The Stella Dallas of Europe

ByBig Pink

The Stella Dallas of Europe

Leaving aside for the moment the Shadenfreude-laden giggling as first Celtic, and then Rangers departed the Champions League this season, it is worthwhile taking time to think on the reality of Scotland’s latter-day bit-part status in the game.

There are Celtic fans who try to rationalise it by pointing out that for them, the Stein years were a wonderful exception and not the norm. That however does not explain the European status of Rangers, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs, Dundee, Dundee United, Kilmarnock and Dunfermline in a period of roughly a quarter of a century from the beginning of European competition.

From the fifties to the eighties, Scottish clubs were feared and respected in Europe. Since then, only Martin O’Neil’s Celtic and Walter Smith’s Rangers have made an impression on the European scene.

So what has happened? Many blame the distraction of new technology, taking potential Johnstones and Baxters away from pursuing the soccer dream. I’m not convinced of that myself. They have game consoles and PCs in England and Italy and Germany as well. They also have them in Scandinavian countries where daylight hours and suitable weather are in even less abundance than in Scotland – and of course clubs from Scandinavian countries were both responsible for Celtic and Rangers fates this season.

Failure then breeds failure. Losing out one year means more (and earlier) qualifiers down the line. In this regard, you have to wonder at the claims of how “brilliantly” Celtic have been run over the last decade, when the club went into Euro qualifiers again and again unprepared in terms of personnel, even to the extent of using makeshift central defenders in several campaigns. Our clubs know its all coming, but year on year, we get caught on the hop by the timing of those early ties. Planning? Don’t make me laugh.

We are also faced with the reality that fans of clubs who are not in contention for a ECL group place, are usually fervently hoping that the quest ends in failure. Not because there is a deep hatred of either or both Celtic and Rangers, but because a Champions League place for a Scottish team gives the successful side an immeasurable financial advantage over the rest. Of course that attitude is understandable when you look at the reality for our clubs if one of their number makes it to the group stages.

Scottish football clubs rely heavily on gate income for survival because their media deals struck with broadcasters are so much poorer than in countries of similar size. ECL money – even if the successful side fails to score a goal or get a point on the board – is like all your Christmasses have come at once.

It is well known that the income gap between Celtic & Rangers and the rest is huge. The income gap between a Scottish Champions League team and the rest is even more massive. Yet if a Dutch, or Portuguese or Danish or Swedish side get a place in the group stages, the impact is not so great. Why? Because they have football administrators who can sell the game effectively, getting value for their product from the media.

This is the one area where our administrators have failed consistently and miserably.

The current football model where home teams keep their own gate money, and in some cases even have their own media contracts, is designed to (with the notable exception of England) create a few bigger fishes in a number of smaller ponds. It ultimately ends with the pantomime (which has not yet gone away) of the European Super League.

I wish I could say I had a solution to all this, but my instinct is to say that in the absence of a solution we should forget about Europe and its riches. Instead, lets return to a sport driven model of the game where there is a more equitable share of revenues. Forget the tuppence ha’penny TV contracts and give football back to the fans, live on a Saturday (Covid permitting). In time, the level of competition would increase, as would the quality of the product. The talk to the TV folk when they want to pay the going rate.

It might help if there was some kind of levy (listening indy supporters?) imposed on subscription service providers like Sky. £25m versus £1.5 billion is a much smaller fraction than that of Scottish subscribers to the Sky platform for example.

There is little we in Scotland can do to prevent the globalisation and Mafia-isation of the game internationally, but those things we CAN control, like turning inward to improve our game instead of, like Stella Dallas in the eponymous classic movie, standing in the rain looking through the window at the banquet elsewhere.

Of course it won’t happen.

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

527 Comments so far

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:09 am - Aug 24, 2021


Incidentally, I notice that cinch is a subsidiary, and complementary to the core business, of British Car Auctions

It is odd that advertising of cinch is deemed unacceptable to the Ibrox club when adverts for Central Car Auctions are regularly seen in the stadium.

…just sayin’

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on10:56 am - Aug 24, 2021


Albertz11 23rd August 2021 At 16:12

Statement from Rangers regarding bus incidents.

https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-230821/7f6WQdRTXmvH7PMczZv0Hv

“The individuals involved have been identified and will be banned indefinitely from all Rangers games.

Furthermore, the RSC of which they were members and travelled with to the game, have been banned from receiving tickets for future fixtures.”

Swift and decisive action from the club.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Swift and decisive you say, however I have a couple of issues;

Firstly, the statement is very much lacking in detail. Who have been identified? When will they be banned? Which supporters club? No names suggests to me they are sheltering these idiots from the shaming they deserve. Also The Rangers are far from bastions of truth so without names how do we know the individuals concerned will not be at future games?

Secondly, and despicably, there is not one word of apology offered to Kyogo. It’s a sad indictment of the club/company, they cannot bring themselves to apologise for their supporter’s behavior and show the abused some sympathy.

Some things never change…..

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on1:52 pm - Aug 24, 2021


Now that Ibrox has identified the low-life racists responsible, it will be a gross dereliction of duty for Police Scotland not to demand the names and addresses. Sevco have taken probably the only action available to them, and have trousered a bus-load of season books for re-sale to boot.
However, this is a criminal matter, and therefore the responsibility of the police to apprehend and present the culprits to the courts for judgement.

View Comment

HaywirePosted on3:49 pm - Aug 24, 2021


John Clark 22nd August 2021 At 23:16

Haywire 22nd August 2021 At 17:16
“….John Clark may wish to crack heads with ‘Slicker’ or Ian Hislop”
%%%%%%%%
Welcome back, Haywire.
I don’t subscribe to ‘Private Eye’, but I buy the occasional copy.

I think that that little piece ‘“Rangers International was delisted from the AIM market in 2015 after it failed to appoint a new nominated adviser after a boardroom coup. Twice-disqualified director Craig Whyte sold control of Rangers in 2012, after the original club collapsed into administration.” was actually deadly!

Okay, it doesn’t give the fully comprehensive account [ Hislop is, I think, the kind of Englishman who equates ‘Britain’ with ‘England’ and would as readily talk about the ‘Jocks’ as others might talk about ‘Paddies’: that is, he shares the view that anything north of Watford is only of occasional relevance]
…………………………………………………………………………..
Hello again John,
I think that you are being a bit tough on Ian Hislop, especially since, despite his accent, he is not English! He had a Scots Father and Grandfather. To make things even more complicated, he was born in Swansea. Whatever, he could certainly have played for Scotland, but I suspect that his singular lack of interest in any sport would make that scenario pretty unlikely.
I should also mention that, based on a number of documentaries he has written and presented over the years, he definitely takes more than an interest in matters well north of the M25.
Regarding the article in the ‘Eye’, I appreciate what you say in relation to the negative effect on the Share Issue, but the inference is, yet again, that Whyte sold the club to Green and, as a result, the good ship R——rs missed the iceberg, did not go aground in the Suez Canal and sailed on into calmer waters.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on7:08 pm - Aug 24, 2021


normanbatesmumfc 24th August 10.56

Firstly, the statement is very much lacking in detail. Who have been identified? When will they be banned? Which supporters club? No names suggests to me they are sheltering these idiots from the shaming they deserve.
…………………………………………………………………………………….

Have you considered that Police Scotland may want to interview those concerned, which may result in criminal charges being brought?
I believe the bans take place with immediate effect.
The supporters club has been identified on Social Media but was incorrectly named on this site (CO 23/08 13.14)
Statement from the Westwood RSC East Kilbride.

Even though I didn’t travel to Dingwall last Sunday as the senior committee member I thought I had to make a statement about the unsavoury video that was filmed on our supporters bus and put on social media. What was on that video is totally unacceptable and everyone that was involved have been handed lifetime bans and will not be allowed to travel on the bus again. Our club was founded in 1966 and I personally have been involved with it for over 40yrs and have always prided ourselves for being a family club and have a large membership of all ages and I can assure you that the views and actions of the lads in the video are not those of myself or the members of WRSC. We have accepted the decision R.F.C and will work with them going forward and reiterate to everyone there is no place for this behaviour not just in football but in Society as a whole, although I can’t condone the vile abuse one of our female members and a young boy received after their phone number was accidentally posted online
On a personal note I’d like to thank all the people who know me and the good members of my club for their kind words of support it’s very much appreciated
David Cook Treasurer WRSC

Not the greatest statement if i am being honest.

I would agree with you that Rangers should have apologised to the player concerned publicly. ( Maybe they did so privately)

In the interests of being balanced i am unaware if Rangers players/employees (Nacho Novo & Jimmy Bell) have received apologies for the vile sectarian chants directed at them previously.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on7:24 pm - Aug 24, 2021


Can anyone tell me how many UEFA fines this is for Celtic?. Genuine question.

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19534218.celtic-st-johnstone-hit-uefa-fines-partial-stand-closure/

View Comment

nawlitePosted on7:46 pm - Aug 24, 2021


Albertz11, given your function on here of defending anything bad Rangers* are reported as doing, do you have a view at all on why they have made an issue of the Cinch deal apparently conflicting with Parks’ alleged sponsorship? I’m thinking particularly of their shirt sponsorship deal with 32 Red when the SPFL was sponsored by Ladbrokes – another apparent conflict of interest which did not raise their hackles? Any thoughts as to why this one matters? Thanks.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:20 pm - Aug 24, 2021


https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-240821/1kDDUU2uVg8I6zNAGBjtMW

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on9:48 pm - Aug 24, 2021


paddy malarkey 24th August 21.20

No surprise as it was only a matter of time before someone was affected. This is going to be a recurring theme this season i fear.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:13 pm - Aug 24, 2021


Haywire 24th August 2021 At 15:49
‘..I think that you are being a bit tough on Ian Hislop..’
++++++++++
Haywire, thanks for that interesting info on Hislop: I had no idea of his ‘ancestry’, and should perhaps not have, and wish I had not, made facile assumptions!

I feel a letter to him coming on, in which I can put him absolutely in possession of the Truth about the ‘saga’ and the big black lie that TRFC is RFC of 1872.
I can readily believe that Hislop , as someone who has no interest in even the ‘gentlemanly sports’ , has no grasp of what happened after SDM’s/CW’s Rangers of 1872 went into Administration and simply assumes that it’s the same club that is again finding it difficult to raise capital via a share issue.
I believe that while ‘football’ in itself may be of little interest to him, the doings/misdoings of ‘governance bodies’ in sport and the questionable marketing of a newly created football club as being 140 years old and the most successful club in the world ,would be of interest to any editor of ‘Private Eye’.
And certainly, any editor would want to have a word with one of his reporters who fudged ( whether out of ignorance or perversity) the ‘Truth’ about a business falsely claiming to be what it patently is not and could not possibly be.
Yes, I shall certainly think of communicating with Hislop!

View Comment

vernallenPosted on1:29 am - Aug 25, 2021


Albertz11 — 24th August 00:44
I find it hard to believe that Rangers representatives went into a meeting regarding the cinch proposal without any prior knowledge. If they prior had knowledge would it not have been prudent to bring some form of proof of their conflicted contract. That seems to be the route most businesses would follow, or, is this another case of Rangers trying to throw a wrench into what is obviously a poorly function administrative body. As you state plenty of blame to go around. However reasonable professional groups normally try and resolve issues behind closed doors, not in the media or blogsphere.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on7:10 am - Aug 25, 2021


Vernallen 25th August 01.29

What meeting are you referring to?
……………………………………………………….
However reasonable professional groups normally try and resolve issues behind closed doors, not in the media or blogsphere.
……………………………………………………………….
“We have been in private dialogue with the SPFL Executive since 8 June on this topic but, given that they have sought to make the issue public
…………………………………………………………………………..

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:59 pm - Aug 25, 2021


PMG has a post today indicating there are fairly stringent guidelines in regard to Covid for visitors to the country. Could these guidelines and the consequences lead to a number of Ranger players missing the trip along with the manager. Leaving your number one and two keepers at home seems very strange. Of course they were extremely confident these two games would be nothing more than glorified training matches, just a tad more intense.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:16 am - Aug 26, 2021


I’m not saying that I will send it, but I’m minded to do so, when I look at it tomorrow and perhaps edit/re-write, but I have drafted this letter to the editor of ‘Private Eye’.

“Dear Mr Hislop,
In the ‘In The City’ column of the current issue of “Private Eye” there is a short piece referring to Rangers International Football Club plc’s latest attempt to raise some money by a share issue.
The piece has this: “On 16th July, the share offer from RIFC closed. Managed by adviser Tifosy, it aimed to raise £6.75m by selling 27m shares at 25p each. Since when, silence ”

So far, so accurate: and thus a great improvement on the ‘half-truths’ and wholly misleading crap written in the article headed “ Planet Football: RA-GERS” in “Private Eye” issue 1552 of 23 July, in the same ‘In the City’ column.

In that article the first two paras deal with the same Share Issue but it’s the third paragraph that now gives me cause to believe that “Private Eye” may, shamefully, have bought into the Big Lie at the heart of Scottish professional football

[That lie is that Rangers Football Club, founded in 1872, which went into Administration in 2012 owing tens of millions of pounds to HMRC and about 200 creditors, had somehow exited Administration and avoided Liquidation]

The paragraph purports to sketch the background to the share issue in question and reads as follows:
“Rangers International was delisted from the AIM market in 2015 after it failed to appoint a new nominated adviser after a boardroom coup. Twice-disqualified director Craig Whyte sold control of Rangers in 2012, after the original club collapsed into administration.”

The last sentence of that paragraph is simply not true. Craig Whyte lost control of the Rangers of 1872 when his club entered Administration, and he was in no position to ‘sell the club’: the Administrators took over.
Those Administrators signally [and questionably, in a case currently being pursued in the Court of Session by the very Liquidators] failed to bring the club out of Administration either by finding a buyer prepared to take on the massive debts or by securing a CVA.
The club therefore entered liquidation, where it still sits, although renamed ‘Rangers 2012 plc’.

So, RIFC plc is the holding company NOT of the Rangers Football Club that was founded in 1872, but of a club that was created by Charles Green in 2012, and admitted for the first time into Scottish Football in 2012.

The Scottish Football ‘authorities’ created the myth that ‘Rangers’ had not died, and that a club that they themselves admitted into Scottish football in 2012 as a new club was a club that was already 140 years old!

Unsurprisingly, the holding company of that club that was created in 2012 went to market on the basis that it was/is the holding company of a 140-year-old club that was the most successful football club in the world in terms of sporting achievement!!

This is not a mere ‘football story’ but a story of lies and deceit in the worlds of ‘sports governance’ and ‘Finance’, and of journalists who fail in their duty to ask hard questions, journalists with a taste for ‘succulent lamb’ and choice French wines(I’m sure you know the type) or journalists/ editors who are gut AFRAID to tell the truth. [No Maltese journalist heroines or hero’s here in bonnie Scotland]

Are you yourself gut afraid to take on ”Rangers” and challenge the Big Lie?

Surely not.
If ‘Private Eye’ can take on even the most powerful politicos and institutions of State , it can surely spend a minute or two asking questions of the Scottish football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League and RIFC plc about the miracle of the non-death by Liquidation of Rangers Football Club plc in 2012.

Do, I beseech you, have a look into what your people are reporting as ‘background’ to anything to do with RIFC plc. They have not been terribly diligent or thorough

Yours etc

View Comment

fishnishPosted on10:33 am - Aug 26, 2021


Good luck with your effort, JC.

I tried a similar tack (pointing out the twists, lies, cavilling for the new club) at the time when the Eye was mocking Shifty McGifty/MacLennan in his new appointment, and the following was the final sentence in its response to me. (From someone in the office – not IH.)

“ While the club’s rebirth was a significant legal/business event, in football terms the new club still plays at the same stadium, in the same colours, with the same fans as before.”

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on11:06 am - Aug 26, 2021


“ While the club’s rebirth was a significant legal/business event, in football terms the new club still plays at the same stadium, in the same colours, with the same fans as before.”

So, by that reckoning, the Bootleg Beatles are actually The Beatles?

In other news, still no hint of an apology to Kyogo from any official The Rangers institution, that I’ve seen. It’s almost like they don’t do apologies!!!!!

View Comment

HaywirePosted on12:21 pm - Aug 26, 2021


John Clark 26th August 2021 At 00:16

I’m not saying that I will send it, but I’m minded to do so, when I look at it tomorrow and perhaps edit/re-write, but I have drafted this letter to the editor of ‘Private Eye’.

………………………………………………..

Well done John! More power to your elbow! It is certainly considerably better than I could have managed. I hope that you have not had second thoughts as to sending it this morning – please get it in the post today. Needless to say, my subscription to the Eye will be in question if we don’t get some sort of decent response.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on12:36 pm - Aug 26, 2021


fishnish 26th August 2021 At 10:33
“ While the club’s rebirth was a significant legal/business event, in football terms the new club still plays at the same stadium, in the same colours, with the same fans as before.”

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

normanbatesmumfc 26th August 2021 At 11:06
So, by that reckoning, the Bootleg Beatles are actually The Beatles?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I wonder if Gretna 2008 can claim the honours won by the now defunct, original Gretna FC, since Gretna 2008 also play at the same stadium, in the same colours, with the same fans.

I suppose we should at least be satisfied with Private Eye’s acknowledgement of the existence of ‘the new club,’ despite the rest of their linguistic gymnastics.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on2:44 pm - Aug 26, 2021


@Vernallen – not quite sure I follow the logic there but I wonder whether these cases came to light due to the need to complete PCR tests prior to travel to Armenia (I don’t know if sports teams are exempt from what appears a blanket requirement to test pre-departure to enter Armenia).
I agree with Albertz11 that this won’t be the last case this season. I do wonder if the football authorities need to reassess the regime they operate.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:07 pm - Aug 27, 2021


Celtic Europa League draw in full as Hoops set for tough test
Rangers Europa League draw in full with Ibrox club set for glamour ties

From one of our leading print media outlets .

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:53 pm - Aug 27, 2021


John Clark 20th August 2021 At 22:32

0

0

Rate This

Cluster One 20th August 2021 At 15:52
‘..This will be the case JC pointed to the other day in the court Rolls perhaps.’
%%%%%%%%%%%%
Yes, it probably was.
I got the access number about 8.30 am , dialled in at 9.02 , got a recorded message that either the number I used was incorrect or the ‘meeting’ hadn’t begun. I held on for a few minutes until the line went dead.

I tried again, having checked the number on the email from the Clerk’s office, got the same response, tried again a few minutes later, and got the same result.

I was bloody annoyed that there was no message saying either that the hearing had been postponed, or dropped, or that the decision to let it be ‘open’ to the public had been reversed or whatever!

From the newspaper account it sounds as if it might have been interesting.

We’ll have to wait and see what comes up in November.
………………………..
One for the Diary JC.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:55 pm - Aug 27, 2021


Albertz11 22nd August 2021 At 08:11

0

7

Rate This

John Clark 21st August 23.28

Leaving aside your opinion on the OC/NC topic (i’m sure the transcript of the court case between BDO & D&P will be very interesting)
…………………….
When will they be released?

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on10:26 am - Aug 28, 2021


Jingo.jimsie.

RANGERS supporters have once again backed their club in incredible fashion, with the recent supporter share offering raising c. £4.5Million.

At the end of a season of success on the field for the Light Blues, the opportunity was presented to fans the world over to secure their share of the club as it enters an exciting phase of growth.

We are delighted to have almost 5000 new investors, from 44 different countries, thus highlighting once again the global nature of the Rangers support.

It is a phenomenal show of loyalty, with those supporters providing a fantastic base for the club to develop its long-term strategy which includes amongst other things, the construction of New Edmiston House, further improvements to Ibrox Stadium and the club’s digital transformation strategy.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Not the £5 million i had been told (have sent a message?) but considerably more than the £2.5 million you said was suggested by?.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:04 am - Aug 28, 2021


Cluster One 27th August 2021 At 18:55
referring to
‘John Clark 21st August 23.28.
and
‘.Albertz11 22nd August 2021 At 08:11’

‘When will they be released?’
%%%%%%%
Just on the reference that Albertz11 made to ‘transcripts’ of Court cases, Cluster One: I don’t know that a full word -by- word transcript of the Court’s record of proceedings is ever made public. ( The Court transcriber does, of course, record every word)

I suspect that all that would ordinarily be available to the public is the official text of the Judge’s (or Judges’, where there was more than one judge on the Bench) opinion/s.

Those judgments generally do not give anything like a verbatim report, but summarise the facts and the legal points made in relation to the ‘agreed’ facts and the judge’s reasons for accepting/not accepting the interpretation of and application of the law put forward by opposing Counsel.

As far as I know, unless the news media reports that a judgment in a case has been issued, only the parties to the case are told.
The rest of us have to scan the list of published judgments to find out. This is easily done on a daily basis.
If you haven’t already, have a look at
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session
[ my apologies, of course, if you are already familiar with that process! I’m still not myself sure how best to use that page’s ‘search box’, and I’ve enjoyed coming across quite interesting cases unconnected with football]

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:19 am - Aug 28, 2021


Albertz11 @ 1026hrs:

Well done – about a 66% take-up.

I’m curious as to why this is a ‘club (TRFC)’ announcement, rather than a ‘company (RIFC)’ one. There’s no mention of the share issue on the official RIFC ‘Investor Information’ page that I can see. It’s on the ‘Club’ pages.

I also particularly like the use of ‘circa’ in the statement. Isn’t there an accurate figure of monies received available? Are some investors still to pony up?

There’s still no update on RIFC’s Companies House webpage re allotment of shares.

From a quick look at fan comments, they’re not interested in New Edmiston House. They want the money to go on (media-frenzy, potential signing) Joey Veerman.

(I’m aware that some will perceive the above as nit-picking. I’m unrepentant.)

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on5:37 pm - Aug 28, 2021


Jingo.jimsie 28th August 11.19.

Well done – about a 66% take-up.
……………………………………………….

As i have said previously when added to 47,000 season tickets, 30,000+ MyGers memberships and 250,000 replica strips sold, then a sum of £4.5 million is more than credible. All this during a global pandemic with all the subsequent uncertainty that brings.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on7:00 pm - Aug 28, 2021


Unfortunately, this afternoons match between
@EdinburghUniAFC
&
@CelticFCB
has been postponed due to a covid related issue.

I believe the issue relates to the home team but yet again reinforces my belief that this will reoccur throughout the season.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:37 pm - Aug 28, 2021


Maybe Albertz11 can help . Are the shares issued for TRFC or for RIFC ? I know the holding company holds all the shares in the subsidiary – have they increased the share base in the football club or in the holding company ?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:57 pm - Aug 28, 2021


Albertz11 28th August 2021 At 17:37
0 1 Rate This

Jingo.jimsie 28th August 11.19.

Well done – about a 66% take-up.
……………………………………………….

As i have said previously when added to 47,000 season tickets, 30,000+ MyGers memberships and 250,000 replica strips sold,
……….
Kind of makes one wonder what they’re doing with it all to rack up such debts.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:16 pm - Aug 28, 2021


Albertz11 28th August 2021 At 19:00
0 0 Rate This

Unfortunately, this afternoons match between
@EdinburghUniAFC
&
@CelticFCB
has been postponed due to a covid related issue.

I believe the issue relates to the home team but yet again reinforces my belief that this will reoccur throughout the season.

+++++++++++++++++++++

On 26 August I was sitting relaxing at home when my mobile phone rang. The caller was a contact tracer to tell me I was a possible close contact of a positive test who had travelled on the same supporters club bus as me to the Celtic v St Mirren game on 21 August. I was tested yesterday morning and received a negative result back today. I am double vaccinated so am free to go out again, but it only re-inforced to me that Covid is going to wreak havoc for a while yet…a long while in my opinion.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:19 pm - Aug 28, 2021


paddy malarkey 28th August 2021 At 19:37
‘..Are the shares issued for TRFC or for RIFC’

%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I’ve always understood , paddy m, that a private limited company cannot make public share issues on the open market?
If that is so, then your question raises interesting questions as to who has bought shares in which company?

I suggest that it is entirely possible that the ‘public offer’ on the open market ‘bombed’, and that that perhaps is why ‘Private Eye’ was remarking that there had been total silence from RIFC plc since the public offer was made?

Could it be possible that the RIFC Board has used TRFC as the share issuer ( inviting share purchases for TRFC shares from existing shareholders of TRFC shares and from selected private individuals only, (thus avoiding trouble with the FCA ? ) and is trying to insinuate/propagate the idea, without actually lying, that the ‘Rangers’ mentioned as having raised money from a share ‘offer’ is RIFC plc
Surely not!
But I have decided not to send my letter to Ian Hislop just yet: I was in course of re-writing it, with a view to posting it on Monday.
But now I wonder whether, maybe, Hislop’s men have smelled a potential rat, and that the ‘5000’ new investors are investors NOT in a plc but in a wholly dependent business on which the plug could be pulled a la CW, leaving investors in TRFC Ltd with worthless bits of paper, and the Directors of RIFC plc in the clear as far as liabilities to them are concerned.
Certainly, in my view there might well be a big, stinking desperate rat cranking up of the ‘loyal support’, as appeared , it seems to me, to have happened at the birth of SevcoScotland/TRFC and the launch of RIFC plc?

I speculate, of course, and make no assertions.
But maybe ‘Private Eye’ are on to something?
Perhaps I shall ask them when I write, as I will undoubtedly do? Perhaps with a copy to the FCA?

View Comment

vernallenPosted on11:09 pm - Aug 28, 2021


The global reach of Rangers is astounding. 5000 investors in 44 countries ( would love to see a breakdown), surely based on past statements you would have expected a wider base of investors as they are allegedly the most successful club in world football. Were the investors given an assurance of a return (lol) on their investment or was this more of a donation than an investment. As the circus people used to claim, there is one born every minute. It took a long time for this story to reach the main stream media despite other reports the issue failed to meet its target.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:02 am - Aug 29, 2021


vernallen 28th August 2021 At 23:09
‘..5000 investors in 44 countries ..’232
%%%%%%%%
What was the amount raised by the share offer, £4.5 million?
When I was last at school, 4,500,000 divided by 44 was 102,272.7.
So , given that the minimum investment was to be £500, that means that the average amount for the 44 countries would be 102,272.7 divided by 44 . That is, 2,324.
So on average, one is speaking of 4 and a bit ‘Rangers’ fans in each of the 44 countries( 2324 divided by 500)
Big deal!
That would suggest to me that, in general, a few individual fans in these 44 countries were personally approached and invited to ‘invest’.
But what do I know?
Other than to take anything said by RIFCplc/TRFC with a salt-mine’s worth of salt!
Honest to God.
That we have to put up with cuckoo-land inventive nonsense foisted on us by a 9 year old club!

View Comment

MCSTAY MAGICPosted on9:49 am - Aug 29, 2021


‘….It is a phenomenal show of loyalty, with those supporters providing a fantastic base for the club to develop its long-term strategy…’

Surely this must be a spoof as the current club from Ibrox and their fans normally go to great lengths to tell everyone that the company and club are separate, so surely it would be the company and not the club whose long term strategy was being developed.
The problem with continually lying is that eventually the liar slips up.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:04 am - Aug 29, 2021


‘John Clark 28th August 2021 At 22:19

paddy malarkey 28th August 2021 At 19:37
‘..Are the shares issued for TRFC or for RIFC’

%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I’ve always understood , paddy m, that a private limited company cannot make public share issues on the open market?
If that is so, then your question raises interesting questions as to who has bought shares in which company?…’
::
::
The offering which closed on 16th July was to buy shares in RIFC (SC437060), a public limited company.

There are 33,415,200 (I think) shares in TRFC (SC425159), a private limited company. They have a nominal value of £1 each. These are wholly owned by RIFC.

It surely cannot be proper that a private limited company appears to be making financial announcements, even on Twitter, on behalf of a public limited company of which it is a subsidiary. It’s an opaque, misleading practice, at best. I’m sure that some investors will believe they’ve bought shares in the fitba’ club & not the holding company.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on6:03 pm - Aug 29, 2021


I believe Barry Ferguson manages a football team in Scotland which can be a time consuming endeavor, arranging training, monitoring transfer lists, some work in promotion, etc. How he finds the time to pen 2 or 3 columns a week for the DR is incredible. Hopefully his team is performing beyond expectations and his casual approach to the manager’s job is welcomed by the team’s board and fans. Is this an exercise in supplementing income now that EBT’s are a thing of the past.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:08 am - Aug 30, 2021


The ‘Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 13 August 2021’ is now up on Companies House for RIFC.

It’s for £4,088,588.57 net & there were 17,850,000 shares issued. Those shares were 25p each, indicating that the gross amount invested was £4,462,500 (which is indeed c. £4.5m, as indicated in the media) & RIFC paid expenses of £373,911.43 to Tifosy & others.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on11:10 am - Aug 30, 2021


The RIFC Company house filing appeared today.

A further 17,850,000 shares in Rangers International Football Club. ( the company which owns the club TRFC). Interestingly the loyal fans were asked to pay 0.25 for their shares as opposed to 0.20 that the various HNW individuals was been asked to cough up recently.

This takes the overall shares issued to 408,858,857.

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on11:19 am - Aug 30, 2021


JJ
“It’s for £4,088,588.57 net ”

As others have pointed out previously the £4,088,588.57 number isn’t the amount raised rather it is the total nominal share value in circulation post offering – derived from the product of the number of shares in circulation times the nominal value (£1).

There will be a fee to Tifosy which will dilute the overall cash receipt but I don’t know how much that would be.

I’d like to see the revised list of shareholders to see if any of the previous HNW individuals propping up RIFC increased their stake. That might explain the difference between the speculated amount raised and the actual.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:24 am - Aug 30, 2021


Westcoaster @ 1119hrs:

Thanks for the correction!

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on11:39 am - Aug 30, 2021


A11
“As i have said previously when added to 47,000 season tickets, 30,000+ MyGers memberships and 250,000 replica strips sold, then a sum of £4.5 million is more than credible. All this during a global pandemic with all the subsequent uncertainty that brings.”

A11 – I agree with you. Most clubs could only dream of that level of support at any time never mind during a global pandemic. The question is, will it be enough given the scale of losses the Club will have racked up in FY 20-21? As I’ve written before, non-season ticket revenue during FY19-20 was £18.75m, almost all of which disappeared in FY20-21. Even with improved commercial revenues ( the true net value we are yet to see given the ongoing SDIR litigation) and increased prize money the P/L losses will, inevitably, be £25-30m minimum. Government loans and the recent share offering will cushion the cash implications of the projected P/L loss but the ongoing audit discussions cannot in any way be comfortable ones for TRFC’s MD. We are 36 hours away from the transfer window closing and last chance to get some cash in from player trading before the usual suspects are asked to make up the difference to get the accounts over the line with the auditors.

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on12:30 pm - Aug 30, 2021


My earlier post saying the nominal share price of RIFC was £1 should have been 1p.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on1:42 pm - Aug 30, 2021


@John Clark – I think a wee mistake in your arithmetic…you appear to have divided twice by 44. Also appears that the shorthand in the press release confused the club and Plc (maybe a result of years of linguistic gymnastics…).
I agree with Westcoaster – these are tough times for football clubs and the imminent closing of the transfer window probably has many finance directors pushing players out – a buyers market for sure (even looks like Dortmund might sell their prized asset – but not to a team in Glasgow…)

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on4:33 pm - Aug 30, 2021


Westcoaster 30th August 11.39.

The question is, will it be enough given the scale of losses the Club will have racked up in FY 20-21?
…………………………………………………………………

Only time will tell i guess. Rangers are fortunate to have a group of investors who have backed the club financially but this is not a sustainable model going forward and player sales are inevitable.
As wokingcelt points out though (above), it’s a buyers market at present.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:02 pm - Aug 30, 2021


All about playing for the jersey , after all .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58385989

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:20 pm - Aug 30, 2021


wokingcelt 30th August 2021 At 13:42
‘..John Clark – I think a wee mistake in your arithmetic…’
%%%%%%%
Thank you, wokingcelt: always grateful to be corrected, both for my own sake and for the sake of everybody else.
I used to ‘get the belt’ at school occasionally for such ‘carelessness’

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:50 am - Aug 31, 2021


In my post of 26th August 2021 at 00:16 I gave the text of a letter which I was thinking of sending to ‘Private Eye”. I did not send that letter, but did a re-write it and will send off the the re-write later today.
This is the text of the re-write:
“Mr Ian Hislop,
Editor,
“Private Eye”
6 Carlisle St
London, W1D 3BN

Dear Mr Hislop,
In issue 1552 ( 23 July 2021) of “Private Eye” a piece headed “Planet Football :RA-Gers” featured in the ‘In the City’ column.
The piece related to a share offer made by Rangers International Football Club plc several weeks previously.
Now, while I know that ‘Football’ may not be your personal bag- indeed I suspect that your eyes may already be glazing over- I also know that publishing ‘Truth’ is what the ‘EYE’ purports to be about.
It is therefore with an admixture of anger and disappointment that I am writing to say that that ‘football-related’ article contains a full-blown untruth.

How so? you ask.
Well, have a look at paragraph three of the article. There you will read “..Twice-disqualified director Craig Whyte sold control of Rangers in 2012, after the original club collapsed into administration.”

Your reporter clearly has done no research of his own and has simply swallowed the nonsense propagated since 2012 by those known since then as the ‘succulent-lamb eating’ journalists of the Scottish mainstream media: for Craig Whyte lost control of the Rangers Football Club that was founded in 1872, when in 2012 it went into Administration. He was therefore not in any position to sell it.

Instead, the Administrators appointed under Insolvency legislation took over control. Those Administrators signally [and questionably: as witness the legal action brought against them by the very Liquidators who took over as a result of their failure] failed to bring the club out of Administration, either by finding a buyer for the club with all its debts ,or by means of a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement.

It is an absolute falsehood that Rangers Football Club of 1872 was sold to Charles Green or to anyone else. No, it went into Liquidation. In consequence, it had to surrender its share as a shareholder in the then Scottish Premier League(“SPL”), and thereby lost its entitlement to membership of the Scottish Football Association (“SFA”)
Accordingly, it ceased to exist as a recognised football club participating in Scottish professional Football. It remains in Liquidation to this day.

During the period of Administration the Administrators had agreed that, in the event that Rangers of 1872 did not exit Administration as a ‘going concern’ via either a sale or a Company Voluntary Arrangement, Charles Green’s company ,SevcoScotland, would have exclusive rights to buy such of the principal assets of the failed club that could be legally sold to it.
That was done, and Green, renaming the company ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’ promptly applied for a share as a new club in the SPL Ltd
That application was roundly rejected by the SPL.
Green then applied for a share in the (“SFL”). This was eventually (if questionably) granted.

On foot of becoming a shareholder in that League, the new ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’ was admitted into membership of the SFA for the first time.
That is an incontrovertible fact.
The panic-stricken Football Authorities were much too afraid and fundamentally too unprincipled to assert and insist that the ‘Rangers of 1872 ‘had died as a football club, and that ‘The Rangers Football Club’ that they themselves had only just accepted as a new club was most certainly not, and could not possibly be, entitled to claim any of the sporting achievements and honours of the dead club.
So a ‘Big Lie’ was created , the lie that somehow the Rangers of 1872 had exited Administration, had avoided being Liquidated, and had merely passed into new ownership, somehow wonderfully free of the scores of millions of pounds of debt it owed to HMRC and many other creditors!
You must realise, incidentally, that this is not just a ‘football’ story of ‘sports’ jiggery-pokery.
It is clear to me that questions ought to have been asked of the claim apparently made in the ‘Summary’ section of the Prospectus for the IPO of the Rangers International Football Club plc (“RIFC plc”) published in December 2012.
The Prospectus in my view misleadingly implied that prospective investors in RIFC plc would be investing in the ‘holding company’ of the ‘most successful football club in the world’ with a history of sporting achievement and success going back 140 years!
I believe that that is a fundamentally unjustified and false claim: the football club of which RIFC plc is the holding company is plainly ‘The Rangers Football Club’ of 2012 foundation and admittance into Scottish football in that year.

For a newly created football club to be allowed to make such an apparently false claim is utterly unacceptable to anyone of any Sporting Integrity whatsoever.

Even less acceptable is that ‘Private Eye’ should lazily and unconcernedly be false to its own principles by helping to propagate the myth that TRFC is the ‘Rangers’ of my grandfather’s era.
Yours sincerely,…”

View Comment

nawlitePosted on11:51 am - Aug 31, 2021


Good letter, JC. Well done.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on12:19 pm - Aug 31, 2021


Dave kings last AGM in 2019 he stated the club could not continue with director loans converted into shares as this AD-Hoc strategy could only get them so far. The next step was the sale of players. The directors loans convert to shares is now tapped out hence the recent shares to fans. This was not as profitable as it was thought it would be. So player sales is all that is left ( champions league money may have been able for the need to sell players on hold until the next transfer window) so all that is left is player sales to create the next amount of cash, that clock is ticking.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:30 pm - Aug 31, 2021


nawlite 31st August 2021 At 11:51
%%%%%
Thank you, nawlite. The letter was posted this afternoon, first-class.
I’m indebted to the posters who raised ‘Private Eye’s’ comments about the RIFC plc share offer.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:20 pm - Aug 31, 2021


‘Cluster One 31st August 2021 At 12:19

…so all that is left is player sales to create the next amount of cash, that clock is ticking.’
::
::
I tried to post something I thought would be interesting about TRFC & player sales in this transfer window this afternoon. It appears that my comment has gone into moderation.

There’s no bad language or anything contentious in it. No doubt it’ll appear eventually & when it does, it won’t be read because it’ll be time-stamped 1645 today & positioned back up the thread. It’ll be out of date anyway.

It’s a shame when the board is crying out for content.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:29 pm - Aug 31, 2021


Jingso J
No comment from you that I can see from earlier.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on12:25 am - Sep 1, 2021


I tried to post at approx. 1645hrs. When my comment didn’t appear, I tried to repost and received a message stating that it was a duplicate post.

I again tried to post at approx. 1915hrs & received a message that I’d already posted that content. Therefore I assumed that my comment was in moderation.

I’ve been caught in the spam blocker twice before today, with posts appearing hours after being submitted. I spent about 20 minutes this afternoon preparing my comment before attempting to post. There is a dearth of posts on here recently. Why bother taking the time to compose posts when they don’t appear?

View Comment

vernallenPosted on1:29 am - Sep 1, 2021


Another transfer window closes and all those Rangers” stars who were of interest to big name clubs are still here. How much longer will they sit back and watch as competitors from across the city leave earning big fees for their club and enriching their weekly pay package. How will the board feel knowing that, according to reports, that a sale or two was necessary due to the missing CL money. How does one placate those who were reportedly targets and are still at Ibrox. How deep does the Covid outbreak run. So many questions, so few answers.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:44 am - Sep 1, 2021


vernallen 1st September 2021 At 01:29
0 0 Rate This

Another transfer window closes and all those Rangers” stars who were of interest to big name clubs are still here. How much longer will they sit back and watch as competitors from across the city leave earning big fees for their club and enriching their weekly pay package. How will the board feel knowing that, according to reports, that a sale or two was necessary due to the missing CL money. How does one placate those who were reportedly targets and are still at Ibrox. How deep does the Covid outbreak run. So many questions, so few answers.

++++++++++++++

Far be it from me to defend ‘Rangers’ but the fact they’ve sold nobody for significant money suggests they believe they can cope financially without doing so. Only time will tell.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on10:55 am - Sep 1, 2021


JC, re. your letter to IH, in the interests of accuracy, is it not “Company” rather than “Creditor” Voluntary Agreement?

Apologies, not been on for a wee while and probably too late for any correction. Needless to say the gist of the phrase remains the same in the context of your letter.

Well done….

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on12:38 pm - Sep 1, 2021


upthehoops 1st September 09.44

Although not sustainable in the long run, by retaining the squad who brought the title back to Ibrox last season must be seen as a positive at this stage.
The talk is of Stuart Gibson “and partners” to significantly increase their shareholding this season.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:56 pm - Sep 1, 2021


I’m pretty sure that TRFC wanted to move players on. I’m surprised that they didn’t cash in on the likes of one or more of Kent, Morelos, Barisic and Paterson. Maybe the price wasn’t right. Makes the Barisic post match gesture on Sunday look curious though.
I agree with Albertz insofar as there is a double edge to this sword. They undoubtedly, by their own admission, need funds to complete the season. However they have kept their key players on board – at a spending rate they know could be catastrophic beyond the short term. So they have either made bad judgements over player trading on this window, or are sure of finding the funds. I don’t think they can be accused of bad judgement up to now given the progress that’s been made, so my guess is they’ve bet the farm on the ECL entry next season. For sure, they may judge that winning the Premiership is an easier route to that end than qualifying matches.

View Comment

HaywirePosted on2:01 pm - Sep 1, 2021


For all those interested, today’s edition of ‘Private Eye’ has another comment by ‘Slicker’ regarding the ‘astounding’ success of the Sevco Share Offer – could be another world record!

To John Clark – happy to be of assistance.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on3:15 pm - Sep 1, 2021


I’d like to clarify that i deleted my previous post as on reflection it showed a lack of respect to the other clubs in the Premiership, so not sure how it has appeared on the blog..

View Comment

vernallenPosted on5:23 pm - Sep 1, 2021


Its a massive gamble depending on CL money rather than player sales to remain heads above water. There are so many things that could go wrong, Covid could impact the squad in much greater detail than the current outbreak, injuries and suspensions could mount up, players could go off the boil, a sustained EL run could prove gruelling, etc. It will be interesting when the next set of financials do come out and how they are dressed up by the media with all the credentials they have in an understanding such statements. How often can they go to the well for investors. Interesting times ahead.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on6:04 pm - Sep 1, 2021


vernallen 1st September 17.23.

Many of your points could also apply to the club on the other side of the city whilst the others are of a speculative nature but yes “Interesting times ahead”.

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on7:00 pm - Sep 1, 2021


A11 “Although not sustainable in the long run, by retaining the squad who brought the title back to Ibrox last season must be seen as a positive at this stage.
The talk is of Stuart Gibson “and partners” to significantly increase their shareholding this season.”

A11 – I would say “must” is a stretch. I think “could” would be more accurate given there is no doubt Rangers were actively trying to sell players but were unable to secure high enough offers for those deemed “sellable”. (or in the case of Patterson were unable to conduct the necessary medical as a result of his self-isolation).

Whoever is going to fund the cash deficit will, given the scale of that deficit, end up with a “significant” shareholding. Their support might be in the form of loans initially but inevitably further debt to equity conversion would result to ensure a going concern audit opinion. Depending on whether one uses 20p / share, which has been the prevailing “agreed” conversion rate up until the recent offering, or the 25p / share from that offering a £20m injection would result in 80m-100m additional shares being released. With 408m shares currently in circulation, an additional 80m-100m would indeed be “significant” and may raise constraints in terms of keeping individual benefactors below the “takeover” threshold.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:30 pm - Sep 1, 2021


normanbatesmumfc 1st September 2021 At 10:55
‘.. is it not “Company” rather than “Creditor” Voluntary Agreement?’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Yes it is! And that was after I had gone to the bother of looking up whether it was ‘agreement’ or ‘arrangement’!

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on8:45 pm - Sep 1, 2021


Westcoaster 1st September 19.00

Your first point is a moot one as neither you nor i know with any certainty whether Rangers were ” actively trying to sell players” or not.

It is of course entirely possible for Stuart Gibson “and partners” to “significantly increase their shareholding” without Rangers issuing new shares.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:55 pm - Sep 1, 2021


From what I’ve heard/read , TRFC didn’t sell Patterson (and maybe other galacticos ) as they wouldn’t receive the purchase price in one payment . It may be that’s their modus operandi and they’re sticking to it .

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:59 pm - Sep 1, 2021


Paddy M
There was a guy on Sky on deadline day (think he was an agent) who said that ‘a major Scottish club (sic) ‘ had demanded up front payment contrary to (in his view) all norms.
Kinda thought he was hinting at Leeds and Kent, tho that’s just me. He did say that selling club would not shift their position, and deal died.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:14 pm - Sep 1, 2021


Albertz11 1st September 2021 At 20:45
‘…possible for Stuart Gibson “and partners” to “significantly increase their shareholding” without Rangers issuing new shares.’

%%%%%%%
I am but a child in these matters and I’m in a position to contradict you.
But I would have imagined that if no new shares are issued, the only way for an existing shareholder/shareholders to increase his/their holding would be to buy from another shareholder-in which case RIFC plc receives nothing?
Am I wrong?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:57 pm - Sep 1, 2021


My post of 21.14 above : I hope it it’s clear that I meant to write ‘not in a position to contradict’.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on10:20 pm - Sep 1, 2021


https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC425159/charges

Not sure if it has been mentioned but it seems that all outstanding charges to Close Leasing have been satisfied, round about the same time as the recent share issue closed .
If the two are linked then King isn’t getting paid any time soon.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on10:36 pm - Sep 1, 2021


I hope we can all agree that the current business model of both CFC and TRFC is to develop players (either from their academies or from scouting talent else) and then selling on to generate a profit to cover costs elsewhere. This being the case I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that not selling a player in a transfer window is disappointing and may reflect on a failure of the business model.
Now, of course, you may take the view in the boardroom to not sell on the basis that sporting success is a viable option to securing funding in the short term (via CL next season through winning the league).
Ultimately it comes down to risk appetite.
Speaking personally I am happy that CFC have managed to stick to plan A over this transfer window with the thick end of £30m on three player sales.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on1:18 am - Sep 2, 2021


Albertz11 –1st Sept/21 — 18:04

I agree that some of the issues I raised may apply to the club across the city, but with a robust financial position I think they are better positioned. There has to be some consternation around the boardroom table at Ibrox as they have not enjoyed the success of the other club in buying cheap and selling high. Was the director of football not rumored to be told to shift some bodies. How many times can they go to the well for investment, when will some of those investors look for some form of dividend, how many Stuart Gibsons are out there willing to throw money at the club.. What will the January window bring in regards to outgoings, and will the next set of financials dictate the course of action.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on7:43 am - Sep 2, 2021


Vernallen 2nd September 01.18

Celtic are several years ahead of Rangers with regards to the business model you refer to. It would be churlish to deny this.
Rangers & Ross Wilson in particular have to replicate this.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:44 am - Sep 2, 2021


Again as it seems no one read my last post (:-) king stated in his last AGM the AD-Hoc approach had served them well so far but could not continue. A working party was set to see that policy change and the need for player sales. Also did i catch the words bring the trophy back to ibrox? Under the name of The SPFL trophy, it has never been to ibrox before:-)

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on12:04 pm - Sep 2, 2021


Albertz11 1st September 2021 At 20:45
‘…possible for Stuart Gibson “and partners” to “significantly increase their shareholding” without Rangers issuing new shares.’
JC 1st September 22.20
I am but a child in these matters and I’m (not)in a position to contradict you.
But I would have imagined that if no new shares are issued, the only way for an existing shareholder/shareholders to increase his/their holding would be to buy from another shareholder-in which case RIFC plc receives nothing?
Am I wrong?

A11 / JC – you are obviously both correct. It is quite possible for Stuart Gibson to purchase existing shares to increase his stake however those funds then do nothing to ease the cash deficit and any Going Concern pressure. The only significant shareholding we know to be “in play” is DCK’s. He holds 65,422,893 out of a total of 408,858,857 (Company House total – TRFC’s website is yet to reflect the recent offering). Stuart Gibson already holds 40,000,000. Were he to buy out DCK completely he would then hold 105,422,893 or 25.78% of RIFC.

There would be longer term benefits as indirectly this would assist RIFC in that it would remove DCK ( substantially – DCK still has an interest bearing loan outstanding) from the picture. In doing so this would eliminate some of the toxicity the RIFC currently has to bear as a result of having a convicted financial criminal as the major shareholder and perhaps take them a bit closer to being able to secure the services of a NOMAD, seek future institutional investors and enjoy some form of normal banking relationship to ease short term cash flow issues.

Intuitively, unless Stuart Gibson is going all in I don’t see him buying DCK’s shares in the short term and further loans and or new share purchases are more likely.

View Comment

Comments are closed.