Their Master’s Voice

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

Their Master’s Voice

Good Afternoon.

As virtually anyone on the internet who follows Scottish Football has come to realise, there is a reasoned and determined attempt at ignoring the content of the Charlotte Fakeovers files on the part of the mainstream print media— and indeed by the broadcast journo’s to an extent.

There is widespread speculation that the accessing of the information provided by Charlotte the Harlot was not all above board and the reluctance of the journalists to mention or comment on the documents, so far published on the internet, is often explained away by the lawyers allegedly advising that the content is tainted and so on.

That indeed might or might not be the case, and only the editors, lawyers, journalists and so on will truly know what their stance is on the revelations. Some will want the whole thing suppressed and others will be desperate to get into print, but thus far are frustrated in any attempt to do so.

However, as the documents do appear on the net only to be quickly followed by file disappearances and so on, there is an ever burning question which must be asked and thrown open to debate and argument.

The issue is not just how independent are the Sports Press in Scotland, but whether or not the relationship between certain sections of the press and Rangers or The Rangers is in fact lawful and deserving of football sanctions.

There is no doubt that many big businesses, local authorities and Governments use the services of PR firms and the likes to get information out to the public and to put their slant on any given situation. That is fair enough.

However, in recent days we have seen the release of documentation which, if accurate and true, shows that a leading Scottish PR company were specifically employed to place stories with the press which were designed to damage the reputation of, to embarrass or cause problems for certain other teams and personnel involved in Scottish Football.

Again I stress that all of this is subject to the caveat that what Charlotte is publishing may or may not be real and accurate. However, if what has been produced is in fact the genuine correspondence between the club and its professional advisers then that correspondence needs to be looked at.

The SFA and indeed the SPFL are the bodies that lay down rules which govern the conduct of clubs and their officers and employees.

So looking at these regulations let me just repeat some of them here:

Fisrt the rules of what was the SPL and which I presume are the rules of the SPFL:

A3.1 In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.

A3.2 No Club, either by itself or its Club Officials, shall by any means whatsoever unfairly criticise, disparage, belittle or discredit any other Club, the Company or the League or in either case any such other Cub or the Company’s directors, officers, employees or agents (which shall, for the avoidance of doubt, exclude supporters).

The SFA handbook at article 5 places obligations on members to observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play, and to refrain from engaging in any activity which would constitute a breach of sections 1, 2 and 6 the Bribery Act 2010.

The details of the Bribery act can be found here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/2

Basically, I think these rules mean that you cannot criticise belittle or try to damage the reputation of a club outwith the rules of the games and must at all times behave with integrity, in a sporting manner and with THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH!

The details,as released by Charlotte, show that there is at best a conflict of interests at times with various parties being both employed by the club and paid by radio stations or newspapers to comment on matters relating to all aspects of Scottish Football. As a member of the PR staff at Ibrox presumably such employees are paid to tow a certain party line when commenting in the media and so throw a spin on any given set of facts and circumstances that suits whoever is in control of Ibrox.

Further, it has been suggested that certain individuals acting in this way can also represent the views of for example Walter Smith — and so act as their mouthpiece if necessary.

Such practices may be unpleasant and undesirable but not necessarily against the laws of the game. It would just mean that the newspapers and broadcasters concerned cannot be regarded as independent or objective in their comments or views — they are merely towing an employers line. In short they are HMV— His Masters Voice!

Equally, we have seen supposedly independent journalists and editors referred to in such a way that it is clear they are being asked to spin news a certain way for whatever reason — including the suggestion that if they do not comply then some kind of action will be taken which the parties concerned would rather avoid — such as private matters becoming public.

However, of far greater interest is the suggestion that where necessary the newspapers or whoever will be used to spread negative stories about another club, its employees, directors or whoever.

Such a position may well amount to a breach of articles 3.1 and 3,2 of the SPL ( now SPFL rules) and against the principals set out in the SFA handbook.

Both the SFA and the SPL ( SPFL) has a press office and legal officers.

Both grant rights to broadcasters and journalists, and allow members of the press access to their officers and officials.

Both bodies are free to set out what is acceptable conduct on the part of clubs in this area…… and what is not!

Without even alluding to the detail of the Charlotte revelations, or needing to enquire into the details of the Charlotte documents, I would have thought that the governing bodies would be capable of issuing a formal reminder, to all clubs currently playing at any level in Scottish football, of the content of these rules and that any breach of the rules will not be tolerated.

Of course the matter becomes more convoluted if any officers of the SFA or SPL were involved in the employment of any PR companies or agencies on behalf of a member club and engaged in briefing any such agency about what to say when it comes to the affairs of other clubs. Surely you cannot have an executive officer of a governing body who is in any way linked to the employment of an agency which breaks rules on behalf of a member club?

However, few of these people ever appear on the airwaves to answer questions on a personal basis, and very few expose themselves to questions from the public.

However, many of the commentators and journalists named in the Charlotte documents are regulars on the airwaves and could, in theory, be asked whether or not they are no more than “Their master’s voice” as would appear to be the case if the Charlotte documents are in fact genuine.

If the Scottish Footballing Public are to be entrusted with the truth — and why shouldn’t they in this era of open and transparent football governance– then I think they are entitled to enquire direct whether or not the journalists, players, ex players,managers directors, broadcasters and governing body officials believe in articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SPFL rules and article 5 of the SFA handbook?

Oh– and maybe the same people could provide some practical examples of what they would consider to be breaches of these rules and what the appropriate sanctions might be?

Specifically– do the actions mentioned in the Charlotte documents ( if true ) fall within the football rules or not?

Or do the SFA and SPFL just ignore placed press releases and comments?

It would be interesting to know.

 

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

1,328 Comments so far

Danish PastryPosted on7:08 am - Aug 3, 2013


Spiers on Ogilvie, or, The Invisible Man Appears …

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/ebt-was-abbreviation-for-strife-but-ogilvie-still-spells-out-his-innocence.21772611

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:26 am - Aug 3, 2013


From the above article. Strange that he realised far too late what many of us grasped the moment we saw Souness waving a vulgar blue chequebook. At least he feels some regret for the years he enjoyed seeing silly money spent that created a spiral of doom for club finances – and that stole opportunity from generations of our youth:

“Ironically, when asked about the state of our game, Ogilvie once more willingly points the finger back upon himself. “There is an old phrase in football – ‘talent is nothing without opportunity’ – and that was definitely the case in Scotland over the years.

“Look, I admit it: clubs like Rangers and other clubs had big-money signing policies, and other clubs tried to keep pace with Rangers. Everyone was bringing foreigners in and paying over the odds for them – it was never going to work out.

“I was at Rangers and I was thoroughly enjoying the signing of big-name players. Everyone did. But, looking back, I question it much more. In general, at Scottish clubs, young players didn’t get the opportunity. Players not getting the opportunity at Rangers and elsewhere – that is definitely a factor in our game’s decline.”

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on7:53 am - Aug 3, 2013


Danish Pastry says:
August 3, 2013 at 7:08 am
………………………………..
Nothing more than a clean up excercise….for the image of CO..

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on7:54 am - Aug 3, 2013


StevieBC says:
August 3, 2013 at 12:31 am
6 0 Rate This
Lord Wobbly says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:33 pm
StevieBC says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Some of the bears believe that Jim McColl is behind today’s
activity.
Don’t believe it for one minute, but has anyone heard
anything to suggest otherwise ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2383849/
Rangers-war-battle-control.html
====================
Wobbly, you are quoting an MSM source to substantiate the
McColl rumour ?
OK, will stick my neck out for once.
I don’t believe any of the McColl stories.
Too convenient.
A proper Sugar Daddy…and not a poor billionaire from
Motherwell.
Gives the bears a boost to hear that McColl is linked to their
crappy club.
I will eat my sun hat if McColl is indeed their true saviour. [&
TSFM can be my witness to that !]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wasn’t trying to substantiate anything. But within the narrow remit of your enquiry, (has anyone heard anything re McColl), the Mail link was at least something. Not much, I grant you. I won’t be seasoning your hat just yet. 🙂

View Comment

fara1968Posted on8:11 am - Aug 3, 2013


Paulmac2 on August 3, 2013 at 7:53 am
1 0 Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
August 3, 2013 at 7:08 am
………………………………..
Nothing more than a clean up excercise….for the image of CO..

////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It does have a touch of the “Jimmy Swaggart” about it.

View Comment

StevoCFCPosted on8:15 am - Aug 3, 2013


Anyone else spotted some of the parallels between the shambles at the SFA and at the City Chambers? The reasons the likes of Gordon Matheson and Campbell Ogilvie are allowed to remain in relative positions of power are mighty depressing.

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on8:45 am - Aug 3, 2013


“Far from it”

Has anyone noticed that when Ally McCoist utters those words, he means “absolutely”?

“Do I want any harm to come to those three gentlemen on the panel? Far from it”
“Do I want to see Dunfermline and Hearts punished more severely? Far from it”
“Do I think another boardroom battle at Ibrox is about to start? Far from it”

Trouble is Ally, with back you are going to be far from it all too soon

View Comment

rantinrobinPosted on8:48 am - Aug 3, 2013


Spiers article on Ogilvie was a searing piece of investigative journalism.Well done Graham.
🙄

View Comment

rantinrobinPosted on8:59 am - Aug 3, 2013


Will Mr Spiers next journalistic venture be an authoritative work on the Waltons television series.?

Cherry pie and cream anyone?

View Comment

FIFAPosted on9:24 am - Aug 3, 2013


Surely Graham I think you misheard some of the interview with Cambell due to the position and place your head was in ,surely we are intitled to a second interview from another journo , a proper journo.
As for you Spiers ,you just cant help yourself can you ,there must be journo’s ashamed to be on the same planet ,sorry universe as you,now be a good boy and close the door behind you.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on9:27 am - Aug 3, 2013


I’m afraid Spiers is proving conclusively that MSM journalists have a definite shelf life. Too many succulent lamb dinners perhaps?

This was an excellent PR job for CO today with lots of hand-wringing and limited mea culpas but what about asking if CO’s EBT had been repaid? Or if there were any plans to so do?

Is Spiers so gullible that he doesn’t realise what he was party to with this piece?

Embarrassing…..

Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:28 am - Aug 3, 2013


Paulmac2 says:
August 3, 2013 at 9:19 am
4 0 Rate This

Is Steerpike…David Fraser
———-

Is it just me, or is there something fishy about the name Steerpike?

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on9:31 am - Aug 3, 2013


Danish Pastry says:
August 3, 2013 at 9:28 am

Paulmac2 says:
August 3, 2013 at 9:19 am

Is Steerpike…David Fraser
———-

Is it just me, or is there something fishy about the name Steerpike?

———————————————————————
Have the scales dropped from your eyes?

Oh no, not the fish jokes again! 😉

Scottish football has a plaice in our hearts.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on9:43 am - Aug 3, 2013


I’m a little surprised that scant regard is being paid to news about Coventry City’s failure to exit administration via a CVA, given the apparent similarities between their circumstances and those of Rangers last year. According to the BBC’s report, the company that owned and operated the football club is destined for liquidation whilst the club, now under new ownership, is being allowed to continue to play in League One, subject only to a ten point penalty from the Football League. I appreciate that Rangers were (in theory) subject to the rules and regulations of the SFA and SPL, not the Football League, but I can’t grasp how any set of football authorities can apparently ignore fundamental insolvency law by allowing part of a business (indeed the core business in the case of a football club) to continue virtually unscathed by liquidation. I’m not sure whether Coventry City FC was incorporated in the same way that Rangers was, whereby the club is the company and the company is the club. Can any of TSFM’s legal eagles offer an explanation?

ps, please don’t shoot the messenger!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23548760

View Comment

FinlochPosted on9:50 am - Aug 3, 2013


We should probably take it as a back handed compliment that whenever anything big is about to be implemented in this saga that our site gets “special” attention.
This can be negative like the technical stuff from a few weeks ago.
It can also be “media” management like the last couple of days with some clever and well briefed wordsmiths being drafted in to influence us in some way or another.
We’ve had a few of these.

it demonstrates that someone somewhere has a plan.
Someone somewhere is paying for this service.
Someone somewhere wants peace to break out and for the digging to stop.

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on9:59 am - Aug 3, 2013


Something Steerpike mentioned in a post caught my attention, but in the limited time I’ve got on here I can’t put my mouse over it – something to do with only respecting the people who actually put their own money into the club, alluding, I’m sure, to David Murray as opposed to CW, CG, IA et al.

Personally I’m unsure as to whether David Murray ever put ANY of his own cash into Rangers. Was it not the case that he only undertook to guarantee the £6m overdraft / debt that Marlborough had run up? And from there on in, as far as I can see the only people who put their own cash in were the punters. And in a convoluted way, every tax payer in the country due to BoS’s unbelievable never ending MIH loans. So possibly wee Craigy, if the quid was his, is the only ‘owner’ to have stumped up his own cash for Rangers(IL), if we discount the 18mil he had to clear!

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on10:05 am - Aug 3, 2013


At least the Herald article allows comments. These are very interesting and certainly far closer to the truth and an indication as to the depth of the contempt Scottish football supporters have for the games ruling cabal and its Commander in Chief.

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on10:06 am - Aug 3, 2013


Oh, almost forgot, let’s not take our collective eye off the bigger picture by letting ourselves become embroiled with the sh!t-steerer! That’s not to say I want the pike to to take a hike. I, like many others who have already made mention of the fact, find it refreshing to have an alternative viewpoint. But I also remain sceptical and suspicious of intent. :slamb:

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on10:27 am - Aug 3, 2013


After Speirs’ grilling of CO, coming to a Herald near you, SDM opens his heart about how he was duped by someone he’d never met whilst running a perfectly legitimate tax efficiency scheme, he just tried too hard!!!!

I recall Davy Dodds saying that EBT’s were just one of the schemes on offer at Ibrox, anyone know what he meant by that?
A Picture paints a Thousand Words!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:57 am - Aug 3, 2013


Danish Pastry says:
August 3, 2013 at 7:26 am
=========================
The question I want answered is why the Bank of Scotland gave Rangers the means to spend at the level they did. It is too easy in my opinion to write it off as only part of the wider spending of the Murray Group. We should never forget the way the same bank treated Celtic either. It all worked out well for Celtic but that’s not the point I’m making, which quite simply is, did a Scottish owned bank practice institutional bias towards Rangers? It’s no co-incidence in my view that the money only dried up when B.O.S fell into non-Scottish hands.

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on11:00 am - Aug 3, 2013


I believe the Dog Whistle will need to be removed from its casket and unwrapped from its apron and deployed in the coming weeks.

Alastair and Walter will need to use it to chase the spivs out of Ibrox ( should be ashamed to set foot in Scotland; ruining the club; not in tune with club traditions)

There is however one problem; the money that Alastair is drawing down leaves him open to a charge of ripping off the club – however I believe that the Rangers fans need to believe in the myth of McCoist as club saviour. So I am expecting that the Ibrox old guard , armed with the dog whistle will attempt to oust the spivs and somehow move the goalposts again and not pay a penny back to the spivs , backed up by the Scottish legal system they can literally do anything.

The spivs will now find out that dealing with a despical club carries risks.

The mystery surrounding no glamour games at Ibrox is simple , they do not want to get humped.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on11:08 am - Aug 3, 2013


Sir David Murray is not responsible for the position that Rangers find themselves in today. It has absolutely nothing to do with him.

He is entirely responsible for the liquidation of the previous club. He was in total control of that and made all of the decisions. Yes managers spent too much money, yes the board agreed salaries which were too high, yes they spent money they did not have. However all of those decisions were either made by, or with the blessing of Sir David Murray.

He ran his main business into the ground through profligacy and bad business decisions, he did the same with his plaything, the football club. It was dead and buried before it was off loaded to Craig Whyte. Sir David Murray just didn’t want to be about at the end.

The new club’s issues on the other hand are down to the people who created it and have ran it. They were helped in creating those problems by the SFA, the media in Scotland and people like Mark (Grandmaster Suck) Dingwall and Chris (Fury) Graham. All of whom helped the club fool the fans into believing they were something they aren’t, and in raising expectations beyond what the club could actually afford. They came into being overspending and have continues with the same business model.

Rangers could have had a new start. the owners and the fans choose not to do that. It was beneath them.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on11:16 am - Aug 3, 2013


upthehoops says:
August 3, 2013 at 10:57 am
0 0 Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
August 3, 2013 at 7:26 am
=========================
The question I want answered is why the Bank of Scotland gave Rangers the means to spend at the level they did
#######
Perhaps they bought the myth that was being pedalled in the MSM at the time about how RFC was going to be at the forefront of European moves to form an elite league?
I remember SDM said that the group in the 92-93 CL should have been called the ‘Addidas’ league.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/the-story-of-marseilles-tainted-1993-cup-triumph-2222683.html
Effectively the lending of money by BoS smacks of a Ponzi style scheme, the only difference being that the idea of huge returns from fresh air was never overtly suggested by anyone.
But the repeated share issues, debentures and promises of investors (Joe lewis) with more money than they knew what to do with must have made oldco look like a good bet to a normally conservative institution like BoS.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on11:16 am - Aug 3, 2013


While being served in my local horse meat trading post this morning ,one of the traders behind a large wooden block asked the guy behind me if he was going to the game on Sunday ,no teams where mentioned but the guy replied ,if he knew all this internal fighting was going to happen he would not have bought a ticket,I left puzzled as to who he was talking about.

View Comment

Kicker ConspiracyPosted on11:48 am - Aug 3, 2013


I take it the Rangers & Celtic colts thing is dead in the water?
I’ve kind of lost track in all the excitement.

I was hoping for a Rangers team in every division so that they could make friends with everyone at the same time.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on12:05 pm - Aug 3, 2013


I much welcome Steerpike’s input to our deliberations. He clearly has some knowledge of the situation and apparently a rational business head upon his shoulders. This and the discussion of a limited numbers of options for TRFC was in my mind as I read a piece by Kevin McCarra in today’s The Times.

KM talked about the huge sums Celtic had accrued from their European adventures last season and the additional income resulting from the sale of Hooper and Wanyama.

KM highlighted the dilemma that Peter Lawwell faces in that he “has money to spend yet needs to do so without inflating the wage bill unduly.”

As Rangers share price is in free-fall I wondered if the solution was staring us all in the face?

* Celtic buys TRFC
* TRFC becomes Celtic ‘B’ and competes in League Two
* Ibrokes is passed across to Lidl/Aldi to raise the quality of that area
* We all live happily ever after

Is that a possible scenario or is it as much a fairy tale as another Spiers puff piece?

Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

SquigglePosted on12:12 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Steerpike. All are suspicious, I think.
TSFM mentioned the Spectator.
No-one has mentioned Gormenghast have they?

I used to be achillesacronym on RTC and here.
Interesting days again – but the outcome is not in doubt.

View Comment

Alex CobhamPosted on12:13 pm - Aug 3, 2013


The Republic of Indonesia has succeeded in obtaining the dismissal of a claim by a British investment banker brought pursuant to the UK-Indonesia bilateral investment treaty at ICSID. The claim arose from Indonesia’s bail-out of Bank Century, a major Indonesian Bank, in which British national Rizvi allegedly held shares. Rizvi was convicted by an Indonesian criminal court for his role in the bank’s collapse which necessitated a bail-out of around USD 700 million. An ICSID Tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction having found that Rizvi’s investment had not been granted admission in accordance with the treaty’s specific requirements. This is the first award relating to an Indonesian Bilateral Investment Treaty at ICSID.

Mahnaz Malik (and Karim Syah Law Firm, Jakarta) represented the Government of Indonesia

Global Arbitration Review article with more detail downloadable from same link.

http://www.20essexst.com/case/rafat-ali-rizvi-v-republic-indonesia-icsid-case-no-arb1113

View Comment

FIFAPosted on12:17 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Redlichtie
Scottish Football needs a strong Aldi

Corrected that for you

View Comment

rapscallionPosted on12:22 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Bawsman : 10.05

Some of the comments on the Herald were deleted around the time of your post including one that referred this site in a favourable light. To be fair, although the poster is well respected, referring other outlets is against Herald posting rules. All removed comments were critical of Mr Ogilvie & none contained vitriol. What remains though paints a pretty clear picture.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:50 pm - Aug 3, 2013


On a wider note re-the Spiers piece on Ogilvie it is disappointing to see a writer who stood out years ago in terms of challenging the status quo possibly reverting to a quiet establishment type stance to comfortably see out the rest of his career.

For the avoidance of doubt Graham Spiers years ago dared go where no other Journalist would in terms of the sectarian debate and it was strongly rumoured his unpopularity among the Rangers support lead to him leaving the Herald during his first time with the paper. Sadly though, the policy of deference to people like Campbell Ogilvie, Walter Smith and Ally McCoist seems to be restricting him in his writings these days. Likewise, his protection of Gordon Smith who was part of Craig Whyte’s Ibrox regime was pathetic.

Overall it appears there are certain figures associated with Ibrox who are beyond reproach, and Campbell Ogilvie seems high on that list. Just what WOULD one of these people have to do to come under some serious scrutiny?

View Comment

peterjungPosted on1:05 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Interesting call from last nights SSB as mentioned earlier by someone else…

for those who missed it:

http://youtu.be/JIznUdld6NU

What I don’t get is that it seems that regardless of any position taken by Walter Smith and Ally McCoist it seems they can do no wrong…….

View Comment

SteerpikePosted on1:10 pm - Aug 3, 2013


@Castofthousands

In answer to your query, newtz mentioned a new floating charge registered in March 2012 by CW, I can only assume this was in response to his original floating charge and/or secured creditor status being rejected by D&P. My general point is I have never heard of anyone trying to retrospectively impose a floating charge post insolvency, and in my experience I cannot see how this is even possible, once you appoint an administrator you are in effect handing over the company to another authority.

I am extremely baffled by this, maybe I am picking newtz up wrong.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on1:25 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Phil’s latest blog, http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-neverending-story/#more-3907

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on1:35 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Obsessed Hector_1888 ‏@Hector_1888 1h
@CharlotteFakes When are we going to get the payment schedule for the bent refs & officials
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 33m
@Hector_1888 Behave yourself, welcome to Friends Reunited though.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/157840580/Friends-Reunited

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on1:36 pm - Aug 3, 2013


SO, i listened to Clyde Superscorebaord last night (actually this morning on the podcast)

Keevins actually did some research in comparing teh Sevconain’s punishment for admin and compared it to teh hearts situation. However, still teh Sevconian Currents refuse to accept they were dealt with fairly, and somewhat amusingly they claim there is one set of rules for them and one set for everyone else – how right they are, but they don’t quite get it!

Anyway, ignoring the fact there is a scale of punishments for admin and both clubs have been punished within that scale, and ignoring the differing situations around the amins.

Here is one question the SFA should ask as part of teh clarification DEMANDED by the sevconian currents

Which club/company was fined for going into admin? Rangers Football Club PLC (Now RFC 1012 PLC)

Did they pay it? No – the SFA were left as an unsecured creditor dumped on the pile with everyone else.

This alone should have been enough for the SFA to change the rules to reflect the futility of fining a club who has money troubles and instead apply only footballing sanction.

Ah, but wait, the sevconian currents will claim THEY paid the bill…..but they only paid that debt as part of a wider package of requirements for them to be granted membership and to be allowed to play football. the Sevo currents were not fined/punished for going into admin. They paid off teh debts/accepted punishments of the old club/company to gain entry to senior football.

The sfa just need to clarify which club was fined for going into admin and given a transfer ban (which they challenged in a court of law and have not yet been punished for……what was that about one set of rules for them and one for everyone else?)

ho hum

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on1:36 pm - Aug 3, 2013


peterjung says:
August 3, 2013 at 1:05 pm

thanks for that! 😀

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on1:50 pm - Aug 3, 2013


paulsatim says:
August 3, 2013 at 1:35 pm

That could be any Stuart Dougall and Hugh Dallas getting a VIP invitation to a Rangers game though.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on2:01 pm - Aug 3, 2013


From Mr Speirs article, a quote from Campbell ogilvie

“But, yes, I remained a director until 2005, and that’s why in recent times I got sucked into the EBTs saga, especially in my role now as SFA president. Had I not been in this role, nobody would have been concerned with me.”

No Campbell, the reasons you got “sucked into the EBTs saga” were,

1, You were on the board at the time

“Lord Nimmo Smith, in his guilty verdict on Rangers, was damning of the Ibrox board who concealed the EBT payments from the relevant bodies, and cited Ogilvie as a member of that board.”

and

2, You actually got £95,000 tax free as a “loan” from your personal sub trust.

Have you ever thought of repaying that money, or conversely accepting it as a payment (and paying the tax due) that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do with these types of “loans” where the beneficiary wants to make the payment permanent.

Have you even considered doing wither of these things and legitimising things.

As to the article itself, a wee comment to you Mr Speirs.

“Since Nimmo Smith, the calls for Ogilvie to go became shrill and frequent across cyberspace – very often with venom thrown in for good measure. ”

Pathetic, describing things as being “shrill” is simply trying to paint the person in a particular way. People have justifiably called for his resignation. It was not “shrill” and if there was venom involved it was justifiable.

I would have read the rest, but it became clear what you were trying to do, and quite frankly it was a waste of my time. I have painted a wall and it won’t watch itself drying.

View Comment

peterjungPosted on2:09 pm - Aug 3, 2013


On the developments over the last 24 hours I have to say it is absolutely breath taking the response of the SMSM…..

Firstly Spiers in the Herald on CO …honestly if I had not read it myself on the Herald website I would have sworn that was a spoof article…..Spiers…..you should be ashamed of yourself for that, any credibility you had left has just been torn to shreds and you are finished I would suspect in the eyes of those few who still had some respect for you…

SSB and the Record…wow….it is breath taking just how quick these guys are to jump ship and back the latest “knight” in town……seems Craig White – hero to zero, Craig Mather and Charles Green seem sure to be soon demonised as bad ’uns too.

These guys are so desperate for some “real rangers men” whatever that may mean to ride to the rescue and suddenly they think the hour is at hand…

Well for what it is worth here is my take –

Paul Murray – surely you are having a laugh mate? Not enough that you were on the board that run the old club into the ground, but then you were also a leading light in a consortium of …ahem “real rangers men” that tried to “acquire” the club for free while also happily shafting the creditors….

Lucky for him that someone else did the dirty work so they are just repeating their previous tactics….I would wager that they are betting on the combined forces of a deafening roar from all sectors of the SMSM, and all sort of legal shenanigans in support of their latest attempt to “acquire” the new club for free (i.e. otherwise known as theft)

As for Jim McColl…well I do not know the man personally however I have long associations with several others who do …and I would wager that he is waking up this morning and being rather perturbed that he is suddenly being touted as the latest billionaire saviour of the sorry lot down Ibrox way…..Jim may be many things but stupid is certainly not one of them…..he may be involved sure, but if the Ibrox faithful think that this particular very rich man (not really clear that he is actually a bona fide billionaire just yet) is going to ride to the rescue and bail them out with wads of his personal cash then I suspect that they are very much mistaken.

…so the circus rolls on….. strap in…I suspect there is a hell of a ride still to come….

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on2:09 pm - Aug 3, 2013


On floating charges.

Surely it is only meaningful if there is a debt owed to the person who holds that charge. Otherwise it’s a security, with no debt attached to it. Who would care about that, or am I missing something obvious.

On a more technical note, can anyone tell me if a floating charge would continue to exist if the loan (or whatever) which it secures is cleared (by whatever means). I think that would be the case for a fixed charge. Or in either case does the charge have to be “dropped” and if so by whom.

View Comment

SteerpikePosted on2:12 pm - Aug 3, 2013


@causaludendi,

“Something Steerpike mentioned in a post caught my attention, but in the limited time I’ve got on here I can’t put my mouse over it – something to do with only respecting the people who actually put their own money into the club, alluding, I’m sure, to David Murray as opposed to CW, CG, IA et al. ”
———————————————————————————————————————————

Good afternoon, I don’t believe I said ” respected “, but I did mention there is no difference to bankrolling Rangers with securities or cash, I am under no illusions how SDM operated his finances and it would not surprise me if he took out more than he put in, at the expense of others. I have never met a ” good ” businessman, only successful ones, and I prefer to respect people for their goodness.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on2:17 pm - Aug 3, 2013


peterjung says:
August 3, 2013 at 2:09 pm

To be fair the latest developments were predicted.

The intended final outcome being “Rangers Men” on the board and running the club.

Whyte to put it though administration / liquidation. Then villified and takes his leave.

Green to create the new club (in the SPL) and to manage the fans expectations and keep them paying and to float it on the stock exchange. Not as bad as Whyte, did what was needed at the time and stood up for the club / fans (caught Rangersitis along the way). Away with a good pay (several million pounds).

“Rangers Men” to come in and the new era to really start from that point.

History to be re-written and two or three seasons to be considered a blip when some wrong ‘uns were in charge of the club but everything is alright now (good name for a song that).

View Comment

FIFAPosted on2:22 pm - Aug 3, 2013


I will play teacher today

Peterjung
I suspect there is a ride to hell still to come

Fixed that for you

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on2:22 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Ewan Murray on Cosgrove & Cowan ‘what if it emerged that a representative of Rangers asked for that fine’
Either the fine was in lieu of a harsher punishment (e.g. points deduction)
Or They were feeling extreme remorse for their misdeeds

View Comment

peterjungPosted on2:29 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Tif Finn says:

August 3, 2013 at 2:17 pm

_______________________________________

Bang on sir….just expressing my incredulity at just how transparent it all is and just how gullible both the press and the fans can be…..

Again, I have to say Walter Smith and Ally McCoist………no matter what happens these guys must been seen to be backing the wining horse….regardless of what personal advantages they take of the situation in the meantime…shameless….
Just listen to Radio Scotland in the background here late on Saturday evening here….Chico’s already at it with his spin….Jack…you are putting up a great game here…..

Ha ha ha ….Chick just said they want the “rangersness” back…God help us all!!!

I really should put this nonsense off and go to bed…….

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:32 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Think I will restock the popcorn cupboard – looks like the fun and games are kicking off again down Govan way.
And for added comedic value ‘Bazza’ has joined the DR as a columnist…and his dream job is to be manager of TRFC !

Oh, and hope everyone enjoys the start of the new football season. 😉

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on2:34 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Tif Finn says:
August 3, 2013 at 2:01 pm
——————————————
except it was £150,000, not £95,000.

In March 2012 Ogilvie said he got £95K but HMRC documents leaked by CtH showed it was actually the much bigger number, a discrepancy none of the MSM sleuths have managed to get to the bottom of, not even “Scoop” Speirs in his searing, in-depth probe.

[OT]

View Comment

theoldshedPosted on2:35 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Wonder if Charlie &Co have their eyes on the 4 championships, 4 league cups and 8 Scottish Cups which may (sadly) soon be up for grabs down Gorgie Way. I hear the going rate is around a penny per honour.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on2:44 pm - Aug 3, 2013


new sevco statement!
RANGERS Chief Executive Craig Mather has issued the following statement today.

He said: “Rangers Football Club is a 141-year-old institution built for success and along with the Board of Directors, I am determined to conduct business with honour, dignity and integrity. The men who created this great club would expect no less.

“During my time as a main investor and now as Chief Executive, I have learned about the club’s rich history and proud traditions.

“So it is with deep regret that I find I must address the recent frenzy that has surrounded this great club.

“Again there are those attempting to bang down the doors simply because they feel they should be inside before any others and for no good reason other than self gain and arrogance.

“It doesn’t matter to them that they have not invested or helped the club, or that they failed to make even a remotely credible attempt to save this fantastic club in its darkest hours.

“Not a single one of them stepped forward willing to invest their own money. Yet now they think they can waltz into the club.

“This club needs commitment and unity. It does not require the type of people who stood back and did nothing when Rangers were in trouble.

“Now, as Rangers has been climbing on to more solid ground and as the fans are heartened by what they’ve seen, these men emerge from the shadows with empty promises. They should be ashamed.

“It is surely no coincidence that they waited until the signs are positive and strong.

“Ally McCoist has enjoyed a positive pre-season programme, we have added eight new players to the squad to get Rangers back to the top flight and more than 34,000 supporters have bought season tickets for the new campaign.

“There was a positivity and excitement ahead of the new season and this was heightened by last weekend’s victory and slick performance against Albion Rovers.

“It is therefore disappointing that once again we are distracted by non-football matters that do nothing but destabilise this club.

“Rangers fans are well aware that there have been various people trying to grab pieces of their club for years now and to force themselves into positions of power.

“However, all they have ever done and continue to do is have a negative effect when I and the other directors are trying to focus totally on taking Rangers back to the pinnacle of Scottish football.

“It is a difficult task and yet again we are seeing people attempting to make it impossible.

“But we will not be defeated, I certainly won’t, and we will meet this latest ill-considered and ill-timed challenge head on.

“Let me stress that I, as Chief Executive, a position I am privileged and honoured to hold, and all of the other directors are firmly behind Ally McCoist and his team as we embark on stage two of our journey

“I urge all of our fans not to listen to rhetoric or empty promises and continue to support the manager and those of us who do genuinely have Rangers’ best interests at heart.

“Everyone is entitled to an opinion, including Charles Green. But what I want to make clear is this: Backing the manager and the playing staff in their quest to restore Rangers’ fortunes is critical to our ambitions.

“That and resolving to stand firm against anyone who would drag Rangers down in their selfish desire to promote themselves.

“This great club is bigger and more important than any of them, or any other individual.”

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on2:45 pm - Aug 3, 2013


slimshady61 says:
August 3, 2013 at 2:34 pm

Thank you, I wasn’t aware of that.

So an honourable man would have two choices really.

1, Repay the “loan”

or

2, Pay the tax and make it a permanent payment to himself

As I understand it he has done neither. He accepted the tax free payment, let’s be honest that’s what it was, with no intention of doing anything other than using the money as if it was legitimately his.

Sorry if that was “shrill” and venom filled Graham. It’s just that I expect people who take high office in public positions to show a bit of integrity. Whatever their propagandists would have us believe. He has neither honour nor integrity, you saying he has in a newspaper article doesn’t change that.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on2:48 pm - Aug 3, 2013


paulsatim says:
August 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm

new sevco statement!
RANGERS Chief Executive Craig Mather has issued the following statement today.

He said: “Rangers Football Club is a 141-year-old institution built for success and along with the Board of Directors, I am determined to conduct business with honour, dignity and integrity. The men who created this great club would expect no less.

=================================

What about when the old club actively operated a sectarian signing policy. How much honour, dignity and integrity did that demonstrate Mr Mather.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:56 pm - Aug 3, 2013


That’s one long, rambling, emotional – and ultimately – totally pointless statement from the CEO.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on2:58 pm - Aug 3, 2013


I’ll bet Mather’s saying to close friend right now ‘I don’t remember saying that!’

View Comment

duplesisPosted on3:00 pm - Aug 3, 2013


@Steerpike at 1:10pm

The floating charge referred to by Newtz as being registered in March 2012 was a charge granted by Wavetower/The Rangers FC Group Ltd in favour of Liberty, not by The Rangers Football Club PLC/RFC 2012 PLC, which was by then in administration.

Wavetower had acquired the original BoS floating charge over The Rangers Football Club PLC, so by acquiring a charge over Wavetower’s assets, Liberty arguably had rights over the Rangers Football Club /RFC 2012 PLC’s assets.

It’s not strictly speaking the case that the charge was transferred from Wavetower to Liberty though.

Liberty’s rights are only as good as Wavetower’s rights were. Most likely, Wavetower’s charge actually secured no debt (In fact Wavetower probably owed The Rangers Football Club PLC money), and so Liberty’s charge is probably irrelevant so far as RFC 2012 PLC is concerned.

Even if Wavetower’s charge did secure any debt, that charge does not apply to any of the club’s assets anymore – it is relevant only to a claim on the remaining funds held by RFC PL 2012 following on the purchase of the assets by Green’s consortium.

A sale of the assets by the administrators removes them from the effects of the floating charge, and they are acquired by the new purchaser unencumbered by the charge. The holder of the floating charge is entitled to the proceeds of sale of those assets though.

Other than the Scottish Sports Council fixed charge over Murray Park, there is no fixed or floating charge secured over Ibrox or Murray Park. There is no floating charge secured over the assets of either Rangers International Football Club PLC or The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on3:11 pm - Aug 3, 2013


duplesis says:
August 3, 2013 at 3:00 pm

@Steerpike at 1:10pm

======================

Thanks for that, makes sense.

View Comment

justshateredPosted on3:32 pm - Aug 3, 2013


If the club is still losing nearly £1M a month it is not a problem.
Remember the club is owned by RFCI and so is Murray Park and Ibrox.
‘The Rangers’ as a club do not own these assets.

I think this is the end game now where the club will run out of cash and be sold however it will no longer own Murray Park (still not renamed) or Ibrox as it did in the old days.
This will allow Green and Co to sell the club to ‘real Rangers men’ for about £4-5M and yet retain the property. The milking of the club will then continue in perpetuity.

Where will that leave the club? Well the fans will have to buy shares in the newly bought club to allow it to survive unless of course there appears that rare beast of ‘a real Rangers man’ willing to put his hand in his own pocket and fund the club (no tittering at the back).
This is not forgetting the fans having to buy season tickets to also fund the club that does not own its stadium or training ground and yet is still losing a large amount of money on a monthly basis.

This is like something cannibalising itself and yet gradually making itself weaker and weaker.
Unfortunately they only way for this to end is for the club to start living within its means, stop the monthly loses, and balance the books. The problem with that is that is the complete opposite of the fans needs. For over a quarter of a century the fan base has believed that money was no object and that balancing the books was for others. Most fans will have known nothing else.
I believe that it is this mind set that ultimately must change first; a belief system where their club lives within its means and a true reality told to the fans. It will not be popular and indeed fans may be lost but I believe that others will take their place and bring a better fan base to the club.
Time, I suppose, will tell.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on3:38 pm - Aug 3, 2013


davythelotion says:

August 3, 2013 at 11:16 am

I remember SDM said that the group in the 92-93 CL should have been called the ‘Addidas’ league.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/the-story-of-marseilles-tainted-1993-cup-triumph-2222683.html

*********

Interesting you should raise this – I have been thinking along similar lines for the new Sevco club’s friendlies this summer – all of their major friendlies have been against teams that subscribe to Puma – is there something in the contract that they need to help former large clubs now on hard times in lower leagues in England with some much needed gate money (Bristol City and Sheff Weds) and in return they get the largest Puma/SD for a home game (Newcastle).

I am sure its all a conicidence

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on3:43 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Forever_Celtic ‏@SBTbhoy 3m
@bartinmain

Bridies 1 Pies (reheated) 0

View Comment

rantinrobinPosted on4:02 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Forfar 4 Rangers ………..wan

Old Lex McLean joke.Seriously ,instead of reverence to all members of the league,why has everyone pandered to this ridiculous institution.The joke is over.

View Comment

SteerpikePosted on4:05 pm - Aug 3, 2013


“Now, as Rangers has been climbing on to more solid ground …. It is surely no coincidence that they waited until the signs are positive and strong.”
—————————————————————————————————————————————–

From my perspective I do not believe he would be waxing lyrically about ” solid ground ” and ” positive strong signs ” if the trading position was untenable, season tickets are sold and the accounts are not far enough away to plead ignorance.
My best guess is a 10.6 million first year trading loss, 4.2 million projected loss this year and break even next year on a 25 million turnover. Not exactly as planned but nowhere near financial meltdown, don’t think this will please original short term investors and maybe by Christmas they will take their profit and run. If cash flow becomes a problem in a years time then I have no objection to another small share issue to tide things over, most investors will be locked in if they do not sell early.

View Comment

rantinrobinPosted on4:12 pm - Aug 3, 2013


They have made a mockery of UK taxation laws,they have made a mockery of ‘lesser’ teams,and they have made a mockery of anything that is not,to quote Chick Young ‘Rangersness’

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on4:17 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Exiled Celt
Why is the only ‘glamour tie’ at home to the team owned by a significant shareholder? Is Ashley’s long term plan to tap up the disaffected support?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:21 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Steerpike says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:05 pm

mmmmm……
Businessman / accountant appears on TSFM just prior to boardroom challenge.
Dismissive of Mather’s comments
Hoping short term investors do a runner come December
Seems to have a business plan in mind on how to deal with current losses and how to steady the ship.

Your name isn’t Paul or Frank is it?

PS Forfar 2 T’Rangers 1 with 5 mins to go.

Bye Bye Ally?

View Comment

rantinrobinPosted on5:30 pm - Aug 3, 2013


They think it’s all over.It is now

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:37 pm - Aug 3, 2013


The Rangers Media – Bears’ Den site seems to have crashed.
They don’t do irony!!

“Oops! Something went wrong!
Sorry, the server is too busy to handle your request, please try again in a moment”

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on5:38 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Sorry, just picked myself up off the floor, I though someone said Forfar 2, The Rangers 1. They did? Are you sure?
Of course it’s true, Super Ally Petlerengo predicted it last night. That man really does have a football brain, or is it just a football for a brain? 🙂

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on5:39 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Do I foresee someone having to renew their TV career based on today’s result, absolutely

View Comment

fara1968Posted on5:49 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Hypothetically speaking, on the back of the Charlie Green statement today that McCoist has a problem if he doesn’t win a cup. If he now has the power to sack Ally and does so could this also see his enemies in the board walking with McCoist. Leaving Charlie’s men with complete control again and any threat of a new blue Knights flushed out. Wouldn’t be a bad few days work in my humble opinion.

View Comment

rantinrobinPosted on5:53 pm - Aug 3, 2013


SuperAllygoesballistic,Forfarareprecocious!

:mrgreen:

View Comment

tic6709Posted on5:59 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Absolutely…Fabulous.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on6:08 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Steerpike says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:05 pm

Do you really think Rangers will be able to achieve a turnover of £25m in the SPFL Championship and break even on that figure.

Clearly you have thought this through, can you do a (ball park) breakdown of where the £25m is coming from.

I’m assuming a very large amount will be coming from season tickets, as without a line of credit the club will need a lot of money up front for cash flow.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on6:12 pm - Aug 3, 2013


Oh and one more thing

” If cash flow becomes a problem in a years time then I have no objection to another small share issue to tide things over, …”

A share issue to tide things over because of cash shortages really isn’t a good thing at all. It would just be saying “New shares in business for sale, reason – we have no money and can’t get credit anywhere”.

It would just be further donations from the fans and praying on their love for the club.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on6:12 pm - Aug 3, 2013


I know it’s not nice of me but just can’t help commenting on TRFC s result today. Well done Forfar.

It will however be a test for Mr McC and the TRFC / RIFC Boards. Is it just a one off bad result or a sign for the future? Will a Board want to pay him and maybe some of his staff off? Big sum there, plus the replacement salaries. Or will the Ranger’s man just walk, accepting that he’s not up to the task, putting the club’s needs first (but they dont do walking away or so they said)

All in all, a great afternoon, and my team also won, COYR! No armageddon in sight yet.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on6:15 pm - Aug 3, 2013


I think a lot TRfC season ticket holders may cancel their DDs. Incidentally some were reporting on RM that the July instalment hasn’t come off.

View Comment

Comments are closed.