy it’s services, it is the people who own it’s shares and the people who run it.
Whether people like it or not to a large extent Craig Whyte, and David Murray before him were Rangers. They owned 85% of the shares, they were the club. The decisions they made were the decisions of the club and the actions they took were the actions of the club.
The fans were paying customers. Some were also very minor shareholders, and I mean very minor.
Woolworths, as mentioned above is a good analogy. It does not continue to exist just because the paying customers want it to. If they go into the same premises but buy their pic ‘n’ mix from a different trader that does not make said trader Woolworths.
I have no problem with someone desperately clinging onto the position that it is still the same Woolworths because they want it to be. That doesn’t make it so.
Gaz says:
July 1, 2013 at 5:44 pm
Drew Peacock says:
July 1, 2013 at 4:15 pm
Not as I understand it. Though it is the picture Rangers fans have painted.
As I understand it the money was placed in an escrow account by Ticketus. To be released when Craig Whyte bought the shares and as such had control of Rangers. The money was not to be released unless that happened.
He used that money being in the account as a proof of funds and bought the shares. That was the important issue, when he bought the shares. He could then do what he wanted with the tickets.
Once he had them then the money was released to him in order to do the rest.
Whyte did not sell the tickets before he got control of the club. He sold the tickets on the condition that he got control of the club, if he hadn’t then the condition would have failed and the money returned to the person who it belonged to. The tickets would not have been sold to Ticketus. So by the time he sold them he actually did own the shares and as such was in a position to sell the tickets.
That’s the point of an escrow setup.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don’t disagree that your analysis is right. It would be interesting to see what the actual agreement between Ticketus/Wavetower/RFC. If as you say the purchase of tickets was from RFC not Wavetower then Whyte et al misrepresented the position as regards providing proof of funds. The seller would have expected the funds to be coming from Wavetower per the SPA. That’s a bit naughty by the lawyers.
This club/company rubbish is just more smoke blown in our faces, when has this EVER been an issue with any other football liquidation?
Oxford mini dictionary:
Liquidate – wind up affairs of (firm etc): pay off (debt): wipe out, kill.
Go into liquidation – be wound up and assets apportioned.
THE story is how the SFA leadership reacted to the above………..The whole cabal need routed.
neepheid says:
July 2, 2013 at 10:37 am
The problem now is that whereas D&P could have got rid of staff cheaply, the current management will find it very expensive in the short term to get rid of long-serving employees. In any case, this cost-cutting drive is coming far too late, in my view. The IPO money has been squandered on a bloated and unnecessary salary bill, so there is no money left for large scale pay-offs, yet they clearly can’t afford to keep on paying salaries at current levels.
=======================================================================
One of Green’s early statements was that existing staff wouldn’t be made redundant and the only area he showed concern was on playing staff wages, especially first team, which I think was candyfloss purely for Institutional Investor consumption.
On existing staff his rationale was that they would be needed and I thought at the time and have seen nothing to dissuade me since that he was utterly convinced that Rangers were going straight back to the SPL or SFL1 at worst. The only other interpretation I can draw is that he would be gone before running costs became a problem and didn’t want to create fan aggro which might have affected ST sales or sharepurchase.
We all know a lot of the roadblocks that started to derail his plan and I think he’s away before completing the financial scheme he had in place.
But I can only believe any accelerated leg-up guarantee could only have come from the SFA/SPL and as to shareholding I think he was talked into believing that fans would have invested a helluva lot more than they actually did. Perhaps he believed the myths about the size of the fanbase.
Gaz says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Another thing we should just get right, a business, whether it be a PLC or a Ltd company or a members club is in effect it’s shareholders or members. It is not it’s customers. It is not the people who buy it’s services, it is the people who own it’s shares and the people who run it.
Whether people like it or not to a large extent Craig Whyte, and David Murray before him were Rangers. They owned 85% of the shares, they were the club. The decisions they made were the decisions of the club and the actions they took were the actions of the club.
The fans were paying customers. Some were also very minor shareholders, and I mean very minor.
Woolworths, as mentioned above is a good analogy. It does not continue to exist just because the paying customers want it to. If they go into the same premises but buy their pic ‘n’ mix from a different trader that does not make said trader Woolworths.
I have no problem with someone desperately clinging onto the position that it is still the same Woolworths because they want it to be. That doesn’t make it so.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In my day myself and others called it the pick ‘ n’ nick. To my mind that proves Whyte was a former patron of Woolies.
Drew Peacock says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:45 pm
If when you are referring to the seller you mean David Murray then the money did come from Wavetower, it was only (notional) £1 after all.
Whyte did not use the Ticketus money to buy Rangers, he used it have an £18m debt re-assigned to him (along with a floating charge) by Lloyds. As I understand it one of the conditions of the sale was that he not only bought the sharwes (for £1) but that he also paid off the debt to Lloyds. He did that.
I don’t believe for one second that David Murray and Lloyds did not know how it was happening. They just didn’t care.
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 11:51 am
========================================================
You really like your argument a lot don’t you. A nagging thought in the back of my head tells me there’s something propogandistic about constant repetition.
Your argument might have more moral force if the new club was formed in the way they try to do it in Englandshire. I believe there they set up a new club and transfer the business and assets but the new club has to reach an agreement with creditors of the old club. I vaguely recall this is what Leeds did but even then they didn’t cover themselves in glory when stiffing the St Johns Ambulance and many others.
Charlotte Fakes – The Bahamas? mmmm
Could this be the ultimate revenge of Joe Lewis over SDM?
arabest1 says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:32 pm
if we follow that logic, then the club is never responsible, indeed cannot be responsible for the activities of the current custodians and can drift onwards and upwards regardless of any of the tangible consequences resulting from the actions of those who are in ‘possession’ of the ‘club’.
============================================================
I would say my ‘club concept’ would lay a responsibility on current fans not necessarily to be responsible for the actions of the operating/holding company but certainly to monitor and comment/campaign against decisions which they see as harmful to the ‘club’. It is a fact of life and also the legal position that fans are not responsible for the actions/decisions of directors/shareholders.
All they can do is exert pressure financially through a variety of means. In reality this can be very difficult to achieve because a large percentage of football fans of every club just want to watch football and tend to only become agitated enough for action when the footballing side slips badly.
It is also I would think fairly obvious that the progression isn’t always ‘onwards and upwards’ but can be the opposite.
If you actually read what I have said you will see that I do not defend the Rangers position on their ‘club’ concept as I understand it but that would be hard to believe when reading some of the comments made.
As to driving a coach and horses through footballing rules and regulations then that isn’t down to fans and I think most clubs are capable of attempting to do so when it suits them. But in the case of Rangers the biggest villains IMO are the makers, custodians and interpreters of these rules. Rangers could not have done many of the things they have without the active consent, agreement and participation of the Hampden suits and I believe they are the most important target for Scottish Football fans.
Personally I refuse to see my club purely in terms of £sd and I will happily continue to live my fantasy which I know is one that the majority of football supporters share with me as opposed to keyboard ‘warriors’.
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:23 pm
I think I may have made a couple of unforced errors in my earlier post leading you to answer points I wasn’t meaning to make. When I spoke of trophies won, I wasn’t referring to the physical trophy but rather the record of said trophies and the continuing claim of the club’s success, often brought about by the overspending of £sd by the company in pursuit of said success. My use of the word ‘ethereal’ might have been an error too and was only meant to convey the idea of a club not being a physical entity.
I don’t agree that, in the context of this topic, that it is correct to turn my ‘parasite’ analogy onto the company, as the company has, in fact, died and, unless those who have run the company have made profit from it, a profit that outweighs the success of ‘the club’, then they have given the fans a return on their money, and the fans live on. On the other hand, I’d accept that Green and co have acted in a way that could be described as parasitical, as their modus operandi is to land on a company, suck it dry, then move onto the next, fleecing anyone, and everyone, involved; which sounds very like your ‘club surviving liquidation’ concept.
“My ‘club’ doesn’t dump the bad and just retain the good – it keeps the lot because that is its history.” is a fine principal on which to base your club, but does the bad include the debt? Would your list of honours include the list of unpaid creditors? Or would it just include victories and defeats, competitions won and relegation if appropriate? This, to me, is the stumbling block in your concept, you either have to take all the bad with the good, or none of the good, ie record of competitions won, and start with a fresh record, and history, which just wouldn’t make sense because, why bother?