In the light of the SFA President’s unfortunate remarks in the MSM today, relegating every Scottish football club other than Celtic or Rangers to support role status, this blog by Auldheid on the need to have a conversation about the leadership and governance of the Scottish game is remarkably prescient.
It is also important in that it shows there are people out there (and not just us at SFM) who are engaged in finding workable solutions to our problems – solutions to which involve the major stakeholders in football, the fans (or customers as most boardrooms would have it).
The people involved in finding solutions are well-connected and not without influence, but most importantly they seek to give fans a greater voice in the game – and they do not represent a paid-for voice with a seat at the SFA table or a funding source that depends to a large extent on saying nothing when fan interests are damaged.
SFM is more than happy to endorse Auldheid’s sentiments.
Tris
The following extracts have been taken from an earlier SFM Blog (The Lost Voice of the Armageddon Virus), to emphasise the fact, if any were needed, that something is rotten in the state of Scottish football.
“Significantly for matters out with the confines of the (Craig Whyte) case – and this has been incredibly under-reported by the main stream media – David Murray also told the court earlier that he had used EBT’s in order to get better players for Rangers than they could otherwise afford, re-igniting social media exchanges over the validity of William Nimmo-Smith’s report into Rangers use of EBT’s.
You may remember that Nimmo-Smith himself considered that Rangers had gained no sporting advantage by their use of the scheme – a conclusion diametrically at variance with Murray’s – the man who operated the scheme to achieve exactly that end.
If Murray is telling the truth, then it puts Nimmo-Smith’s conclusions in doubt. And even if you leave aside for the moment the amended and extremely creative terms of reference set by Neil Doncaster which effectively excluded the already known to be unlawful DoS EBTs from Nimmo-Smith’s team, the SPL has been shown up as a bit a joke.
Another sensational piece of info the court heard, which again has gone almost completely unreported, was that in an email from Mike McGill of Murray Group, dated 17 March 2011, he says “the (wee tax) case only recently went from a potential liability and had not “crystallised” until recently” – this long before a Euro licence was awarded to Rangers on the basis, according to Stewart Regan, that the bill had “not crystallised” when the licence was awarded.
It may be that the laws of unintended consequences will prove to be more significant to football than the matter of Craig Whyte’s guilt or innocence.”
However the “revelations” only tell many of us what has been questioned or known since 2011 about Scottish football that has filled gigabytes of space on numerous forums and blogs about the handling by the SFA of the grant and retention of a UEFA Licence to Rangers FC in 2011 and the flawed creation of the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission whose Decision in February 2013 was met with incredulity by those who follow the game as the Decision bent all previous understanding of the intent of registration rules pretzel shaped in order to meet a desired damage limitation outcome.
More has yet to come arising from the Craig Whyte trial and the decision of the Supreme Court on the legality of EBTs as administered by Rangers FC.
Yet despite what has been known for several years (and has been or will be further confirmed as the wheels of justice grind slowly to an end), and in spite of all the words spilt, tweets tweeted and blogs blogged, nothing appears to impact on the SFA or SPFL.
Indeed, it was tweeted just the other week by Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News that regardless of the Supreme Court Decision there would be no taking title away from the history of Rangers FC using the LNS Decision as a defensive line in the sand in spite of the Decision itself being founded on sand.
How Doncaster is able to say that really needs examining in terms of his authority and the two fingers it gives to the integrity of the League he is CEO of..
But this is not another blog to rail against the powers that flee, who hide behind main stream media spin, and worse, use the loyalty supporters feel for their clubs to do nothing about the rotten state of football governance in Scotland. This is a blog about ending the biggest barrier to making change happen – the lack of an effective Scottish football clubs supporters union around which the fans can gather and press for change.
There is an organisation called Supporters Direct, who are invited to sit around the Hampden table but who lack the essential ingredient to make them effective – independence from the SFA (who partly fund them).
You don’t bite the hand that feeds you stuff. They are also an organisation whose roots are in England with a Scottish offshoot. You can read what they are about at
http://www.supporters-direct.scot/about/
Improving football governance in Scotland is not their main aim – which is not surprising given some financial dependence on the SFA – so they do not represent a coherent and easily navigable way forward on the road to providing much-needed transparency and accountability to Scottish football.
However, all is not lost, there an alternative Scottish organisation founded in Scotland called The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA)
whose nine point manifesto includes a commitment to improved football governance. The SFSA manifesto was launched on 7th Jan 2016 at Holyrood, and enjoys the support of a number of MSPs including former First Minister Henry McLeish.
A copy of the full SFSA Manifesto can be read at
and the relevant part in terms of football Governance is at Point 8 that says
Reclaim The Game
Regular Independent Auditing and Review of the Performance of Governing Bodies and Clubs.
“When a fan is asked how well the club they are following is doing they can point to a league table. This quickly establishes the quality of the on-field performance at any given time. Of course, the reality of football means that there will be fluctuations in performance depending on a range of variable factors. But the beauty is that a league table never finally lies. Its judgement is there for posterity. However, when we are asked to rate the performance of the club as a business there are few clear criteria. This is because of a complete lack of transparency throughout the game. Often it is only when criticism emerges that we get to see how a club is actually managed.
This lack of transparency is being questioned and changed in the banking and commercial sectors. It is no longer acceptable in Scottish football. Clubs have to maximise their effectiveness and live within their means. We want to see independent monitoring and evaluation of the off-field performance of clubs and governing bodies in all areas, from financial transparency to customer services. This includes performance tables. The SFSA will seek to reward high performance through annual awards. We believe that strong support and community focused clubs will find themselves in a better position to thrive and to attract new revenue streams, creating a virtuous circle for the game and breaking down the mistrust about transparency and fan engagement in boardrooms.
In recent times the reputation of both the Scottish Football Association (SFA) and the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) have likewise suffered. This reflects badly on the game and hampers our ability to attract new investment into the sport. In modern commerce, most of the major brands and businesses evaluate customer feedback on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. Looking at the SFA survey results from over 10,000 fans the Net Promoter score for our two national bodies is revealing and concerning.
The gulf between those who run football and those who love it and pay for it is far too wide to be healthy, which is why substantial reform in the boardrooms and throughout the governing bodies is in their interest, the fans’ interest, and the interests of Scottish football as a whole. “
We know that over the next 6 weeks the SFSA will be going live with a major campaign to highlight governance and transparency along with a plan to deliver it and will provide details at that time when preparatory work completed.
We at SFM believe it is the responsibility as fans who care about an honest game (and who doesn’t?) to take the opportunity to work with our new national fans organisation in not just talking about change but to make sure that change actually happens.
We can all start that process by joining the SFSA. It costs you nothing apart from 5 mins of your time and you can join at http://scottishfsa.org/ to become the means of making Scottish football something we all feel happy to support because we feel part of it rather than apart from it..
CO, that’s even worse, surely Glasgow is much more attractive? Edinburgh just up the road, it’s a no brainer!
Come back Paddy Roberts to Glasgow the town, Come back Paddy Roberts to me.
Huddersfield!
This will take me a while to get over.
Corrupt officialJune 15, 2017 at 17:30 (Edit)
The question would have to be who is going to organise that idea and bring it to life?
Its not a bad one but at least in the SFSA we have an organisation who want to represent Scottish football supporters on matters that want a say in independent of the SFA.
This point was made today on SFSA http://scottishfsa.org/time-to-close-the-branch-office/ and whilst there are bound to be reservations or concerns if their approach will deliver I’m a supporter of the imperfect letter home is better than the perfect letter that never gets sent.
Ally Jambo
I understand the point you are making, made it myself actually in conversations, but these guys have been spending a bit of time getting the necessary high level support for change on board and the politics at play may have influenced that approach
However by joining up you now have the opportunity to encourage them to be more bold, I’m sure you will rise to the challenge.
Another delayed publication of a Court of Session opinion was published today.
The link gives Lord Doherty’s decision on the merits of TRFCG’s (Wavetower) £18m claim against the BDO Liquidators (RFC 2012).
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=152536a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Just a brief summary of Lord Doherty’s opinion dated 22 March 2016.
TRFCG claimed £18m as a secured creditor of the Liquidated RFC 2012.
BDO sent a counter claim that RFC 2012 was owed £18.4m by TRFCG for transactions around 9 May 2011, so the claim was fully offset. They added that they considered that the transactions were part of a “fraud” and “financial assistance”, so the assignation of the Lloyds debt was “void” as a result.
Lord Doherty was of the view that the criminal proceedings took precedence and as a result he “sisted” the case. BDO sought to appeal that decision because if the TRFCG claim held up, only they would receive anything, as a secured creditor of RFC 2012. In that scenario an appeal to the Supreme Court re the EBT case would be pointless. Lord Doherty was unmoved and decided it wasn’t appropriate to hear an appeal while the criminal proceedings continued.
It remains to be seen what happens next, given that TRFCG’s claims were taken up by Law Financial, then Worthington Group and now another specialist claims company.
EASYJAMBOJUNE 15, 2017 at 21:54 As a result of inter alia the Judgment of Mr Justice Newey dated 12 December 2013, the Joint Liquidators believe that the security pursuant to which Group asserts its claim in the Liquidation estate was acquired by fraud. As a result, any purported assignation of debt and security from Bank of Scotland plc to Group is in any event void …”
——————
They aver that the assignation agreement was part of a fraudulent scheme, and that the noter was a principal participant in the fraud. They aver that as part of the scheme the noter and the Company entered into a loan agreement dated 9 May 2011 in terms of which the Company lent £16,000,000 to the noter on interest free terms. They aver that the documents founded upon by the noter should be reduced ope exceptionis. The averments continue:
“Separatim the foregoing arrangements constituted the giving of unlawful financial assistance in terms of section 677 et seq of the Companies Act 2006. On that basis, the arrangements (including the Assignation Agreement and Floating Charge) are void. Se.
===============
EASYJAMBOJUNE 15, 2017 at 21:54
can you put into laymans terms parts above as now no fraud found.
easyJamboJune 15, 2017 at 21:54
‘..Another delayed publication of a Court of Session opinion was published today…’
___________
Good spot, eJ.
Now that the trial has concluded and the accused walked free and innocent of both thebfraud charge and the wrongful use of Company’s own assets to buy its own shares, the Wavetower ( or whoever now has it) claim looks to be winnable unless BDO’s argument about being in debt to the Company because “During the period in which the company was in administration its administrators gave a notice dated 9th May 2012 to the Noter to the effect an ‘Event of Default’ had arisen under the Loan Agreement and that the sum of £18,453,263.72 was accordingly immediately due for payment by the Noter to the company… By virtue of the balancing of accounts in bankruptcy, the Noter’s claim is on any view extinguished by the claim of the Company against the Noter.”
is unsound.
I think if I were Worthington (or whoever now has the claim: Worthington are in Liquidation and may have sold on their claim!) I would have some hope of succeeding.
But of course I am no lawyer.
It’s interesting, though, that BDO asserted that fraud had been committed and that unlawful financial assistance had been given long before any trial had taken place!It seems a bit much for BDO to have argue their rejection of the claim because they thought that Whyte was guilty of crime, because an English court implied that he was, long before the criminal trial.
John Clark June 15, 2017 at 22:35
It’s interesting, though, that BDO asserted that fraud had been committed and that unlawful financial assistance had been given long before any trial had taken place!It seems a bit much for BDO to have argue their rejection of the claim because they thought that Whyte was guilty of crime, because an English court implied that he was, long before the criminal trial.
========================
I guess you have picked up that the basis of BDO’s assertions of fraud and financial assistance was the failure of the appeal by Whyte against the summary damages awarded to Ticketus in December 2013, where the original judge made the award on the basis of “fraudulent misrepresentation”.
I was surprised that Whyte’s alleged misrepresentation to Ticketus wasn’t brought up in the criminal trial, e.g. his failure to complete the client questionnaire accurately (or truthfully).
Cluster One June 15, 2017 at 22:30
======================
see my post at 22.22.
The claim makes no sense.
Wavetower bought Rangers debt from Lloyds and with it the floating charge, fair enough.
However prior to that they had borrowed that money from Rangers to fund the debt purchase.
The net effect is nil, so why would Wavetower be a creditor, preferred other otherwise. The floating charge surely means nothing if there is no actual debt.
(Given that the only person charged with fraud and financial assistance has been acquitted that is now irrelevant).
easyJamboJune 15, 2017 at 22:49
‘..I was surprised that Whyte’s alleged misrepresentation to Ticketus wasn’t brought up in the criminal trial, e.g. his failure to complete the client questionnaire accurately (or truthfully). ‘
_________
I may be entirely wrong, eJ, but I rather think it did feature. Maybe JD’s tweets can say for sure?
John Clark June 15, 2017 at 22:56
I may be entirely wrong, eJ, but I rather think it did feature. Maybe JD’s tweets can say for sure?
========================
I’ve checked JD’s tweets of the evidence given by Ross Bryan and Mario Berti and there was no mention of Whyte’s application.
HomunculusJune 15, 2017 at 22:56
‘….The claim makes no sense…’
____________________
The question then is why BDO led with the ‘fraud’ and ‘wrongful financial’ assistance arguments?
If they were quite sure that Whyte had defaulted on the loan agreement, there would have been no need to advance other arguments.
It would have been easy enough ,one would have thought, for BDO to show that that was the case, without getting into murky prejudgments of guilt long before trial took place and verdict was delivered.
I think BDO must themselves have thought that their default event argument was not guaranteed to be convincing, whereas a finding by another court that there had been ‘misrepresentation’ in the matter looked more promising.
( I wonder, incidentally, whether the Charlotte Fakes ‘You are Sevco’ note allegedly from CG to CW is among the ‘Documents’ supposedly supporting the claim!)
Personally, of course,I hope BDO win eventually:the idea that any of the shi.ey weasels of the case, from the biggest knight to the smallest wee runt of a rat should ‘win’ is repellent.
Ticketus gave the dough to Rangers who gave it to Wavetower who gave it to Lloyds and Ticketus were to get it back off the fans who had it not went pear shaped have paid off DM’s floating charge and handed him MIM whilst their club was on a rocky road and led to liquidation.
This is comedy gold no wonder no-one is saying anything talk about thick as thieves everybody in that circle was out to bump each other. Reagan and Doncaster we are coming for yous, you two are the pantomine horse arses, yous have been found out. Pack your bags and piss off. If Sevco fans are too dumb to see this their next tribute act is playing out exactly the same yous do come on here you have been warned, fool me once, fool me twice you know the rest. Mexicans dont do Glasgow.
easyJamboJune 15, 2017 at 23:13
‘..I’ve checked JD’s tweets of the evidence given by Ross Bryan and Mario Berti and there was no mention of Whyte’s application.’
______________
I quite likely am getting my hearings and cases mixed up.
Certainly at some hearing or other much was made of the self-certification of the wee tick- box form where you tick if you are or have been in the last seven years disqualified as a director, and what happens if particular boxes are left without a tick.
Damned if I can remember which flaming ‘reporting restrictions’ business it vwas!
JC – another report for your information.
https://www.bdo.co.uk/getmedia/122bd9c6-9902-4761-a124-58b86ffc7b70/RFC-Progress-report-to-30-April-2017.pdf
This time it is BDO’s 6 monthly report to creditors. This one is dated 30 April 2017 although it was only published today. The Creditors pot has been falling with every report and is now down to just over £15m.
The report makes reference to the H&J claim, so feel free to disclose anything you want about the claim, as I can’t see any reason not to if one of the main players has disclosed some information about it.
EASYJAMBOJUNE 15, 2017 at 22:50 Rate This
Cluster One June 15, 2017 at 22:30======================see my post at 22.22.
———————
THANKS. I must have been typing as you posted.
I’m sitting killing time and have been reading The Times.
The reports on Grenfell are professional and a good mix of news and journalism.
I’m now at the back and on pages 82 and 83 Paul Forsyth has penned a mini Rangers feature that takes up about two thirds of the dps and has a big pic of Ryan Jack.
In the rest of the two pages there are stories on John Souttar by Michael Grant, and two more pieces by Forsyth involving Hibs and Hearts.
Forsyth closes his Rangers piece with a bullet pointed “update” that Rangers season tickets are available and gives the web site and the 0871 number where he even advises that the cost is 13p per min.
He doesn’t do the same for Hearts or Hibs.
In a week where the chairman of our SFA told us we need the club selling the season tickets back at the very top for the good of our game I guess maybe The Times is just doing what it can to help.
Or maybe not.
It’s stuff like this we need to have an organisation like The SFSA to collectively challenge the deep rooted institutional bias in our game where the media is so needful of wee favours that people like Forsyth continually compromise their integrity in the back pages.
AuldheidJune 15, 2017 at 21:20
Ally JamboI understand the point you are making, made it myself actually in conversations, but these guys have been spending a bit of time getting the necessary high level support for change on board and the politics at play may have influenced that approachHowever by joining up you now have the opportunity to encourage them to be more bold, I’m sure you will rise to the challenge.
__________________________________
You are, of course, correct that the ‘politics’ will play a big part in how such an organisation can progress, and that is part of the cause of my scepticism of ‘supporters groups’ such as this, for the arrogant ignorance of the people who run Scottish football will only give credence to sycophantic organisations and people of the kind they can manipulate or shut up. Indeed, it is the ‘politics’ of Scottish football that, in my opinion, prevent action by clubs, such as my own, from taking action against, what is (still (they wish)) the most important club in the mind of the game’s governors, in matters such as financial fair play. I am sure that, as in real politics, if a club wants help or assistance from the SFA/SPFL then it must play ball with them in return.
As has been stated on here many times, our biggest problem is that we can’t get access to the men at Hampden, and supporters organisations know that if they want that access, they have to temper their criticism, and I’d suggest that that criticism must, not only, be relatively mild/already out there in the media, but it most certainly must not be the kind of criticism that is provable! (Most organisations can cope with the kind of criticism that isn’t ‘provable’ or doesn’t require ‘proof’, for it is usually no more that opinion, ie ‘cheating referees’.)
It might not be much to get too excited about but at least we have got some football to watch on the television – The Confederations Cup. A kind of dress rehearsal for the World Cup next year. Scotland are not in it.
But Celtic & The Rangers are represented with Tom Rogic (Australia) and Bruno Alves (Portugal). Bruno spent some time playing for Porto, a team I despise for reasons I can’t remember.
Gives me an excuse to head off to the pub on Monday, 4pm.
1. AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 21:04 8 Votes
chill ultraJune 15, 2017 at 17:51 (Edit) i 11 Votes
AULDHEIDJUNE 15, 2017 at 16:22 ‘life would have been a lot easier had Celtic simply voted Res12 down, had a bun fight at the AGM and in 4 weeks it would have been forgotten’ Auldheid. At the time of the 2013 AGM my understanding and that of many of the 100 signatories was that getting the resolution onto the AGM agenda would be a litmus test as to the intentions of the Plc regarding its future dealings with Rangers. Had the Plc voted for, and carried out the wishes of the shareholders to actively seek answers, the SFA would have been put in a very awkward spot. Had the Plc voted down the resolution then we would have known then (what we know now) that the intention of the club was to restore the Old Firm brand as soon as it could. The adjournment was the Plc’s get-out, the ideal solution; it meant that it could string along genuine supporters, not just of Celtic, to believe that it was actively seeking, with the help of ‘Res 12’, to expose the corruption that blights our game. You, and your fellow requisitioners by your acquiescence allowed the club the wriggle room it was only to glad to accept. ================
Celtic’s position was made clear in their official response published in the Annual Report for that year distributed before the AGM and it was that Res12 was unnecessary. Have a read. ” Board Response
The Board is committed to protecting and promoting the interests of the Company, having regard to, among other things, the principles of fairness and sporting integrity.
Having regard to those interests and principles, the Board monitored the developing situation at Rangers Football Club carefully. The Company maintained a consistent position that the circumstances should be considered by the football authorities and the matter dealt with fairly and proportionately. This position was made clear to the football authorities, including the Scottish FA. The Company received assurances from the Scottish FA regarding the Club Licensing process for Season 2011/12 at the time. The Board considers that it took appropriate steps to protect the interests of the Company.
The Board will continue to take steps to protect and promote the interests of the Company. The Company participated in the restructuring of Scottish football and will continue to monitor the development and effectiveness of governance systems.
The Board remains committed to a strategy that promotes and protects the interests of the Company and does not rely on any other club. That stand alone strategy has been successful, as demonstrated by the robust results for the year to June 2013 and encouraging start to the current year. In the circumstances the Board considers the resolution to be unnecessary and recommends that you vote against it.”
So there in writing is the answer to what you wanted to know. Or rather what suspicions you had regarding Celtic’s motives. Celtic were not going to take the matter to UEFA as requested and indeed asked those attending a meeting before the AGM to withdraw it on the basis that assurances had been sought from the SFA.
In all conscience that could not be agreed to because of contradictory information leaked in the summer regarding the processing of the UEFA licence in 2011 (now confirmed in court) and there was an impasse to which an adjournment was suggested as a solution.
That was seen as an opportunity to keep the issue alive and investigate the soundness of the suspicions regarding the UEFA licence, which was the SOLE aim of Res12 and not to confirm suspicions that individuals may have had about The Board, and without which there was no locus for Celtic to accept the Resolution in the first place, so your supposition of what took place is well wide of the mark.
There were a number of aims of Res12 one of which might have been what you wanted to establish in terms of The Boards position regarding preserving Rangers, which I have given you, but it was not the only one, and whilst you might be angry that you did not get what you thought you were signing up to, there are many who are content that those representing the signatories acted in good faith and with the best of intentions to see an investigation into the SFA and their handling of the licensing process in 2011 (NOT an investigation into the Celtic Board) through to the end and that end is nigher given the vindication of the suspicions in court last week that caused the adjournment.
View Comment
——————————————————–
“(Celtic)asked those attending a meeting before the AGM”
“those representing the signatories acted in good faith”
Auldheid. To the best of my knowledge only two of the four requisitioners attended this meeting. One of these individuals had connections with the Plc; he had been name-checked, praised for his charity work for Celtic charities in the club’s annual reports (my bedtime reading).
That someone with this connection, (his professional background is another story for another day) self- appointed to represent 100 signatories should have influenced the decision to adjourn the resolution smacks of a conflict of interest. Regarding representation, I have asked repeatedly if the four requisitioners were shareholders at the time of th 2013 AGM but no one, including you Auldheid, seems able to give me simple binary yes/no answer for all four.
Auldheid, if you really want to convince me that the Plc are not in complete control of the ‘Resolution 12’ project, you could accede to my request to let me meet personally with a donor who you say funded the early legal work – and had apparently wanted to have a face-to-face meeting with me to ‘put me right’. You withdrew this earlier offer only after I had agreed to meet the mystery benefactor.
Lack of transparency; lack of representation; lack of accountability; lack of keeping financial records; lack of fit and proper person scrutiny. I won’t comment further on the uncanny comparisons.
Chill Ultra
How do you reconcile your statement that Res 12 was a board controlled project with the fact it’s only in the public domain because of the efforts of the requisitioners ?
Chill Ultra
Let me know the next time you are in Scotland and I’ll try and arrange a meeting with him.
I know that I and the person whose motives you question are shareholders. I am not sure of status of other two at time Res was being formed.
Your thinking that there is a formally constituted body around Res12 is wrong, only a group who actually acted on questions being asked on CQN that needed answers and used the AGM process as shareholders to try and get them and had Res12 been passed by Celtic instead of opposed there would have been no need for funding or reporting back etc.
With regard to your charge of lack of accountability etc can I ask that you make it on CQN to establish how many signatories share that view as that is the more appropriate forum to pursue the matter?
You can always put the answers back here.
I see JJ has pulled the shutters down on his “Speakeasy”. It appears he has manufactured a spat with his readers and then taken the huff when donations were cancelled!!
No coincidence that the CW trial is over then?
Looks like John James has decided to martyr himself on his own ego. Shame. I quite liked reading his stories of ‘carrion dogs’ that can sniff out murder victims from scent trails left mere seconds after their death, his SNP bashing diatribes overegged with clichés that have been disproved many times over, and his ‘honest mistakes, turned up to 11’ statement of facts regarding referees.
Mostly, I’ll miss the nonsensical reasons as to why it was the fault of someone else when he had to pull poorly considered articles.
Seriously though, he was good to begin with, but I don’t know whether he allowed the praise to go to his head or what, but his more recent stuff, certainly the last few months, has been risible. Hopefully taking a break from it might allow him to recoup and remind himself what it was that made people read in the first place.
BARCABHOYJUNE 16, 2017 at 11:40
5 Votes
Chill Ultra
How do you reconcile your statement that Res 12 was a board controlled project with the fact it’s only in the public domain because of the efforts of the requisitioners ?
————
I’m sorry. I don’t follow your question. Could you please elaborate?
His latest pronouncement is that Charles Green edits some of JJ’s ‘Rangers’ output by email. The man is utterly delusional!
Does anybody know where to find the rules and regulations pertinent to work permits for players plying their trade in the Scottish Premiership ? Just curious – nae drama !
PADDY MALARKEY
try this
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2015-16/ScottishFAGoverning%20BodyEndorsements.pdf
TONYJUNE 16, 2017 at 18:47
Thanks
It is usually quite on SFM on a Friday.Well unless there is a statement o’clock from ibrox.(how i miss a statement on a friday evening from ibrox)Reading the AULDHEIDand CHILL ULTRA
Posts with interest.Can anyone tell me if i can word this right.Who seamed the most interested in the Res 12 project?
I mean who between the requisitioners or the celtic board had the most drive to see justice done?
If i can put it this way, did the requisitioners have to keep getting in contact with the celtic board and say something like “Listen we have new information, we have had a reply, we have received a letter,we just found out this etc.
Or did the celtic board keep getting in contact with the requisitioners and asking things like have you any new information, have you Received a reply,how are you doing on your findings, have the requisitioners got any further forward etc.
Or was there a time for meeting’s to be agreed that information could be shared.And it was not a phone call from one to another with updates etc.
were any meetings cancelled? by the two parties,who cancelled the most and why.
What i’m trying to say is at this point in time are celtic and the requisitioners now on the same page?
PADDY MALARKEYJUNE 16, 2017 at 18:45
TONYJUNE 16, 2017 at 18:47
Less than two min,that is why you got to love SFM
Statement o’clock it is – at 7.30pm on a Friday.
[my highlighting]
“RANGERS can today confirm that Joe Garner has left the club to join Ipswich Town.
Garner leaves with our best wishes and joins the Tractor Boys on a three year contract for an undisclosed fee…”
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/joe-garner-joins-ipswich/
===========================================
Wonder if TRFC got ALL it’s money back ?
bigboab1916June 15, 2017 at 23:38
“Mexicans dont do Glasgow.”
Why?? Too stand offish ??
STEVIEBC
heard it was 500k,but who knows,that could be krona
Cluster One
The Requisitioners drove it from securing an adjournment as opposed to Celtic sticking by their Res12 unecessary stance.
They drove it all the way to UEFA resulting in Traverso letter and went back again. At that point UEFA said they would only deal with a member club of the national association so it was handed over to Celtic in Dec 2016 where it lies waiting for court cases to end.
Celtic shareholders who signed the Res were updated in full just before the last AGM.
Another is in draft.
I think Chill Ultra does not understand Barcas question because he believes that Res12 was about much more than the UEFA licence and there was more as background in the Res document but focus was placed on the latter because it was the one area that directly affected Celtic and so had locus.
Without it the rest would have been dismissed as a matter for the SFA or SPFL.
Nothing conspiratorial or sinister just pragmatism.
AULDHEIDJUNE 16, 2017 at 20:32
The Requisitioners drove it from securing an adjournment.
so it was handed over to Celtic in Dec 2016 where it lies waiting for court cases to end.
—————-
So all on the same page at this point in time now i hope,and both parties driving forward.
Thanks for reply
STEVIEBCJUNE 16, 2017 at 20:11
Garner leaves with our best wishes and joins the Tractor Boys on a three year contract for an undisclosed fee…”
Wonder if TRFC got ALL it’s money back ?
——————-
The ibrox club paid a reported £1.8 million for Joe in August 2016.
Was the whole transfer fee paid in full or was it to be paid in instalments?
And if it was in instalments,was there still money from the ibrox club to be paid?
TONY
JUNE 16, 2017 at 20:30
STEVIEBCheard it was 500k,but who knows,that could be krona
…………………………………..
I’m going with Zimbabwean Dollars.
At the same time, now that the case in Scotland has come to an end I will be commenting on the significant implications for Worthington shareholders, as well as re-uploading the un-redacted version of the TI report.
https://www.aidanearley.org/news/
—————-
Is this anything to do with the craig whyte court case?
Cluster one @ 21.34
————————-
Wothington are now http://www.nobleresolve.com ( I think ? ) on their website under ( our projects and sectors ) it states : for the avoidance of doubt the company has no interest or claim in the Rangers F.C. litigation.
Cluster One June 16, 2017 at 21:34
Is this anything to do with the craig whyte court case?
==========================
The TI (tortious interference) report was a series of allegations by Aidan Earley about how Worthington Group was undermined by several individuals. There were a couple of references to the Whyte case in respect of Jerome Pension Fund, but also the hacked CF material, some of which allegedly ended up in the possession of financial blogger Tom Winnifirth, possibly via DCK.
I already have a copy of the unredacted TI report.
Cluster One June 16, 2017 at 21:04
The ibrox club paid a reported £1.8 million for Joe in August 2016.Was the whole transfer fee paid in full or was it to be paid in instalments?And if it was in instalments,was there still money from the ibrox club to be paid?
=========================
I would expect that Ipswich would pick up on any outstanding payments to Preston, with maybe a nominal amount going to TRFC.
Love it when this place gets back to analysis. Great stuff guys.
Thanks for replies
EASYJAMBOJUNE 16, 2017 at 23:40 3 Votes
Cluster One June 16, 2017 at 21:04The ibrox club paid a reported £1.8 million for Joe in August 2016.
-I would expect that Ipswich would pick up on any outstanding payments to Preston, with maybe a nominal amount going to TRFC.
————–
In the end then,they never did pay that reported £1.8 million for Joe
AMFEARLIATHMÒR
JUNE 16, 2017 at 13:20
=====================================
Things like this always made me chuckle.
How full of yourself is it possible to get.
easyJamboJune 16, 2017 at 23:40
Has there not been a question mark over whether or not the reported fee for his transfer from Preston was anywhere near as high as publicised? I ask this only because we can’t have it both ways, either he cost a ridiculously high amount (as per the PR) to be paid in instalments, or he only cost a couple of hundred thousand, with the figure given out actually containing his whole package, which, as it turned out, was still way too much!
So, TRFC won’t clear much from this latest sale, or they will make a nice tidy profit. We may never know the truth, but will be assured (as in the PR will suggest) it’s good news and brilliant business by TRFC, regardless.
Something, though, that this latest round of ‘Rangersnomics’ shows – the ‘Rangers’ brand name sells, for we have all seen the kind of player Garner is, and he’s certainly not worth the sum quoted (I wouldn’t want him at Hearts, even for free). Meantime, a young midfield player, with 15 goals from midfield last season, Jamie Walker, appears to be desperate to sign for the new club, with TRFC the only club showing interest with ridiculously low offers. And in that farce lies an example of why Hearts, and Aberdeen (Ryan Jack), and eventually every club, should by now, and eventually certainly will, regret allowing TRFC to ride roughshod over the rules and clubs for the past five years!
Whatever the reason for Hearts, or any other club, not protesting TRFC’s entry into the Europa Cup, it must surely now (unless TRFC do go bust) be obvious to Hearts that had the new club failed to get a Euro licence, they would be a far less attractive prospect for the likes of Ryan Jack and, perhaps, Jamie Walker, and any other players blinded by that brand name!
Should TRFC eventually offer enough to persuade Hearts to sell Walker, they must insist on the full amount up front. Only that way can their profligacy be brought to an early end!
As people are discussing the resolution it might be worth putting the actual wording here. I believe this is the one.
AllyjamboJune 17, 2017 at 09:40
easyJamboJune 16, 2017 at 23:40
“…….Something, though, that this latest round of ‘Rangersnomics’ shows – the ‘Rangers’ brand name sells, for we have all seen the kind of player Garner is, and he’s certainly not worth the sum quoted (I wouldn’t want him at Hearts, even for free). Meantime, a young midfield player, with 15 goals from midfield last season, Jamie Walker, appears to be desperate to sign for the new club, with TRFC the only club showing interest with ridiculously low offers. And in that farce lies an example of why Hearts, and Aberdeen (Ryan Jack), and eventually every club, should by now, and eventually certainly will, regret allowing TRFC to ride roughshod over the rules and clubs for the past five years!”
Whilst people like Jack and Walker may be attracted to Sevco it is understanble as in Jacks case this they believe is the team (myth) they supported and it is calling on them with cash. But, the other issue is with the SFA in charge and as it has shown its persistance to allow a myth to continue, and have supported and aided it, then the myth will have no barriers to producing money and dodgy deals as the rules will be made and kept intact for them.
Would you not rather lose a player like Walker if this is his loyalty, he is showing his greed, is proving his willingness to partake in the corruption and has no loyalty to the fans, get shot of him, Jack was the same McInnes should have booted him down the road to Govan, i would have stripped him of captiancy, dropped him for all finals and let the fans know what i think of these players.
You are not losing players to Sevco you are letting your club be rid of greedy wee bastatrds who are not loyal to your support. It is fine to lose players to stronger teams and let their career flourish this is life, but, this is not the same this is the SFA flaunting FFP rules and allowing a myth to carry on as if nothing happened. Ask Walker if he thinks it is the same club and if so ask him should the creditors who will be his fans be compensated.
It will only be fans who can stop this exploitation of their teams players and their boards will sit on their arse as long as the money comes in, i am suprised at Craig Levien, but maybe not, he remembers the deals and decisions down Govan way, and might be in Hearts interest he holds his tongue just now. To all the other fans of clubs welcome to the world Celtic had to compete in before the club turned the corner and used their financial muscle to destroy the bowling club setup. Celtic will and will forever be able to use the courts and arbitration if the bowling club brigade step out of line, i hope all the other clubs fans follow and demand and get rid of these scumbags over in Hampden.
Celtic are the strongest club in the SFA setup and you have seen and read the attacks due to this position, ie we need a strong Rangers, maybe we scottish teams should pull out of Champions league, Celtic are only strong because no opposition (Aberdeen second in all domestic)blah blah, if this is what they think of us and are willing to destroy our SPL reputation until their own team are back, what do they think of your clubs, they do not give a toss about any teams out Celtic and Sevco and it is to make them money, they are treating other teams like shite and will get away with it, to all other club fans take the fight to them and beat them out the door, start with your board badger them let them know if think they are allowin inferior product to be sold due to unfair barriers and breach of FFP, you have a voice its called a season ticket use or let the board lose it they will react.
How is this possible?
Friday, 16 June 2017, 10:30by Rangers Football Club ALMOST six years on since Rangers’ last competitive European outing, continental football returns to Ibrox this season in the shape of the Europa League.
It’s been a long and, at times, painful journey back to playing in a UEFA competition, but the excitement can at last begin in earnest on Monday with the draw for the first qualifying round at 12noon UK time.
In all, 100 sides enter this stage, with Rangers in the top half of the draw as one of the 50 seeded clubs.
Previously, the draw was roughly regionalised, however, it appears this will not be the case at this stage this year. Therefore, all of the Light Blues’ potential opponents are as follows:
bigboab1916 June 17, 2017 at 10:54
Ask Walker if he thinks it is the same club and if so ask him should the creditors who will be his fans be compensated.
=========================
Knowing Jamie, I think he might struggle with that one.
Loyalty is a frequently misused term when talking about footballers. For the vast majority of full time players in Scotland, it is simply a job. It’s great if the club that you grew up with pays top wages, but for most players a move to a club that is willing to double or triple your wages is a no brainer.
Jamie has been at Hearts since he was nine and he will be 24 next month. That is loyalty, but if Jamie wishes to earn more, during what should be his highest earning period of his life, then I don’t think it is for us to say where he should or should not go. He has a partner and a young kid. Let him decide where he wants to take his career.
That said, Hearts are also right to seek top dollar for a player with his ability. I’m sure that Craig Levein is also well aware that the club will end up with nothing if Jamie sees out the final year of his contract.
Not every footballer, or fans, think about football in the same way as the internet bampots do. I know that within my group of friends in the pub, that I am the only one who has followed the saga in any depth. Sure they may ask about a news story that may come up, e.g. the Whyte trial, but for the most part what has happened over the last six or seven years has barely registered.
BIGBOAB1916
sounds like chris jack
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 17, 2017 at 09:40
Should TRFC eventually offer enough to persuade Hearts to sell Walker, they must insist on the full amount up front. Only that way can their profligacy be brought to an early end!
===========================
The Jamie Walker story has a very familiar feel to it. Rangers make offers which are unacceptable to the selling club then it is made public that the offer has been rejected (who by I wonder?). It is only a matter of time before a newspaper runs with a headline of ‘DON’T RUIN MY DREAM MOVE’. The intention of course is to ‘force’ Hearts to sell on terms more acceptable to Rangers. It is pretty much like the Scott Allan saga of a couple of years ago when Celtic arrived on the scene and made the acceptable offer to Hibs that Rangers would not. I have no idea whether Jamie Walker is of interest to Brendan Rodgers but I’m sure if he was Celtic would do business with Hearts in a professional manner and an acceptable deal would be struck. The transfer most certainly would not be played out in the media. I very much doubt whether Celtic or Hearts trust many in the media at all, and would keep them at arms length.
bigboab1916June 17, 2017 at 10:54
The point of that particular part of my post was that it is the clubs, like Hearts, who have themselves to blame for not standing up to the return of the cancer that was Rangers FC, albeit in a new form. Whatever their ‘business’ reasons they have all blundered by not ensuring that honest governance prevailed, and though we all knew, and predicted it, it’s as if the people running the clubs have not yet wakened up to the fact that the past five years were the best we are likely to see, in terms of fairness, ever again – unless the natural justice of another implosion at Ibrox occurs.
Again in business terms, TRFC are good for business as far as the Celtic board is concerned, but it’s going to be a long, long time before they are affected in any way by TRFC’s profligacy. Celtic will lose no players to TRFC, they might lose the odd cup game, as they might to a number of other clubs, but they won’t feel it. Every other club, though, is going to suffer, unless the implosion occurs. For some stupid, blind reason, the people running those clubs failed to recognise that fact until it is now, probably, too late.
There are also supporters of all the other clubs who chose to ignore what has happened at Ibrox, and all the Hampden assistance they received; they, too, will maybe now be regretting the ‘return’ of a ‘Rangers’! They will forget, though, that when they say, ‘Och, it was always the same!’, that the chance to change it was missed.
You will not be far wrong in the implosion happening again. i cannot see the financial model they have adopted holding out much longer than the next set of court cases.
I believe a sweeping game changer will be about to swoop down Govan way. Craig Whyte left a marker like dogs do when they piss and others are now picking up on the scent.There is more to come from this saga, keep plugging away at the money trail, the SFA are up to thier neck in this shit.
The spending activity (even at the most sensible, non Shark-Jump estimates) is bewildering. King has a shelf life on a par with Theresa May – he’s gone to be replaced by Johnston – but this Jonny FatWallet largesse looks like Supernova activity to me.
Easy to spend the ST money quickly of you know the cupboard won’t be bare until after you’ve gone. There is some incredibly delusional behaviour shown by people, otherwise well-versed in the arts and science of business, who think money will appear simply because “this is Rangers”.
In normal circumstances, that would be up to them, and the fallout from their serial wrong-choice behaviour would be confined to those making the choices.
However these are not normal circumstances. Another Ibrox insolvency event will have consequences for others in the leagues. John Gilligan was “strongly advised” by his bosses at TCB to hit the Ibrox eject button due to their fear that they would become associated with another car-crash.
That seems prudent business to me, and hardly obsessional behaviour. I still believe that administraion is of no benefit to anyone at Ibrox. However I used to believe that avoiding it was of great benefit to them.
Now I am no longer sure. It’s starting to look like they really couldn’t care less.
My apologies for the preceding Smörgåsbord of mixed metaphors 🙂
chill ultraJune 16, 2017 at 11:15
Auldheid. To the best of my knowledge only two of the four requisitioners attended this meeting. One of these individuals had connections with the Plc; he had been name-checked, praised for his charity work for Celtic charities in the club’s annual reports (my bedtime reading).That someone with this connection, (his professional background is another story for another day) self- appointed to represent 100 signatories should have influenced the decision to adjourn the resolution smacks of a conflict of interest. Regarding representation, I have asked repeatedly if the four requisitioners were shareholders at the time of th 2013 AGM but no one, including you Auldheid, seems able to give me simple binary yes/no answer for all four.Auldheid, if you really want to convince me that the Plc are not in complete control of the ‘Resolution 12’ project, you could accede to my request to let me meet personally with a donor who you say funded the early legal work – and had apparently wanted to have a face-to-face meeting with me to ‘put me right’.You withdrew this earlier offer only after I had agreed to meet the mystery benefactor.Lack of transparency; lack of representation; lack of accountability; lack of keeping financial records; lack of fit and proper person scrutiny. I won’t comment further on the uncanny comparisons.
——————————————————————————————————–
All.
I have not posted on this forum for many months on any matters including Res 12 related issues choosing to leave that to Auldheid, who, as everyone is aware, has an excellent grasp of the detailed evidence which can and cannot be used in correspondence.
The fact that some of the material available cannot be legally referenced, or would call into question the ethics and motives of some who would might want to use it, is a matter of complex legal and business judgemet an opinions differ from person to person and from organisation to organisation.
However, Auldheid alerted me to the post above from Chill Ultra and has encouraged me to make some response which I now do.
For a start, let’s be clear that of the four so called requisitioners, when Chill Ultra refers to someone who has a connection with the PLC and who has a professional background worthy of comment on another day, he is refering to me.
Let’s also be very clear on a number of other things while we are about it.
Chill Ultra and I have never met, never had a conversation of any kind, nor exchanged views re Res 12 its aims, history, tactics, direction of travel or any other detail on a face to face basis.
There is also no doubt, that Chill Ultra is a genuine Celtic fan, someone I believe to be a Celtic shareholder and supporter, and like many others is someone who is very disgruntled with the events of 2011/2012 and the actions of the SFA during that period.
Obviously, I sympathise with that viewpoint.
However, when it comes to the detail and history of events surrounding Res 12, with respect to Chill Ultra, he is incorrect in many ways and on more than one occasion he has been asked to exhange his views and opinions with me by e-mail if not in person.
Thus far he has declined to do so despite being given my e-mail address.
Turning to the detail of the post above, let me pick out some specifics:
——————————————————————————————————-
“To the best of my knowledge only two of the four requisitioners attended this meeting. One of these individuals had connections with the Plc; he had been name-checked, praised for his charity work for Celtic charities in the club’s annual reports (my bedtime reading).”
In the past and on another forum, Chill Ultra alleged that at the time of the meeting in question I either worked for Celtic PLC or for the Celtic Charity Foundation. To be clear, I have never worked for either organisation (they are legally separate but obviously linked) but I am a founding member of the fans committee of the Charity Foundation and I do help with Foundation events. I am also the chairman of the development board for the west of Scotland for a national charity and I carry out voluntary work for a number of charitable institutions. The CFC foundation just happens to be one.
Whenever I have attended committee meetings neither Peter Lawwell nor any member of the board have been present and the Res 12 meeting concerned was the first time I had met Peter Lawwell in my life. I have met him twice (very briefly since).
——————————————————————————————————-
“That someone with this connection, (his professional background is another story for another day) self- appointed to represent 100 signatories should have influenced the decision to adjourn the resolution smacks of a conflict of interest.
My background is a legal one as i pratcised as a solicitor with my own firm for some 23 years before choosing to go into a number of more business related roles working for various companies in 2005/2006.
In the past Chill Ultra has alluded to the fact that I was connected to the Celtic Company Secretay namely Michael Nicholson.
It is true that before the Res 12 meeting I had come across Michael Nicholson before when he was on the other side of a court case many years before. This is not unusual and many many other solicitors would have been in the same position. However, not only was he not someone I knew well and whom I have only ever met professionally, I was not even aware that he had left private practice to take up the position of Company Secretary at Celtic PLC.
At the meeting it was he who recognised me and with all due respect to him I had to be reminded that our pasts had crossed before.
As for being “self appointed” — with respect to Chill Ultra that is clearly untrue that it is hard to fathom how he reaches that conclusion. Any enquiry of the other requisitioners will reveal that I was asked to attend the meeting after it had been arranged and knew nothing about it until I was contacted.
There was absolutely no conflict of interest at all.
——————————————————————————————————-
“Regarding representation, I have asked repeatedly if the four requisitioners were shareholders at the time of th 2013 AGM but no one, including you Auldheid, seems able to give me simple binary yes/no answer for all four.”
I can only repeat the answer that I have previously given in relation to myself which is that I was at the time and remain a shareholder in Celtic PLC under the explanation that I have never agreed with the PLC structure as being the correct one (a discussion for another day which I have embarked on many times) and that the nominal number of shares I hold were in fact bought and paid for in my name without any consultation by my late father who took a different view to me regarding share ownership.
——————————————————————————————————-
“Auldheid, if you really want to convince me that the Plc are not in complete control of the ‘Resolution 12’ project, you could accede to my request to let me meet personally with a donor who you say funded the early legal work – and had apparently wanted to have a face-to-face meeting with me to ‘put me right’. You withdrew this earlier offer only after I had agreed to meet the mystery benefactor.”
I will leave it for Auldheid to comment on much of the above but I would stress that not even I know who paid for some of the legal work.
What I can say is that to demonstrate the Celtic PLC are not wholly in control I would just point out that it was on my advice that the requisitioners were advised to seek independent legal advice about approaching UEFA and that this was done without even advising Celtic PLC we were going down such a formal and independent route. Not only that, but finding the right calibre of firm without a conflict of interest was not easy and literally took months with many unsuccessful meetings.
We were of the view that shareholders had to be represented independently of the PLC and went to great lengths to ensure that this was done professionally with no conflict in terms of the PLC and others who had a primary or secondary interest in the enquiries we wanted made.
Re matters of finance I know that individuals contributed towards fees but I am not privvy to the detail of who these are nor the actual payment. I was privvy to agreeing the accounts and keeping costs to a reasonable level.
——————————————————————————————————
“Lack of transparency; lack of representation; lack of accountability; lack of keeping financial records; lack of fit and proper person scrutiny. I won’t comment further on the uncanny comparisons.”
At all times, there has been every effort to represent shareholders and we have taken proper professional advise about the details surrounding the avalailable and useable correspondence and the regulations relating to both tax and football.
The original meeting resulted in the resolution being adjourned because we were informed that Celtic PLC had changed their stated position (with which no one agreed) that the resolution was not necessary, as in light of information and argument provided by shareholders Celtic PLC now accepted that there was something very much worth looking into.
Throughout the subsequent months and years we have always sought to persuade Celtic that they should be asking questions, seeking answers from the SFA and striving for the truth in relation to the events of 2011/2012. Further, in light of correspondence which we (the shareholders) have forced we have pointed out to Celtic that there are major inconsistencies in the explanations provided by officials over the years and that taken as a whole the “story” doesn’t add up.
This is an ongoing position which, at times, has been halted or delayed by legal proceedings over which we have no control.
The payment of legal fees to the solicitors is a matter of trust between those who have made the payments and asked to remain anonymous and I, amongst others, have to respect the request for anonymity.
At all times we have sought to report, and can only report what we can report and when there is something to report.
Chill Ultra seems to suggest that there has been a failure to ensure that some of us (presumably me) is not a fit and proper person to represent shareholders. The reasoning behind this argument has never been explained to me though I have asked him to correspond with me but he has declined.
He has apparently written to Peter Lawwell on this topic but neither Mr Lawwell nr Chill Ultra have ever shared that correspondence with me nor communicated its contents. I don’t even know if Peter Lawwell is aware of it as it has never been mentioned to me by anyone.
——————————————————————————————————–
I repeat my view, expressed at the very outset when I was asked to get involved with the resolution, that Res 12 will be a war of attrition, a long slow process where emotion and the understandable wish for a quick outcome should play no part and should not be expected.
It is a process which will lead shareholders into conflict wth the Celtic PLC board in certain respects at certain times and that should be expetced and it is a process which will very much alienate many in football administration as there is no desire for serious fan input amongst the clubs or the governing bodies.
Whilst communications are always friendly, civilised and polite, no one should be under any illusion that many people and organisations who have similar interests are not always singing from the same page and that in certain quarters those who pursue Res 12 are seen “As a pain in the arse!”
If Chill Ultra wishes to discuss all of this further he is free to contact me by e-mail on jjoe88@hotmail.co.uk
BRTH
Re: the apparent splurge, [on wage commitments anyway], by TRFC on various new recruits.
When Craigy managed to keep the Ibrox lights on for as long as he did, it left us Bampots scratching our nappers.
Initially, we didn’t know he was stiffing HMRC.
Deja vu…again?
We ‘know’ that King won’t / can’t finance these expensive payroll additions.
Mibbees not relevant at present, but TRFC – IMO – always has the ‘bank of last resort’ to tap: I.e. the SFA.
If TRFC does indeed have undue influence / the ability to intimidate and extort the Hampden incompetents, then who knows? Cheap loan(s) or advanced prize monies…or else the Ibrox club goes bust?
Pure speculation on my part of course, but the SFA cash doesn’t belong to Regan & co. It belongs to the Scottish game in general, from kids at grass roots level right up to the senior level.
IF the SFA was to provide cash flow ‘assistance’ to a perennially delinquent football club – and even FFP aside – I guess it would be in breach of several SFA rules, [or rather ‘guidelines’].
AFAIK, the only other club which received financial help from the SFA was Queen of the South, and that was simply to complete their remaining league fixtures. [?]
And based on recent behaviours Regan has displayed…why should anyone trust him with the Scottish games’ money ?
I don’t think that I would be going out on a limb if I was to state that none of us know what’s happening with TRFC’s finances, but it does seem strange, the amount of money they are, apparently, flashing about. Now they’ve certainly drawn in much of it from healthy season ticket sales, though that won’t all have arrived in their coffers yet, and won’t for some time to come, and we know their starting position was rather precarious to begin with. So what is it that is giving the men running this club the confidence to ‘splash-the-cash’?
Seems to me it has to be one of the following:
a) They have a major investor/consortium in the pipeline.
b) There is another round of directors’ loans coming.
c) They have promises of investment (USA?).
d) They have plans to go ahead with the dissolution of pre-emption rights and believe a share/rights issue will be highly successful.
e) They think Craig Whyte was a genius and that it was only because he had to stick with Super Ally that his master plan to make millions from Europe failed.
f) They intend crashing the bus.
I think that a) to d) are possible, but we haven’t even heard any rumours that money is on it’s way and surely any good news would have been put out there/leaked to boost the ST sales. I say they are ‘possible’, only because they are the nearest to a sensible (as in not a recipe, in themselves, for disaster) source of funds, however unlikely.
With f) either too good to be true, or sheer madness tinged with badness, I suspect it’s most likely to be e). Not only do we know what happened with this ‘plan’ under Whyte, but Rangers had two bites at the cherry then, with the first one a guarantee of big bucks if the group stages were reached, but even with a reasonable level of success, the Europa Cup money will surely do no more than see them through to the end of next season, when it will be the same desperate plan again…at best!
Now, unlike the other Scottish clubs in Europe, TRFC will surely make money from their first round home leg, regardless of who they draw, unless the first leg is away and they get a good drubbing, but no doubt there will be bonuses to fork out, and they might be hefty. I think it is safe to say that, should they fail to make the group stages, it will be back to directors’ loans by Christmas, and lights out if none of them can/will stump up!
For the purposes of this post, I have ignored any fines, compensations and costs of a legal type that are more likely to be coming down the pike than points a) to d) above. Also ignored is the possibility that a defeated club might approach UEFA with a claim that TRFC have breached FFP regulations. Now, as a Hearts supporter, I’d call that Karma!
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 17, 2017 at 09:40
Should TRFC eventually offer enough to persuade Hearts to sell Walker, they must insist on the full amount up front. Only that way can their profligacy be brought to an early end!
====================
We remember how hearts had to take a cut-price deal for lee wallace.They should insist on full payment up front,once bitten twice shy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/21539704
Hearts have agreed a cut-price deal with Rangers over the remainder of the transfer fee for Lee Wallace.
The cash-strapped Tynecastle club were due to receive £500,000 this summer as the final payment on his £1.5m move to Ibrox in July 2011.
But BBC Scotland has established that the clubs agreed last week Hearts would receive £400,000 immediately as full and final payment for the defender.
The Scottish Football Association insisted Charles Green’s consortium must pay all “oldco” Rangers’ football debts when it transferred the club’s membership to his “newco”.
ALLYJAMBO
JUNE 17, 2017 at 18:27
a) They have a major investor/consortium in the pipeline.
b) There is another round of directors’ loans coming.
c) They have promises of investment (USA?).
d) They have plans to go ahead with the dissolution of pre-emption rights and believe a share/rights issue will be highly successful.
e) They think Craig Whyte was a genius and that it was only because he had to stick with Super Ally that his master plan to make millions from Europe failed.
f) They intend crashing the bus.
==============================
a, b, and c, would all really just be loans, call them “soft loans” if people want, it’s still debt. The previous club went down the debt for “success” route. We know what happened there. A major sponsorship deal would be a different scenario though. As I understand it they have just re-signed with Red32.
d, Most of that income is already spent, the c£14m debt is apparently to be swapped for equity. So the shares are already paid for, or at least the majority are.
e, They would have to win the SPFL premiership, then qualify for the CL group stages to make massive money from Europe. That is not happening this season, they did not win the premiership.
f, I don’t see it, not intentionally. Why would “surrender no” Johnston have agreed to join the board. Losing one club is careless …
The money from Europa League isn’t brilliant:
First Qualifying Round – €215,000 (€200,000 in 2015-16)
Second Qualifying Round – €225,000 (€210,000)
Third Qualifying Round – €235,000 (€220,000)
Play Off Round (only paid to clubs dropping out at this stage) – €245,000 (€230,000)
GROUP STAGE – €2.6m bonus (€2.4m bonus)
For each win at group stage – €360,000 (€350,000)
For each draw at group stage – €120,000 (€120,000)
(Daily Record)
Only a tiny amount of clubs who enter at First Qualifying Round ever reach the group stages. About half a dozen out of 570+ since it’s inception.
TRFC shouldn’t bank on this source of money to see out the season.
BROGANROGANTREVINOANDHOGANJUNE 17, 2017 at 15:15 to both tax and football.The original meeting resulted in the resolution being adjourned because we were informed that Celtic PLC had changed their stated position (with which no one agreed) that the resolution was not necessary, as in light of information and argument provided by shareholders Celtic PLC now accepted that there was something very much worth looking into.Throughout the subsequent months and years we have always sought to persuade Celtic that they should be asking questions, seeking answers from the SFA and striving for the truth in relation to the events of 2011/2012. Further, in light of correspondence which we (the shareholders) have forced we have pointed out to Celtic that there are major inconsistencies in the explanations provided by officials over the years and that taken as a whole the “story” doesn’t add up.This is an ongoing position which, at times, has been halted or delayed by legal proceedings over which we have no control.
———————-
This part of your post kind of helps me more with a question i asked the other day.
——-
-meeting adjourned because we were informed that Celtic PLC had changed their stated position.
-resolution was not necessary.
-Celtic PLC now accepted that there was something very much worth looking into.
-sought to persuade Celtic.
-which we (the shareholders) have forced.
—————-
CLUSTER ONEJUNE 16, 2017 at 20:51
AULDHEIDJUNE 16, 2017 at 20:32The Requisitioners drove it from securing an adjournment.so it was handed over to Celtic in Dec 2016 where it lies waiting for court cases to end.—————-So all on the same page at this point in time now i hope,and both parties driving forward.
HomunculusJune 17, 2017 at 19:34
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 17, 2017 at 18:27 a) They have a major investor/consortium in the pipeline.b) There is another round of directors’ loans coming.c) They have promises of investment (USA?).d) They have plans to go ahead with the dissolution of pre-emption rights and believe a share/rights issue will be highly successful.e) They think Craig Whyte was a genius and that it was only because he had to stick with Super Ally that his master plan to make millions from Europe failed.f) They intend crashing the bus.==============================a, b, and c, would all really just be loans, call them “soft loans” if people want, it’s still debt. The previous club went down the debt for “success” route. We know what happened there. A major sponsorship deal would be a different scenario though. As I understand it they have just re-signed with Red32.d, Most of that income is already spent, the c£14m debt is apparently to be swapped for equity. So the shares are already paid for, or at least the majority are.e, They would have to win the SPFL premiership, then qualify for the CL group stages to make massive money from Europe. That is not happening this season, they did not win the premiership. f, I don’t see it, not intentionally. Why would “surrender no” Johnston have agreed to join the board. Losing one club is careless …
_________
At no time was I suggesting any of the scenarios were likely to have been successfully achieved, or would prove to solve TRFC’s long term problems, just that they might provide more certain short term funding (for that it the only kind TRFC have had since the IPO) than their European jaunt. We have also got to remember that we are talking about a club run by Dave King and assorted rich men who have proved themselves bad judges of character, the more decent of them appear to be taking more of a back seat, too, leaving King and P Murray to look upon funding in any way they see fit. I can well imagine that after all this time of trying to convince all the bears that soft loans are investments, that they have come to accept them as such themselves. It happens to people who continually lie and/or have no intention of being around long enough to smell the stuff after it hits the fan.
In any event, soft loans will be better than a European gamble. As for points d,e and f, I referred to the very points you make, saying that for the sake of the post that I was ignoring the possible court cases costs (possibly rather large) and in the first paragraph referred to their ‘rather precarious starting position’. I as trying to show that, even if they were starting from a zero position, with only the normal costs of running a football club to be met, the ‘business plan’ was a very flawed one, but add in the points you make and it becomes even more than flawed, a recipe for disaster, as if plan B was…crash the bus, or, perhaps, just give up trying to steer it! In fact, ‘crashing the bus’ is not usually a plan, it’s just the extreme consequences of a bad one.
As things stand, we can be pretty sure that points a) to d), regardless of what the reality of their closeness to ‘investment’ is, have already been tried, though we can’t be sure that they have failed.
jimboJune 17, 2017 at 19:48
Thanks for that, Jimbo, though it has to be remembered that TRFC can expect a healthy income from gate receipts and TV money at each stage they reach, assuming no defeated club cries foul on their FFP status! I’d suggest that, if they do reach the group stages, that the gamble will have paid off, though other factors may already have sunk them, or, at least, have left them worse off than they are now!
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 17, 2017 at 20:56
TRFC can expect a healthy income from gate receipts and TV money at each stage they reach, assuming no defeated club cries foul on their FFP status!
—————
And assuming no fines handed out for sectarian singing during these matches in europe
AJ,
I’ve often wondered what the cost of playing in Europe is. I honestly don’t know how it works. Would appreciate any information from anyone in the know.
I think of flying a group of about 40 to 50 people to foreign shores, is it a chartered flight? Hotel costs – 5 star hotels. Can’t be cheap. Does it negate home gate money profits.
I remember when Celtic got to the Final of the Europa Cup in 2003 (Seville), we all thought there would plenty of money for next season. How wrong we were. We made a loss of about £7m that year. Austerity hit with a vengeance. Ask Wee Gordon Strachan a year later, who had buttons to spend compared to Martin O’Neil.
The good news is though, that the board took corrective action.
After leaving Pittodrie, @jonnyhayes7 has kindly donated funds for replacement 17/18 home kits with his name & number already printed
Class and well done
I happen to be in Warrington tonight ( as I was last night) and confess that I’ve missed several beats of the SFM heart.
I’ve just been going over the Res12 observations by Auldheid, BRTH and Chill Ultra.
I think I have made my own views clear enough over the years since Res12 was first on the agenda at the Celtic plc agm in 2013: essentially, I did not accept that it was any particular duty of Celtic to be a quasi-kamikaze champion of ‘truth and integrity in Scottish Football’ while the rest of the SPL clubs sat back and , by their silence, endorsed the evil deeds perpetrated by our football governance people.
When more information became available thanks to the efforts of the ‘requisitioners’ ( whoever they may have been or are), my view broadened: the evil that the SFA in particular was guilty of was not just an evil in football terms, but a no-no in shareholder business terms.
Auldheid, as the Whyte trial proved, was totally correct:the SFA lied.
For me, that changed the whole ball game. It was no longer a matter of a football club simply shrugging off ‘unfairnesss’ or a bit of naughty club football behaviour.
Now it is, was, a matter of shareholders losing money,potentially several millions, and expecting their company directors to do something about that.
Nothing to do with ‘football’ as a sport.
And tonight, I wondered to what extent the significant shareholders in Celtic plc , apart from the boy Dermot and other members of the board who hold shares, have been aware of the dirty lying deeds of the SFA and of the financial loss occasioned to them by that lying governance board.
So I had a wee look at the major shareholders, with a view to writing to them to ask whether they’ re happy that their board cost the company a few million, potentially several million, and an enhanced ‘European’ profile ( to the advantage of Scottish club football overall).
And what do I find? Shareholder of 18.27% some nameless sod or sods sheltering behind “Bank of New York (nominees) Ltd.
So I look up Bank of New York Nominees Ltd and find their address-160 Queen Victori St, London EC4V 4LA
So I look them up on Companies House .
And find that they are now dormant, their share having been transferred to Bank of New York International Financial Corporation.
And then I get completely lost, as these money types ( and the parliamentarians) want us to be.
Why cannot I, or anyone else, know who the hell has shares in Celtic, or any other plc?
Anyway, I shall on my return to Edinburgh send a letter via BNY International Financial Corporation to the arse.ole shareholders in a company that appears to be ready to accept being shafted by the governing body of the company of which they are a member.
It annoys the hell out of me.
ALLYJAMBO
JUNE 17, 2017 at 20:56
Thanks for that, Jimbo, though it has to be remembered that TRFC can expect a healthy income from gate receipts and TV money at each stage they reach …
=========================
Why does that have to be “remembered”.
What makes you think that they will have a substantial home gate in the first qualifying stage of the Europa cup, no matter the opposition.
You may be right, however I don’t think it’s a given.
John ClarkJune 18, 2017 at 00:08
And therein lies the rub of why I never fancied the PLC model for the ownership of the football club.
I fully appreciate the legal benefits of limited liability in corporate business and the principles behind a PLC owning a business and in turn shareholders owning a PLC or even a private limited company.
However, when Fergus McCann sent out his prospectus offering shares and “ownership” of the football club (as he was perfectly entitled to do) my own view was that his stated intention of ordinary fans always owning 66% of the club was never going to be deliverable.
It was always going to be likely that true fan ownership was likely to be diluted as a result of a second share issue and that the legal structure of a PLC plus the provisions of the Companies and others Acts, would mean that investors (who were not necessarily Celtic fans) could take a legal interest in the club, could hide their true identities behind nominee companies (this is perfectly legal) and would view the business of Celtic from an investors or business point of view as opposed to that of a fan.
Whilst all fans want to see the business of the club run properly and successfully, A fan may have a very different idea as to what constitutes a successful business plan in comparison to someone who is looking at matters purely from a business perspective and who may very well just want to maximise yearly returns.
Another issue is the status of season book holders. Over the years, season books have brought in hundreds of millions of pounds in revenue yet a season book holder has no say in how the club is run. It can be argued that season book holders are no more than customers and as such they do not legally deserve any say in the running of the club.
However, contrast the amount of money season book holders have contributed over the years with the fact that fairly recently someone bought £10Million worth of shares and acquired 15% (I think) of the voting rights in the club.
I appreciate that investment in shares and buying a season ticket are two very different beasts, however at the time of the initial share issue what was supposedly on offer was a promise that Celtic fans would always have a majority share and a significant voice when it came to the running of the cub.
That could not be delivered then and it certainly isn’t being delivered now.
This was most evident when, at a fairly recent AGM, the show of hands in the room was overwhelmingly in favour of a motion only for the “corporate votes” or “board votes” to completely sink the motion with something like 96% of the “shareholders” in terms of votes (as opposed to those present) voting in the opposite direction.
It is for this reason that I personally see very little purpose in attending the AGM on an annual basis though I recognise that such a meeting does give some shareholders an opportunity to address directors and key employees.
JOHN CLARKJUNE 18, 2017 at 00:08 Why cannot I, or anyone else, know who the hell has shares in Celtic, or any other plc?
========================
some interesting reading.
Did the SFA not bring in a rule that clubs had to disclose who were there shareholders. Or was that just for the ibrox club during the blue pitch holdings,margirita thing.
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/alex-thomson/blogs/potential-conflicts-interest-heart-scottish-football
———————
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13136145.Rangers_investor_aims_to_crack_Blue_Pitch_and_Margarita_mystery/
————–
could be of interest JC.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14523181.Revealed__the_offshore_firms_buying_up_Scottish_football/
————–
I have to disagree BRTH.
I like the PLC being run as a business and the financial decisions being made on that basis, rather than on the basis of fans wanting to spend more money in order to buy “success”.
Too many people talk about “speculating to accumulate” when all that really means is gambling with the club’s future.
In my view a football club is much more than it’s first team and securing the club’s future is more important than winning things. Clearly the two are linked and a successful club is more likely to have more income.
“True fan ownership” is only a reasonable option if the true fans also understand the business side of the game.
I believe that Celtic are where they are because the business is being run properly, I believe that Hearts are re-building from administration for the same reason, I believe Rangers died because the business was run as a rich man’s hobby.
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 18, 2017 at 00:30
Why does that have to be “remembered”.
______________
A throwaway phrase to introduce the point I was about to make, nothing more.
My recent posts have not been written with any great insight nor financiàl analysis of TRFC’s plans, rather just a layman’s broad look at what appears to be happening at Ibrox, and with a lack of information in the media, I have gone with other people’s assessments, here and elsewhere, that have been written, over time, regarding the money TRFC might expect to make from European participation.
It has often been said that they would, in fact, be likely to make more money through gate receipts, corporate income and TV rights than they would from prize money, by a number of people who have looked at it in greater detail than I have, and I was merely trying to add some meat to Jimbo’s post. I remember being taken aback by someone’s suggestion they might make (presuming a full house) something in the region of £1m for each home tie, but on thinking about it, that would mean an overall return (including TV rights etc) of just £20 per bum on seat, a not impossible net average figure, would be required to raise them the £1m. Even an only half full Ibrox might see them net half a million. Again, though, the circumstances leading up to each home game could have an effect, with a good gubbing in the first leg, away from home, resulting in a lower home gate. I touched on this point in an earlier post.
I do feel that if we are being critical of any survival plan that TRFC might appear to be following, that as well as showing how or why it is likely to fail, we must also look at the more positive aspects of how it might just pay off for them. After all, there has to be something that makes them believe their plan might work, no matter how slim the chances of success are. It is still a long shot, though, but long shots sometimes pay off, just not very often.