Time to Ditch the Geek Show

Avatar ByBig Pink

Time to Ditch the Geek Show

 

The link at the bottom of this piece points to an excellent blog by James Forrest on the ‘decline’ of the Old Firm, and particularly the viewing figures for the recent matches between Celtic and TRFC.

Whilst James, as you would expect is focusing on the consequences of the OF tag for Celtic, it is worthwhile considering that the decline in viewers is an excellent litmus test of the provenance of TRFC with regard to RFC.

Is it because the ‘you’re not Rangers anymore!’ faction is winning the argument?

Or might it be that viewers, voting with their feet, are simply indicating what many of us have said all along – that a brand name does not amount to serious competition.

There has been a presumption – particularly held in the MSM- that Scottish football badly needed a Rangers to provide a challenge to Celtic dominance. Our counter to that is that TRFC, representing the ‘Rangers’ constituency, are in no position to provide any such challenge.

Common sense dictated this.

Not that common sense came into it for our newsroom chums. At the beginning of last season, a whole troupe of hacks ventured their prediction that TRFC would win at least one trophy in that campaign. Again this season, despite the huge gulf in performance levels between TRFC and the top two, even more hacks are queuing up to offer their optimism on the Ibrox club’s chances of success and glory.

I am bound to say that those same hacks will be quick to point out Gordon Strachan’s shortcomings as Scotland manager whilst ironically demonstrating, through their predictive deficit,  that their football judgement has little if any bearing on L’actualité.

I am however disposed to charity. Perhaps what they meant was that TRFC, given its massive fan base, has the most potential (in time) to challenge Celtic. Then, absurdly, the same MSM choke the life out of that potential by assisting charlatan after charlatan on their way through the self-enriching revolving door at Ibrox.

The TRFC potential, if it exists in the foreseeable future, requires the Ibrox club to be rid of those who still, after decades of disgrace and disaster, sell the same false promises dressed up as moonbeams to the masses.

In actual fact, and as it stands right now, Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts have a significantly greater potential to challenge for honours; they are well run clubs who balance the books. Crucially, they have no debt, no directors whose presence on their boards effectively cuts off access to investment – and they put the emphasis on building Teams (capital T) and not collections of individuals with an exotic distant-past, questionable influence, and huge draw on salary resources .

Even more crucially, they have realistic expectations of where they want to be in the short to medium term.

TV audiences, relying on neutral fans hungry for a spectacle will not be – in fact are not –  conned by this OF sophistry. Without doubt in my view, Scottish football is a far more interesting and compelling place now than it was five years ago. The brand has grown in the absence of the Old Firm, and with the right nurture, can grow even stronger.

TRFC can be part of it all, but the expectations have to be commensurate with their circumstances. All the OF has to offer is a 350 year old conflict that few of us understand – or care to understand. The MSM championing of that embarrassment is a major reason why Scottish football cares less about quality and diversity than it should.

The audiences however, will not be fooled.

Celtic, Rangers, the SFA and everybody else in our game need to jettison the OF brand. It is no longer – if it ever was- relevant. Paying customers in the 21st century deserve better than a geek show.

https://thecelticblog.com/2017/10/blogs/falling-tv-viewing-figures-for-old-firm-games-is-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-big-lie/

Pic from the Film Noire classic, Nightmare Alley

About the author

Avatar

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.

611 Comments so far

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:25 pm - Oct 11, 2017


SMUGAS
OCTOBER 11, 2017 at 14:39
=====================================

Ironically the support are currently trying to distance the club from Celtic.

They currently have an online survey asking about getting the Celtic supports allocation cut and moving them out of the Broomloan stand. There is also a crowdfunding appeal to help raise money to do it.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/RNXJY3L

https://www.gofundme.com/initiative-to-move-celtic-fans

They have already raised £372 of £770 required, in 1 day. Not bad going at all.

It will be interesting to see how the club react..

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:44 pm - Oct 11, 2017


HOMUNCULUS
OCTOBER 11, 2017 at 10:46 
If David Murray was to become the major shareholder in RIFC PLC do you think the SMSM would revert to calling “Auchenhowie / The Rangers Training Centre” Murray Park…
===================================================

Did Charlie Green not organise a vote for ST holders to rename Murray Park ?!
…and whilst we’re at it: who did win the ‘Cross Bar Challenge’ ?
I think we should be told.     😉

 
SMUGAS
OCTOBER 11, 2017 at 12:58 
Bogs,
one might even speculate that the very possibility was being float tested  just now just to assess reaction…
=========================

Agreed Smugas: could it be that Minty is ‘dipping his toe in’ to see how the bears / SMSM react ?
A return to Ibrox seems so far fetched, that it must be a possibility in this long running saga.  

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:20 pm - Oct 11, 2017


JC – just a head’s up.  There is a half hour hearing on Friday at 9:30am (also before Lord Bannatyne) involving The Football Co (Scotland) Ltd v Glasgow City Council.

The Football Co (Scotland) Ltd provides LED perimeter advertising for SPFL games, so it might be a case that makes interesting listening. The case has been running since May.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:26 pm - Oct 11, 2017


Henry McLeish has commented about Scotland’s latest failure to qualify for major competitions in a BBC article.  While I agree with some of his sentiments, his solution of putting more power into the hands of the SFA seems ill-timed, at best.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41578934

As he is a “name” with links to the SFSA, I’m a tad concerned how the SFSA will approach SFA governance.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on6:03 pm - Oct 11, 2017


Further to my last, apparently he was getting money through Paypal as well so has actually now raised the full amount and closed the crowdfunding page.

It really is going to be interesting how the club react to this. This is the stated position of the chairman of the PLC which owns the shares in the Ltd company.

Celtic games
Some of our supporters have difficulty with the fact that Celtic fans receive a whole stand at Ibrox, whereas our fans are in a predominantly corner section at Celtic Park. However, this is largely due to the physical structure of both stadia.  In reality – and by agreement – both teams receive the same number of tickets for away games.

The strong safety and security advice from the police, which is supported by our own security team, is that we should continue with the present arrangement as this is the safest allocation of tickets from a segregation point of view and, most importantly, it is the basis upon which we have been awarded our Safety Certificate.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:51 pm - Oct 11, 2017


HomunculusOctober 11, 2017 at 18:03
‘…This is the stated position of the chairman of the PLC which owns the shares in the Ltd company.’
____________
Speaking as if he was a director of TRFC Ltd!
If the man would be deemed to be unfit to serve on the board of  football club,the SFA should consider him unfit to serve on the board of a holding company whose main business is running a football club.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:00 pm - Oct 11, 2017


HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 11, 2017 at 15:25 0 0  Rate This 
SMUGASOCTOBER 11, 2017 at 14:39=====================================
Ironically the support are currently trying to distance the club from Celtic.
—————
Will be in interesting to see the votes. I know charles Green voted and craig whyte and a lot of guys called billy.Or maybe it was other club fans just pretending to be them19

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:09 pm - Oct 11, 2017


HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 11, 2017 at 18:03
The strong safety and security advice from the police, which is supported by our own security team, is that we should continue with the present arrangement as this is the safest allocation of tickets from a segregation point of view and, most importantly, it is the basis upon which we have been awarded our Safety Certificate.
—————
So no chance of moving celtic fans, If they do they could lose there safety certificate. Also if they did move the celtic fans the segregation may need adjusted which could lead to less fans being able to attend.less fans being able to attend means a loss in ticket revenue for the cash strapped club. But maybe the club could increase the ticket price to compensate,but they would need celtic to agree that price and would the fans of ibrox if there is a price increase, pay even more to see their team being run over by celtic?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:34 pm - Oct 11, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
OCTOBER 11, 2017 at 19:09
====================================

I think the safety certificate thing is them basically lying to the support but doing it reasonably cleverly. If the question was “Where would we need to put 8,000 Celtic supporters in order to get a safety certificate”, the answer may be … the Bromloan stand.

If however the question was “Where would we need to put 1,200 Celtic supporters in order to get a safety certificate” the answer might be … the same place as every other away support.

The difference is of course money. If you say the cost of a ticket is normally £30 (or it’s equivalent on a season ticket) and take that away from the £50 they charge for these games then the difference is £160,000 per game, a minimum of £320,000 a year which they can ill afford to do without. 

There’s also the issue of  the games being televised. I think it suits the TV companies to have a reasonably big away support. 

This could cause a bit of a divide between the board and the support, particularly as appears to be the case there’s is a lot of support for this change. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on7:40 pm - Oct 11, 2017


easyJamboOctober 11, 2017 at 16:26
‘… While I agree with some of his sentiments, his solution of putting more power into the hands of the SFA seems ill-timed, at best.’
________
“the SFA must now become the dominant political institution in Scottish football. The two institutions of the SPFL and the SFA have got to rearrange and reprioritise what their objectives are and the country, in my view, must overcome the power of the club.”

It’s almost a call for State intervention and /or direct control of the national team!

No self-respecting association of small businesses is going to give their Board greater power over them than they are prepared to give, and will always require their Board to be accountable to them.

I doubt if the SFA as an Association of businesses can be said to have a priority greater than running the game (in accordance with the rules!) for the benefit of their member clubs: the servicing of the national sporting interest can only be an add-on, dependent as it largely seems to be on the willing co-operation of players and clubs.

McLeish seems not to be able (or willing) to sketch in some detail of what is in his mind.
( I think he quite possibly has in mind some kind of quasi-governmental Tsar appointment who would be empowered to drive the National team effort , and, if necessary, over-ride the wishes of individual clubs.
Might not be a bad idea, at that: but there would be huge problems in trying to make that a reality!)

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:06 pm - Oct 11, 2017


 HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 11, 2017 at 15:25

What is the princley sum of £770 going to achieve in terms of getting Celtic fans moved from Ibrox?!!!!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:06 pm - Oct 11, 2017


HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 11, 2017 at 19:34
Thanks for reply.
————
The difference is of course money. If you say the cost of a ticket is normally £30 (or it’s equivalent on a season ticket) and take that away from the £50 they charge for these games then the difference is £160,000 per game, a minimum of £320,000 a year which they can ill afford to do without. 
———-
What then would stop celtic cutting the ibrox support allocation at celtic park.
They could do the same if celtic fans asked/demanded if their allocation is cut at ibrox.But the difference being no loss of revenue to celtic, just cut the ibrox fans allocation back further into the corner,keep the same number of empty seats for segregation and fill the original segregated part with celtic fans, .Still the same number of fans attend and no increase in tickets.
As with everything down ibrox way they jump in head first with any crazy idea without thinking it through

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:08 pm - Oct 11, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSOCTOBER 11, 2017 at 20:06 0 0  Rate This 
 HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 11, 2017 at 15:25
What is the princley sum of £770 going to achieve in terms of getting Celtic fans moved from Ibrox?!!!!
——————
They get a banner….and no i’m not kidding

View Comment

Avatar

ulyanovaPosted on8:16 pm - Oct 11, 2017


HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 11, 2017 at 19:34Thanks for reply.————The difference is of course money. If you say the cost of a ticket is normally £30 (or it’s equivalent on a season ticket) and take that away from the £50 they charge for these games then the difference is £160,000 per game, a minimum of £320,000 a year which they can ill afford to do without.

Are you working on the guaranteed 4 Celtic v Rangers/Old Firm  guarantee in the TV contract? Or, are you assuming the SPFL fixture programme has a ‘warm ball function’ to allocate two home games to Ibrox before the split? 06

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:18 pm - Oct 11, 2017


UPTHEHOOPS
OCTOBER 11, 2017 at 20:06
==================================

He needs £400 for analysis of the Survey Monkey data and £300 to print a load of flyers to hand out apparently. I’m assuming that the crowd funding people get a cut hence the total figure.

He is obviously going to be totally transparent with any expendature (sic).

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:31 pm - Oct 11, 2017


Purely at the mention of warm balls – did everyone see the Irish Lottery (no pun implied) ball with 33 on one side and 38 on the other?  And no, there isn’t a punchline.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on8:52 pm - Oct 11, 2017


SMUGAS
yes seen it,and what a crap excuse they gave for it,it was a reflection lol

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:36 pm - Oct 11, 2017


HomunculusOctober 11, 2017 at 15:11
‘..
JC
This may help re contempt.’
__________
I was commenting on Big Pink’s thinking  that contempt is an ‘extraditable’ offence.

Yes, contempt of court is, of course ,punishable.

Extraordinarily enough, though, civil contempt is not a crime, according to that SC judgment I referred to, and a person punished for it does not acquire a criminal record.

So, if DK were to be held in civil contempt, he couldn’t be extradited from SA for it.

It’s a largely academic question, I suppose, in that it’s unlikely that a judge would want to impose a prison sentence in matters to do with business , especially where there are other penalties to impose that might achieve the desired end .

[I gather that criminal contempt is to do with things like intimidation of a jury, or assaulting a judge or disrupting the court in some criminal way. That would be ( depending on the country from which extradition is requested) an extraditable offence.]

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:07 pm - Oct 11, 2017


Reading Alex Thomson’s retweeted tweet, I found a same-style tweet about football cheating forming in my head :   “…Rangers’ cheating………. Club auditors, nobody asked…SFA, nobody asked….SMSM…nobody asked…” 

Although, and I do have to remind myself,  BBC TV did the piece about EBTs which at least let folk know of the scale of the cheating and who benefited.

Radio Scotland, on the other hand, did its damnedest to get us all to move on, talked up TRFC Ltd, emphasised the term ‘Old Firm,’ told us that DK had ‘settled’ , and facetiously further told us that the amount of a certain EBT was scarcely the price of  a good night out, so what’s the fuss?

And some of this urging to ‘move on’  was done by a chap who subsequently left the BBC to go and work for TRFC/RIFC.
The very chap who very recently was filmed interrupting a ‘presser’ with the utterly fatuous and untrue statement that the ‘club’ was not liquidated.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:23 pm - Oct 11, 2017


JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 11, 2017 at 22:07 0 0  Rate This 
Reading Alex Thomson’s retweeted tweet, I found a same-style tweet about football cheating forming in my head :   “…Rangers’ cheating………. Club auditors, nobody asked…SFA, nobody asked….SMSM…nobody asked…” 
—————–
King was down the corridor and he never asked

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:55 pm - Oct 11, 2017


Cluster OneOctober 11, 2017 at 22:23
‘..King was down the corridor and he never asked’
________
Ah, man, pure dead brilliant!

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:24 pm - Oct 11, 2017


I wonder if there will be any news to speak about tomorrow. 
The scheduled meeting of the SFA where they will discuss the future of the Scotland manager.  However knowing the speed that they operate at I wouldn’t expect a decision statement any time soon.

Then there is Dave King at the COS.  Now I’m no lawyer but it seems to me that this isn’t a trial as such.  The judge/s will already be briefed on the deliberations of the Takeover hearings and results. More a case of DK being asked to explain his non compliance.  I would have thought this could be wrapped up pretty quickly.  But as always the Law moves very slowly. (A bit like the SFA). 
We shall see tomorrow.  Hope James Doleman will be tweeting live.  Just checked his twitter a/c, no mention of it so probably not.  Maybe we will get a report from JC & EJ.04

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:37 pm - Oct 11, 2017


jimboOctober 11, 2017 at 23:24
‘..Maybe we will get a report from JC & EJ. .’
_______
Weeell, jimbo, if this auld man’s ticker disnae call it a day sometime tonight,and if Lord Bannatyne disnae ban reporting, then you’ll get some kind of report frae me.
And I think young eJ has hopes of attending, so if I croak it, you might still get a report!If m’lord doesn’t impose restrictions.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:43 pm - Oct 11, 2017


03 Hope you both live for many more years. 04

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:39 am - Oct 12, 2017


jimboOctober 11, 2017 at 23:43
‘..Hope you both live for many more years..’
________
Or long enough to see the restoration of Truth and Justice and Sporting Integrity in the administration of Scottish Football!19
That’ll do me.

View Comment

LUGOSI

LUGOSIPosted on7:04 am - Oct 12, 2017


Another day another Court fixture.
One can only imagine what weird and wonderful stance will be struck by whoever is on the opposite side of the table from The Panel On Takeovers And Mergers. Rereading The Takeover Panel’s Statement dated 13th March 2017 confirmed that Mr King was uncharacteristically shy and did not grace previous Hearings with his prescence but, as the Statement puts it, “…the seat reserved for him remained vacant…” and “The Committee was thus presented with a curious situation: Mr Blair, ostensibly representing the board of Rangers presented Mr King’s case on his behalf…”.
There appear to be no limits on the number of hats James Blair has at his disposal; Board member of every Ibrox Board, Club 1872 Board member (× 5), Solicitor, raconteur, bon viveur and no doubt supporter of many charities but he doesn’t like to talk about it.
The only way this could become more curious is if Mr King sends Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway along to present his case.
Two things I’d forgotten were that the original decision is now over ten months ago and that the Hearings Committee comprised ten members all of whom look like well qualified heavy hitters.
If the Court of Session needs a hint of Mr King’s approach a reading of the March Statement should show that any reasonable approach is likely to be used and abused by Mr King.
It’s been many a day since most of us realised that Mr King was such a liar that you can’t even believe the opposite of what he says. We may now be moving into fresh territory. Up to now there have been many instances of having our intelligence insulted. Following the recently adopted strapline “There’s a lot of ignorance out there.” today may be the day we have our ignorance insulted.
Go John Clark Go! Go Easyjambo Go!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:25 am - Oct 12, 2017


LUGOSIOCTOBER 12, 2017 at 07:04
It’s been many a day since most of us realised that Mr King was such a liar that you can’t even believe the opposite of what he says
————-
As Mr JC would say,Ah, man, pure dead brilliant!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:21 am - Oct 12, 2017


John ClarkOctober 12, 2017 at 00:39   
jimboOctober 11, 2017 at 23:43‘..Hope you both live for many more years..’________Or long enough to see the restoration of Truth and Justice and Sporting Integrity in the administration of Scottish Football!That’ll do me.
_______________

So we’ll have the pleasure of your company for some time yet, John. Glad to hear it 04

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on9:48 am - Oct 12, 2017


Some good news!
I posted on here 2 or 3 months ago about stadium conditions for the disabled.  I had watched a match on TV from Celtic Park and noticed that during a torrential downpour the front rows were empty because abled bodied fans had taken shelter by moving up the stands and taking up vacant seats.  Meanwhile the disabled supporters, mainly in wheelchairs, were getting soaked pitchside.  It seems plenty others are appalled by this state of affairs.

“The Hoops supporters and shareholders group, the Celtic Trust called for an “urgent and comprehensive” review saying fans using wheelchairs or are visually impaired who are positioned at pitch level for games and no matter how bad the weather is there is “no shelter”.   (The Herald, today)

Celtic have agreed to review the situation. 04

Apparently the steepness of the stands and a lack of lifts is the problem.  With Celtic boasting of the money they have surely it is not unreasonable to expect them to get this situation sorted out.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:06 am - Oct 12, 2017


As an after thought, I know these issues apply throughout Scottish football not just Celtic.  But I was wondering if Hearts has managed to accommodate the disabled in a better way in the new impressive main stand being built.  Anything on that AJ?  Here’s hoping!

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:48 am - Oct 12, 2017


Alasdair Lamont is providing updates on the King hearing.

https://twitter.com/BBCAlLamont

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:07 am - Oct 12, 2017


Alasdair Lamont‏Verified account @BBCAlLamont  2m2 minutes ago
Cttee decision highlights email from George Letham to Dave King, flagging up likelihood of going over 30% once Laxey & Artemis shares bought

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

Basically King knew they were going to go over the 30%.

I think King’s only mitigation can be that it was New Oasis who bought the shares and not him. He already tried that with the panel and lost the argument.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:08 am - Oct 12, 2017


Clearly they decided to cover that in advance.

Alasdair Lamont‏Verified account @BBCAlLamont  2m2 minutes ago
Committee also makes case Dave King was in control of NOAL’s share purchases. Rangers website lists King and family as ‘interested’ in NOAL

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:39 am - Oct 12, 2017


Not much to report from Court 7 this morning. The TOP lawyers have spent 45 mins going through the relevant parts of the statutory codes, then another 45 mins going through sections of the committee’s original decision. After this break he will move onto the Appeal Board’s decision.

JC – Wake me up when it’s lunch time. 

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on11:46 am - Oct 12, 2017


John Clark
October 11, 2017 at 14:21
 
  

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on12:10 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Have to say I’m a bit disappointed with the way this COS hearing is taking place.  It’s as if TAB are having to prove it all over again.  I thought it was a given.

View Comment

Bawsman

BawsmanPosted on12:28 pm - Oct 12, 2017


“TAB – agree with initial finding that DK and GL were working together to acquire block of Rangers shares.”
That’s Kings ba’ on the slates then.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on12:46 pm - Oct 12, 2017


JIMBOOCTOBER 12, 2017 at 10:06

Jimbo the areas for disabled supporters in the existing stands (Gorgie, Wheatfield, and Roseburn) at Tynecastle are on the walkway that splits the stand 8 rows up from the pitch. I believe access is via lifts. During the games the areas are roped off to stop folks walking in front of supporters in those areas.
As the new stand is similar in design to the Wheatfield opposite I am sure the same arrangements will be in place and the internals will be fully accessible via lifts etc given building regulations.
The concourse behind the stands are all being linked up so any disabled supporters can approach the ground from any direction and then circle the concourse to get to their required area. 
(The only section not being linked at present is from the new stand to the away area in the Roseburn.)

Generally the walkway areas in all stands are under the cover of the roof but depending on which way the wind is blowing they can occasionally get wet /damp in blustery conditions but nothing too serious.

The new stand will be facing the prevailing wind form the west and therefore could be a bit more open to the elements.

Latest pictures of the ongoing works show the lower sections of the new stand being wet after recent rains and fans forums are discussing the potential wet weather issue for all fans in the lower sections but it is no different from the old stand or any other stadiums in the ‘old ‘enclosure’ areas. 

 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:58 pm - Oct 12, 2017


JIMBO
OCTOBER 12, 2017 at 12:10
=====================================

I imagine they have to go over the background to the case and the legal authority behind the decision before they can ask the CoS to enforce it for them. 

The highest civil court in the country isn’t just going to force someone to do something without understanding what it is doing. As I understand it there is no precedent here as no-one has ever simply ignored them before. 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:19 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Wottpi, thanks for that info.  It’s heartening (no pun intended) to hear that Tynecastle was up to the mark even before the new stand is in place. 04

I haven’t a clue about the complexities of installing lifts nor the cost.  But where there is a will, there is a way.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:30 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Homunculus,  yes I suppose when you put it that way they have to proceed with extra caution, no precedent. As A. Lamont reports:

“Counsel for TP: If there is to be no order, it would require cogent reasoning as to how code is to be complied with.”

They are in new territory.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:42 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Which in fairness Mr King seems pretty adept at sniffing out for himself.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:49 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Sadly my intended pre-lunch snooze was interrupted by JC’s stomach rumbling, to a chortle from behind and a knowing smile from one of the clerks.

After the morning break, the TOP counsel continued to highlight sections of the appeal board’s decision, then moved onto the Court’s responsibilities and scope to make an order, should the judge be satisfied that the TOP made a fair decision and that it was shown that King had failed to comply.  He was at pains to point out that should the judge be satisfied on those counts then his only option was to make an order for King to comply.

Just before the break he alluded to the respondent’s (King’s) submission, suggesting that they would be asking that the judge declines to make an order on the basis of fairness, practicality and utility.  He will expand further on that and the TOP’s response this afternoon. 

The evidence was not re-heard as such.  The TOP counsel opened by stating that this was the first time TOP enforcement actions had required the involvement of the court.  Thus he spent time on the provisions of the codes and the law, and then went through selected extracts from the TOP decisions, to date, as he sought to demonstrate that the panels has fully considered all the rules that applied in King’s case, and in particular King’s contention that he had nothing to do with NOAL.

Unfortunately, I have other things to do this afternoon, so it will be up to JC and Al Lamont to provide updates. I should be free again tomorrow though.   

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:55 pm - Oct 12, 2017


EASYJAMBO
OCTOBER 12, 2017 at 13:49
===============================

Thanks for that, makes sense and is along the lines we were thinking.

King’s “But that’s not fair” argument does appear a bit weak.

If he get’s away with this they would be as well just scrapping the codes, as people will just ignore them anyway. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on2:08 pm - Oct 12, 2017


I just had to post this one.

King being skint is not a reason apparently, but said in posh words.

Alasdair Lamont‏Verified account @BBCAlLamont  2m2 minutes ago
Counsel says attempt to rely on impecuniosity is irrelevant.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:09 pm - Oct 12, 2017


HomunculusOctober 12, 2017 at 13:55
EASYJAMBO OCTOBER 12, 2017 at 13:49
===============================
Thanks for that, makes sense and is along the lines we were thinking.
King’s “But that’s not fair” argument does appear a bit weak.
If he get’s away with this they would be as well just scrapping the codes, as people will just ignore them anyway. 
========================
TOP counsel also suggesting that King claims he doesn’t have the money available.

Edit: it was actually mentioned before lunch (as being a practicality issue), before being repeated just now.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on2:13 pm - Oct 12, 2017


I think the answer to the impecuniosity one is easy.

If you can’t afford to make the offer don’t buy over 30%.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:14 pm - Oct 12, 2017


“they would be asking that the judge declines to make an order on the basis of fairness, practicality and utility. ”

That sounds like a very weak case for Dave King.

‘Fairness’  If you join the LSE you abide by their rules including the TOP rules.  They didn’t as has already been proved.
‘Practicality’ are they suggesting that cold shouldering isn’t workable, it has been effective up until now and is a good deterrent.
‘Utility’ read usefulness, see above.

I would counter their plea of mitigation with a request for an order on the basis of Justice.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on2:17 pm - Oct 12, 2017


JIMBO
OCTOBER 12, 2017 at 14:14
=============================

Ah but you are forgetting, the law doesn’t apply to Dave King, anywhere in the World. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:30 pm - Oct 12, 2017


I don’t think King’s case will take too long once it starts.  Their summary submission extended to just two sides of A4.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:38 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Seems like we need a new, but bigger, manager (genetics and all that) 01

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on2:47 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Time for everyone to polish up their CV’s.  SFA looking for a new manager for the national team.  

No height restrictions apply 19

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on3:03 pm - Oct 12, 2017


That is the TP submission complete. I said last night I have no knowledge of the law. However I am convinced by their arguments. If I was Lord Bannatyne I would halt the trial now, calling DKs counsel would be a waste of the court’s time and rule Dave King guilty, 6 years, send him down!  (a bit harsh I know but he deserves it for everything else)

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:09 pm - Oct 12, 2017


It seems King’s counsel has basically started off by arguing with Lord Bannatyne. 

Then by going on to say that King doesn’t have the money to do it anyway.

Yes Dave, you put them in a trust which you are beneficiary of and which you control.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on3:15 pm - Oct 12, 2017


“DK counsel: All relevant assets transferred from Glencoe trust to family trust. At time of SARS settlement, recognised he had no assets…….outside family trust. Suggests all DK’s assets are family assets. Therefore doesn’t personally have £11-12m required to make offer”

Well that’s interesting.  Didn’t DK say in the run up to his takeover that he would use his children’s inheritance to fund his Ibrox ambitions?

Also, why didn’t DK go the TOP and tell them he was skint? Buried his head in the sand.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:16 pm - Oct 12, 2017


JIMBO
OCTOBER 12, 2017 at 15:15
===============================

Indeed he did, figures ranging from £30m – £50m if I remember right.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:20 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Anyone wondering if some Bears heads are hurting trying to square the circle of DCK’s lawyers arguing in a court of law that he doesn’t have 11-12 million to make a share offer for ‘the club’ but the man himself not so long ago was taking about personally investing tens of millions in ‘the club’.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:21 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Well that’s my defence sorted if a Court ever decides to issue me with a fine.

I can’t afford that so there’s no point in doing it. Let’s all just move on.

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on3:23 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Alasdair Lamont‏ Verified account  @BBCAlLamont 3 minutes ago

DK counsel asking how Panel can expect him to make offer with no access to funds, therefore not able to comply with rules governing offers.
—————————————————————
Roughly translates as, “I’ve broken the rules but am not able to do the punishment so therefore I cannot be punished QED”

If he gets away with this……………

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on3:25 pm - Oct 12, 2017


This is getting really interesting.

“DK counsel asking what is the point of the order, in having DK held in contempt of court if he doesn’t then comply with the order. Ultimately that would be a criminal offence – a rather dramatic outcome. Proposes no order should be made.”

So he should be let off with it to avoid him becoming a criminal (again)?

Bet he would find the funds in that eventuality.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:26 pm - Oct 12, 2017


http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13152238.King__We_need_up_to___50m_and_I_m_happy_to_provide_it/

He put a price on that investment. “I think the minimum – if we get lucky – is £30m and we will probably need £50m,” he said. “That would be to compete with Celtic

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on3:31 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Alasdair Lamont‏Verified account @BBCAlLamont 4 minutes ago DK counsel: Over-riding objective of creating equality for shareholders is not achieved by making an order.

Alasdair Lamont‏Verified account @BBCAlLamont 10 minutes ago DK counsel: Ultimately that would be a criminal offence – a rather dramatic outcome. Proposes no order should be made.

Alasdair Lamont‏Verified account @BBCAlLamont 12 minutes ago DK counsel asking what is the point of the order, in having DK held in contempt of court if he doesn’t then comply with order.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:38 pm - Oct 12, 2017


TINCKS
OCTOBER 12, 2017 at 14:47 
Time for everyone to polish up their CV’s.  SFA looking for a new manager for the national team.  
No height restrictions apply 
=============================

It’s not a tall manager the Scotland team needs… it’s a bleedin’ magician!

I’ll get my wand.  16

[Cheers JC & EJ for updates – hope you get reimbursed for your lunch!]

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:41 pm - Oct 12, 2017


It seems Lord Bannantyne is not wearing the “no-one would buy anyway” argument.

Lord B says Mike Ashley might have considered getting out at 20p/share a good deal. Shareholders may feel voting rights are diluted.

Lord B says shareholders make decisions on selling for all sorts of reasons. So how does DK know no one would sell at 20p?

Lord B says DK counsel is introducing an element that plays no part in the code of Takeover Panel.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on3:44 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Well done Lord Bannatyne.  I was thinking earlier how presumptuous it was that DK said a share offer @ 20p per share would not be taken up.  How could he possibly know that?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:50 pm - Oct 12, 2017


King’s Counsel is now saying that he isn’t just skint, he is also thick. A decent businessman would know this. 

DK counsel says perhaps DK wasn’t fully aware of significance of consequence of crossing 30% or fully understands GL email.

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on3:54 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Alasdair Lamont‏  Verified account @BBCAlLamont 4 minutes ago Counsel asked by Lord B why DK went ahead and made offer despite being warned by GL about potentially crossing 30% threshold

DK counsel says perhaps DK wasn’t fully aware of significance of consequence of crossing 30% or fully understands GL email.
———————————————————————-
Perhaps Lance Armstrong wasn’t fully aware of the significance or consequences of all those blood transfusions 

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:58 pm - Oct 12, 2017


HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 12, 2017 at 15:50
Of course as we know, compared to the man in the street DCK isn’t skint and neither is he thick.

This is what he is.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:00 pm - Oct 12, 2017


HomunculusOctober 12, 2017 at 15:50
King’s Counsel is now saying that he isn’t just skint, he is also thick. A decent businessman would know this. 
DK counsel says perhaps DK wasn’t fully aware of significance of consequence of crossing 30% or fully understands GL email.

Ah yes, the old another big boy done it and ran away defence. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:01 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Oh FFS, Dave King now has no control over his assets. Unless he is telling people he will spend £30m – £50m on Rangers.

Counsel says beneficiary of trust can’t order trustees what to do. Sovereign and Glencoe not responsive to whims of DK.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:02 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont  3m3 minutes ago
Counsel says beneficiary of trust can’t order trustees what to do. Sovereign and Glencoe not responsive to whims of DK.

Yet as we know with the Ibrox EBTs no request for funds were ever refused.
Anyone wishing Lord B had asked if DCK had a side letter 10

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on4:02 pm - Oct 12, 2017


“Counsel asked by Lord B why DK went ahead and made offer despite being warned by GL about potentially crossing 30% threshold.  DK counsel says perhaps DK wasn’t fully aware of significance of consequence of crossing 30% or fully understands GL email.”

Dear God are we really expected to believe that? Maybe he didn’t realise the significance of the 30% threshold.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on4:06 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Alasdair Lamont‏Verified account @BBCAlLamont 5m5 minutes ago Counsel says situation is stark. Does court have discretion? If it does what discretion does it have? Court over for today. Back tomorrow 10 

Alasdair Lamont‏Verified account @BBCAlLamont 7m7 minutes ago Counsel says beneficiary of trust can’t order trustees what to do. Sovereign and Glencoe not responsive to whims of DK.

Alasdair Lamont‏Verified account @BBCAlLamont 9m9 minutes ago Lord B asks in relation to claim of no funds whether he should take into account that DK did seem to have control over trusts.

DK’s Council’s stratetgy – Gonnae no dae that!?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on4:07 pm - Oct 12, 2017


Thankfully Lord Bannatyne seems to be up to their shenanigans and deflections.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:07 pm - Oct 12, 2017


I see he ended by throwing himself on the mercy of the Court.

View Comment

Comments are closed.