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?
Old news?
RANGERS YOUTH DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
10 May 2013 Final Dissolution
18 Jan 2013 First Dissolution (Gazette)
24 Dec 2012 Voluntary Dissolution Requested
https://www.duedil.com/company/SC259440/rangers-youth-development-limited
Morning all,
Looming Cash Crisis at Ibrox(the Sun).
thought folks on here would have noticed that by now.
Another scoop by the MSM!.
Can you unregister a company?..Also searched Duedil which give no results for TRFC.
The Rangers Football Club Limited is an Active business incorporated in Scotland. Their business activity has not been recorded. The Rangers Football Club Limited is run by 1 current members. and 1 company secretary. It has no share capital. It is also part of a group.
The company has not yet filed accounts.The Rangers Football Club Limited’s risk score was amended on 06/06/2013.
Company Register
Status
Registered date –
Company number
Type
Country of registration
Previous Names
Previous name SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED
Date changed 31/07/2012
Carfins Finest. says:
July 5, 2013 at 8:38 am
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 5, 2013 at 8:39 am
it would seem that the war for the board room continues in almost dignified silence. I’m wondering if they are technically trading insolvent again, hence the late results for AIM. Time will tell and if the SFA have given a licence to play this season on the simple word from inside ibrox, then hell mend them.
Ally and Traynor have said a ‘day of reckoning’ is coming for those that attack rfc*; It is, but not in a way that they think or will like.
@HirsutePuursuit at 9:27am
I don’t believe the following quote from the article can be any clearer either! :
“It follows from this that Scottish administrators will generally (other than in the rare cases in which rescue is a real prospect) be in effectively the same position as Scottish liquidators. That is to say, they may choose to decline to perform the contract (if that is in the best interests of the general body of creditors), placing the company in breach of contract, and, in cases of this type, it will only be (in Lord Hodge’s words) ‘in exceptional circumstances’ that the court will order performance of the contract. The other party’s remedy for such a breach will be a claim in damages, and that claim will rank as an ordinary, unsecured claim against the insolvent estate, often with little prospect of any dividend being received.”
The comment that the other party should make the adninistrator aware that the repudiation is not accepted is simply good advice to avoid an argument that acceptance may be implied by the other party’s conduct – its more difficult (perhaps impossible) to establish implicit consent if there has been an express rejection of the repudiation.
As I say, I’m in agreement with you that the company just wouldn’t exit administration until the question of the innocent party’s remedy had been resolved. If the innocent party rejects the repudiation, then the administrators will have to obtain the court’s directions on the next steps and their implications, or the administration would just have to continue.
My view though is that Lord Hodge’s discussion allows for an administrator to bring the question of that remedy to a head during the course of administration, since a direction can be obtained as to whether the company can be compelled to perform. If the Court says the company can’t be compelled to perform, that leads inevitably to the claim then being treated as a damages claim in the administration, and subject to compromise in the CVA.
Assuming the CVA is voted through, then the innocent party’s claim is compromised in the CVA, and the innocent party no longer has the right to come back and seek implement of the contract after the company exits administration.
Incidentally, I too have my doubts about whether the Ticketus deal actually was financial assistance, but I don’t think given the weight of evidence on the point that we can sensibly deny that that’s what D&P (on legal advice) thought it was. As I say, they may turn out to have been wrong, but that’s pretty clearly the basis on which they were challenging the Ticketus claim as a whole.
The inclusion of the Ticketus claim as the damages figure in the CVA shows that D&P were certainly treating Ticketus as having only a damages claim.
I don’t know if that figure was claimed by Ticketus, or just deemed by D&P to be the figure. What we do know though is that Ticketus didn’t apply to the Court under para 74 to complain of how they were being treated in the CVA, and in my view that goes some way to show at least implied acceptance of the repudiation of the contract, and that their claim was damages only.
Danish Pastry says:
July 5, 2013 at 7:49 am
“Doesn’t this debunk the theory that D&P were Whyte’s men?”
————————-
Hope you don’t mind me picking up HirsutePursuit’s query. He/she seems to be otherwise engaged presently.
CW thought D&P were his men. The various audio suggested a lot of caginess around the negotiations and it was difficult to ascertain who was fooling who. For me the picture that is emerging is of CW being fed a sugar coated poison pill.
The debt was left with RFC(IL). The blame was inherited by CW.
Gaz says:
July 5, 2013 at 9:31 am
“Liquidation was the only real option from the start. Either that or someone coming in with a shed load of money to throw away.”
—————————-
Freudian slip Gaz? A large bundle of cash was misplaced in a bus garage recently.
Gaz says:
July 5, 2013 at 9:31 am
1 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:00 am
========================
Absolutely.
As discussed at the time, Rangers getting a CVA would not have left a tenable business, with so much money being lost year on year. They were clearly already struggling to make ends meet and for Ticketus to take many millions out for several seasons would not have worked.
It is difficult to see how they could have exited administration in those circumstances, even if the creditors had lost out in a CVA. It would not have been a business with any real prospect of survival.
Liquidation was the only real option from the start. Either that or someone coming in with a shed load of money to throw away.
==================================================
this is the thing Gaz, i’ve not seen anything that suggests that running a “Rangers” out of Ibrox/Murray park can EVER be a tenable business.
Even now, with the “£22M IPO” cash and 38k season ticket holders, a transfer embargo and the walking away of their biggest wage packets, they are still losing £1m a month – WTF?
Most recent accounts suggest it costs at least £15M to run “Rangers” and that is without taking the salary cost of a team in to account.
Based on that alone, they would need to sell 60,000 season tickets at £250 jsut to keep the “shop” open – obviously they can’t do that, so the 38,000 season ticket holders would have to be prepared to pay £395 for their season ticket
then, if they had 10,000 walk up customers every week paying £15 a game for a 19 home game season, that gives them £2.85m to spend – which give you £55k a week wage budget.
So, they could have 23 players on £2k a week (probably still a lot more than the smaller SPL clubs and certianly a lot more than all the lower league clubs)
then they COULD just about break even. (of course, 38k fans aren’t going to pay £395 to watch the current Sevconians in the lower league – which leaves them with about a £6M gap in their finances)
IMO, for a club from Ibrox to be a viable proposition then they would need to limit the board room/management salaries to about 50k a head max.
Sell MP (I bet they could do a deal with Glasgow City Council to take it on and still get basic use of the facilities – this wouldn’t bring in cash, but would save them a fortune in running costs, rates, power etc)
Cut out the hotels before a match a few miles away (hell, even the stranraer/peterhead trips would be same day ones!)
Limit the salaries paid to £1k a week (i bet that would still trump most SPL clubs)
Then, and only then, might it be a viable business – but that would require some unimagineable loyalty from the fans. I simply don’t see it.
So, i really don’t think we should worry about how the spivs are fleecing them, the BTC appeal to UTT, the UEFA co-efficient or 3 year “ban” (sorry auldheid, i meant 3 year ineligibility) Easdales on the board, Ticketus pursuing money, CF revealing the scam, none of this really matters as without wholesale changes at Ibrox, they won’t last long enough to make the top flight.
A day will come when the fans will give it up.
7. Castofthousands says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:07 am
“The debt was left with RFC(IL). The blame was inherited by CW.”
Yes but D&P were left with a dog that couldn’t swim. I don’t believe they stiffed CW out of choice (or even on instruction since the MSM were/are doing a fine job of that on pure speculation any way) the only way out of their particular hole, as Bill Millar quickly spotted, was liquidation, pure and simple.
Of course the only way for them out of Glasgow in one piece was to play the CVA game first.
http://i.imgur.com/ThBf6wQ.jpg
Well CF has chucked a grenade with the pin out right in amongst it with her latest offering.
Tales of SPL clubs been kept in the dark by the SPL Board presumably over the financial state of Rangers around October 2011. Of course the way the subject uner discussion is ‘disguised’ it might be a discussion on a blocked loo at Hampden – that at least would account for the stench of corruption wafting along the corridors.
And she’s laying down the gauntlet that if they don’t come cleam more will follow.
duplesis says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:06 am
” …allows for an administrator to bring the question of that remedy to a head during the course of administration, since a direction can be obtained as to whether the company can be compelled to perform.”
———————–
Are you saying that a contract cannot survive administration exit via a CVA?
http://i.imgur.com/ThBf6wQ.jpg
OOOFFT!
And virtually the day after the assumed author was elected head of our new transparent SPFL no less.
I love Charlotte!
Where is TRFC?I thought that RIFC were the holding company.
RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
Group Structure
This company does not have a group structure.
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC437060/RANGERS-INTERNATIONAL-FOOTBALL-CLUB-PLC/group-structure
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:21 am
—
Charlotte’s link ‘http://i.imgur.com/ThBf6wQ.jpg’ has a reference to Quayle Munro.
Mildly amusing to see that Quayle Munro was sold, like RFC, for £1 last year.
Also vaguely interesting that Rod Petrie had been a director of QM before he joined thre SFA Board.
Quayle Munro sells Scottish advisory division for £1
Robert Coyle says:
July 5, 2013 at 9:56 am
The Rangers Football Club Limited is run by 1 current members. and 1 company secretary. It has no share capital.
=======================================================================
The current position is that there are two directors viz Brian Stockbridge and Craig Mather and Stockbridge doubles as Company Secretary.
The shareholding issue is a bit trickier. A Ltd company needs to issue at least one share on incorporation which is usually for £1 from memory. Again from memory TRFCL had 2 of these £1 subscriber shares held by Charles Green and it was these shares which were subdivided into 0.01p shares issued to the original investing consortium members – not to be confused with the latter placing to Institutional Investors and offer to fans at flotation.
Not all of these subdivided shares were issued for 1p and there was a range of prices paid for them right up to £1 a share. However they were swapped on a one-for-one basis with RIFC Plc shares. But I have always believed that some shares were left behind in TRFCL.
It is worth noting that share changes have to be notified to Companies House on an SH0 form within 30 days with more details contained on the annual return. No SH0 was submitted within 30 days of flotation in December 2012 and the annual return for the company is now overdue.
It’s worth remembering that when the original TRFCL shares were sub-divided on 29 May 2012 that this information was not given to Companies House until 4 December 2012 and the 30 day notification period and lodging of the SH0 form was ignored despite numerous demands from Companies House to have the information provided.
History would appear to repeat itself.
ecobhoy says:
July 4, 2013 at 3:41 pm
10 33 i
Rate This
Celtic Paranoia says:
July 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm
===========================================================
I have checked the link you gave and now more fully understand why the story was presented as it was and it confirms to me, my original view, it was probably to sell more papers – if you remember I described this in my initial post as just as cynical a reason as the one given by the original poster.
The link shows the story states that three footballers were in the frame and couldn’t be named for legal reasons. Rightly or wrongly that gives the paper a tissue-thin excuse, assuming the paper was informed that the three men were Old Firm players, to run the story as they did and use pics of both home grounds and club crests.
————————————-
I don’t want to prolong the debate as we have made our positions clear but int he interests of accuracy I have to correct you once again, the article does not mention THREE Old Firm players, only one. Subsequently it was revealed that the other two individuals involved were a St Johnstone player and some ex-Big Brother contestant Z list wannabee.
Like I said, the “Old Firm” label is a one way street when it comes to bad press and is easily demonstrable as such so I reject your notion that this is nothing more than cynical marketing. It’s the same as the old British when you’re winning and Scottish when you’re losing phenomenon.
john clarke says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:44 am
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:21 am
—
Charlotte’s link ‘http://i.imgur.com/ThBf6wQ.jpg’ has a reference to Quayle Munro.
Mildly amusing to see that Quayle Munro was sold, like RFC, for £1 last year.
Also vaguely interesting that Rod Petrie had been a director of QM before he joined the SFA Board.
————————————————————-
Any idea what Quayle Munro does – an impression I get from the CF doc is that they were involved in the TV deal in some way but I could be wrong. If correct then might explain Petrie’s position.
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:21 am
….
And she’s laying down the gauntlet that if they don’t come cleam more will follow.
====================
They won’t respond, the default for everyone from SFA / SPL / MSM is to deny the existence of this stuff by simply ignoring it.
Unfortunately, until someone in the media starts to run with this and ask the difficult questions then they are all safe together.
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:21 am
————————————————————————-
I’m continually surprised folks do not issue Information Requests to SFA as an Authority / Organisation.
A requester can issue any request for information and/or copy information from any Organisation using only an email address on the website https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
Particularly as SFA is in receipt of over 5 million of Public Funds;
“Through CashBack, the Scottish Government has committed to invest over £50 million in a range of projects and facilities throughout the country. The Scottish Government allocates available funds to partner organisations, which are responsible for running projects across Scotland.”
Scottish Football Association £5,436,000
Sportscotland Facilities Fund £8,846,208
@castofthousands at 10:23
“Are you saying that a contract cannot survive administration exit via a CVA?”
No, it’s not quite as stark as that. A number of things would have to happen/be established.
1. The administrators must be of the view (and be able to establish) that repudiation of the contract concerned was to the benefit of the creditors as a whole and necessary in furtherence of one of the statutory objectives of administration.
2. Following on repudiation, the innocent party must have decided either not to accept that repudiation or have made no decision on acceptance.
3. It must be necessary for the company to exit admin by a CVA that the company not be required to perform the contract concerned (in effect it must be necessary for a statutory objective of the administration that this be so)
4. the court must be persuaded that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying the enforcement of performance.
If all the above is established then the court can direct that the innocent party will not be able to insist on performance whilst the company is in admin. The administrators are then entitled to treat the innocent party’s claim as one for damages only, and treat it like a normal debt which is subject to the CVA. If the CVA succeeds then that debt is compromised by the CVA in the normal way.
At any stage of course if the innocent party in the repudiated contract wishes to, it can challenge the administrators’ conduct under para 74. If the innocent party doesn’t challenge then I think there’s an additional argument that there has been implict acceptance of the repudiation anyway.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:18 am
——————————————
NTHM, I agree with almost everything you say, with the one exception – no one other than a property developer will have the slightest interest in acquiring Murray Park. Glasgow City Council certainly wouldn’t as (a) they have no money and (b) it’s not in the council area.
And most good developers have land banks sufficient to keep them going for the next 5-7 years.
The general premise is correct though and the most fundamental issue and cost is the stadium. Rangers, Dunfermline and Hearts have only one possibility of surviving and that is if they get away from the millstones of Ibrox, East End Park and Tynecastle.
In each case, the club needs to rebuild away from what they would call home – only in that way can the rogue landlords be ousted. One year without income and the Spivs, Masterton & the Lithuanian bank would soon surrender their otherwise useless pieces of real estate.
Declare an intention “never to leave our spiritual home of [insert name of beloved, if aged and dilapidated stadium]” and the landlords will rub their hands with glee. If this was any other business than football, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The first thing a business coming out of a CVA or liquidation does is dump the onerous contracts.
To be fair to Rangers, they have dealt with one of your points – the cost of hotel accommodation – with the Brucie Bus which should remove a lot of that needless expense.
But the underlying issue is that costs still exceed income by at least £500K per month and that could lead to wrongful trading at some point, and will definitely lead to insolvency at some point. The fact that Green is now wading in suggests an end game is approaching and he and the coach owners are getting nervous. The figure on the ‘Totalisator’ from the season ticket renewals will by now be known to all the major parties and will be causing some considerable alarm.
Mather, Smith & McCoist appear to be sticking two fingers up to Green and hiring anyone who appears to be unemployed at present, perhaps with the sole aim of depleting the reserves (financial ones, not playing staff) and therefore the share price still further. The cost of the board is also grotesquely excessive but none of them is going to volunteeer a cut.
Meantime the manager explains his largesse on the playing squad by saying that every team in the lower divisions plays like a CL team against Rangers so he needs the biggest squad he can get.. And McCulloch is still on £17K a week?
What price Gordon Smith back on the payroll soon as “match day host”?
This is going to unravel a lot quicker than people imagine and of course, whilst you can fool all of the MSM all of the time, we are not all in the MSM. Still it is going to be difficult to explain away the death of a corpse, particularly to them. Even Lazarus was only raised from the dead once.
Purely on my reading of the CF release I would interpret that as the clubs requesting QM to try to find a second bidder for the TV deal to at least try to drive Sky’s bid up. The board then didn’t do this and went with the Sky bid since they knew RFC were about to hit the skids which would affect any sale of TV rights, certainly the entrance of any second bidder.
Statement – the minute taker was clearly on redact lite setting
Question – Can it be implied from that document if the existing deal would be prejudiced – the old 4 OF games per season clause – or, given that this was only October, that the board’s view was that any skid- hitting shouldn’t really have been a problem since the strategy appeared to be to continue in the SPL under some shape or form in any case.
Castofthousands says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:14 am
3 0 Rate This
Freudian slip Gaz? A large bundle of cash was misplaced in a bus garage recently.
====================================================
Surely £100k wouldnt make much of a dent in the expenses? Like using a corn pad as a sticking plaster!!
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:50 am
———————————–
Quayle were big on the corporate finance scene in Edinburgh a few years back. They had offices in Charlotte Square, next door to David Murray coincidentally.
They were bought by a London business and the last news was they were “exiting” Edinburgh – see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-19003368
Probably retained to negotiate the TV contracts but the leaked extract from CF, albeit a note with no date, context or attribution, would suggest contracts may have been negotiated without all parties having full knowledge of all the relevant facts.
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:46 am
The current position is that there are two directors viz Brian Stockbridge and Craig Mather and Stockbridge doubles as Company Secretary.
—————————————————————————————-
Could you provide a link please showing the above as i have stockbridge down as director and company secretary of both RIFC and TRFC..thanks..
I may have picked this up wrong from your post and apoligies if i have,but no shares were sold or transferred in TRFC to anyone as it was RIFC (the holding company for TRFC) that was placed on the AIM.
Quayle Munro;
April 2009
Education
Banff & Buchan College
Business Case and debt funding. Advised Banff & Buchan College on a business case with associated procurement and debt funding advice for the development of its estates strategy.
Banff and Buchan
The seat has belonged to the Scottish National Party since 1987, with party leader and current First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond representing the seat until 2010.
Notthehuddleboard.
Glad to see the 3 year message is being taken on board 😉
I have to ask though is it just me or even just this forum but with each passing day is it only here that the sheer extent of this scandal has us thinking of turning our backs on Scottish football because there seems to be no one championing for the return of ethics?
No matter what comes out is there nothing that would make supporters or journos say we have had enough of corrupt thinking?
Do we want a society were the current cover up and deny/deflect approach becomes as unacceptable as drink driving has now become because of campaigns against it or have ethics died?
This is now going well beyond football. It has tainted tax governance, insolvency governance, all but destroyed football governance filled with dead men walking, main stream media reporting and, one could argue corrupt thinking reaches the highest levels of governance of the country.
Are we sleep walking into an ethical hell taking our children and grandchildren with us or are just waking up to the fact we are already there or do I exagerate and it is simply a small bit of footballing skullduggery – a bit like going down in the box when touched ( Andy Walker style) to win a penalty and getting a yellow for simulation or is it 11 red cards for violent conduct?
Struggling to keep a sense of proportion here.
Oh and I missed the damage to the legal and justice system that have put ethics behind words.
duplesis says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:55 am
———————————————————————-
I note all you write & particularly with regard to CVA [Company Voluntary Arrangement].
Surely you have taken in to contention the contentious CVA which was offered?
Smugas says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:19 am
“Of course the only way for them out of Glasgow in one piece was to play the CVA game first.”
————————
I can’t deny your logic. However the various audio did suggest to me that CW did believe it was a viable possibility. With all the kidology going on it was difficult to discern the truth in what was being said. I am influenced however by HirsuitePursuit’s latest conclusion that liquidation stuffed CW in the form of his mysterious personal guarantee to Ticketus.
Celtic Paranoia says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:49 am
———————————————————————–
I am always happy to be corrected and don’t see it as a slight on my abilities, such as they are, but more an opportunity to learn from mistakes which I always regard as a positive experience.
I try to concentrate my energy on addressing issues that I feel can move the debate forward and I have found in life that constantly being stuck in old injustices or perceived injustices seldom provides the key to achieving a hopefully more inclusive and acceptable Scottish society.
Sometimes the old ways can never be changed and just have to be left to naturally die out as an irrelevance in a healthy society where hopefully all differences can be accommodated without hatred.
You weren’t the original poster I replied to when I explained the mechanics of Billboard preparation and distribution and the financial reasons behind it. I did not say that was the only explanation and accepted that the original poster might have a point but I favoured the explanation I gave although also pointed out that I regarded it as just as ‘cynical’ as the original poster’s view.
I have suffered from religious discrimination in the workplace and I was also ‘blacklisted’ for my trade union and political activities by the Economic League so I am very much a realist in what actually can happen in the real world and workplace as well as a knowledge of the media industry and its ways.
It’s obvious you believe that at least a portion of the media has a mission to do down Celtic. I don’t agree with it for a wide variety of reasons and not through any pro-media bias as any review of my posts on here will show that I am extremely hard on the SMSM.
At the end of the day I don’t tell people what they should believe and I really have no need to browbeat them into accepting my argument and am always happy to accept and respond to constructive criticism and it’s the best way I know to discover flaws in my own arguments and reasoning.
Smugas says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:59 am
“…any skid- hitting shouldn’t really have been a problem since the strategy appeared to be to continue in the SPL under some shape or form in any case.”
———————-
I think that was plan A but there was an ill defined Plan B also. I think you’re right, they signed the available deal pronto before the corpse could scare the horses. Whilst there was still life left in the body they had some sort of negotiation strategy but time was running short so there was only one real option. The one that was on the table.
Castofthousands says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:14 am
There have been several times when links to individuals have been highly suspicious. For example a prominent Glasgow boxing promoter, a well known Pailey based taxi operator, a prominent Glasgow night club proprietor.
The links to omnibus providers from the Inverclyde area are not surprising, and large sums of cash would hardly be a new development.
In Celtic’s case, many years ago, the large sums of cash were allegedly moving out of the club. Who is to say that nowadays at other clubs the movement isn’t in the opposite direction.
Auldheid says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
“Are we sleep walking into an ethical hell taking our children and grandchildren with us or are just waking up to the fact we are already there…”
——————–
Embrace the brave new world.
Auldheid says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
There is a massive fight going on in society at the moment.
I went to see Al Murray (the pub landlord) last night, he was very funny, his whole act is based on ripping it out of the first 2 rows of his audience one of his victims was a banker, boooo!, who had lost his job, hurah!
watched Question Time when I got home and the topics were MP’s pay rises, gerrymandering voters to gain power.
We are witnessing the biggest fraud, corruption, banking, tax, cheating scandal in Scotland’s history going largely unreported in the complicit media.
Folk are sick fed up with being ripped off and taken for mugs………..can we do anything about it though?
We gotta try mate………..we are depending on you.
So Greens claiming that since he left,a culture of overspending has developed at Ibrox.
He only left less than 5 weeks ago.
With no income since the middle of May(a lt of the ST money will be in installments,£1m to Pincents,same again to Goian etc,I’d bet there’s less than half of the reported £8m IPO balance left.
I’ve no idea how ST sales went but the silence is deafening.
If the IPO cash is indeed almost exhausted then TRFC may be facing insolvency a lot sooner than most forecasts.
RIFC can just take their property assets and move on,I assume.
Who’s their biggest shareholder?.
Who’s saying he’s coming back?.
who’s got 5m shares at 1p.
Maybe the spivs have decided to cash in.they could even get rid of TRFC for a fiver.they only paid a quid.400% profit in a year.
Around £15-20m in properties and a fiver for the club.not bad considering they used other folks cash to buy it in the 1st place,
If they’re ruthless.that’s what they should do.Slim summed it up perfectly.As long as TRFC hang onto Ibrox and the associated costs,they’ll struggle.the spivs know that,
Auldheid says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
———————————————————————–
“insolvency governance”
Respectfully, there is no such Governance.
Insolvency Practitioners [IP] are Officers of the Court.
It is laughable that LNS or Lord Hodge would direct against the Court appointed officers of the Court D&P.
The game is a bogey from the start.
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:18 am
=========================
I have tried to explain this for a long time, and people refuse to accept it.
Celtic and Rangers were not financially on a par, there are three main reasons for this.
1, Celtic averaged around 4,000 paying customers for home league games . That equates to somthing like £2m, ball park.
2, Celtic’s net income from merchandising was about £1.5m higher than Rangers.
3, Celtic have the Nike deal and Rangers had nothing similar. That was £5m a year effectively free money.
With all else being equal Celtic were something like £8m a year better off than Rangers, taking aside any profits from player trading. However here is the really important issue, in my opinion without European income, or profits from transfers Celtic are at best a break even business. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were in fact a loss making business but manageable losses, depending on cup runs etc.
Rangers were not a viable business without Champions League income and had not been for some time. The black hole in the accounts was not a fantasy, it was the reality of the situation. Craig Whyte even admitted that he had banked on at least Europa income in Rangers’ last ever season, when he didn’t get it then the whole thing had to fold. had they got CL income and a very substantial injection of income that would have covered the losses for that season with a bit extra.
Ally McCoist played a blinder at the end. He is the one who unplugged the European life support machine. His mentor WS walked away because he saw it happening. He had to protect his legendary status with the fans and not be there when the bus crashed.
So to think Rangers could have achieved a CVA, carried on with the same players, costs and business model in place and been able to cope with the money Ticketus would be taking is just silly. Yes they would have shed the debt and not have to have serviceed it. However on the other side they would be losing income of about £9m a year if memory serves.
It’s doubtful Rangers even wanted a CVA, however they had to tell the fans they did everything they could to get it. The sell the “same club” myth. How does one boil a frog.
1, – 4,000 MORE obviously.
This is the link to Scottish Judicial Fraud & Corruption;
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk/
Auldheid says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
This is now going well beyond football. It has tainted tax governance, insolvency governance, all but destroyed football governance filled with dead men walking, main stream media reporting and, one could argue corrupt thinking reaches the highest levels of governance of the country.
Struggling to keep a sense of proportion here.
———————————————————————————————————
I think your post touches the heart of the matter and you’re right that it is almost impossible to retain a sense of proportion.
I tend and try to come at the issue not from a narrow football focus and the woes of Rangers spreading out and infecting all of Scotland. I actually see the Rangers story as just one of the many different horror movies playing all over Scotland.
I can’t help but feel that Thatcher has won in that she has changed the nature of the society that we live in – obviously I don’t want to digress into party politics and, in any case, I no longer see the process as being of a party political nature anyway. That’s probably the reason that there are few bulwarks left to impede its spread but there’s a slight chance that football supporters could be mobilised in defence of their sport.
The whole Scottish Establishment and what it believes in and what it thinks its role is has IMO suffered the equivalent of a major tectonic plate shift. I don’t like the new landscape that we are looking at but I’m beginning to wonder whether it can be reversed or even halted.
It’s always difficult as you grow older not too fall into the trap that everything used to be better and I try not to. To me it’s not a question of things used to be better but that priorities have changed and the doctrine of self interest and advancement is now in the driving seat.
I see many other Rangers-type scenarios where there is absolute cowardice being exhibited by those with responsibility and a duty, often a statutory one, towards people and organisations which pay their wages.
Loyalty has shrunk to ‘self’ or common interest groups who will trample over others to advance and profit from their own agenda and to hell with the common good or any broader groupings especially if based on ethical considerations.
The wider issues I can’t influence but perhaps small victories can be won against the bigger Enemy through unmasking the microcosm of all that is wrong revealed in the Rangers saga. And I feel that an entrenched position that this is solely Rangers’ fault just helps advance the greater social and societal malaise which I believe Rangers is a symptom of rather than the root cause.
Obviously Rangers in terms mainly of it owners, past and present, bear enormous responsibilities for their plight but I firmly believe that the wider conditions which prevail has assisted a lot of the corruption and manipulation which has taken place in various professions and organisations.
I will no doubt come under attack for my opinions and be branded a Rangers apologist – but this problem is much bigger than Rangers and I think that is evidenced by the silence of the SMSM over the CF revelations – there is no way that Rangers has that power to veto the entire media and anyone who believes they have IMO is deluded no matter what team they support and that includes Rangers.
In response to Cast of Thousands 11.45
“I can’t deny your logic. However the various audio did suggest to me that CW did believe it was a viable possibility. With all the kidology going on it was difficult to discern the truth in what was being said. I am influenced however by HirsuitePursuit’s latest conclusion that liquidation stuffed CW in the form of his mysterious personal guarantee to Ticketus.”
Answer – Wot Gaz said @ 12.17!
Craig Whyte’s model was to continue to fund losses with capital, mainly someone else’s, in some shape or another and hope either an enforced property deal, a share issue, a CL league run/Invite to England or a euro lottery win came about. I’ll leave you to decide which was ever the most likely.
Gaz says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:17 pm
3 0 i
Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:18 am
=========================
I have tried to explain this for a long time, and people refuse to accept it.
Celtic and Rangers were not financially on a par, there are three main reasons for this.
1, Celtic averaged around 4,000 paying customers for home league games . That equates to somthing like £2m, ball park.
2, Celtic’s net income from merchandising was about £1.5m higher than Rangers.
3, Celtic have the Nike deal and Rangers had nothing similar. That was £5m a year effectively free money.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A few other points that have been little mentioned are that
Celtics income from Hospitality/Corporate/Match day catering was much higher than Rangers.
Rangers were effectively losing a large portion of their S.T. income every year to Ticketus.
Rangers were servicing/paying interest and charges on a 20 odd million loan.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:10 pm
====================================
The one thing I can’t work-out is what day-to-day role he is expected to come back in. He might be the biggest shareholder but he no longer has any position unless the Board of RIFC Plc vote him one and I don’t think he controls that Board unless he rallies his mystery overseas shareholders.
So if he goes for another egm then there has to be an AIM notification unless he is capable of activating the current egm which is lying on the table but even that move could affect shareprices. But it might boost them and that might be the intention.
But returning to TRFCL – the only directors there are Mather and Stockbridge who were brought on Board either by Green or at least with his approval. So perhaps he has more room for manoeuvre in that direction.
I am still not to sure about TRFCL in terms of the fact that Green was the sole subscribing shareholder in that company and we don’t know what shareholding now exists there. Does RIFC Plc own any/all residual TRCL shareholding or does Green? I recognise btw that TRFCL is meant to be a fully-owned subsidiary of RIFC Plc and apparently where the property assets reside or at least did reside.
But one thing I have learnt about this saga is that things are seldom as they appear and rules appear to be subtly reinterpreted whenever it suits.
Jonnyod says:
July 5, 2013 at 7:17 am
IMO
T
Massive borrowing ,tax evasion schemes ,inflated asset valuation ,strange player transfers ,front loaded shirt deals ,massive cash injections being swallowed up ,many years of overspending .Everything was being hawked off in advance just to keep the business treading water and none of the above could be carried on indefinitely and no new buyer would ever be found if it carried on through a sale .
Liquidation ,although a bitter pill to swallow would have gotten rid of all the above problems in one fell swoop.
The only problem left was to convince the customers (supporters ) that it was still the same club and the creditors that it was a totally different business and that is where the SFA/SPL/MSM come in .IMO all would have been sounded out prior to this saga and would have given assurances of compliance .
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the MSM agreed to comply with the “same club” fiction why did the Editor at that time of the Sports pages of the Daily Record(Mr James Traynor) pronounce the oldco deid? Was it in a fit of pique because he never got the Rangers Propagandist in Chief gig the first time round?
Of course he has shamefully recanted now and firmly believes they are a continuing club. By the same token Graeme “Spiers””yyyy” Speirs, after talking to the insolvency gurus, has always been of the opinion that TRFC is a new club. Obviously he spoke to different practitioners than James.
Castofthousands says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:45 am
There was one piece of audio which suggested Terry Byrne and Richard Spence may be able to influence HMRC’s thinking on the matter. One was a former director and the other a former senior investigator if I remember correctly.
Whyte may, just may, have believed that whilst a CVA was not theoretically possible that HMRC could be influenced to allow it for a Scottish institution, particularly if it had the support of the Scottish parliament and all of the media outlets.
Robert Coyle says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:07 am
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:46 am
—————————————————————————————-
Could you provide a link please showing the above as i have stockbridge down as director and company secretary of both RIFC and TRFC..thanks..
I may have picked this up wrong from your post and apoligies if i have,but no shares were sold or transferred in TRFC to anyone as it was RIFC (the holding company for TRFC) that was placed on the AIM.
==============================================================
A lot of people have either missed or forgotten the TRFCL shares and perhaps the easiest way to explain is that at flotation there were three distinct tranches of shares. There was the £5.5 million offered to and taken-up by fans; the £17 million pre-placed with Institutional Investors; and also the 1-for-1 swap where each TRFCL share was exchanged for an RIFC Plc share. I can’t remember the amount of the latter shares created but they rank equal with the other two tranches and can outvote them basically because a helluva lot of the ex-TRFCL shares only cost 1p as opposed to 70p for those bought by the fans and Institutional Investors.
Duedil is handy to look at for some things but it’s always best to check with Companies House Webcheck to ensure you get the latest info and a link is:
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo
Stockbridge is a director and company secy of both RIFCL and RIFC Plc and Mather is a director of both companies.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:10 pm
I’ve no idea how ST sales went but the silence is deafening.
=============================================================
I’m sure we can expect to see a “not to scale” bar chart with a grinning FPLG proclaiming a new world record for a 3rd tier team
oh, how we laughed last year….little did we know this was the tip of the iceberg for the nonsense they’d come away with!
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:50 pm
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:10 pm
====================================
The fans love him.
He tells them what they want to here,even if it’s rubbish.
IMO,probably wrong as usual.a bit of rabble rousing is required to raise some much needed cash.99p to watch a video of a rented bus smacks of desperation.Even if the extra cash is just to top up the spivs getaway fund.
There are surely serious concerns wrt TRFC and their ability to start,never mind finish the coming season.Any word on their pre-season tours of the USA and Germany yet?.Contradictary statements from the board,manager,even the head of communications.The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.
Making it up day by day.Green would,at least in the fans eyes,steady the ship,even though it looks like sinking anyway.
Gaz says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:17 pm
=========================
I have tried to explain this for a long time, and people refuse to accept it.
So to think Rangers could have achieved a CVA, carried on with the same players, costs and business model in place and been able to cope with the money Ticketus would be taking is just silly. Yes they would have shed the debt and not have to have serviced it. However on the other side they would be losing income of about £9m a year if memory serves.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good post BTW
Why £9m? Surely Ticketus take only a percentage of the ST sales – 4% or something?
Drew Peacock says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Jonnyod says:
July 5, 2013 at 7:17 am
that is where the SFA/SPL/MSM come in .IMO all would have been sounded out prior to this saga and would have given assurances of compliance .
============================================================
I think you are correct but in relation to the SMSM I don’t believe individual journos would have been approached but editors. It is a very heady mix when you are ‘sold’ the idea that compliance will guarantee the financial future of Scottish Football. Hard not to resist especially if you don’t think about the elephant traps that might lie ahead. But the suggestion of future BIG exclusives is also a big carrot as well.
As to Traynor and Spiers: To understand Traynor you have to understand the power struggle with Rennie which is down to Traynor’s manner and personality IMO and at the very least a disdain for Rennie’s professional abilities. I might share Traynor’s view to an extent on professional ability but I would think that Jim being Jim would have totally misread how determined Rennie can be.
Anyway I don’t believe Traynor was included in the plan to ‘save’ Scottish Football and oh how that would have rankled with him especially the fact it was Rennie or one of his lieutenants who gave the in-house commitment.
Spiers might well have been a freelance at that point and therefore wouldn’t have been under the same kind of ‘control’ as a staff journo and there’s always the thing that he has a different ‘aura’ about him and I doubt would have been dragooned into toeing the party line and after all we are talking about ‘quality’ journalism rather than the gutter variety.
Gaz says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Castofthousands says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:45 am
There was one piece of audio which suggested Terry Byrne and Richard Spence may be able to influence HMRC’s thinking on the matter. One was a former director and the other a former senior investigator if I remember correctly.
Whyte may, just may, have believed that whilst a CVA was not theoretically possible that HMRC could be influenced to allow it for a Scottish institution, particularly if it had the support of the Scottish parliament and all of the media outlets.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Right I’m confused now. Why would CW want a CVA with the Big tax case still hanging around ? Surely liquidation was always the plan?
Castofthousands says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:07 am
14 0 Rate This
————————-
Hope you don’t mind me picking up HirsutePursuit’s query. He/she seems to be otherwise engaged presently …
——–
Not at all, it was only a minor point, and thanks for responding. But we did hear a lot about how important it was for CW to have them in place. If CF is trying to show that CW was set up as the patsy then it’s working to a certain extent,
Btw, someone mentioned a Freudian slip earlier. Now I’m quite sure your previous alias was not moolah, but it sounded a bit like it. A combination of the previous and present does sound a bit like ‘thousands of moolah’ 😀
Sam 12.31
Cheers for the clarification. I was using the term as a kind of shorthand to say something about the use of insolvency being questionable and given you clarification move it to my later add on re the legal and justice system.
The minute Fergus rebuilt CP and attracted 60k supporters is the minute the pendulum stopped swinging one way and moved in the other direction.
Drew Peacock says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Oh no, not by a long way.
Ticketus had bought a whole load of tickets at a discounted amount, over four season. Some of the discounts were absolutely ridiculous for the later years.
I believe their normal discount for other clubs, with the “payday loan” setup was something like 25%. It was higher with Rangers. If memory serves they paid over something in the region of £18m, however the total value of the tickets concerned was about £27m (based on face value). So on average Ticketus were getting a discount of arounf a third.
Remember this was effecticvely a corporate Wonga deal, a last option.
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Drew Peacock says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:52 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks for that. James isn’t a very nice person is he?
Duplesis
=============================
We agree more than we disagree, I think; but there is a certain amount we have to take on trust. Perhaps I trust what was said by the administrators slightly less than you do. 🙂
This is Duff & Phelps version of the “termination” of the Ticketus contract.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149039255/D-P-Interim-Report-Dated-10-July-2012
No mention here of termination for reason of financial assistance.
The wording at 5.11 suggests that the contract was terminated – on the express authority of Lord Hodge – prior to the CVA being voted on. Actually, on closer inspection it doesn’t say that; but it is heavily implied.
At 10.7 they are specifically saying that the “Club” (defined in this document as “The Rangers Football Club Plc (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium,Glasgow, G51 2XD, Company number SC004276”) could have recommenced trading without the burden of the Ticketus contract.
Unless you think 10.7 is directly related to 5.11 , there is no explanation given as to why the think they were able to “defeat a claim from Ticketus”,
Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to believe, D&P (without actually saying it) considered the contract null and void because it was contributing to financial assistance. Fair enough; but had the CVA been successful, that opinion would have become a matter subject to litigation and would have taken years and very deep pockets to resolve. That is not a battle that the “Club” could have afforded to have taken on.
in the end, the contract was terminated because the CVA was voted down. At that point it became self-evident that it cannot be fulfilled and any question of financial assistance (relating to its performance) is moot.
You should also note how D&P recorded Ticketus position as per the CVA proposal submitted on 5th April 2012:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149042940/Rangers-CVA-Proposal
…and also the Ticketus statement of 23rd March 2012 in reponse to the Lord Hodge opinion:
http://www.ticketus.co.uk
To be clear, D&P entered an estimated sum in the CVA proposal, on what they regarded as the principal sum. Of course, if Ticketus had actually made a claim for damages, the amount would not have had to be estimated.
Regardless of their opinion on financial assistance, D&P could not have allowed Ticketus to vote in the CVA if no claim for damages had been made. There is no evidence that Ticketus did claim damages.
Ticketus made it abundantly clear they would continue to seek performance of the ST contract post-CVA. It could not do so (we are both agreed) if it had accepted the repudiation.
Lord Hodge gave opinion on whether the administrators could be forced to perform the contractual obligations. He gave no opinion whatsoever, on how those contractual obligations could be mitigated post-CVA.
D&P may have been able to create a distinction between Club and Company (though not in the CVA proposal 🙂 ) – they seem to find it difficult to distinguish between repudiate & terminate.
They could make a claim to the first, but have no power to enforce the second except through liquidation.
Auldheid says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:44 pm
========================
That’s another bit they never really understood when they talked about the Rangers version of Fergus McCann.
1. Celtic’s attendance was so low that Fergus realised if he could oust the families who owned the club, who by that time were hated by a lott of Celtic fans, rebuild the stadium and put a decent team on the park he could get an extra 40,000 paying customers. he got more than that.
Rangers were already operating at a figure of say 40,000, the absolute maximum improvement they could get was around 10,000, and that was by filling Ibrox every other week (or at least selling the seats).
2, Celtic have had three succesful share issues. All meeting the target set.
Rangers have had two. In the first the fans weren’t even remotely interested, Murray had to do some smoke and mirrors to make it appear to have worked. In the second, they took up 50% of the shares available to them. Meaning the IPO was £5m short of target, or about 29%. Hardly a rip roaring success.
Ecobhoy 12.34
My view as I age is not that things used to be better for many were not. It is a simple philosophy of what works and what does’nt.
The problem is it takes time to become aware of what works and what does not. Indeed when titles and trophies are rolling in and families are enjoying the fruits of Thatcher type thinking that does not recognise society, it seems that such thinking is working.
But with the passage of more years it can be seen such thinking no longer works.
I think ethics are the manual to what will work and what will not, but ethics often appear to require a degree of selflessness that human nature baulks at, hence the manual is discarded. However just as when my wife is happy, I’m happy so too doing what is right by others can only be what is right by self.
Its a generational thing and it is ever onwards and upwards even if we do not survive long enough to see a new ethical level reached.
In the meantine the SFA are an unethical gang of villains incapable of ethical thought and so upholding ethical thinking and it aint restricted to them, but the way to eat an elephant is a bit at a time so lets keep chewing away.
I have to ask though is it just me or even just this forum but with each passing day is it only here that the sheer extent of this scandal has us thinking of turning our backs on Scottish football because there seems to be no one championing for the return of ethics?
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Auldheid
I’ve been a regular at Scottish football for over thirty years but at the close of season I didn’t renew my book. I was going to do it the season before but decided to hang about and see how we would proceed. We didn’t. I’m fortunate in that I have many interests. I wrote a short story a while back that I thought I’d share.
They showed me the money so I left
Competition kills competition. Go figure!
Old universal saying states: if it smells like shite and it looks like shite then it probably is shite.
When your face is rubbed in it and still you remain. Well?
Back when I was a kid only sport mattered to me. Paticularly football but swimming, cycling, rounders and racing featured heavily too.
As I left adolescence and my interests widened in tandem with my waist, I became a spectator. And for over twenty years I watched ever more suspiciously until it was impossible to do so. For me anyway.
Folks, for clarity.
Rangers were never, ever, ever, ever going to get a CVA.
Don’t believe me? Just google HMRC site on-line and have a read at what you need to show to aonsiderttain a CVA.
If you remember, we were told iduring the BTC that Rangers/MIH basically refused to communicate (for 4 years) or hand over demanded documentation to HMRC.
When Whyte took over they paid not one thin dime in tax, PAYE, NI or indeed bills to face painters, plumbers, newsagents, bus company’s etc…………..Now, with that background:
Conditions for supporting a proposal
We consider voluntary arrangements on an individual basis, and will vote to support proposals where:
•
debtors are honest in their financial disclosure
•
an optimised and achievable offer is made to creditors
•
provision is made for payment of all future debts on time
•
they treat all creditors within the same class equally
•
there are no exceptional reasons for rejection.
However, we will not support debtors (individual or corporate) who do not allay our concerns about their proposals.
Markybhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 2:37 pm
I’ve been a regular at Scottish football for over thirty years but at the close of season I didn’t renew my book. I was going to do it the season before but decided to hang about and see how we would proceed. We didn’t. I’m fortunate in that I have many interests. I wrote a short story a while back that I thought I’d share.
They showed me the money so I left.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
After the Sevco/Newco/Oldco/SPL/1st Div/3rdDiv fiasco it was also my intention to call it a day but I make no excuse for loving being a Celtic supporter, (same would apply if I supported any other team).
I will not be forced away from a game I love because others are willing to cheat and lie for the benefit of one particular (new) club.
Nothing has changed, its the way at always was and it just made winning trophies all the sweeter, over FORTY years ago the great Jock Stein said it many times, every supporter of every club in Scotland knows that more favours are handed out to Rangers (old or new ) than any other club.
They are counting on very people who will question them to walk away and leave them with a free hand, well I will continue to support my team through thick and thin and look forward to an eventual fairer distribution of money leading through time to real competition coming from Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, etc. and if that means we all just need to try that bit harder against whatever form of Rangers survives then so be it, we are all used to it.
slimshady61 says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:04 am
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:50 am
———————————–
Quayle were big on the corporate finance scene in Edinburgh a few years back. Probably retained to negotiate the TV contracts but the leaked extract from CF, albeit a note with no date, context or attribution, would suggest contracts may have been negotiated without all parties having full knowledge of all the relevant facts.
============================================================
I’ve had another read of the CF tweet leaking what appears to be an SPL extract and it seems to me that certain things can be inferred but perhaps not and in any case there will be other things I miss 🙂
So I’ll paint a scenario and bits are probably wrong so I invite any poster to tear it to bits if they have info or thoughts on the matter as I think we could be reaching an important point in uncovering what was happening behind the scenes at Hampden.
I think Quayle Munro was engaged in preparing the feasibility study for the launch of the SPL TV channel and I believe the General Meeting of SPL Clubs on 31 October 2011 voted for them to continue the study with a view to breaking away from being at the mercy of independent TV companies especially in the wake of the Setanta experience.
But at a Board Meeting following the SPL General Meeting of 31/10/2011 the Board was told that Rangers was in a state of financial collapse and would be unlikely to see out the season.
The Board therefore decided to ditch the concept of an SPL TV Channel and grab the Sky ESPN proposal as quickly as possible before any word leaked that Rangers was sinking fast. A major factor was that the main selling point of the Sky Deal was the guaranteed 4 Old Firm games per season which was so important it formed a written clause in the TV agreement.
The SPL panicked that if Sky/ESPN rumbled that Rangers was out the picture that the two TV companies might walk away completely or slice the money they had on offer. The SPL decision was then announced at a ‘hastily arranged’ press conference at Hampden on 21 November 2011.
But behind the scenes it would appear that some SPL clubs were furious with their Board’s decision as they were behind the SPL TV company move. There is no doubt that the SPL Board made the decision to scrap their own TV station and embrace Sky despite the General Meeting of 31 October deciding the opposite.
The SPL justified its decision by claiming that the information on Rangers was only presented to it after the meeting of 31 October and they had a duty to assess it and act and believed it to be a legitimate decision of the Board in the best interest of the League.
Oh really – well along came CF . . . And what has she caught in her web. Well let’s look back at earlier emails she provided on the discussions between Withey and Rod McKenzie the SPL lawyer from 5 October.
They clearly show that as early as 5 October 2011 the SPL lawyer was apprised of the horror story unfolding at Ibrox and by the next day he had briefed the SPL Chief Executive.
So the SPL General Meeting held their meeting 25 days later and the Chief Exec appears to have sat and not told them that HMS Dignity was badly holed, sinking fast and probably wouldn’t reach the end of the season’s voyage.
Would anyone promote such a chief executive into a position of even more power. Whose interest was he actually acting in as it obviously doesn’t appear to be that of his employer.
We now know why everything else that happened was virtually inevitable and I name just a few: the need to remain in SPL; then the need to be put into SFL1; the need to be in Europe for financial survival and everything else that followed including the SMSM silence.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/151580990/Phone-Calls
http://i.imgur.com/ThBf6wQ.jpg
ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:58 am
5 5 i
Very noble sentiments and I agree with you.
My opinion is that all the factors you describe are certainly in play but the fundamental difference in my view is that the economics and cynicism derives from the press all chasing the same juicy RFC fan market therefore the economic driver is for the media to compete to outdo each other in the positive Rangers news stakes. A natural consequence is masses of negative CFC stuff. As all outlets are more or less as negative about Celtic as each other then they needn’t worry about alienating them as they don’t figure in the marketing strategy anyway. And anyway the media has plenty of token ex Celts like Craig Burley, Andy Walker and Murdo McLeod to convince the more gullible CFC fans that they are being represented honestly in media discourse.
Looking at this story in isolation your view is certainly plausible.
I choose to consider it, as I belive it is sensible to do with all things, in the wider context of –
– RFC brought to it’s knees by Scottish media chronic allergy to bad news re RFC
– Scottish media’s enthusiasm in kite flying RFC moonbeams like casino hover pitches and £80million sponsorship warchests
– Revolving door between RFC and high profile Scottish media posts
– CF evidence re Jack Irvine and Media House MO “Let’s get some dirt on Celtic”
– Scottish media – Traynor in particular – desperate campaign to have 2007/08 season extended to help Rangers win the league (by the way the season actually WAS extended despite another convenient media myth)
– Traynor telling Celtic to “Shut up and get on with it” when expressing objections to being scheduled to play Rangers less than 72 hours after a UEFA Cup final
– Scottish newspapers having to pay settlements to Neil Lennon, Martin O’Neill and Chris Sutton for actionable inaccurate reporting
– Ewan Cameron having to issue public apology to Peter Lawwell on air for actionable inaccurate reporting
– The use of “Old Firm star” monicker to deflect from unsavoury incidents involving RFC players and the polar opposite approach where “Celtic stars” are involved
– Fergus McCann derided as a penny pincher eccentric megalomaniac for refusing to take the Moonbeams other people’s tenner for every fiver route
When I take into account the context of 20 years of being subject to media reporting on Scottish football, then the “Old Firm Attack Torment” headline is just a natural symptom of their MO.
You do give the impression of someone with a legal background very adept in homing in on specific arguments, stripping them of context and then coming up with an elephant can hang by its tail from a blade of grass off the edge of a cliff type theoretical arguments. And of using language with enough malleability to adjust your stance in retrospect.
I certainly do not wish to browbeat anyone. I readily admit I would be pleased if my posts were to give someone pause for reflection on their perception of the issue under discussion. Is that not after all the whole raison d’etre of the site, to discuss issues and truths that are surpressed in the mainstream media and therefore bring some influence to bear to counter biases elsewhere?
It is only my perception, but I would be surprised if the majority of posters here were sharing their thoughts and opinions caring not a jot if anyone agreed with them or not and with no intention of persuading anyone of the merits of their statements.
You care not who agrees with your view and that is absolutely fine but adds no more weight to your comments than those of anyone else
I wonder if CtH’s latest release opens a window for Sky to seek some form of redress in terms of the possible absence of good faith in the SPL’s failure to disclose relevant information before the contract was signed.
A consequential can of worms would be that the new members of the SPFL, which is in effect I think the SPL (same company renamed) may be jointly and severally liable for any such claim.
What say our Legal Experts?
Or alternatively, would it give Sky some leverage for a dilution of the contract going forward? Although that would still seriously irk the less enthusiastic new members of the SPFL I imagine.
Winding up a 125 year old institution for this?
David Low @Heavidor 36m
RFC shares slipping again to an all time low of 52.5p. More to go. Target price 35p. Interims to May 13 soon. Will highlight cash burn.
Good news for Dunfermline,hopefully:
BuyThePars @ParsUnited 3m
We are delighted to announce we have been named preferred bidder by the administrators. Still a lot of work to do. #DAFC
CtH latest:
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 1m
BDO fact finding. No point in suing the wrong parties IF Craig Whyte claims stand up. http://www.scribd.com/doc/151897900/BDO-Fact-Finding …
TSFM says:
July 5, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Or alternatively, would it give Sky some leverage for a dilution of the contract going forward? Although that would still seriously irk the less enthusiastic new members of the SPFL I imagine.
Winding up a 125 year old institution for this?
===================================
Assuming that Sky wants to continue showing Scottish football in the future, perhaps there would be no motivation to complain about alleged withholding of material information during contact negotiations ?
But going forward, what about the practicalities of future negotiations with the SPFL ?
Surely, the first demand from Sky would be that they simply refuse to deal with anyone connected with the current deal – due to a lack of trust / good faith ?
TSFM says:
July 5, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Or alternatively, would it give Sky some leverage for a dilution of the contract going forward? Although that would still seriously irk the less enthusiastic new members of the SPFL I imagine.
Winding up a 125 year old institution for this?
…………………………………………………………
It may give SKY 2nd thoughts about renewing any future contracts.
However, the contract that was signed would depend on how it was discussed and presented to SKY…..there is nothing wrong with entering a contract discussion and withholding sensitive details that may not be in your best interests to divulge…therefore I do not believe Sky would have any redress on that basic point.
If on the other hand 4 Celtic v Rangers games were included in the package there maybe grounds for redress if it can be proven those negotiating the contract were fully aware this would not be possible, then you may have a shout…
It’s all if’s and butts…
http://uk.businessesforsale.com/uk/Scottish-Premier-League-Football-Club-Assets-For-Sale.aspx
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
July 5, 2013 at 3:50 pm
1 0 i Rate This
CtH latest:
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 1m
BDO fact finding. No point in suing the wrong parties IF Craig Whyte claims stand up. http://www.scribd.com/doc/151897900/BDO-Fact-Finding …
——————————————————————————————————————–
interesting claim about David Grier being shadow finance director. he seems to be a name who appears at various different stages of this whole saga.