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

Cluster OnePosted on10:07 pm - Mar 27, 2017


AULDHEIDMARCH 27, 2017 at 21:48
4. Am i way off the mark here?=================No. 06
———————-
So everything must be in place by Friday for UEFA licencing requirements,
When does it all need to be in place before April 13th

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:09 pm - Mar 27, 2017


Answer to Homunculus from DL – King required to purchase all shares. Also, King claim about 50% take up of offer not accurate:

TWM11: King – back to the Bushveld? Henry Hall – a knighthood? England fans – wtf?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:21 pm - Mar 27, 2017


Last one for tonight.
Did i read correctly in the TAP report something about directors moving or shareholders moving or shares being moved?
Would this have any bearing on the three directors resigning from the club.
or am i way of the mark maybe again

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:23 pm - Mar 27, 2017


If I was a conspiracy theorist, the latest boardroom move could be a pre-cursor to closing down TRFC, but dressing it up as a solvent reconstruction (allowed under SFA articles).  The assets (including the team) would be taken under the control of RIFC, but any contracts held by TRFC would die as TRFC is dissolved.  RRL no more.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:58 pm - Mar 27, 2017


Cluster OneMarch 27, 2017 at 22:07 (Edit)  
AULDHEIDMARCH 27, 2017 at 21:48 4. Am i way off the mark here?=================No. 06———————-So everything must be in place by Friday?
=====================
Funny enough the SFA have just produced the latest club licensing manual at
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2015/Scottish-FA-Club-Licensing-Manual-2017.pdf
and Page 54 8.11 provides what a club must present to get a licence at Gold, Silver, Bronze and Entry Level.
I have highlighted below the dates by which the accounts must be with the SFA and the criteria that makes them acceptable under each standard. For the purposes of trying to answer your question I think we should look at the lowest category (Entry) and reading that the latest RIFC ” offering”  would not be acceptable, but I invite others to weigh in with their views on an important matter.
What I am unsure of is can they fall back on the last set of accounts up to 30 June 2016 which might pass muster but without going over them, and as a layman I’m reluctant to I don’t know if they do. Was there not some going concern warning and was debt not worse and loans higher? I’ll reproduce what the relevant UEFA articles say in that respect in my next post.
As I understand it TRFC were granted a license at Silver Level last year overall but I’m not sure if that applies to each individual element ground, medical facilities etc  but for each of the Award level categories the rules say 
Gold
Each club shall be required
to provide a copy of its audited annual financial statements
prepared according to the Companies Act 2006 and relevant accounting standards
either International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or the UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice.
Audited financial statements shall
include the auditor’s report.
The statements shall refer to the
period ended 2016.
Clubs will provide this information
as follows –
SPFL clubs –by 31 March 2017
All other clubs –by 30 April 2017
The auditor’s report in respect of the
annual financial statements shall not
include an adverse or disclaimer of
opinion.
The auditor’s report in respect of
the annual financial statements shall
not include an emphasis of matter
or a qualified opinion/conclusion in
respect of going concern.
Silver
Each club shall be required to
provide a copy of its audited
annual financial statements
prepared according to the
Companies Act 2006 and relevant
accounting standards either
International Financial Reporting
Standards (IFRS) or the UK
Generally Accepted Accounting
Practice.
Audited financial statements
shall include the auditor’s report.
The statements shall refer to the
period ended 2016.
Clubs will provide this
information as follows –
SPFL clubs –by 31 March 2017
All other clubs –by 30 April 2017
The auditor’s report in respect of
the annual financial statements
shall not include an adverse or
disclaimer of opinion.
 Bronze
For a Limited Company:
As Gold/Silver
For an Unincorporated body:
The club shall be required to
provide a copy of its annual
financial statements prepared
by a qualified accountant and
approved by the club members
at a General Meeting.
The financial statements shall
consist of, as a minimum, a Profit
and Loss Account and Balance
Sheet. Approval by members
shall be evidenced by the
appropriate signatures on the
face of the financial statements,
or the appropriate Extract of
Minutes.
The statements shall refer to the
period ended 2016.
Clubs will provide this
information as follows –
SPFL clubs – by 31 March 2017
All other clubs – by 30 April 2017
Entry
For a Limited Company:
The club shall be required to provide a
copy of its annual financial statements
which have been approved by the
Directors. The financial statements
shall consist of, as a minimum, a Profit
and Loss Account and Balance Sheet.
Approval shall be evidenced by the
appropriate signatures on the face of
the financial statements.
For an Unincorporated body:
The club shall be required to provide a
copy of its annual financial statements
which have been approved by the
club members at a General Meeting.
The financial statements shall consist
of, as a minimum, a Profit and Loss
Account and Balance Sheet. Approval
by members shall be evidenced by the
appropriate signatures on the face
of the financial statements, or the
appropriate Extract of Minutes.
The statements shall refer to the
period ended 2016.
Clubs will provide this
information as follows –
SPFL clubs – by 31 March 2016
All other clubs – by 30 April 2016

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:07 pm - Mar 27, 2017


Cluster One
There are two UEFA FFP Articles defining what kind of accounts are required

Article 47 Annual Financial Statements and
Article 48 Financial Statements for the Interim Period.
Article 47 says:
Annual financial statements in respect of the statutory closing date prior to the
deadline for submission of the application to the licensor and prior to the deadline
for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA must be prepared and
submitted.
2 Annual financial statements must be audited by an independent auditor as defined
in Annex V.
Article 48 Says
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.
——–

If the statutory closing date for TRFC is 30 June then this would suggest Article 48 applies and interim accounts are required and I am suggesting above that the RIFC “offering” is not acceptable but am happy to hear any different interpretation on what is meant by statutory closing date.

PS. Ive just remembered that in 2011 the UEFA Licence was granted on 19th April 2011 on the basis of interim accounts dated 1st April 2011. (Of which more later)
As The Beatles sang ” We can work it out”

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:20 pm - Mar 27, 2017


easyJamboMarch 27, 2017 at 22:23 (Edit)
That’s not a bad shout but although it might dress it up and serve other purposes, UEFA might not like it under para 3 of Article 12 of UEFA FFP.

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.

If its seen as a ploy to get a licence to the detriment of the integrity of UEFA competitions and its brought to UEFA’s attention as such the SFA membership will be viewed as being interrupted (again)

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:35 pm - Mar 27, 2017


BIG PINK
MARCH 27, 2017 at 22:09 

Answer to Homunculus from DL – King required to purchase all shares.

Also, King claim about 50% take up of offer not accurate:
===================================

Thanks for that.

So the real question is why would the holders of worthless shares, with no voting or earning rights not take a payout of £2m. If they had any intention of providing the details required they would have done it before now.

I think talk of this being something and nothing may be a bit off the mark.

The rejection of his appeal was potentially a disaster for Mr King. 

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on11:56 pm - Mar 27, 2017


 
CLUSTER ONE
MARCH 27, 2017 at 18:54
NORMANBATESMUMFCMARCH 26, 2017 at 11:00       29 Votes  Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from reading the various comments and dissection of the UEFA licencing requirements, is it correct that TRFC, (not RIFC) will need to provide fully audited accounts to the SFA by 31st March?If so, what period do these accounts cover?  ———————————- Can i expand on that question if i may? 1.Do they even have anyone who could audit the accounts? 2.If not how long would it take to get someone who could audit the accounts? 3 how long does it take to audit un audited accounts?
4. Am i way off the mark here?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Alternatively
Earlier in the season the SFA may have advised TRFC that even if they got audited accounts to  31 March 2017 approved, their previous accounts will rule them out of UEFA for 2017-2018. So why bother with the expense of auditors etc for a submission that is a waste of time.? They could privately agree some yarn that delays submitting the accounts while the focus is on ST sales  
Since they continue to live hand to mouth with day to day cash issues dominating all their actions, the single most important issue for the immediate 6 weeks is convincing the support to buy STs  to generate cash flow
What we may really be seeing with the public release of sketchy unaudited accounts enthused over by a compliant press is a squirrel for the fans to cover up their intention to delay presenting the SFA with audited accounts by the 31 March deadline. No public statement needs to be made before the end of the season
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Also
Getting rid of the Chairman through a motion of no confidence by the RIFC Board may be another piece of “good” news for ST sales If so we can expect another negative PR campaign to be whipped up shortly

View Comment

part time petePosted on12:04 am - Mar 28, 2017


All my experience of reading about chancers ‘investing’ in football clubs is that they are only after one thing and that is the ownership of the stadium.
Surely Blue Pitch Holdings’ name gives the game away. Perhaps these guys are getting the £268k a month or whatever the ground rent is and that is why they want to keep their identity secret.
Perhaps Bomber was on the trail in the beginning when he stood on the steps.
SDM would be my guess as the name behind BPH and DCK is here because he wants some of the action.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:09 am - Mar 28, 2017


Goosey Goosey

Just how much more spin are supporters of TRFC/RIFC prepared to swallow? I remember one good Rangers man responding to me telling him that DK was taking over and a new future might beckon said then “Aye, we’ll see”.
You can only spin for so long and are we approaching the awakening?
http://www.sapphyr.net/largegems/theawakening.htm

” There comes a time in your life when you finally get it … When in the midst of all your fears and insanity you stop dead in your tracks and somewhere the voice inside your head cries out “ENOUGH! Enough fighting and crying or struggling to hold on.” And, like a child quieting down after a blind tantrum, your sobs begin to subside, you shudder once or twice, you blink back your tears and through a mantle of wet lashes you begin to look at the world from a new perspective.
……….This is your awakening.

You realize that it is time to stop hoping and waiting for something or someone to change, or for happiness safety and security to come galloping over the next horizon. You come to terms with the fact that there aren’t always fairytale endings (or beginnings for that matter) and that any guarantee of “happily ever after” must begin with you. Then a sense of serenity is born of acceptance.

So you begin making your way through the “reality of today” rather than holding out for the “promise of tomorrow.” You realize that much of who you are and the way you navigate through life is, in great part, a result of all the social conditioning you’ve received over the course of a lifetime. And you begin to sift through all the nonsense you were taught”

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on1:10 am - Mar 28, 2017


Today’s (28th March 2017) ‘The National’ on how not to win friends and influence The People.
——————————————————————–
“The big tax case does not financially concern the current ownership of Rangers, but there are implications for the club and its history. For if the taxman finally wins the case, three things must happen or Rangers and Scottish football will be forever shamed.
First, it must be acknowledged that Rangers gained a massive financial and thus competitive advantage they were not legally entitled to, certainly after 2004. The current ownership has already acknowledged that by eventually paying, with reluctance, the £250,000 fine imposed on it in 2013 by Lord Nimmo Smith’s Commission that investigated the EBT scheme and the ‘side letters’ which were blatantly against football rules.
Secondly, that Nimmo Smith Commission must be recalled. The Commission acted “on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful”, in its own words, but if HMRC wins, they won’t be lawful. After the HMRC warning on EBTs in 2004 up to 2011, a heavily-indebted Rangers won four SPL titles, two Scottish Cups and four Scottish League Cups with players and staff they couldn’t otherwise have afforded. If the taxman wins, the Nimmo Smith Commission must think again and, yes, take those titles and cups away from Rangers’ history because the club cheated.
Thirdly, for operating an unlawful tax scheme for years inside Rangers and other companies, Sir David Murray should be stripped of his honour.
If HMRC wins the case, these three things at least will be necessary to assure everyone else in Scottish football, and a considerable number of Rangers fans, plus the taxpaying public, that justice eventually gets done.”

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:38 am - Mar 28, 2017


Billy BoyceMarch 28, 2017 at 01:10
‘…Today’s (28th March 2017) ‘The National’ on how not to win friends and influence The People.’
________________________
A brave enough article, but not brave enough to state the basic, incontrovertible fact that a  favourable judgment for HMRC has no bearing on the fact that the cheating RFC died as a football club, and is not merely in the hands of ‘new owners’.
TRFC are entitled to the honours they have won since their foundation in 2012, and not to anything won by the dead club.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:59 am - Mar 28, 2017


Imagine Mr Romanov was somehow still in charge at Hearts, with the club’s finances engulfed in smoke and mirrors. Hearts are sitting pretty in the league with a really good chance of third place and a Europa League spot.  They have just released an almost farcical set of unaudited interim accounts. Rangers meanwhile are fifth in the league but are a model of financial transparency, with audited accounts which fully comply with UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations. Would the media be freely speaking of Hearts entering Europe next season, or might the SFA already be battening down the hatches amidst a barrage of questions?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:01 am - Mar 28, 2017


Thanks for all replies and clarification on some points

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:13 am - Mar 28, 2017


AULDHEIDMARCH 28, 2017 at 00:09
GREAT POST…..i will screengrab if ok.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:44 am - Mar 28, 2017


Auldheid,

Thanks for providing the definition of the latest club licensing manual, I guess, due to the auditors’ concerns mooted in the last set of audited accounts, the best TRFC can hope for is an Entry level license.

Interesting, though, assuming that what you provided is a verbatim copy, that the SFA seem to have forgotten to separate ‘the club’, or ‘Club’, from the ‘company’.

‘Each club shall be required to provide a copy of its audited annual financial statements’ is stated at the start of each licensing level.

 Shoorely there must be shum mishtake, for if the ‘club’, or ‘Club’, is the unincorporated everlasting entity that ‘Rangers Football Club’ is meant to be, it would not have the facility to produce ‘it’s audited annual financial statements’. Or is there now a second (3rd?) version of what a ‘football club’, or ‘Football Club’, is? One that has no legal form but produces audited annual accounts?

At first I thought the SFA must have forgotten to include a definition for the various forms a football club can take, then I noticed this:

‘Bronze For a Limited Company: As Gold/Silver
For an Unincorporated body: The club shall be required…’

So the SFA have remembered to define the various forms a football club can take, but they don’t include the form that some would have us believe ‘Rangers FC’ is meant to be (probably because it is not possible to define something that doesn’t exist, or, as in the case of RFC/TRFC, is a complete fabrication).

That’s the problem with such a big lie, you have to keep remembering to cover it in everything you do and every document you produce!

NB I wonder if this document, defining the club license levels, has to be passed by UEFA, so can’t include inventions or downright lies! Or, if not, did the SFA/Regan think we’d have taken their advice by now and all ‘moved on’ and so wouldn’t notice this ‘omission’?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on9:05 am - Mar 28, 2017


Cluster One 7.13
Go ahead but also check full poem from the link. It’s a life lesson for us all.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on9:11 am - Mar 28, 2017


Ally Jambo.
As I said in an earlier post the SFA should confirm which construct applies to TRFC/RIFC a or b of Art12.
I think from other reading UEFA will have cleared the latest. They really have to as SFA subservient to UEFA rules and as far as I know there has been no football equivalent of Brexit!
Can you imagine the state of the game if we had separate rules for each country ? It wouldn’t make sense.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:33 am - Mar 28, 2017


From the National article by Martin Hannan referred to by Billy Boyce above:

“King must make the offer within a fortnight and at 20p per share that could cost him north of £10m including the arrangement cost. Even then it would need 50 per cent acceptance.

As of yesterday, shares in RIFC were trading on the JP Jenkins platform – Rangers can’t list on the Stock Exchange as they have no Nominated Advisor – at 27.5p per share. Why would anyone accept King’s offer when it would mean they would lose a third of their potential income if they sold their shares today?”

We’ve heard from David Low that this 50% acceptance level is a nonsense and that if King makes the offer he would have to stump up for even 10 shares, let alone 50%, so where does the writer get this 50% from? Surely not the man he is reporting on. A man he omits to say lied to the panel, but still publishes the following:

” This is because despite denials all round, he was found to have acted in concert with George Letham, Douglas Park and George Taylor to buy 34.05 per cent of Rangers and take control, removing the then board in March, 2015. ”

So, it would appear that Mr Hannan is prepared to believe someone he is telling us made false denials at the tribunal – unless, that is, he has sought separate confirmation of this 50% and has forgotten to give his readers the details (does anyone believe that a member of the SMSM wouldn’t let us know he’s actually done a bit of independent research?)! 

Then he blithely tells us that the current price on the ‘JP Jenkins platform’ is 27.5p, which, I suspect, was the price from a deal made some time ago that was carried out to set that price, or, a nominal deal has been put through (yesterday?), again, to set this price. Is this price something else that King fed him?

OK, he has redeemed himself a bit with his title stripping piece, but him saying this isn’t going to influence matters in the least, but touting falsehoods about King’s ‘offer’ might well save King a bob or two if some less savvy people believe his assertion that to accept 20p per share would be a loss of one third of their current value! The 50% nonsense might well be influential, too, but, of course, it’s all about putting as much of a gloss on the matter as possible to stave off fears ahead of the push for ST sales.

View Comment

GaslampPosted on10:51 am - Mar 28, 2017


The 27.5p per share figure comes from the TAP report –
“98.One aspect of this matter that has caused the Committee concern is the time that elapsed between the initial reporting of a potential triggering of Rule 9 by the incumbent Board during January 2015 and the Executive’s ruling of 7 June 2016. Both Mr King and the Rangers Board submit that it serves no purpose now to require a Rule 9 offer to be made at a price of 20p per share (the price stipulated by the Executive pursuant to Rule 9.5 (c)) because no shareholders will accept it. 99.The background to this is that since the cancellation of admission to trading on AIM in March 2015 Rangers shares have traded on an illiquid “matched bargain” basis on JP Jenkins, an exchange platform that specialises in the securities of private companies. There have been relatively few trades, mostly in small amounts. Such trades in Rangers shares as there have been on JP Jenkins during the last three months or so appear to have been at a price of 27.5p. Mr Blair told the Committee that demand for Rangers shares currently, and for some time past, exceeds supply.”

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on10:58 am - Mar 28, 2017


The takeover code at 9.3 seems to be the source of the 50% threshold. My reading of it is that the offer must be made to all shareholders but that it can be made conditional on the acceptance from the holders of enough shares to give the concert party over  50% of the company. My inference is that if the acceptance rate is not enough then the condition is not met and the offer falls.
However that does not affect the initial cost of making the offer and the need to have the funds available to follow through with that offer. It may very well be a moot point because an acceptance of the offer is only needed from owners of  16% of the shares to get the Concert Party over the 50% mark
I last read this kind of stuff seriously over 15 years ago and am currently more comfortable debating how many angels can dance on the  end of a pin so I may very well be wrong but 9.3 seems clear enough which is often the case when my inferences prove incorrect.
as ever I remain puzzled

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:37 am - Mar 28, 2017


Sorry to be a pessimist but can’t help feeling like the whole concert party issue might be yet another false dawn regarding getting T’Rangers sorted out and put on the right track for the 21 century.

That being said I scanned through the appeal ruling the other day and once again we have an independent authority basically confirming that a certain person is self serving, obstructive, uncooperative, economical with the truth and is running a business that seems to have poor QMS and IT operations relating to storing emails.

How many more warnings do we need that some people should be kept as far away as possible from a particular club and the wider Scottish game. 

You have to wonder about the sanity and integrity of some people for getting into bed with folks that must of us wouldn’t trust as far as you could throw them.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:44 am - Mar 28, 2017


bfbpuzzledMarch 28, 2017 at 10:58

Thanks for the info, BFB. If you are correct, it still makes this 50% assertion misleading, and so very wrong for Martin Hannan and his newspaper to publish it without checking out the facts, especially if, as I suspect, they are accepting the words of Dave King without question. Regardless of King’s (known lack of) honesty, it is surely wrong to publish what could amount to (perceived) financial advice without qualification, such as ‘I believe that..’, ‘I was told that…’, unless, of course, Hannan, or his paper, have taken independent advice, in which case, they should have made that clear, too, and given their source.

I very much suspect that King will string everyone along until the last minute before announcing, or maybe keeping quiet about it, that he is not making the offer. How that will affect RIFC/TRFC I don’t know, but one thing’s for sure, either way (offer or no offer), the SMSM will promote it as a positive.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:50 pm - Mar 28, 2017


Just listened to the latest podcast and David Low’s speculation re who may sell up if King makes his offer as demanded by the TAB.

That got me wondering if a certain gardener still had his shares?
IIRC they numbered at least 1 million but I can;t recall how many he got for 1p

A wee sale to King at 20p would certainly make up for any losses he made by magnanimously ending his contract a few months early!!

View Comment

CrownStBhoyPosted on1:28 pm - Mar 28, 2017


Davie seems to be upping his left peg.

https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/the-k-files-the-truth-is-out-there/

View Comment

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on1:31 pm - Mar 28, 2017


Auldheid ……“This is your awakening”.
 
The Greeks have a word for it.
 
Anagnorisis, (Greek: “recognition”), in a literary work, is the startling discovery that produces a change from ignorance to knowledge. It is discussed by Aristotle in the Poetics as an essential part of the plot of a tragedy although anagnorisis occurs in comedy.

HS

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:24 pm - Mar 28, 2017


Would King getting “The Cold Shoulder” from financial institutions qualify as another “Rangers world record” ? 

From his own actions to date, it would appear that King doesn’t really give a monkey’s about TRFC emotionally.
He’s there for his own purposes, but his time may be up soon at Ibrox.

Perhaps the threat of being officially shunned by the  financial services industry in the UK could be more of a worry for him wrt to in/direct investments or ‘anything else’ which King mibbees forgot [ 15 ] to tell the SA tax authorities about ?
And the threat to potential, future business / transactions via the UK, [and regardless of imposed SA restrictions.]

I think it was JJ [?] who mentioned the potential risk to a Guernsey Trust King had created ?

I would hazard a guess that the risk of being shunned by the FCA, would ‘probably’ have a knock-on effect to UK protectorate islands / tax havens like Guernsey and also Jersey, Isle of Man – and mibbees further afield as well ?

King might even have to resort to managing his money like an international money launderer.  09
And that would not be dignified at all.  

Will be interesting to see how King tries to duck out of this one…  

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:58 pm - Mar 28, 2017


AllyjamboMarch 28, 2017 at 11:44
‘….I very much suspect that King will string everyone along until the last minute before announcing, or maybe keeping quiet about it, that he is not making the offer. ‘
_________
You know, I’ve been sitting here reading what I hadn’t seen before, being somewhat out of the loop: the  deliberations of the Hearing Committee ( not the report of the TAB, which I did read)  on this link
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/publication/view/20174-rangers-international-football-club-plc 
with great enjoyment. If you haven’t read it, take a quiet half hour  to read the 38 pages. The memories will come flooding back-Crighton and Laxeys,Kingsnorth, Miton, Artemis……..none of them trusting the other
What a bunch of real .ankers and deceitful sods all that feckin crowd associated with the TRFC/RIFC boards were and are!
God Almighty, there is not one , not one, of them whom I would trust any more than I would trust arch-sports cheat SDM, or the little, pathetic CW ,or the founder of TRFC, Charles Green.
Or any of the Boards of the SFA/SPFL.
And to think that our print ‘journalists’ should have fallen so low as to be more deserving of contempt than even those wretches!
It gars me greet.
But of course, truth will prevail.
We are still nailing Nazi war criminals, 70 years on.
We will nail the bad guys in the whole feckin ‘Rangers’ saga..
They may be roastin’ in hell when we do, but they will have died in the knowledge that they were dishonourable people, whatever their obituaries may say!
And they know it!

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on4:12 pm - Mar 28, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
MARCH 28, 2017 at 10:33 Then he blithely tells us that the current price on the ‘JP Jenkins platform’ is 27.5p, which, I suspect, was the price from a deal made some time ago that was carried out to set that price, or, a nominal deal has been put through (yesterday?), again, to set this price. Is this price something else that King fed him?
OK, he has redeemed himself a bit with his title stripping piece, but him saying this isn’t going to influence matters in the least, but touting falsehoods about King’s ‘offer’ might well save King a bob or two if some less savvy people believe his assertion that to accept 20p per share would be a loss of one third of their current value! The 50% nonsense might well be influential, too, but, of course, it’s all about putting as much of a gloss on the matter as possible to stave off fears ahead of the push for ST sales
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I don`t think because someone sold e.g. 5000 shares and got 27.5p  last week or last year that you could go into the market and get more than 20p for 100,000 shares.
Frankly
This is a trading opportunity of the lifetime for all those who would have sold on AIM but were denied by the delisting
On AIM a distressed seller gets a much lower price if he wants to sell a largish parcel of shares in a single deal e.g.100,000 or so. Selling on an unlisted market is more akin to a Barras storeholder.You either wait forever to get a passing buyer at your price or you make offers to sell at lower and lower prices to anyone remotely interested until you shift the goods.
IMO
Much more likely is that a cast iron offer to buy at a floor price of 20p will be taken up by all current shareholders holding a significant volume of shares simply because the selling opportunity may not come again for a very long time. Particularly since, with a hand to mouth business, liquidation at worse or share dilution at best are real possibilities 
Nope
If it happened, I reckon there would be a stampede to sell by most current holders except the Gullibillies.
Blue Pitch, Margaritia and MA may sit on the fence until the last minute before deciding
However 
The absence of OPM makes this option most unlikely
I just can`t see this offer to purchase going ahead
Because
It means the 3 Bears would be unable to prevent their Chairman from blocking any pre-emptive rights resolution that could lead to his personal holding being diluted. They would then be locked into a situation where his loan might be repaid through some back door deal while repayment of their loans gets deferred indefinitely.They may have been willing to throw money down the Ibrox drain but there is no way he will do so
So the share purchase offer ain`t going to happen
What happens next?
If he is still a Director by 12 April when the TAB deadline expires I reckon the Chairman will accept the cold shouldering with a few blusters that the obedient media will feed to the gullibillies
However
I doubt he will ever be seen again at Ibrox.
I reckon he will be  forced out in his absence next week at an emergency RIFC Board Meeting. The Board will portray this as decisive action because of his refusal to obey the TAB. They will be desperate to put distance between them and the cold shoulder consequences for their other businesses,

 Level 5 may spin it as a resignation for the good of Scottish Football 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:40 pm - Mar 28, 2017


goosygoosyMarch 28, 2017 at 16:12

Pretty much as I see it, Goosy, with, I’m sure, the 3bears more concerned about the outcome than King.

One of their problems might be that, should King leave, or be removed from, the board, he might decide it’s time to remove as much of his own money, and the loans he appears to have brokered/financed, as he can, leaving the 3bears in the smelly stuff. On the plus side, though, is the fact that King would be gone and, perhaps, create a situation where someone might come in to do more than just keep the lights on, but who that might be, I can’t imagine.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:20 pm - Mar 28, 2017


I see an Ibrox ‘insider’ has spoken to the DR and played down the ‘terminations’ in the TRFC boardroom as ‘nothing more than some minor internal housekeeping’. Well that may be true, but by breaking their silence on online rumours, they may well have strengthened the belief that something’s up.

It does seem rather silly to carry out ‘nothing more than some minor internal housekeeping’ (which suggests something that isn’t urgent), involving boardroom changes, within a few days of the concert party appeal result! It’s not as though they didn’t know the result was due to be announced, so could have held off carrying out this housekeeping for a while, at least until after the deadline for King’s ‘offer’. 

You’d have thought their expensive PR outlet would have warned them not to make such an announcement so soon after RIFC’s chairman has been lambasted by the Take-over Panel, as this is the kind of PR disaster that they are employed to prevent!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:44 pm - Mar 28, 2017


Perhaps I’m just being too suspicious – or I’m missing something – but wrt these Interim numbers…

1) TRFC statement.
On 16 June 2015, Andrew Dickson was appointed “Director: Finance & Administration of TRFC”.
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-announcement-2/

2) Companies House data.
However, this appointment is not officially reflected at CH.
Could simply be an admin. oversight by TRFC – or a CH update error ?
 
At CH, Andrew Dickson’s registered data seems to be unchanged as;

“Role: Director”
“Appointed on 9 March 2015”
“Occupation: Head of Football Administration”.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/0GCd3os4ZW7x3vBrVbSB_Quiee0/appointments

You would think that Dickson’s new, higher profile Directorship – and with the added finance responsibilities – would have been correctly updated at CH in the 2 years since his appointment ?
Especially as he was effectively promoted to Finance Director as well ?

09

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on8:48 pm - Mar 28, 2017


If King doesn’t stump for the share offer, or if SARS is preventative, where does it leave him?. I don’t imagine cold shouldering would appeal to him, as it may extend to other UK controlled jurisdictions, chiefly Guernsey, amongst others, the location of “Ben Nevis”
   Would his alternative be to sell off, or relinquish his holding?…If so to whom? 
   Not his co-accused concert party, nor Uncle Mick due to the restrictions upon them.
    Would the Easedales welcome additional security guards around the directors box for their personal safety?.  Or rudderless, and largely clueless “Club” (insert meaningless number) fancy a bite at the cherry, and the opportunity to feed the black hole?
   I wonder if he has any more dodgy pals in perhaps Hong Kong or South Africa, (or anywhere really), who will be willing to take them off his hands?
   Plus ca change

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:06 pm - Mar 28, 2017


GOOSYGOOSYMARCH 28, 2017 at 16:12
I doubt he will ever be seen again at Ibrox.I reckon he will be forced out in his absence next week at an emergency RIFC Board Meeting. The Board will portray this as decisive action because of his refusal to obey the TAB. They will be desperate to put distance between them and the cold shoulder consequences for their other businesses,
——————
ALLYJAMBOMARCH 28, 2017 at 18:20
I see an Ibrox ‘insider’ has spoken to the DR and played down the ‘terminations’ in the TRFC boardroom as ‘nothing more than some minor internal housekeeping’. Well that may be true, but by breaking their silence on online rumours, they may well have strengthened the belief that something’s up.
It does seem rather silly to carry out ‘nothing more than some minor internal housekeeping’ (which suggests something that isn’t urgent), involving boardroom changes, within a few days of the concert party appeal result!
——————————
Could the changes in the boardroom be because there is strength in numbers to force king out.The strength was not there if the directors were directors in the club,but now they are directors in the company there is now a chance to make changes in the company and force king out.As AJ say’s It does seem rather silly to carry out ‘nothing more than some minor internal housekeeping’ and we know from past history nothing should ever be taken at face value that comes out of ibrox.

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:27 pm - Mar 28, 2017


I Think there is a PT supporter on this site so I hope he will correct if I’m wrong.

I used to work with a guy called Jimmy (Whitey) McGowan?

He was a smasining old crabbit man in the mid 1970s.

He told me of getting an ‘early’ finish from the pit on a Saturday to go and play for PT.` By public transport.

I once visited his house and his pride and joy was a cabinet of cutlery .  Don’t get me wrong it was beautiful, but that was from his testimiional.  Changed days.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on9:52 pm - Mar 28, 2017


ALLYJAMBOMARCH 28, 2017 at 17:40
goosygoosyMarch 28, 2017 at 16:12
Pretty much as I see it, Goosy, with, I’m sure, the 3bears more concerned about the outcome than King.
One of their problems might be that, should King leave, or be removed from, the board, he might decide it’s time to remove as much of his own money, and the loans he appears to have brokered/financed, as he can, leaving the 3bears in the smelly stuff. On the plus side, though, is the fact that King would be gone and, perhaps, create a situation where someone might come in to do more than just keep the lights on, but who that might be, I can’t imagine.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IMO
There is only one option and it’s MA.
My money is on the 3Bs privately indicating to MA that they are willing to publicly sack their Chairman as a peace offering in exchange for dropping the court case
Most likely however MA will have figured they have to sack him anyway and will turn them down. His end game is in sight and he has all the aces. All they have left is to threaten liquidation of TRFC if they lose the court case. Even then it’s not a solution they can exit without more egg on their face
Meanwhile (like by 12 April)
The 3Bs cannot continue to support their Chairman as this effectively gives continuing support to his concert party antics and is a constant reminder to their other business contacts of their unsavoury role in it
It`s damage limitation time for them. They will be focussed on getting themselves off the Board and extricating themselves from this whole shambles with sufficient “dignity” to placate those members of the Brethren who could make life difficult in their wider world.
 If PMG is correct and the 3Bs have already turned down an offer by the Chairman to sell his holding, they both know he won`t be Chairman much longer and is unlikely to make the share purchase offer.
My money is on a forced eviction of the Chairman by his fellow Directors on the RIFC Board
They need to gain credibility from the TAB and the wider business world by being seen to force him out.
Reputational damage won`t cause sleepless nights for someone with the image he has acquired in SA. He may even want to be seen as being forced out to give himself a fig leaf to wave at the TAB when he reneges on their ruling and takes his war chest back home.
 I also reckon the 3Bs will be gone as soon as enough ST money has been collected to get to mid-year
The MD may also leave in the near future particularly if the Chairman is not ousted
 Unlike the 3Bs he doesn`t have the loans and shareholding to complicate his involvement. He also seems to be the only person left with dignity credentials.If there is a plan to liquidate TRFC he will surely be offski before it happens

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:58 pm - Mar 28, 2017


STEVIEBCMARCH 28, 2017 at 15:24       14 Votes 
Would King getting “The Cold Shoulder” from financial institutions qualify as another “Rangers world record” ? 
If the cold shoulder does happen? and  financial institutions won’t touch them with a barge pole. could this be another opportunity for celtic to distance themselves from the “old firm” anchor.
or am i way way off the mark

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:09 pm - Mar 28, 2017


GOOSYGOOSYMARCH 28, 2017 at 21:52
My money is on a forced eviction of the Chairman by his fellow Directors on the RIFC BoardThey need to gain credibility from the TAB and the wider business world by being seen to force him out.Reputational damage won`t cause sleepless nights for someone with the image he has acquired in SA. He may even want to be seen as being forced out
——————–
Only one problem i see in that is the smsm have built king up as the real rangers man and the merged fans groups have the ones at the top supporting king. how will the fans react to the saviour being forced out?
As Jack Nicholson once said as the joker “who do you trust,who do you trust”

View Comment

GeordieJagPosted on11:06 pm - Mar 28, 2017


Jimbo, you are right, there are a few PT supporters on here.  I’ve only been going to Firhill since 1969 so Jimmy McGowan is before my time but here’s a link to a match report of his 1957 benefit game against a Glasgow select, which I’d guess is where the cutlery came from… http://partickthistleahistory.wikifoundry.com/page/Jimmy+McGowan++1957

The fine fellows who compile partickthistlehistory also have a programme article on him from 1983 with a photo of Jimmy with the cutlery and other trophies, see http://partickthistleahistory.wikifoundry.com/page/1983+-+Jimmy+McGowan

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on12:44 am - Mar 29, 2017


Jimbo / Geordiejag

The go-to man at ‘Plastic Whistle’ is a retired gentleman called William Reid.  He was headmaster at Irvine Royal Academy and now devotes his time to compiling the club’s history.  I contacted him via the Firhill office two years ago wishing to find out any information PTFC held on my uncle who played for them in circa 1931.  Mr Reid was able to show me details of his appointment and subsequent transfer etc as well as a photo of my uncle pitch-side in his playing kit.  I was most grateful to Mr Reid for all his efforts to be of help.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:04 am - Mar 29, 2017


goosygoosyMarch 28, 2017 at 21:52

I share your opinion on MA being the most likely saviour, mainly because he might want to protect his RRL deal and is therefor the only one likely to view TRFC as a genuine investment opportunity. I have no doubt that, had his regime had remained in power, then TRFC would now be in a strong second place with a possibility of challenging Celtic within the foreseeable future. He would still have been the most unpopular man at Ibrox! Ever.

I am also certain that, should Ashley be the only possible saviour, the SFA will bend over backwards to make his return the best thing that Scottish football has ever known! In other words, no more than a cursory glance at any impediments, such as his Newcastle ownership!

It’s notable that Brian Kennedy has disappeared from the narrative and that no new ‘saviours’ are being mooted. I suspect the club’s toxicity has removed the oxygen that the publicity seekers crave!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:46 am - Mar 29, 2017


ALLYJAMBOMARCH 29, 2017 at 07:04  
I am also certain that, should Ashley be the only possible saviour, the SFA will bend over backwards to make his return the best thing that Scottish football has ever known! In other words, no more than a cursory glance at any impediments, such as his Newcastle ownership!

I Agree with you 100% on that. The evidence in favour is overwhelming.

The SFA welcomed Craig Whyte with open arms, despite his record being known. Despite knowing that Rangers, under the control of Whyte, were not paying PAYE or N.I, they did nothing until Rangers themselves owned up. 

Then when Charles Green created a new club, they fell over themselves to try and get that new club direct entry to the top league. In addition, they created an illusion that Green had somehow purchased the trophies of the club that was liquidated,  which ensured a high take up of season tickets for the new club.  Despite all this help, Green threw regular public insults in the direction of the SFA and others within the Scottish game.  The SFA did nothing. 

When Dave King arrived back on the scene the SFA gave them his blessing, despite him being a convicted tax evading criminal. It is true that they had previously refused Mike Ashley a bigger share in the club but at the time it appeared to them King was going to throw millions into Rangers. 

I could quote many other instances of the SFA providing ‘assistance’ but one that cannot go unmentioned is the Bryson interpretation during the LNS inquiry. 

So yes, should Ashley be the only possible saviour, the SFA will bend over backwards to make his return the best thing that Scottish football has ever known! In other words, no more than a cursory glance at any impediments, such as his Newcastle ownership! I am sure also that the Scottish media would give Ashley the same heroic status as Whyte, Green and King received before him.  In short, it’s all about Rangers being above all others more often than not, especially Celtic. It does not matter how that is achieved.

View Comment

jimboPosted on8:42 am - Mar 29, 2017


Geordiejag,  Billy Boyce,

Thank you very much for your posts I enjoyed your posts and the links provided they reminded me of several things I had forgotten.  For instance he was captain of Partick Thistle for many years.  And although a highly regarded player in his day he only got two caps (which he also showed me.  He didn’t have a high regard for the SFA and the Scotland manager at the time – some things never change – he wasn’t bitter of only two call ups, more a resignation of how things were back in the day.  If you weren’t a player for the Establishment Club you were an also ran.

For instance, the player who still holds the record for goal scoring in British football, Jimmy Mcgrory, only had 7 caps.  Yes that’s correct 7 caps.  He scored 500+ goals, 55 hat tricks, 8 goals in one game.  But he was handicapped by playing in the east end of Glasgow and not the south side.  7 caps, a disgrace.

I look forward to reading the linked articles in Partick Thistle archives.

View Comment

EKloonPosted on9:20 am - Mar 29, 2017


BILLY BOYCEMARCH 29, 2017 at 00:44       12 Votes 
Jimbo / Geordiejag
The go-to man at ‘Plastic Whistle’ is a retired gentleman called William Reid.  He was headmaster at Irvine Royal Academy and now devotes his time to compiling the club’s history.  I contacted him via the Firhill office two years ago wishing to find out any information PTFC held on my uncle who played for them in circa 1931.  Mr Reid was able to show me details of his appointment and subsequent transfer etc as well as a photo of my uncle pitch-side in his playing kit.  I was most grateful to Mr Reid for all his efforts to be of help.
May I also sing the praises of Mr. Reid.  Earlier this season, in midweek, Me and a pair of Leyton Orient supporting friends from Essex Knocked on the door at Firhill hoping for a ‘stadium tour’.  Although no official event is advertised, Mr Reid gave us a splendid 90 minutes of very informed chat and comment about the club he cherishes.  We had a memorable morning and, yes, they do have a Trophy Room.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on10:32 am - Mar 29, 2017


AJ and Jimbo,
                     but if there are rules governing dual ownership and they had to be careful that he did not breach these in the past, how can they now say “Yip, everything is ok, carry on chaps”. There’s obviously a lot been going on in the background with regards The Rangers that we will never know about but to blatantly allow a party to demolish dual ownership rules – which  they had taken cognizance of before –  for the betterment of one club whilst, emm, saving Scottish Football is absolutely scandalous . Just what will it take for Scottish Football to stand up and say enough is enough. The Rangers, after another attempt ( I know), simply cannot sustain itself as a Club. Have we all to wait and put football governance on the back-burner whilst listening and reading the sheer junk that is spouted in the hope that The Rangers, any Rangers will soon get it right?  
                       

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on10:49 am - Mar 29, 2017


Sorry Jimbo,
                I meant AJ and UTH. Apologies

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:57 am - Mar 29, 2017


ChristyboyMarch 29, 2017 at 10:32
Have we all to wait and put football governance on the back-burner whilst listening and reading the sheer junk that is spouted in the hope that The Rangers, any Rangers will soon get it right?  

Don’t be ridiculous.  No, we’ve just to turn a blind eye as they get falsely issued a euro licence, turn another blind eye as they leverage future income potential to grab competitor’s players and then all join hands and hope, for the good of Scottish Football, that they get into the group stages of something and then we’ll all live happily ever after.  Apparently.

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:58 am - Mar 29, 2017


Christyboy,
I wondered about that! 02

But I agreed with you anyway.

(or should that be anyhow? You wouldn’t believe I’ve got a higher English, esp. with my spelling last night.!)

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:30 am - Mar 29, 2017


ChristyboyMarch 29, 2017 at 10:32 
AJ and Jimbo,                      but if there are rules governing dual ownership and they had to be careful that he did not breach these in the past, how can they now say “Yip, everything is ok, carry on chaps”. There’s obviously a lot been going on in the background with regards The Rangers that we will never know about but to blatantly allow a party to demolish dual ownership rules – which  they had taken cognizance of before –  for the betterment of one club whilst, emm, saving Scottish Football is absolutely scandalous . Just what will it take for Scottish Football to stand up and say enough is enough. The Rangers, after another attempt ( I know), simply cannot sustain itself as a Club. Have we all to wait and put football governance on the back-burner whilst listening and reading the sheer junk that is spouted in the hope that The Rangers, any Rangers will soon get it right?
_____________________

Three letters to answer that question:

LNS. 

In addition, they were not being careful that rules were not breached, they were concerned that Ashley might not make a ‘strong Rangers’ quickly enough. They thought King would, and so subverted the rules that said he wasn’t fit and proper. Rules only count when it suits the Ibrox club, when the rules don’t, discretion is utilised.

View Comment

stevoPosted on12:33 pm - Mar 29, 2017


Minor correction – it’s Robert Reid (rather than William) who is the Partick Thistle club historian.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on1:08 pm - Mar 29, 2017


AJ, thanks for replying. Aye, there does seem to be a lot of discretion about !!!!!

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on1:53 pm - Mar 29, 2017


stevoMarch 29, 2017 at 12:33
Minor correction – it’s Robert Reid (rather than William) who is the Partick Thistle club historian.
——————————
Stevo, you’re absolutely correct, it’s my goldfish memory letting me down again.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:15 pm - Mar 29, 2017


ChristyboyMarch 29, 2017 at 13:08 
AJ, thanks for replying. Aye, there does seem to be a lot of discretion about !!!!!
_______________________

How many SFA ‘discretions’ are needed to equal the Rangers/TRFC indiscretions?

Does one SFA discretion equal one Rangers/TRFC indiscretion, or is one more necessary ‘for the good of Scottish football’ than the other?

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on3:18 pm - Mar 29, 2017


Depart from discretion when it interferes with duty. (Hannah More)

Wise woman.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:29 pm - Mar 29, 2017


Mibbees TRFC should be granted a Euro licence for next season – no questions asked – for the good of Scottish football.
Bear with me.  

You can just imagine the PR offensive from Level42 about ‘Rangers’ finally being back where they belong, amongst the Euro elite – just like the good old days !

And we have seen in recent years that well run Scottish teams have struggled against teams from supposed ‘minnow’ leagues.
So why would a dysfunctional and skint TRFC expect to waltz into the Europa group stages ?
I say let them have their chance…

TRFC would – I believe – not make much money until / unless they get into the group stages of Europa league – what with flights / hotel costs etc.
And then they get humped by a team of Scandinavian part-timers nobody has ever hear of – and in the first qualifying round.
Cue: much foaming of the mouth from the bears.

A painful reality check about TRFC’s position in Europe – and in the Scottish game.
And a useful reminder to TRFC and the SFA that the Ibrox club is most definitely not the ‘Rangers’ of old.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on3:54 pm - Mar 29, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIAL
MARCH 28, 2017 at 20:48
If King doesn’t stump for the share offer, or if SARS is preventative, where does it leave him?. I don’t imagine cold shouldering would appeal to him, as it may extend to other UK controlled jurisdictions, chiefly Guernsey, amongst others, the location of “Ben Nevis”    Would his alternative be to sell off, or relinquish his holding?…If so to whom?     Not his co-accused concert party, nor Uncle Mick due to the restrictions upon them.     Would the Easedales welcome additional security guards around the directors box for their personal safety?.  Or rudderless, and largely clueless “Club” (insert meaningless number) fancy a bite at the cherry, and the opportunity to feed the black hole?    I wonder if he has any more dodgy pals in perhaps Hong Kong or South Africa, (or anywhere really), who will be willing to take them off his hands?    Plus ca change
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Its no coincidence that TRFC have been run by a succession of  Spivs since a Spiv changed its name from Sevco Scotland after the Brechin match in July 2012
Its no coincidence either that multiple scandals have occurred during the same period. When Spivs are in charge they regularly   come into conflict with the aims of their customers ,suppliers and trade organisations.
Even the arrival of a couple of Directors who seem unlikely spivs hasn`t stopped the scandals.
The TAB concert party ruling is by far the biggest ever scandal in the short life of TRFC. Even so, as a non legally binding ruling the knee jerk reaction of a Spiv would be to defy the ruling.
The Company Secretary encouraged fans last year to buy shares at 27.5p in the full knowledge that the first concert party ruling was either imminent or had just been released with a 20p purchase price.
This leaves the current MD isolated as the only Director  with claims to the sort of integrity needed to warrant respect in the business community. It is unknown whether he knew about the TAB ruling last July or just found out when the appeal was rejected on 13 March. PMG has also suggested that the recent unaudited accounts were released without his knowledge and consent
Strategically the MD is between a hard place and a rock. He must ensure the SFA receive proper audited accounts for the period up to 31 March  2017,as they will be forwarded to UEFA. Alternatively, he needs to advise the SFA that TRFC do not wish to be considered for a UEFA spot because they cannot fulfil FFP criteria. Overshadowing this mess is the need to sell STs and fend off lawsuits from MA and the Warburton team.
His only ace card is a threat to resign and tell all. Such a threat may have persuaded the other 3 Directors to quit the TRFC board. By resigning they no longer have a role enabling them to be in and around the Ibrox offices without first advising the MD of their intentions.
It’s an almighty mess
IMO 

When the ST sale is over either the MD or the 3 Directors or all 4 will leave Ibrox
My money is on all 4 going

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:28 pm - Mar 29, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSMARCH 29, 2017 at 07:46       23 Votes 
ALLYJAMBOMARCH 29, 2017 at 07:04  I am also certain that, should Ashley be the only possible saviour, the SFA will bend over backwards to make his return the best thing that Scottish football has ever known! In other words, no more than a cursory glance at any impediments, such as his Newcastle ownership!I Agree with you 100% on that. The evidence in favour is overwhelming.
——————————
Ashley may be the only possible saviour and the SFA may bend over backwards to make any return the best thing that scottish football has ever known.
But could the ibrox fans face the humiliation of an Ashley return. After the boycotts and the chant’s and the banners?
——————–

After chants of ‘sack the board’, ‘we want our Rangers back, get out of our club…you thieving b******s, get out of our club’, sights were set on the Sports Direct (‘’yir havin’ a laugh’) owner.
With venom and volume, the fulminating throng struck up cries of ‘fat Geordie b*****d’ before a realisation struck among some of those doing the growling that Ashley is from Buckinghamshire, just north of the River Thames. Rapidly then Geordie was dropped for Cockney, before they moved on to simply calling him a ‘w****r’, and from their segueing into exhortations for the Easdales to ‘get tae f***’.
The whole scene turned ugly in more than just the language filling the air when some of the protesters seemed to recognise someone and stormed towards the oak-panelled doors. Punters clattered the metal barriers into the line of police. They, in turn, attempted to push back both the barriers and those heaving them towards the entrance.
Also remember the Newcastle loan players, some injured before they set foot in ibrox. The fans took that well.
I believe an Ashley return would be a humiliation too far for most ibrox fans

View Comment

neepheidPosted on8:55 pm - Mar 29, 2017


goosygoosyMarch 29, 2017 at 15:54
When the ST sale is over either the MD or the 3 Directors or all 4 will leave IbroxMy money is on all 4 going
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are right. Whatever the internal divisions at Ibrox, every effort will be made to present a united front until the maximum number of season tickets have been sold. The money from those season tickets is the lifeblood of the company. Any significant  shortfall would be fatal, in my opinion.
Everybody involved (apart from the MD) is in too deep to let this fail right now. Even on the most cynical view, if they all shut up and play nice for a bit, then a good few million in the bank at least offers some hope of an exit with dignity (and more importantly, bank balance) intact.
So why rock the boat before the money comes in? Although I suppose King’s deadline for a share offer will shake things up in a couple of weeks, one way or another.

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:11 pm - Mar 29, 2017


That was nice talking to my Jag friends.  Now I want to ask my Jambo friends.  Do you know Ian?  I think he scouted for the Jambos, might even have played for the team.  Again, he was a smashing guy, I worked with him I the Saughton area.  He took ill about 3/4 years ago and retired.  If EJ or AJ know him please tell him I send my fondest memories & support.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on9:17 pm - Mar 29, 2017


If you haven’t heard it yet, please take some time to download the podcast. There won’t be a TWM next week as I am off on holiday for a couple of days, so this interview with David Low, opinion pieces on the booing of Scotland players and german anthems, and a feature on Henry Hall are the last you will hear until 10/11 April 🙂

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:25 pm - Mar 29, 2017


Cheers BP going to have a listen.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:31 pm - Mar 29, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
MARCH 29, 2017 at 20:28

I believe an Ashley return would be a humiliation too far for most ibrox fans.
==================================

Mibbees not CO.

If Ashley was to initially buy a half-decent player – and with a promise of more to come – then he would quickly win round the bears, IMO.

If he was seen in the Directors’ box in club tie, blazer and brogues – maybe pretending to mouth the words to some songs – then he would be readily accepted as having “always been a RRM” !

Fans can be fickle, and whilst Ashley might not be their first choice – he really does have plenty of his own money.
Unlike [S]DM, Whyte, and now King.

Ashley’s wealth might help the bears to overcome their misgivings, and adopt him as their new saviour.
Except he’s a ‘proper’, hard nosed businessman – and won’t splash the cash – but he would put the club on a sound financial footing and probably at the expense of silverware.  
And then the bears will demand he leaves their club…  14

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:31 pm - Mar 29, 2017


BP!!!  I heard that a couple of days ago. 07070707

BTW is that you playing the intro music?  04

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:51 pm - Mar 29, 2017


BIG PINKMARCH 29, 2017 at 21:17
Been trying to have a listen and every time the headphones are about to go on something of a distraction happens. So hopefully have a listen the next day or so

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:58 pm - Mar 29, 2017


JIMBOMARCH 29, 2017 at 21:11

Sorry Jimbo, unfortunately I don’t know the man nor recognise the name as having had a connection with Hearts. EJ, who takes a great interest in things at all levels at the club will be more likely to have come across him. I hope you do manage to get some news of you friend, and that he is well.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:07 pm - Mar 29, 2017


STEVIEBCMARCH 29, 2017 at 21:31 
CLUSTER ONEMARCH 29, 2017 at 20:28

I can’t see a little thing like fan hatered putting Ashley off an Ibrox return, provided he can see a profit in it. The supporters would end up with one choice, support the club and buy my merchandise, or else…

He wouldn’t hear the vile chants from his place in the St Jameses Park directors box anyway!

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:12 pm - Mar 29, 2017


Thanks AJ but I’m sure EJ will know him. He was a great wee character. He was a smiley person.

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:23 pm - Mar 29, 2017


Just noticed that was my 998 post.  My 1k one is coming up. What should I talk about? For it, my friends thougougt the Scottish football world?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:42 pm - Mar 29, 2017


ALLYJAMBOMARCH 29, 2017 at 22:07       1 Vote 
STEVIEBCMARCH 29, 2017 at 21:31 CLUSTER ONEMARCH 29, 2017 at 20:28
I can’t see a little thing like fan hatered putting Ashley off an Ibrox return,
—————
It would be the hatred of Ashley that might not see the fans return.But hey they forgot about liquidation a little amnesia about the hatred of Ashley could be no problem

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on11:10 pm - Mar 29, 2017


NEEPHEID
MARCH 29, 2017 at 20:55
So why rock the boat before the money comes in? Although I suppose King’s deadline for a share offer will shake things up in a couple of weeks, one way or another
,,,,,,,,,,,
You`ve put your finger on the core of the issue
The timing is all out of sync
The 12 April deadline for publicly initiating the share purchase is incompatible with getting the ST money in. Forced resignation followed by cold shouldering cannot be spun as good news to enough Gulliebillies to match last season’s ST uptake.
 There must be preliminary steps that need to be taken this week to get the process under way. so there will be an early warning  to the 3Bs this week as to how things are going
We have only seen the 13th March press release from the TAP. But there will also have been a 13th March letter from the TAP to the Chairman requiring a written response from him confirming that he intends to comply with the ruling on the date specified. The Chairman may ask for a delay but not without indicating his acceptance if he does ask for a delay and get agreement the TAP will require him to publicly advise shareholders of the new date or possibly set the new date themselves 
IMO
It’s not going to happen.
The Chairman had two weeks to consider his position before meeting the rest of the Board last week. If PMG is correct (and he may not be) the Chairman`s position was that he would go ahead with the purchase providing the 3Bs put up the money. He got rejected and promptly had a lengthy interview with a pet journo where he dropped large hints about not ever retiring back  to Scotland, being a SA citizen,communicating on Skype ,being happy to remain an influential investor willing  to step down in favour of a locally based Chairman etc. etc.
Unfortunately  if he decides to renege on the TAP ruling he  can`t control the timing of what happens next, nor can he do much about the two upcoming lawsuits
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
There is a danger for Celtic in all of this mess
A semi-final victory for TRFC irrespective of the circumstances would be a major boost to ST sales at a time “when Scottish Football needs TRFC to survive”
So I wouldn`t be a bit surprised the match is plagued with so many honest mistakes that Celtic make a public complaint afterwards  irrespective of the result

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:49 pm - Mar 29, 2017


goosygoosyMarch 29, 2017 at 23:10
‘…..So I wouldn`t be a bit surprised the match is plagued with so many honest mistakes that Celtic make a public complaint afterwards irrespective of the result.’
____________
There have been times recently when a piss poor Celtic have made it unnecessary for match officials to make’ honest mistakes’!
I think we know where the Celtic board are in terms of looking after the interests of any kind of Rangers ahead of sporting integrity. They made that clear by their failure to act over the Res 12 issue.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:44 am - Mar 30, 2017


jimbo March 29, 2017 at 22:12
====================
Apologies in advance if I have missed a key part of your conversations. Who are we talking about? Ian ????.

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on1:30 am - Mar 30, 2017


Much of the foregoing discussion revolves around how the fans would react to MA taking total control of TRFC/RIFC with a consensus leaning towards MA being accepted back since he is genuinely wealthy. As a hard nosed businessman he would do whatever is required to get some return on his investment but given the well publicised hate campaign against him he might just decide to sell the land on which the stadium sits as provide further investment for a failed venture. Revenge is a dish best served cold and all that. Of course he would have to get a hold of the deeds first in order to do that. On a personal note I happened to be working in and around Ibrox the night of the violent protest. Snowballs were the projectile of choice that night but I’m pretty sure there were also pitchforks and flaming torches. I know I’m rambling a bit here. I blame the Guinness.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:57 am - Mar 30, 2017


It is worth bearing in mind that if Mike Ashley takes control of Rangers, or any wealthy businessman takes control of any football club they do not actually “pump money into it”. They provide loans which the club itself then uses to buy players registrations, pay higher salaries, maintain the stadium, or any number of other things.

Look back to Chelsea and Manchester City, there was this assumption that the mega wealthy owners were investing heavily in players and paying higher wages. They weren’t they were providing loans (albeit possibly interest free). Several years ago both clubs converted huge debts into equity. That cleared the debt but there is only so often you can reasonably do that, and you are diluting the other shareholders percentage every time you do.

A sustainable business model with clubs operating within their means is the only way forward, for any club (or business for that matter). Anything else, as has been discussed before, is a hobby.

https://www.ft.com/content/f0b08520-fab5-11de-a532-00144feab49a

Manchester City became the latest English Premier League club to clear its long-term debts in anticipation of tougher financial rules being drawn up Uefa, European football’s governing body, after it announced on Wednesday that its Abu Dhabi owner had converted his £305m ($488m) loans into equity.

Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, who bought the club in September 2008, has invested up to £400m to help fund a player spending spree that mirrors Chelsea’s transfer bonanza under Roman Abramovich.

Sheikh Mansour has now pursued the same debt-clearance strategy of the Russian oligarch. Chelsea announced last week that Mr Abramovich had converted his remaining £340m of loans into equity, in a move the club said would help it comply with forthcoming debt regulations.

View Comment

Comments are closed.