Towards a More Professional SFA

ByAuldheid

Towards a More Professional SFA

When the Scottish Premier League (SPL) and the Scottish Football league (SFL) merged in 2013 to form The Scottish Professional Football League, the word “professional” has been accepted as applying only to the football side of the business.

However, should supporters, the ultimate paying customers, not expect the administration and governance of the game to be a lot more professional than is evident from the handling, by both the SPFL (SPL/SFL) and the Scottish Football Association (SFA), of the descent into liquidation of Rangers FC, which started in 2000, as well as the subsequent damage limitation attempts from March 2011, that  have had serious consequences for the reputation of  Scottish football of being a professionally managed business?

Most folk would not argue that there is a glaringly obvious need for a more professional form of football governance, but the question is how can that be achieved? One way towards   achieving that aim is the subject of what follows.

there is a glaringly obvious need for a more professional form of football governance

Back in the 90’s the Government embarked on yet another an exercise to modernise the Civil Service using a technique known then as Market Testing. The idea was that units, like Information Technology, Human Resource or Office Maintenance within large Civil Service Government Ministries, should be compared with what was available in the private sector to see if the service the internal units provided in a Ministry could be provided more efficiently from external sources.

At the time, internal units operated to their own standards and were answerable only to themselves for the level of service they provided to the users in other internal units.  As a consequence there were no defined levels of service, the users were largely dissatisfied with the service they were receiving, the perception of the IT or HR or OM units was poor damaging their moral and, unlike the private sector, the customer was not the king but the serf.

Before such internal units could be tested there was a lot of preparatory work needed, the most important of which was a change in the culture to one where the customer became king. This was done through the reluctant acceptance that change was necessary in order for those in internal units to hold on to their jobs, followed by the joint establishment in discussion with service users of the level of service that was acceptable to them and the cost in financial terms to the Ministry of that service.

It was a painful and effort intensive process of itself but it did result in a change in culture that not only helped internal staff hold on to their jobs but changed the perception of those both inside and outside the units for the better.

All very fine you say but why am I reading this on Scottish Football Monitor, what is the relevance to the lack of professional governance?

 

Well I think it fair to say that the Scottish Football Association (SFA) has never at any time in its history been held in such low regard by their ultimate customers, the football supporters, without whom there would be no SFA.

In the public perception, measuring both football and governance performance,  the SFA would be lucky to score 10 for incompetency rather than the more likely and damning similar score for  corruption, where 10 was the worst possible score.

In spite of this and protected by the inertia in SPFL clubs who should be voicing the concerns of their paying customers to the SFA, there appears no appetite or indeed mechanism for change.  This is where market testing comes in.

When viewed from a business perspective the SFA is a service provider to the customers via their clubs. In a sense the clubs act, or rather should act, as agents for their supporters and become the “customer” with whom the SFA provide a number of Services. These services should not be hard to identify, for example.

  • Refereeing Services
  • Disciplinary Services
  • Licensing Services
  • Auditing as in Policing Services.
  • Fit and Proper Person Services.

 

 

The Refereeing Service

Given the current, one might even say perpetual, dissatisfaction of refereeing standards, it, is one activity that could benefit from being treated as the kind of service the SFA might provide to the SPFL.

Under such an approach

  • Refereeing would be split into two parts.

 

  • The SFA would be responsible for the recruitment, wage structuring, training and match appointments as the service provider (having taken the nature of the game to be officiated into account and after discussion with SPFL).

 

 

  • Monitoring and evaluation of a referee’s performance would be the responsibility of the SPFL as the customer.

 

  • Referees or ex refs from anywhere (not just Scotland) hired by SPFL would evaluate performance to a standard set by the SPFL after agreement of standards with SFA.

 

 

  • Splitting the appointment and evaluation process. would prevent any one person being able to exert any undue individual influence on referees which protects the integrity of individuals, the service itself and referees appointed.

 

  • It would lead to a higher standard of referee because the customer would be setting the standard not the supplier (as happens everywhere in business but football)

 

  • If standards were not met over a period or a particular game required meeting a standard not possible at the time, the SPFL would be free to hire their own referees from wherever they could get them.

 

  • This freedom under a service approach would reduce, if not remove entirely, the burden of suspected allegiance that bedevils every decision made by match referees by supporters to the detriment of the referees and so of Scottish football.
  • The corollary is the SFA would also be free to offer their referees to other national associations encouraging the SFA to recruit and train to the highest level possible (and charge the other associations for the service).

 

  • Competition for appointments would raise standards and if Scottish referees consistently reached higher standards, they would be in more demand outside Scotland which gives them a financial incentive to be the best referee they can be.

 

  • Any national association could adopt this service provider approach leading to an international professional refereeing occupation in a world where football is almost a daily event somewhere requiring a steady supply of good referees.

 

Feedback

Refereeing as a service has been chosen as but one example of how to establish a customer/service provider relationship between the SFA and SPFL, but the principle would apply to the other services listed. SFM readers are invited to give their views not just on the potential hurdles, like inertia, no driving force etc, but also the benefits of overcoming such hurdles if the approach were applied to those services plus any not on the list that would lend themselves to the approach.

 

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

256 Comments so far

Big PinkPosted on9:42 pm - Mar 20, 2017


TWM 11 Now available

This week, TWM guest is Stuart Cosgrove who discusses a post Armageddon Scottish Football, a new structure for refereeing the game, journalists pretending to support clubs other than Celtic & Rangers, and the ultra competitive nature of the Championship.

All this, plus a round-up of the news on & off the field this week in the football world – and a tribute to Dundee legend Alex Hamilton.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:07 am - Mar 21, 2017


Excellent basis for discussion Auldheid. Dovetails nicely with Stuart Cosgrove’s remarks in the new podcast.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:09 am - Mar 21, 2017


Big PinkMarch 21, 2017 at 00:07
_______
Good podcast.
I’m looking forward to Auldheid’s suggestions on how the refereeing function could/should be structured to ensure a separation of powers.
We have to bear in mind that even the  Judicial Panel Protocol did not function without interference by the SFA executive in the respect that important evidence was withheld from one Tribunal!

View Comment

ringostarPosted on8:29 am - Mar 21, 2017


Hi,
-would help if blog posts were dated.
-Can’t find recent podcast link.
-comments are hard to read on mobile as thread shows up very narrowly.
Improve and carry on!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:50 pm - Mar 21, 2017


The last I heard or read of the Craig Whyte case, was that  the earlier hearing had been postponed until 17th March, to be heard in Aberdeen.

I note that the Rolls of Court show

“Glasgow HC Case Session Date Proceedings Case Reference PF Reference Court Name…..
….HMA v Craig WHYTE 18-APR-17 Dedicated Floating Trial SCS/2015-152941 CO14000356 Glasgow H”

The use of the word ‘trial’ ( as opposed to ‘hearing’ might indicate that the Aberdeen hearing did take  place, and that a date of trial  was set for 17th April, in Glasgow.

I hope someone can manage to attend, although I suppose that  reporting restictions will continue to apply!

View Comment

billyj1Posted on1:18 pm - Mar 21, 2017


Excellent work

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:48 pm - Mar 21, 2017


JOHN CLARKMARCH 21, 2017 at 12:50

I think a packed lunch may be required for attendees .

Dedicated floating trials. These are assigned to a specific court, but with a starting date which may ‘float’ for a prescribed number of days. This accommodates the possibility of a previous trial running for longer than has been anticipated

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on6:44 pm - Mar 21, 2017


Excellent podcast again. BP comes across as, first and foremost a fan of Scottish fitba. Stuart Cosgrove also comes across as a fan. Both were knowledgeable. Hope the BBC have a listen and realise that the McIntyre and Wilson Rangers* love -ins are passe and drive real fans away. Nobody really wants to listen to or believes their crap.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:54 pm - Mar 21, 2017


Auldheid, you say
“Well I think it fair to say that the Scottish Football Association (SFA) has never at any time in its history been held in such low regard by their ultimate customers, the football supporters, without whom there would be no SFA.”
You and I (and I guess almost everyone on here) would agree that in reality the ultimate customers of the SFA are the fans.
However I get no sense that the SFA identify the fans as their customers. As essentially a members’ club, they see their members (the clubs and associations) as their customers.
That is a structural issue, and I don’t have any easy answers.Here’s a difficult solution, though.
I would like to see the SFA effectively abolished, and replaced by a professional supervisory body, funded by some sort of levy on gate receipts, perhaps, and staffed by properly recruited people, preferably with no “history” in Scottish football. OK, I accept that on paper Reagan fits the bill, but I think he rapidly “went native” in the pernicious environment he found himself in at Hampden, surrounded by Ogilvie and his cronies. That is why a completely fresh start is needed. And preferably located away from the West of Scotland bubble. Maybe Perth?
Such a supervisory body should have as its guiding principle the good of Scottish football at all levels, and central to that should be the involvement of the fans.
Corporate governance of such a body would need a lot of thought, but why not a not for profit Community Interest Company, with a supervisory Board having club, association, and fan reps in equal numbers? I’m sure others can come up with better suggestions. Why not look at how other sports and other countries organise these matters.
One thing is certain- the stus quo is not an option.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:27 pm - Mar 21, 2017


Towards a More Professional SFA
I enjoyed that read

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:21 am - Mar 22, 2017


neepheidMarch 21, 2017 at 19:54

Yup that is the direction in which in time the seed of the idea of separation of responsibilities would grow.
In market testing, taking IT as an example, there already were IT Companies in being offering a service to compete with the inhouse units.
There are no private national associations at the moment who could do what the SFA do, so no competition..
Once the concept of offering a service and making money from what is offered is understood then the private sector would become interested at taking a bite or taking over The SFA and the national association if it saw a way of making money, would want to make themselves, with their experience, the provider of choice.
You might find the FA competing with the SFA to provide the SPFL with services and why not?
There would be scope for one UK FA service provider to do so on a cheaper basis than four (economies of scale)  without losing the national identity/ national teams. Politics with a big P not screwing up the UK of course)
This is an eat an elephant job, it will need doing a bit at a time.

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on10:39 am - Mar 22, 2017


As poor as the SFA/SPFL are I’m not too sure I’d want private sector involvement in our governing bodies as a solution. In the example of the FA providing this service, or any other larger foreign FA, I’d suggest it would be inconceivable that politics, football or otherwise, would not get in the way to screw it up.

When it came to votes on hosting major championships or European finals would the SFA be able to vote freely in this situation? The danger I see with this idea might be the SFA, and Scottish footballing interests, becoming collateral damage is a global power play with the actual running of our sport an afterthought. I could also see more money simply disappear into the pockets of whoever provides the service.

The debate about referees seems to be the same all over the world. Nobody is entirely happy with them and accusations of bias and cheating, proven or otherwise, will always be there no matter what.
I used to be against video replays but now think they would help. I agree with SC in that they should only be used for goal line, red cards and penalty decisions.

Really interesting new blog and podcast. Ultimately all we really want to see is the game improved and run in the correct way. These are hardly unreasonable expectations.  

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:02 pm - Mar 22, 2017


incredibleadamsparkMarch 22, 2017 at 10:39 ‘…..The debate about referees seems to be the same all over the world. Nobody is entirely happy with them and accusations of bias and cheating, proven or otherwise, will always be there no matter what.’ ________

I think the important thing is that
-the appointment of
-and the performance appraisal of
-and the remuneration of referees
should be  functions , not of the ‘sport’s governing body’, but of an at least arm’s-length-distance body that is subject to public interrogation, even to the point of Scottish parliamentary scrutiny.

Whether that body be  a purely private entity, or some kind of arm’s length government body like the UK Anti-Doping mob ( from whom, incidentally, I have not had a substantive reply 5 weeks after my initial query on funding for the SFA) would be a matter of debate and practicalities.

I share your general cynicism, incredibleadamspark, that people who are perverted, dishonest, and exploitative  will aways try to find a way to feather their own nests by deceitful and corrupt practices.

But the more difficulties we put in their paths by removing their  direct power to influence events, the better things may be.

Anything that makes cheating just that little bit harder is worth looking at.

Unless, of course, one is a cheat!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:23 pm - Mar 22, 2017


Yes, timely post Auldheid.
The good old SFA…even as a kid I was aware that the SFA was regarded as ‘buffoons in blazers’.

But the clue is in the name: SF Administration.
The Administration is an overhead cost to be borne ultimately by the paying the fans – so it should be minimised wherever possible, like most organisations do, and to free up funds to dedicate to the priorities such as grass roots level.

So, outsourcing as much as is reasonably possible should be a target, IMO.
The SFA should be focused on its core competency, [ 14 ], which could be marketing. [?]
Obviously, strategy should be managed by the SFA.

But operations run by a third party would / should eliminate any accusations of cronyism / favouritism, and all clubs should be treated the same.

But to take this fairly standard approach would require motivation from the SFA.
It’s not going to come from internal sources.
Nor from the clubs themselves.

IMO, change will only be forced upon the SFA via another pressure such as;

– fans’ boycotts of Scotland games or ST’s
or
– from a government source, e.g. under threat of public monies being withdrawn and/or external regulations being imposed on the game.

But the disappointing aspect is that after 5 years of high-profile, SFA mismanaged nonsense – wrt all things ‘Rangers’ – not much seems to have been learned, not much seems to have changed or improved – and the Scottish fans continue to be held in contempt by the Hampden blazers.

…and the public’s perception of the SFA hasn’t changed much either.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:39 pm - Mar 22, 2017


Re: Mr.King jetting in to chat with Pedro etc.

Dave King is just super.
Behind the tough facade, I’m sure he is a jolly, generous, and likeable chap who simply lives for his football.
However, the criticism of him is unrelenting.

I think the Bampots should back off and leave this fine, upstanding gentleman continue with his sterling work at Ibrox.

Ah’ll get ma bucket… 13

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on3:05 pm - Mar 22, 2017


Not too sure about getting the government involved in the running of the SFA/Refereeing etc…  In my experience a quick and sure fire way to make any problem much worse, is to get politicians involved.
I agree with the concept of having some sort of independent body that is separate from the SFA but I wouldn’t want there to be politicians within a million miles of it. 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on3:34 pm - Mar 22, 2017


Regarding all the “jetting” etc. Is it statement time yet?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:26 pm - Mar 22, 2017


Not so much a statement, more a base attempt to S**t stir.

see latest Herald effort on Sports Direct for details (based on the first two paragraphs that I can see anyway).

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:46 pm - Mar 22, 2017


oops – ‘SF Administration / Association’ – you know what I mean.  16

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:22 pm - Mar 22, 2017


SMUGASMARCH 22, 2017 at 16:26       3 Votes 
Not so much a statement, more a base attempt to S**t stir.
see latest Herald effort on Sports Direct for details (based on the first two paragraphs that I can see anyway).
———————–
Ashley and Rangers in court fight over merchandise deal.William McCormick QC who is leading rangers legal team told judge Millet that supporters(with a double P)19 Were also upset.
He said fans became angry after learning how little the club recieved from the deal and had staged a boycott of the merchandise.
Mr McCormick said fans thought Ashley pocketed too muchof their money.
He said there was a widespread view that no “self respecting” rangers suppoeter wore a replica shirt.
———–
 These “self respecting supporters were never upset or angry when Ashley gave the club loans to keep the lights on. Why did Mr McCormick not tell judge Millett that?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:31 pm - Mar 22, 2017


Update on the Sports Direct v Rangers case in the Record.

Rangers and Sports Direct hit the High Court in battle over merchandise deal
Lawyers for Mike Ashley and Dave King present their cases in London to determine how the case should proceed. 
Sports Direct and Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley is embroiled in a High Court fight with Rangers over a merchandise deal said to result in the Glasgow soccer giant getting about 7p of every £1 spent.
Bosses at a company within the Sports Direct group say Rangers’ directors wrongly terminated a deal through which branded products, including kits, were sold, and want damages.
Rangers’ directors dispute his claim.
Deputy High Court Judge Richard Millett has been asked to decide how the litigation should proceed and is analysing evidence at a High Court hearing in London.
In May, Rangers’ directors said they were going to rip up contracts held with a merchandise company, Rangers Retail, they ran with a Sports Direct firm.
The deal had been agreed by former chief executive Charles Green .
But chairman David King, who took control nearly two years ago, and other directors were unhappy with the arrangement.
William McCormick QC, who is leading Rangers’ legal team, told Judge Millett that supporters were also upset.
He said fans became angry after learning that the club only got around 7p of every £1 spent and had staged a merchandise boycott.
Mr McCormick said fans thought that Mr Ashley pocketed too much of their money.
He said there was a widespread view that no “self-respecting” Rangers’ supporter wore a replica shirt.
“The involvement of Mike Ashley and Sports Direct in Rangers FC has been controversial with supporters since the outset,” he said in a written submission.
Sports Direct and Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley is embroiled in a High Court fight with Rangers over a merchandise deal said to result in the Glasgow soccer giant getting about 7p of every £1 spent.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:56 pm - Mar 22, 2017


 A reply from BBC to a complaint I raised about their reference to Dave King as Rangers chairman, and BBC’s view on the payment of tax payers monies to tax evaders in their employ .

Reference CAS-4247181-167X53Thank you for getting in touch and I am sorry it has taken this length of time to reply. We have checked our system and have been unable to locate any previous correspondence from you, so we’re unable to explain why you haven’t received replies to those requests.Turning to your comments, we note your concern but we will continue to refer to Dave King as the Chairman of Rangers, without making a distinction between RIFC and TRFC.The taxation arrangements of any individual who appears on our output are a private matter between that person and HMRC. The latter body has powers to deal with anyone who engages in tax evasion. EBTs are not in themselves illegal and the case involving Rangers, as I’m sure you are aware, is currently subject to an appeal process.In the event of any individual being convicted of a serious crime, the BBC would consider the implications in relation to any future dealings or relationship.Thank you, once again, for taking the time to contact us.Kind regardsDaniel StewartBBC Complaints Teamwww.bbc.co.uk/complaintsNB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:03 pm - Mar 22, 2017


I listened to the Podcast last night. It was a good listen. Big Pink has a good style about him and Stuart Cosgrove was a very good guest. Well done for getting a man on who is a fairly significant figure in the mainstream media. Let’s not forget how influential he was at Channel 4 at an earlier point in his career. 

In terms of the Referee debate I would welcome anything that brought about an improvement in standards, and made people more accountable.  Is Scotland ready for such a debate though, which would require to be an adult one?  The mainstream media tend to withdraw into a protective shell whenever any such proposal is made, which suits the SFA down to the ground.  I guess there is a great deal of sensitivity given Scotland is unable or unwilling to follow more forward thinking nations in terms of ensuring Referees do not have a conflict of interest.  

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:09 pm - Mar 22, 2017


I thought the Ashley RFC case had been deferred until July?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:35 pm - Mar 22, 2017


PADDY MALARKEYMARCH 22, 2017 at 18:56
Turning to your comments, we note your concern but we will continue to refer to Dave King as the Chairman of Rangers, without making a distinction between RIFC and TRFC.
———
Why? will they not make the distinction between RIFC and TRFC.
————
EBTs are not in themselves illegal?
————
were EBT’S not made illegal in 2004?
——-
Time for a reply PADDY MALARKEY
MARCH 22, 2017 at 18:56
They even left the details, how kind.
Thank you, once again, for taking the time to contact us.Kind regardsDaniel StewartBBC Complaints Teamwww.bbc.co.uk/complaintsNB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:42 pm - Mar 22, 2017


 continued from above.                                                                                                           http://www.contractorweekly.com/tax-a-ir35-news/ebts-another-nail-in-the-coffin/
The Scottish Court of Session ruled that bonuses in excess of £31 million paid to employees and directors of Aberdeen Asset Management via an offshore tax avoidance scheme, were subject to PAYE and NIC. Bonuses paid between 2000 – 2003 had been converted into shares under the scheme thereby avoiding PAYE and NIC. The scheme was made illegal in 2003.

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on7:54 pm - Mar 22, 2017


upthehoopsMarch 22, 2017 at 19:03  I listened to the Podcast last night. It was a good listen. Big Pink has a good style about him and Stuart Cosgrove was a very good guest. Well done for getting a man on who is a fairly significant figure in the mainstream media. Let’s not forget how influential he was at Channel 4 at an earlier point in his career. 
————————————————————–
Yes I listened to it as well and it was good up to a point. I assume it was a condition of the interview that BP did not go near OC/NC or anything connected to Sevco. Cosgrove and his pal have for a long time taken the BBC’s shilling and are Newco denniers.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:14 pm - Mar 22, 2017


Bordersdon,

I assume it was a condition of the interview that BP did not go near OC/NC or anything connected to Sevco.

Nope. Nor would I accept any such condition from anyone. In fact I have abandoned plans to interview two people in the past because of their wish to pre-vet discussion topics.

In fact Stuart and I did talk about TRFC. Additionally, I think that the conversation about the refereeing service, referee allegiances, and journalists claiming not to support Celtic or Rangers – not to mention the busting of the Armageddon myth – was good value.

Cosgrove and his pal have for a long time taken the BBC’s shilling and are Newco denniers.

Nor can I agree with that. Stuart can speak for himself of course, but I don’t get that sense from conversation with him. You may remember that he and a few pals (on a half kidding whole earnest basis) tried to buy Gretna’s trophy history for St. Johnstone, to throw a spotlight on the ridiculous claim by Charles Green that he had done so with RFC’s trophy haul.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:29 am - Mar 23, 2017


paddy malarkeyMarch 22, 2017 at 18:56
‘…Turning to your comments, we note your concern but we will continue to refer to Dave King as the Chairman of Rangers, without making a distinction between RIFC and TRFC.’
_________
And there you have it,paddy malarkey: BBC Scotland at its rank rotten, deceitful worst.
It is a matter of commercial fact and law that there IS a distinction between RIFC and TRFC, and that there are two ‘Rangers’.
For some faceless nerd , whose salary we are all paying, to dare arrogate to himself the decision to ignore a plain, objective fact is unacceptable. What other truths and facts is Daniel Stewart prepared to ignore, in order to misreport and implicitly propagate a lie?
He puts himself in the same category, and possibly for the same reasons, as  the guy who tried to defend Chick Young’s assertion that Dave King had ‘settled’ with the SARS , implying that King  had not been convicted by a Court.
And for guys like that to be allowed to work for the national broadcaster is unacceptable.
One could never trust them to be telling the truth about anything!

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:53 am - Mar 23, 2017


incredibleadamsparkMarch 22, 2017 at 10:39   
As poor as the SFA/SPFL are I’m not too sure I’d want private sector involvement in our governing bodies as a solution.
============================
I think external input and thinking is required to arrive at a solution and if that solution involves a mixture of private sector or even government input, if what is produced at the end works, then does it matter?
Getting the ball rolling is the first challenge, where it end up is another to be faced and nothing should be ruled out imo.

View Comment

FinlochPosted on8:24 am - Mar 23, 2017


An easy warm up home game at Easter Road against some minnows.
A poor crowd (less than 10,000) on a wild night with the game competing head on with Germany v England on council telly.
Mark McGhee (on an SFA ban for abusing SFA employees) being remunerated as part of our well-paid management team sitting on the SFA bench.
Journeymen (at best) players some of whom can’t even get a game for their clubs.
Awful football.
Nothing substantially better coming through our pipelines.

Manager taking the shilling but not with the commitment or passion we as fans deserve.

Embarrassingly awful football.

And in the aftermath another clear example coming up of the over-paid guys at the top of our game, who make all the big decisions, protecting themselves in a system where their inherent shortcomings and failures get expunged by sacking the managers (with decent old boys packages, because that’s the way it works).

Sacking the manager (again) rather than reviewing their own roles top to bottom and putting in place the changes that the fans deserve.

And maybe the saddest part of all this is we’re not even talking about this on the SFM and other forums because over the years we’ve become immune to our systematic failures and it almost a badge of honour – “We’re Sh1 te and we know we are”.

Never before have we more been in need of a strong multi-club fan organisation to hold these people to account and in turn to take the right people to task.

 

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on8:50 am - Mar 23, 2017


Big PinkMarch 22, 2017 at 22:14
Bordersdon,
I assume it was a condition of the interview that BP did not go near OC/NC or anything connected to Sevco. 
Nope. Nor would I accept any such condition from anyone. In fact I have abandoned plans to interview two people in the past because of their wish to pre-vet discussion topics.
In fact Stuart and I did talk about TRFC. Additionally, I think that the conversation about the refereeing service, referee allegiances, and journalists claiming not to support Celtic or Rangers – not to mention the busting of the Armageddon myth – was good value.
Cosgrove and his pal have for a long time taken the BBC’s shilling and are Newco denniers. 
Nor can I agree with that. Stuart can speak for himself of course, but I don’t get that sense from conversation with him. You may remember that he and a few pals (on a half kidding whole earnest basis) tried to buy Gretna’s trophy history for St. Johnstone, to throw a spotlight on the ridiculous claim by Charles Green that he had done so with RFC’s trophy haul.
————————————————————————
Obviously I accept your confirmation BP that the decision not to go anywhere near OC/NC or Sevco matters was that of the interviewer and not the interviewee.
Not with you however on Cosgrove and Cowan toeing the BBC line on such things. You only need to listen to “off the ball” to evidence that.

View Comment

tayredPosted on9:56 am - Mar 23, 2017


FINLOCHMARCH 23, 2017 at 08:24And maybe the saddest part of all this is we’re not even talking about this on the SFM and other forums because over the years we’ve become immune to our systematic failures and it almost a badge of honour – “We’re Sh1 te and we know we are”.

Almost agreed with all your points Finloch, but disagree with the last point. I don’t believe we are as bad as we would appear to be. What we need is to have a system/manager with an open mind. His squads, his selections, the way he handles the press and his disdain for the fans that pay money to watch his drivel, all point to a man undeserving of the position he finds himself in. We need to get rid of him and his sidekick McGhee, two of my childhood heroes who have sunk so low in my estimation that it almost hurts. Why Docherty decided to become the 3rd man I’ll never understand.

The SPFL has its faults, but it is full of players with drive and passion. It does possess several players with skill levels perfectly adequate to slot into International sides – take a look at Northern Ireland for example. Scotland managers for some reason are blind to this, preferring instead to take bench warmers from down south into the squad. Strachans comments last night were appalling – players aren’t getting games for their clubs so aren’t match ready. No sh*t Sherlock. Meanwhile we have players like Griffiths, scoring for fun can’t get a game, McLean getting rave reviews week in week out – can’t even get in the squad. Strachan is sh1te, not Scottish football – at worst its poor/average, and that is plenty good enough for many teams to at least get into decent qualifying positions!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:57 am - Mar 23, 2017


I see RIFC have released their unaudited half year results. It is interesting to note the trading profit in the highlights.

That shows c£300k profit for the period, as opposed to c£500k loss for the same period last year, a turnaround of £800k, which is good.

However if one looks a bit further down the page and takes in the expenses, the figures show a loss for the period of c£240k  as opposed to c£280k for the same period last year. Not quite as impressive at only £40k turnaround, and still showing a loss. 

It seems there were “other charges” this year of £450k, with no equivalent number for last year, unfortunately no details as it is very much abbreviated number. 

I imagine most supporters will only look at the highlights figures and be heartened by such a seeming turnaround, from £500k losses to £300k profit. Not bad going. One suspects that might help the season ticket sales as things certainly seem to be going in the right direction.

One wonders what that £450k could be. One also wonders where the money is going to come from for the new manager’s “war chest”. It’s certainly not going to be from non-existent profits. Particularly as the figures at the year end will almost certainly be a lot worse. 

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on12:00 pm - Mar 23, 2017


RIFC Interims are out , Pedro interviewing RRM’s for his No.3 – everyone seems to be missing the proverbial in the corner of the room !

Someone for effs sake ask Dave what is he going to do re the Takeover Panel decision !

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on12:08 pm - Mar 23, 2017


An article in the most recent edition of Private Eye (1440) under the “In the City” column about Andrew Thornhill QC. The article, entitled “Lowering the Bar”, goes on to report on the BDO (Rangers) vs HMRC Supreme Court appearance with a brief explanation of EBT’s and why this judgement is important to HMRC.

Now if only we could get them interested in SFA corruption.

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on12:15 pm - Mar 23, 2017


“Rangers back in profit” – Go back to sleep everyone, move along, nothing to see here. All is well! 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:23 pm - Mar 23, 2017


NAEGREETIN
MARCH 23, 2017 at 12:00
====================================================

He has written to the shareholders apparently and will be making the offer.

I suspect his flying visit to Glasgow was more to do with that than the interim results.

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on12:28 pm - Mar 23, 2017


Homunculus @ 12.23 – thanks for that – I am surprised , will be interesting to see the uptake on “his” offer .

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:16 pm - Mar 23, 2017


I was wondering if the £450k ‘other charges’ could be Joey Barton’s pay off, maybe they didn’t want to charge it to the wages account.  Anyhow It’s a rather large figure to come under ‘others’ ‘misc.’ given their turnover was £16m.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:01 pm - Mar 23, 2017


HomunculusMarch 23, 2017 at 12:23
‘…He has written to the shareholders apparently and will be making the offer…’
__________
Your post prompted me to look at the RNS to see whether any statement of intent had been issued.

All I got was this:

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-home.html?nameCodeText=rangers+international+football+club&searchType=searchForText&nameCode=&text=rangers+international+football+club&rnsSubmitButton=Search&activatedFilters=false&newsSource=ALL&mostRead=&headlineCode=ONLY_EARNINGS_NEWS&headlineId=&ftseIndex=&sectorCode=&rbDate=released&preDate=Today&newsPerPage=20 

Takeover Panel Disclosure Table (POTAM only)
07:45 23-Mar-2017  RNS  

OFFEREE: Rangers International Football Club Plc (See Note 9 below)Offer period commenced: 11:39 13-Mar-20171p ordinaryISIN: GB00B90T9Z75NSI: 81,478,201

OFFEROR: Mr David Cunningham King Offeror identified: 11:39 13-Mar-2017

Rule 2.6 deadline: N/A

Disclosure of dealings and positions in this offeror is not required

The “see note 9 below” refers to

“9.This Note is applicable if it says “See Note 9 below” by the name of the company in the Disclosure Table above.  The Executive has granted the company a dispensation from the requirements under the Code that announcements must be published via a RIS. The company is instead required to publish all announcements on its website. The Executive has also granted a dispensation from Note 3 on Rule 8 of the Code that disclosures made under Rule 8 of the Code must be made to a RIS. Therefore, Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures required under Rule 8 of the Code may be made to the company at the address stated in the announcement that commenced the offer period.”
………
The only meaningful thing to me is that the market seems to have been told today that yer man King has offered ,from a period beginning on 13 March, to buy 1p ordinary shares.

As regards Note 9, I’ve just checked the RIFC site, and there’s not a dicky bird about this offer.

Anyone able to clue me up on what it all means?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:20 pm - Mar 23, 2017


HOMUNCULUS
MARCH 23, 2017 at 11:57 
I see RIFC have released their unaudited half year results. It is interesting to note the trading profit in the highlights…
========================================

Yes, unaudited but the SMSM is free to paste ‘good news stories’ about RIFC/TRFC finances – for now anyway.

Very little detail provided but what did catch my eye was the Revenue uplift.
From GBP 11.0M to GBP 16.3M
An increase of GBP 5.3M: a 48% increase on sales for the same 6 month period compared to previous year.

That is the immediate result for simply gaining promotion to the SPL ?
Summary explanations are provided re: ST’ sales, sponsorship etc.
But it is fundamentally the same business, and IMO this increase to Revenue looks amazing / unreal ?

Will be interested to see the full year Revenue total.  14

View Comment

bluPosted on2:20 pm - Mar 23, 2017


JOHN CLARKMARCH 23, 2017 at 14:01  Anyone able to clue me up on what it all means?

John, the Takeover Panel’s announcement was on 13th March, it may just be that this is automatically posted on the SE site. If I recollect, Mr King’s response at the time was that he’d consider his position because no-one would want to sell at 20p a share. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on3:22 pm - Mar 23, 2017


As I understand it Dave King has contacted shareholders and informed them that he would be making an offer to buy their shares. He has not made the offer as yet.

He has further said that they will get the offer, along with a recommendation from the board as to whether they should accept it or not.

Pure conjecture on my part is that the other board members have told him that this is the only acceptable option. Clearly they could make things very difficult if he did not comply with this instruction from the Takeover Panel. It would be further conjecture to suggest what advice the board may choose to offer the other shareholders, not part of their concert party. Given the lengths they went to to avoid the 30% limit (at least on the face of it) I suspect the smallest uptake possible would be Mr King’s preferred option. 

It would be mischief making to suggest that if there is a larger uptake than expected things may become difficult. Making an offer is one thing, making good on it is another. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:37 pm - Mar 23, 2017


GiovanniMarch 23, 2017 at 12:08
‘…Now if only we could get them interested in SFA corruption.’
____________
Well, on the principle of ‘if we don’t ask we won’t get’ I have sent this to Private Eye:
“Dear Private Eye,
Your ‘Lowering the Bar’ item in the current edition is quite interesting to taxpayers generally.
We wait with bated breath to see whether the UK Supreme Court will knock back the decision of the Court of Session that Employee Benefit Trusts as used by Sir David Murray, the sports-cheating majority shareholder of the now ‘in Liquidation’ Rangers Football Club, were a ‘tax evasion’ mechanism rather than a legitimate ‘tax avoidance’ device.
Some of us wait also to see whether any press organism will take an interest in the question of how far the sports cheating of Sir David Murray corrupted the very heart of Scottish Football governance.
There is not one journalist in Scotland who has investigated this question in any kind of ‘investigative journalist’ way: they are all either too partisan to want to do so, or are too afraid, or have been forbidden by their editors ‘to even go there.”
Oh, for a wee ‘Private Eye’ special investigation and report into the connections between sports editors (whether in the Scottish print press or in BBC Scotland) and the now-in-Liquidation Rangers FC, and the now four-year-old club calling itself ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd” and claiming to be the same club that was founded in 1872.
Corrupt football clubs are ten a penny.Corrupt Football Governance bodies are something else entirely.
Yours sincerely,
(name and addess supplied)

View Comment

nawlitePosted on3:43 pm - Mar 23, 2017


It was suggested on here and elsewhere that if King intended to make the offer, he would have to cover upfront the potential cost of buying in the worst-case scenario where everyone sold to him, with this ‘bond’ amounting to many millions (which everyone doubted he had).
Given that he appears to be going ahead with the offer, any news on this? Was it not, in fact, a requirement?

View Comment

jimboPosted on5:21 pm - Mar 23, 2017


Seems Sports Direct & RIFC were at the high court in London today.  They kept that quiet.
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/pipe/sport/sports-direct-owner-in-high-court-battle-with-rangers-over-merchandise-deal-2/

View Comment

neepheidPosted on5:29 pm - Mar 23, 2017


nawliteMarch 23, 2017 at 15:43  
It was suggested on here and elsewhere that if King intended to make the offer, he would have to cover upfront the potential cost of buying in the worst-case scenario
++++++++++++++++++++
Any offer by King would have to be underwritten, so someone would have to guarantee that every shareholder could be bought out. King could stick £15m or whatever in an escrow account (if he’s got that kind of money), or pay in effect an insurance premium to some City firm. That would not be cheap, but then a prospectus won’t be cheap either, so in for a penny, in for a pound, maybe?
I’m guessing now, but I can’t see the cost of shares coming to much more than £5m in the end. The incidental costs are horrendous, however, so King must budget for £7/8m in total.
At the end of it, King should have over 50%. He can then maybe get his AGM motion passed and issue more shares to himself and his fans, diluting the Ashley/Easdale block into irrelevance.
I  really can’t see Ashley just sitting back and watching this happen.
Finally a word on today’s interim accounts. These show a bottom line loss, although that’s Scotland’s best kept secret today. Level5 have really gone to town on this one. A textbook example of how to distort and deflect. Well done Jabba!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:57 pm - Mar 23, 2017


There is not a lot in the accounts to comment on.  The headline figures are much as I expected although there are no notes to explain the figures in more detail.

However, the one question I do have is, why did a business apparently close to breaking even require £2.9M additional funding in October 2016?

View Comment

jimboPosted on6:17 pm - Mar 23, 2017


I don’t understand what their plan is to get to break even point.  That would need them to match their outgoings with their income.  A manager is expensive enough but they are now hoping to add another layer to the management team- a Director of Football.  Now that won’t be cheap.  Presumably because he will be i/c of the manager he will be paid even more.  Not exactly cost cutting.  A replacement for the head of recruitment would have been more cost effective surely?  Pedro has already brought in 2 (or 3?) coaches with him.  Do they really need a RRM to bloat the operation?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:23 pm - Mar 23, 2017


So these accounts 
I take it they don’t include the 3 ex employees settlement(if there is one) or any loss of a court case with Ashley, or any new players the new manager will want to bring in this transfer window.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on6:48 pm - Mar 23, 2017


Thanks Neepheid. It appears that King is now resigned to making the offer and I’m reading that letters are going out to the other shareholders making that offer. Does that imply that he (or someone else) has put the money up? If so, how and who? I’m sure King can’t afford to (let alone the possible SA restrictions) and although I read somewhere that Park or others may be asked to front the money, I really can’t see anyone being that amount of stupid!!
I can’t get my head round it if funds to cover the worst-case scenario have been provided.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:04 pm - Mar 23, 2017


Further to the accounts references above, we have previously considered the implications of the club’s recent financial performance with regard to UEFA’s Financial Fair Play criteria, and Rangers resultant uncertain UEFA licensing position for 2017/18.

I will bow to Auldheid’s superior knowledge of the subject of UEFA regulations, than my own, but it should be noted that the accounts published today were those of RIFC, and not TRFC.  It is TRFC that is the licensed “club” both with the SFA and UEFA.

If I recall the gist of the regulations correctly, then the club (TRFC) requires to show that it has complied with the FFP over the last three years (including “audited” interim accounts if there is more than six months between the end of the applicants club’s financial year and the licensing deadline).  These accounts are neither TRFC’s nor audited.

As ever when looking at such subjects, there is always a doubt in your mind that there could be some financial wheeze at play, e.g. moving debt between the football club and the holding company, but that all remains conjecture at the moment.

I think we should remain alert over the next few weeks as we enter the UEFA licensing round and the SFA considers the licence applicants for the UEFA 2017/18 season.  There will no doubt be a number of PR inspired press articles together with claims and counter claims about the status of one particular club.

As an aside, I recently participated in a Q&A with a Hearts and Foundation of Hearts director and asked a question about their position should an FFP compliant Hearts lose out on a UEFA place to a non-compliant club (although perhaps with SFA dispensation). I was assured that their position would reflect the views of the FOH membership. 

Edit: Auldheid – feel free to post any pertinent regulations.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:20 pm - Mar 23, 2017


I have to laugh at the PR spin given on the figures as one organisation takes the headline figure from the club and another posts a different reflection from the same set of figures.

Daily Record Sport‏Verified account @Record_Sport
Rangers chairman Dave King takes club into profit for first time since he seized control two years ago http://bit.ly/2o864Hh 

Douglas Fraser‏Verified account @BBCDouglasF
Rangers Jul-Dec pre-tax loss £278k (£333k loss 2015) Costs + income both up with premiership
Sports Direct merchandise dispute weighs heavy

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:33 pm - Mar 23, 2017


nawliteMarch 23, 2017 at 18:48  
Thanks Neepheid. It appears that King is now resigned to making the offer and I’m reading that letters are going out to the other shareholders making that offer. Does that imply that he (or someone else) has put the money up?
+++++++++++++++
I believe that a prospectus will have to be issued to all shareholders. That should give details of who is underwriting the offer.
Perhaps a Hong Kong or BVI Company will back the offer?
I must say I’m very surprised at King going all in like this. Maybe he’s a Real Rangers Man after all?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:06 pm - Mar 23, 2017


Regarding the unaudited RIFC accounts , could someone assist in understanding this –
Basic and diluted earnings per ordinary share (0.3p) (0.4p)
It appears to me that earnings per share are down 25% over the corresponding period last year, and with 80 million + shares issued , the difference would be £800,000 less of an outgoing  . Put me right , please !

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:15 pm - Mar 23, 2017


Maybe something (else ) that the SFA could learn from –

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39370763

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:38 pm - Mar 23, 2017


paddy malarkey March 23, 2017 at 20:06 
Regarding the unaudited RIFC accounts , could someone assist in understanding this – Basic and diluted earnings per ordinary share (0.3p) (0.4p) It appears to me that earnings per share are down 25% over the corresponding period last year, and with 80 million + shares issued , the difference would be £800,000 less of an outgoing  . Put me right , please !
=====================
If it helps, the use of brackets denotes a negative figure, so the (0.3p) (0.4p) figures actually represents an improvement from a loss of 0.4p a share last year to a loss of 0.3p a share this year.

Multiplying it out, the loss per share times the number of shares approximates to the reported bottom line losses of (238) to Dec 2016 and (288) to Dec 2015.  Rounding figures up and down give the (0.3p) and (0.4p) numbers in the report.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:47 pm - Mar 23, 2017


easyJamboMarch 23, 2017 at 19:04
As you will see from the following there are the headline rules in The Articles but the devil is in the Annexes 01.
It s interesting that the accounts are RIFC’s and not TRFC’s, which raises the question which entity exactly will be applying for a UEFA Licence and whose accounts will be used?
It is a question that will be of interest to the “not the same club” fraternity debating the (whisper it) OC/NC issue.
 If the accounts are for Rangers International Football Club then clearly they are not from The Rangers Football Club and so neither can be the same as RFC to UEFA.
The applicant for a UEFA Licence  is defined by UEFA as follows:
  “ Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant and three-year rule
 1 A licence applicant may only be a football club , i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
 either:
 a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or
 b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).
 2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years.
 3 Any change to the legal form or legal group structure of the licence applicant (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit to the detriment of the integrity of a competition and/or its receipt of a licence is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.”

Thus RIFC have never applied for a licence before under b) and whilst there is no documentary evidence available, historically Rangers FC (Oldco) must have been the applicants under a) unless MIH used their accounts and made the application.
Article 12 forms the basis of the Traverso reply to Res12 lawyers when The Head of UEFA Club Licensing described the next applicant for a UEFA Licence from Ibrox as a NEW club/company because during the three year period before the start of the 2012 licensing cycle RFC in June 2012 experienced a change of legal form from in administration to in liquidation.
Art 12 begs the question “what form does the contractual relationship take between TRFC and RIFC ?” but as you say lets hope its not just a wheeze to separate TRFC from RIFC, allowing whichever one suits the licence application process to carry the debt.
The submission of accounts is an annual affair and only the previous years are required as they reflect what matters, the latest state of financial play at any club (indeed in certain circumstances UEFA will demand future financial forecasts) but here are the Headline Articles and Annexes with the disclaimer that there might be something in the Annexes that allows unaudited accounts to  be accepted (and if there is, an SFA Bryson will be having a look).
I think the presented accounts are interim but for completeness either Full or Interim both need to be audited under UEFA FFP Article 47 or 48 subject to further extensive Annexes V, VI and V11 that are too long to post here but on the basis the unaudited accounts are Interim here is the relevant part from Art 48  
Article 48 – Financial statements for the interim period
 1 If the statutory closing date of the licence applicant is more than six months before the deadline for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA, then additional financial statements covering the interim period must be prepared and submitted.
 2 The interim period starts the day immediately after the statutory closing date and ends on a date within the six months preceding the deadline for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA.
 3 Interim financial statements must be reviewed or audited by an independent auditor as defined in Annex V.
which says :
 “ANNEX V: Determination of the auditor and auditor’s assessment procedures
 A. Principle
 1. The auditor must be independent in compliance with the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (see Articles 47 and 48).
 2. The auditor must be a member of one of the relevant IFAC member bodies. If there is no member of the IFAC within a licence applicant’s territory, the licence applicant is required to use an independent auditor who is permitted by national law to carry out audit work.”
 
This suggests unaudited accounts are not acceptable to UEFA.
It would take an accountant to wade through the relevant account Articles and Annexes, but to a layman whoever applies  are unlikely to be granted a licence based on what amounts to self certification from a Chairman of RIFC, who risks being cold shouldered (which might mean not having auditors) and from a club whose predecessor had the same man on board as a Director when that club made a mendacious submission to SFA/UEFA when last applying for a UEFA Licence in March 2011 before being taken over.
The relevant current accounts should be with the SFA by end of this month and if I were Stewart Milne of Aberdeen, or Geoff Brown of St Johnstone I would be asking the SFA to clarify the position. I imagine Anne Budge will be well aware of the FOH thinking.
 

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on8:57 pm - Mar 23, 2017


The so called “Accounts” for TRIFC are not accounts.
It purports to be a consolidated income and expenditure statement.
Is the statement “consolidated” because it attributes the income of the Football Club to the parent company?
Are there any proper accountants, without a bouffon, out there who could interpret this nonsense.
There is no profit and loss account or balance sheet and it tells us nothing about the state of the finances of the FOOTBALL CLUB.
It is the club who will have to apply for a license to play in europe and as far as we know they owe all the debt to the parent company.
How much debt do the football club owe?
I see it is being reported that King is to make a share offer. Is it real? Where is the money coming from and if it is from King surely SARS will be keen to know where he is getting it from?
In any event it looks like his board will recommend that you don’t sell.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:02 pm - Mar 23, 2017


paddy malarkeyMarch 23, 2017 at 20:06       2 Votes 
Regarding the unaudited RIFC accounts , could someone assist in understanding this – Basic and diluted earnings per ordinary share (0.3p) (0.4p) It appears to me that earnings per share are down 25% over the corresponding period last year, and with 80 million + shares issued , the difference would be £800,000 less of an outgoing  . Put me right , please !
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I haven’t done the sums, but brackets around figures in accounts indicate negative figures. So I would interpret the figures as meaning that the loss  per share has fallen from 0.4p to 0.3p

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:13 pm - Mar 23, 2017


EASYJAMBOMARCH 23, 2017 at 20:38

NEEPHEIDMARCH 23, 2017 at 21:02

Cheers, lads 11

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:59 pm - Mar 23, 2017


Homunculus March 23, 2017 at 15:22 
As I understand it Dave King has contacted shareholders and informed them that he would be making an offer to buy their shares. He has not made the offer as yet.
He has further said that they will get the offer, along with a recommendation from the board as to whether they should accept it or not.
==========================
It may be worth noting how Ann Budge’s (Bidco 1874) mandatory offer was intimated to Hearts shareholders in 2014. 

The Administrators (who are fulfilling the obligations of the board of an offeree company for the purposes of the Code), who have been so advised by their financial adviser, BDO Corporate Finance, consider the terms of the Offer to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the Administrators intend to recommend unanimously Hearts Shareholders to accept the Offer. 

Ann Budge, director of Bidco, said:
“The ultimate aim of the Acquisition is to rescue Hearts from administration and return the club to a stable footing in the Scottish Premier Football League and ultimately deliver fan ownership. I want to be clear that there is no obligation or requirement for Hearts fans (or any other shareholder) holding shares to sell and they are welcome to remain shareholders in Hearts alongside Bidco.”

In the event Ann acquired 15.04% of the clubs shares for just £19,000.  Exactly 15% came from a single party which previously had connections to Romanov. Despite the Board (BDO) recommendation, very few supporters responded positively to the offer.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:28 pm - Mar 23, 2017


There must be some bad news coming from an employment tribunal soon.  Chris Jack is on a Level5 PR mission once again.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers/15178356.Dave_King__Rangers_could_pursue_Mark_Warburton_and_Nottingham_Forest_for_compensation_after_his_Ibrox_exit/?ref=rss
King is apparently considering seeking compensation from Warburton and Forest.

“I’m going to have a legal discussion (about whether we could pursue Nottingham Forest for compensation). On the face of it, whether it’s Nottingham Forest or the management team, it’s a possibility but we just have to see how we feel about that.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on8:55 am - Mar 24, 2017


EJ,
       Is Charles of Normandy back ? Statement looks to be from a Charles Green Handbook which of course was probably written by Dave King. Suing and counter-suing  and here we go again…..

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:08 am - Mar 24, 2017


Just wondering how the SMSM would have reacted if such a stream of piss had come from the likes of foreign based ‘owners’ such as Romanov or Massone.

 – A profit that isn’t really a profit
 – An TAB ‘appeal’ that isn’t really an appeal because the last result was the appeal.
 – Yet another legal counter attack because it is never T’Rangers who are at fault.

They just lap those statements, don’t they.

(Plus also more than happy to print a one sided report (presumably a cut and paste job from a T’Rangers press release) of what went on down in the London Courts v Ashley the other day).

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on10:08 am - Mar 24, 2017


Re : King/Takeover Panel Decision

In to-day’s Times , Michael Grant asked DK for his reaction to the decision – his response included “I would have to make an offer & there would have to be 50% acceptance of that offer which means Ashley , the Easdales & Club 1872 would have to accept . I think the chance of it being accepted is really remote . I think it is pretty much a non-issue .”
There is no mention of an offer being prepared other than a quote of “I have to think what I want to do about it” , he ends up stating “I have to decide whether to appeal it or not” . 
I understand he has already appealed & the judgement was given on his appeal on March 13 , so really not much further on as to what he is going to do but time is not on his side , April 12 will come soon enough .

View Comment

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on11:38 am - Mar 24, 2017


There’s a narrative being crafted here and it’s definitely one of a profitable club being hamstrung by a company riddled with debt.

The story will be of a club that has sound governance and that is striving to break even but that is powerless to the historical (all 5 years of it) mismanagement of the company.

Once again it will be portrayed as all Big Mikes fault. After 5 years of this Traynor PR p1sh, I reckon I could craft some stories for him myself!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:05 pm - Mar 24, 2017


NAEGREETIN
MARCH 24, 2017 at 10:08
Re : King/Takeover Panel Decision
In to-day’s Times , Michael Grant asked DK for his reaction to the decision – his response included “I would have to make an offer & there would have to be 50% acceptance of that offer which means Ashley , the Easdales & Club 1872 would have to accept . I think the chance of it being accepted is really remote .
======================================

That reads like if not enough people decide to take the offer then it doesn’t happen. I don’t think that’s how it works, is it. Surely it’s up to individual shareholders to either accept or reject his offer. I’m also a bit confused as to how he knows how Ashley or the Easdales will decide to go. I think it’s unlikely he has inside info. Though to be fair his man on the Club 1872 board can probably confirm how they will go.

In other issues. Can anyone tell me if the revenues in the interim accounts include loans within the period. I realise that the plan is to repay those loans as an equity swap, however if the loans are included in that figure it really does have a huge effect, there would actually be a significant trading loss. I don’t see anywhere else they could be included, so either they are in that figure or don’t appear at all. Any explanation appreciated, perhaps such loans to cover trading losses simply don’t appear in the interim figures. 

One last thing, I have had a quick look at the interim losses compared to the final losses for the last three years. The final losses have increased over the interim losses by c£4.5m, c£4.5m and c£3m in those years. So presumably we will be looking at several million losses for this year as well. That makes sense, if they have borrowed c£3m and show £3m losses for the period then that balances.

However it does beg the question, where is any transfer “war chest” going to come from. Particularly given that several players are out of contract come the summer and others are only on loan. There doesn’t appear to be a lot of scope to sell players’ registrations in order to finance the purchase of others. A share issue would help, but an awful lot of the money that would bring in has already been spent (via the loans).

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:14 pm - Mar 24, 2017


http://www.supporters-direct.scot/survey/

2017 Scottish Football Supporters Survey.

Some good questions included about governance, finance, corruption, referees. 
It’s a rating scale type of thing eg. Strongly agree – strongly disagree. Will take about ten minutes.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:27 pm - Mar 24, 2017


HOMUNCULUS
MARCH 24, 2017 at 13:05

Can anyone tell me if the revenues in the interim accounts include loans within the period…
======================

No HOMUNCULUS, the loans should not be anywhere near Revenue.

In signed-off, audited accounts this would not even be a query.

However, these are internally generated, unaudited numbers.
And a key individual at RIFC is not noted for his honesty – to the point of being previously humiliated by a SA judge, and is currently being shunned by the City for his latest deception.

You can’t ‘reasonably’ make any meaningful assertions about these interim numbers.
[Unless you work for the SMSM.  222222 ]

These RIFC interim numbers only raise further questions, IMO. 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on2:36 pm - Mar 24, 2017


I note from the most recent Private Eye that they have turned their attention to Mr Martin Bain, once of this parish and his role within Sunderland FC. It’s a small piece on p20 and continued on p94. 

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:22 pm - Mar 24, 2017


HOMUNCULUSMARCH 24, 2017 at 13:05

Particularly given that several players are out of contract come the summer and others are only on loan. There doesn’t appear to be a lot of scope to sell players’ registrations in order to finance the purchase of others.

Of course in the normal course of events a club in need of cash may, if the conditions are right, be able to come to an agreement with a departing boss who wants to take some of his favourite players with him.

Despite the talk of Tavernier being of interest to Nottingham Forrest I suspect a deal may only be forthcoming if any monies received down Govan way went straight out the door and into the back pockets of the Ibrox Three by way of compensation.

Quite a new interpretation of a footballing ‘bung’!!

View Comment

tayredPosted on3:53 pm - Mar 24, 2017


JIMBOMARCH 24, 2017 at 13:14http://www.supporters-direct.scot/survey/
2017 Scottish Football Supporters Survey.
Some good questions included about governance, finance, corruption, referees. It’s a rating scale type of thing eg. Strongly agree – strongly disagree. Will take about ten minutes.
——————————————————————-
Jeesh – those rating scales things are a bit of a trauchle tho!

Shame there wasn’t any other comments box!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:59 pm - Mar 24, 2017


EASYJAMBO
MARCH 23, 2017 at 23:28
There must be some bad news coming from an employment tribunal soon.  Chris Jack is on a Level5 PR mission once again…
===================================
Indeed EJ.
I accidentally landed on his Twitter page, and was absolutely not astonished at his latest entries.
The following were copied/pasted from the obedient SMSM copy/paster’s Twitter account, with my italics added.
==========

Chris Jack‏ @Chris_Jack89 8h8 hours ago More
Dave King: Rangers must challenge Celtic in Pedro Caixinha’s first full season at Ibrox
[Oh dear, was he not told to write “Going for 55” ?]

Chris Jack‏ @Chris_Jack89 8h8 hours agoMore
Dave King to consider his appeal options after TAB ruling on rise to power at Rangers
[Erm, that was actually the TAB appeal he lost – did none of those Internet Bampots inform you?]

Chris Jack‏ @Chris_Jack89 8h8 hours agoMore
Current Ibrox investors will continue to fund Rangers, says chairman Dave King
[Did you ask if that included King himself ?]

Chris Jack‏ @Chris_Jack89 8h8 hours agoMore
Dave King: Board could approve new Ibrox kit this summer if the deal is right for Rangers
[A new kit in the summer ? That idea will never catch on Chris…]

Chris Jack‏ @Chris_Jack89 8h8 hours ago More
Dave King: I haven’t had fun being Rangers chairman – but I had to do what I have done at Ibrox
[Erm, don’t think King has cracked a smile since he was given his first ‘Lucky Bag’ as a wean.]

Chris Jack‏ @Chris_Jack89 8h8 hours agoMore
Dave King: Rangers could pursue Mark Warburton and Nottingham Forest for compensation after his Ibrox exit
[Yes Chris, that’s exactly what King is looking for – another court action.]

Chris Jack‏ @Chris_Jack89 17h17 hours agoMore
Dave King on Warburton legal action, a summer shirt deal, investment, Pedro and why he’s not having fun as chairman
[Chris,: ‘King’ and ‘fun’ in the same sentence – again ? You’re really pushing it now…]

Chris Jack‏ @Chris_Jack89 Mar 23More
Rangers post £300,000 profit in half-year Ibrox accounts
[Glad to see you have managed to include at least one factually correct Tweet…  15]

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

Chris – you’re a silly billy / boy. 22

View Comment

Comments are closed.