Two wrongs and a right

Posted on by

The John James blog has of late thrown up many hooks to hang our theories on and provided much food for thought on the Rangers issue.

His casual invective against individuals, particularly Dave King, and often members of the Bench is not particularly SFM-like in its approach, but despite the industrial nature of much of the discourse, the value of his work cannot be denied.

On the subject of revisiting LNS, I find myself in agreement with his conclusions. His argument about Celtic’s attitude to Resolution 12 is to my mind compelling insofar as it serves as a barometer for Celtic’s disposition towards rocking the SPL/SFA boat. Like him, I cannot see any real evidence, (despite the recent statement by the club) that they are disposed to move in the direction of a revisited LNS (although it should be noted that besides Celtic there are another 40 clubs who may have an opinion on this).

His conclusions though should not be confused with his opinion on the rights and wrongs of LNS. Like most of us, he appears to be of the opinion that LNS was seriously flawed on multiple counts.

I saw Bill McMurdo’s remarks too in reference to the same topic. He alleges that the whole SFA house of cards would come down if information he has at his fingertips, information that off-book payments in Scottish football was much more widespread that the RFC EBTs, was made public.

UnderTableIf what he says is true, and he has evidence, he should be expanding on the innuendo.

If he chooses not to, then he is as complicit as those he accuses.

In any event, to say that no action should be taken because others have done it is not the same as saying that no action WILL be taken.

If he means the former, then he is wrong. By the logic of that argument it follows that burglars for example should not be prosecuted because other people burgle houses but didn’t get caught.

I suspect he knows himself that by any objective standard, this view is in error, because when he is called out on it, he reverts to ad hominem attacks on those who called him on it. No defence, just withering, dismissive sarcasm – in the manner of former pundit Jim Traynor when he refers to those who speak of sporting integrity.

If he means the latter, then he should do what he can do prevent it and make his information public. I believe he knows that the £3 note fraternity runs through Scottish football like lettering on a stick of seaside rock, but I suspect he doesn’t actually have evidence.

If there is evidence, then McMurdo is in a unique position to get it out in the open and make life difficult for those he alleges are corrupt.

Then we should go back in time as far as possible to investigate those who participated in “black money” schemes, whether they are EBTs, other forms of tax dodge, or just money in a brown paper bag.

I do not believe that any of us participating in the Scottish Football Monitor would fear exposure of any of our clubs. I think we all know that this is far more important than club loyalties.

If McMurdo’s information is correct, then we also have the opportunity to show that the clamour for revisiting LNS is not an anti-Rangers with-hunt. Instead of reconvening LNS, let’s have Bill’s info, and constitute a wider enquiry. If the info was made public, and it will now be difficult for him to put his genie back into the bottle, could the SFA and the clubs resist the pressure for such an enquiry?

handsMaybe McMurdo’s intervention/revelation may yet be seen as a seminal moment in the campaign to rid ourselves of corruption and incompetence in football.

Our position has always been clear. Corruption is counter to sporting integrity. Therefore it must be rooted out.

John James and Merlin are probably correct in that the clubs will seek to thwart any move for a new enquiry; and there could easily have been a deal done with King last week.

However there was also a deal done with Charles Green about the new club being parachuted into the SPL. How did that one turn out?

This entry was posted in General by Big Pink. Bookmark the permalink.

About Big Pink

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,703 thoughts on “Two wrongs and a right”


  1. bet they say “you cant have Toumani” every time anyone asks.


  2. Stevie BC

    so somebody is going to watch sky on his phone and tip the ref a wink if his decision is correct or not.  And we need 2 years to trial it?  Has somebody not paid the wi if or something?


  5. Tony,

    As someone said in a song once I think your big screen idea would go down……..in a ship………called……dig…nit….eee


  6. Smugas
    aye probably mate,refs dont want caught out on their bad decisions


  8. Hmmm,is this a club that owes its owners circa 25million GBP now looking to accepting a loan of 500GBP from a lender,so by passing its owners or are the owners aware of this and they are now so skint that they can’t keep the engine running themselves,possibly being insolvent,oops better watch what I am saying as the SFA might be reading this and will be right over to ask questions of the club that it might be trading unlawfully,we all know how they have been keeping their ever watchful eye on the club from Govan,I mean this can’t be possible,the fans just want to give them money to mind for them.


  9. Thank you Auldheid and John Clark for the feedback from the launch of the SFSA Manifesto.
    Potentially this could (emphasis on could) be an important step forward, in particular with the eye catching call (which could have come from a contributor to this blog) for a: 
    “regular, independent auditing and review of the performance of governing bodies and clubs”
    It’s an encouraging step forward for fans of all scottish clubs who wish the best for the future of the game to hear this fundamental concept promoted by an organisation able to get some profile on the issue with a former first minister amongst those at the launch. 
    I was curious to see what media reaction there had been to the launch. There seems to be quite a spectrum: The Scotsman have a decent, comprehensive article from Andrew Whitaker, comments including: 
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/audits-needed-to-avoid-another-rangers-type-meltdown-1-3994034
    “However, in a keynote demand it called for the “regular, independent auditing and review of the performance of governing bodies and clubs” that would see organisations such as the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) forced to submit to outside scrutiny.
     The report said the radical move was needed due to a “complete lack of transparency throughout the game”, stating that it “often it is only when a crisis emerges that we get to see how a club is actually managed”.
    In a scathing criticism of the sport’s two main governing bodies Scottish Football Association (SFA) and the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL), it said the attitude of fans to those in charge was “revealing and concerning”.

    Former First Minister Henry McLeish, who spokes at the manifesto launch, said the plan for independent audits of clubs, the SFA and SPFL could help prevent a “vast international shadow overhanging” the game such as the Rangers case.
    Rangers three divisions in 2012 after the Oldco Rangers went into administration, and ultimately liquidation, over a separate tax debt which eventually reached £21million.
    The current Rangers club, which has won two promotions on the field since 2012 and is potentially just months away from a return to the Scottish Premiership.

    STV do also give a fair bit of coverage on line but essentially quoting from the Manifesto, no particular prominence or added context to the call for greater transparency but at least they do have coverage. 
    http://news.stv.tv/scotland/1338288-at-a-glance-fans-group-suggest-ways-to-transform-scottish-football/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
    While The Record does have an article on the Manifesto it manages to make no mention of the audit of clubs and the governing bodies that got headline billing in the Scotsman’s article.
    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/supporters-association-urges-conversation-sweeping-7135534
    I’m still looking for the national broadcaster’s coverage. I assume a panel of Chic Young, Richard Wilson and Keith Jackson will be desperate to spend a lot of time discussing a proposal that has come from a body speaking on behalf of the fans that are the audience of the BBC as well as the customers of the national game?


  10. It has been reported that the CIC controlled by Rangers First has offered a loan of £500k to either RIFC PLC or TRFC Ltd, as usual people doing the reporting make no distinction between the two, preferring to just talk about either Rangers or The Club.

    This has been corroborated in a club statement, though they have not said whether they will be taking up the offer or not. Again it is not entirely clear which actual entity the loan was offered to RIFC PLC  or TRFC Ltd.

    In either case, an offer of a loan of £500k has been made, from the CIC to either the PLC or the Ltd Co. I would imagine that providing loans at such a level would require the lender to be licenced and to fall within the regulated sector. I am left to wonder if the people in control of this CIC have taken the necessary steps to obtain such a licence (if appropriate) and to register themselves with the relevant authority.

    Nebulous talk of it some day in the future being swapped for equity doesn’t really change the fact that it is a loan.


  11. There is more than a whiff of Bernie Madoff and Bleak House about the whole shares in the future for money now method being used by the entity. Ultimately shares in a company which has never made a profit and will not do so without radical change which would decrease both income and outgoings based on huge fixed costs are never going to be worth anything apart from sentimental value. 
    Rightful place means a repetition of the dead club’s profligacy using OPM- third Rangers needs to be a new club based on sporting merit and without odious weltanschaungen if it is properly to prosper. Is that likely to happen? Only if it is new from top to bottom and that is hard to see in a situation where history is so important to the Peepil. With all that entails.


  12. tykebhoy 7th January 2016 at 9:41 pm I don’t know if either were rhetorical but both Nawlite and Homunculus have asked about the RIFC PR this evening.  Rumour has it that it is the “48 hour blazer” Chris Graham or as he is widely known in the world of Twitter the “Shitus Touch”
    =================
    Every time I see C. Graham’s name mentioned I immediately think of another Graham — Mr. Nash, who wrote the splendid pop song “King Midas In Reverse”. Rather fitting…


  13. Holmunculus
    They won’t bother with these simple rules and regulations ,they are immune from these,didn’t you know!


  14. hope this attachment works,seems to be trouble at RF about the loan

    Tony,
    Would appreciate it if you apply the rules in names of attachments. It has been changed, but could everyone check that the names of attachements comply?
    BP


  15. Tony.

    Good Lord.  Some common sense coming to the fore at last.  Now why they didn’t do that when there wasn’t such a pressing need for the £500k, indeed when there were 8 figure sums of money (ignoring the legality or otherwise of its source for now) in the bank that other clubs could only dream of is anybody’s guess.  Funny, you would have thought the press would have said something?


  16. tony 8th January 2016 at 11:53 am #
    ——————————————–
    Here’s another opinion piece in the Record from a US based journalist having a go at Rangers First

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-first-dave-king-500k-7139511

    Rangers First and the Dave King £500k row: Fans group is rudderless and their message muddled
    RANGERS FIRST announced on Thursday the group was polling members over extending a £500,000 loan to Rangers, a loan which the club had not only not asked for but had explicitly said it would not entertain at this time. You can’t deny the good intentions of RF and the people who have given their time, efforts and most importantly their money to the group since its founding.
    The community interest company was positioned as an alternative to existing fan ownership schemes, one without borders and without what so many termed “agendas”.
    But Thursday’s proposal to its members was far from the first mishandling of the message by RF leadership. From the beginning of the group’s existence members have raised concerns over the haphazard way RF has gone about relaying information not only to the CIC’s subscribers but to the general public.
    It was hashtags and email blasts and in your face whether you wanted it or not, and it never had a cohesive feel. It never seemed to be cognisant of its need for a recognisable identity, never seemed sure of what it stood for beyond a set of generalities.
    With spokesmen prone to going off track with an already unstable message, it was only a matter of time until the confusion seen on Thursday broke out.
    Myself, in a questionnaire put out by RF in its early days, voiced concerns over the messaging, whether it via print, television, radio or the often turbulent times that social media can present a group without a concise brand strategy.
    The rush to be first out the gate and the want to answer seemingly any query put forward were always going to be stumbling blocks given enough time.
    And so it was yesterday that the group, via Press Association copy, came out firing: noting its substantial and deserved shareholding in Rangers while introducing its plan, but going a step too far saying that it had assurances from the club’s chairman that he personally would match any loan put forth.
    While RF and its heads were busy filling Twitter timelines reminding any and all to be sure to vote for the plan questions were already coming to the fore: Who had talked to Dave King? Had the club even asked for the loan?
    The answers to those questions may lie in a grey area to remain unexposed, but had the message been concise from the front there would be no reason to ask them, and no reason for Rangers to address them.
    The club has made clear in recent months that moving forward with a single-entity fan ownership scheme is a plan it can and will embrace. The sniping between parties who favour either of the main plans – RF and the Rangers Supporters Trust, save a few smaller groups – was lamentable, though as of late has gone mostly quiet.
    Work on what has been termed a merger of the groups – with the club’s support – is well under way.
    Which makes Thursday’s move by RF all the more surprising. Here was a group who spent so much time and effort deriding the machinations of ex-fans’ group supremos. A group that had taken strides to distance itself from the so-called “blazer chasing” efforts of others.
    It went to great lengths to say it was “apolitical” when it came to Mike Ashley and Sports Direct attempting to hold Rangers hostage, this after building endless goodwill by positioning itself as a group who could save future generations from the pain a previous regimes have wrought.
    And yet it made its bold play this week without ever first releasing any accounts; without holding an AGM of its own; and without Rangers ever asking for it to do so in the first place. Why the rush? Why now? Why so boisterously in step with the very politicking it once decried? Sadly, the answer lies in the problems RF has faced since it first began.
    The good intent of Rangers First was always clear; the message was often muddled, providing at times a rudderless ship, one which ran itself aground on Thursday. RF now has to decide how to move on from that, and quickly. One can only hope they get the message right this time around.


  17. Oh dear,Mr Blair has a conflict of interest ,also I wonder what he knows that we don’t and why he is trying to railroad the loan through,somethings in the air and it’s not smelling very nice,do tell James,we are all ears.


  19. The Huddleboard ‏@huddleboard 10m10 minutes ago Just seen verifiable proof of an Arrestment made against Sevco. #itshappeningagain


  20. We have raised just over £300 for the Yorkhill appeal. The money has been put aside in a separate account.

    It’s a good sum to raise, but Tris and me have been chatting and we have toyed with the idea that we could initiate a charity fund.

    We are also aware that because of PayPal fees and the lack of covenants, the real figure would have been significantly greater than £300.

    We could donate 5% of all donations made to the site and 10% of all sales of mugs, tees etc., and subsequently make donations from the fund based on recommendations from you guys.

    It is only a thought right now, but for once we would encourage people to use the TU/TD thingy to indicate your feelings.


  22. Not sure if I posted correctly or if it went into moderation.

    Anyway was trying to see who Brian Bowsman of Rangers First was.

    There is an interesting thread on the Bears Den from January 2014, re his contribution to a SSB show, where under the poster ‘Edmiston 1’ he relays info about his views on the previous boards and passing info onto Police re the the lads who are currently on trial.

    If he was even half right then his sources for information in the past and any of his current thoughts on the new board and James Blair / Rangers First may be something Bears may want to heed. 


  23. woodstein 8th January 2016 at 1:37 pm #Good read (quite long) James Forresthttp://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-internet-bampots-right-from-the-start/
    =============================
    Yes, good summary from James Forrest, and with what is happening in public currently – and vindicating the Bampots further as he suggests – you would think that the likes of Hugh Keevins would be keen to give an unreserved apology on air to his nemesis he actually named: The Internet Bampots ! [I know.]

    And the SFA & SPFL should also apologise unreservedly for years of ignoring its customers who were sending valid questions / Tweets / emails / letters about what was happening at Ibrox and in Scottish football. [I know.]

    But the further risk to Scottish football’s reputation is that with this latest court case there must be, IMO, a high probability that very unflattering information about the conduct of the SFA and SPFL could come out under court privilege – and whilst both Regan and Doncaster are still in charge !

    And to look forward: one improvement could be that both the SFA and SPFL have an independent e.g. ‘Social Media Director’ whose sole role is to identify, receive and answer points made by customers. Social media is not going away – and it actually seems to drive a lot of content in the traditional MSM nowadays – so embrace it and engage with the Internet Bampots: it would be for the good of Scottish football !


  24. Homunculus 8th January 2016 at 10:31 am
    ‘..I am left to wonder if the people in control of this CIC have taken the necessary steps to obtain such a licence (if appropriate) and to register themselves with the relevant authority…
    _______
    I was intrigued by the question and fired off an email to Companies House ;
    This is the reply I got ,

    cicregulator <cicregulator@companieshouse.gov.uk> Today at 1:19 PM
    To

    Message bodyDear Mr ….
    Thank you for your enquiry.
    There is nothing under company law nor related CIC legislation that will prevent a community interest company from providing a loan to a third party. In stating this, the Regulator would expect that such a loan would be subject to meeting the CIC’s social purpose and community interest company statement and that in providing loans of this nature the fiduciary duties of the directors have been discharged in the best interests of the company and with good faith and honesty.
    Regards


  25. Raman Bhardwaj ‏@STVRaman 1h1 hour agoMark Warburton on good form today:why he’s going to lower leagues for players, his response to Accrington & how he missed out on Jamie Vardy

    Is Jamie Vardy going to have as many managers who ‘just missed out on identifying/signing him as a top player’ as the number of folk who had Sean Connery as their milkman in Edinburgh?

    Me, I thought about the Dyson Vaccum cleaner long time ago before it was ever invented but did hee haw about it. Therefore I’m great,  so I am.03


  28. Is Hampden simply cursed ? I think we should be told…!
    Mental.
    =======
    “Trainee accountants horrified after Gangnam style played during crucial exam
    TRAINEE accountants were horrified after being bombarded with pop anthem Gangnam style during a crucial exam.
    Dozens of people sitting [ACCA] accountancy exams at Hampden thought their number was up when the disruptive music began blaring out during the vital tests in December.
    …
    Hampden boss Peter Dallas said staff at the venue “took steps to rectify the situation” but admitted the music had not been turned off until after the exam had ended…”

    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14191072.Trainee_accountants_horrified_after_Gangnam_style_played_during_crucial_exam/


  29. I don’t think a FSA licence is required for the CIC to loan money to another company, because the loan would not be made in the course of a business. The CIC doesn’t really have a business, and certainly not a business of lending money. That’s my take on it, anyway.
    However I came across the following, which is an extract from this document-  http://www.rangersfirst.org/media/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Minutes_2014-03-04.pdf

    But vital to understand that Money rasied by the CIC cannot simply be donated to the Club, itmust be contracted and agreed by the membership, it cannot be donated the Asset Lock ofthe CIC prevents this. It can never be a “slush fund” for the Club boardThe Statutory Asset Lock means that the CIC members must agree to use money forthe benefit of the Community of the members.

    Without security, or any immediate prospect of a share issue, this proposed loan is as close to a donation as you will ever come across. Would King take such a loan from the loyal fans, and then declare an insolvency shortly afterwards? I wonder.


  31. The links posted above by ValentinesClown and Wottpi are from John Steven’s the person (man is over egging it) behind the state aid claims.  As in he believes what he wishes to be true is true.  I think without independent corroboration (where have I seen that before) a large bucket of salt is required.


  32. valentinesclown 8th January 2016 at 4:30 pm #Sports Direct loan repaid in full. Short Posthttps://examplewordpresscom7073.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/sports-direct-loan-repaid-in-full/ … @STVGrant
    Just seen this on twitter can anyone confirm if true?
    ===================
    I had a look at the blog, and John Stephens has include the text of an email from the Land Registry, appearing to confirm that the securities have been released. This will be clear on the Land Registry site on Monday.
    John Stephens is, of course, the “State Aid” monomaniac, who was handed his erse on a plate by Ecobhoy on many occasions. So I’ll be waiting for confirmation from elsewhere, personally.


  33. Regarding state-aid boy’s claims: if anyone believes that a crown agency would release sensitive, commercial information in advance of its publication, they should go see a shrink.


  34. neepheid 8th January 2016 at 4:53 pm #I don’t think a FSA licence is required for the CIC to loan money…
    ============================
    nh, in the interests of pedantry… 02
    The FSA is no more. 
    Mibbees a helpful ‘re-branding’ was needed after the financial crisis ?
    It’s now the FCA, [& also PRA].
    Will it improve the quality of financial regulation and avoid another financial crisis ? 
    Of course not… 14


  35. briggsbhoy 8th January 2016 at 5:05 pm
    ‘…the exploits of keeper Scott Sterling in keeping the ball out the net in a penalty shoot out.’
    _______
    If that whole thing wasn’t a stunt, the goalie’s club, the physio, and the referee should be stripped of any licence to  participate in ‘soccer’ matches- for life. And possibly charged with aggravated assault. Unbelievable.


  36. Dear JC,
    Ya mug  (:-0)
    It’s a Studio C spoof. Very funny, though.


  38. Aye

    Sports Direct paid in “fool” more like.
    Roll on the 18th.07


  39. Obviously we must be missing a chunk of info, but…

    On the face of it, a group of supporters propose to vote to ‘loan’ GBP500K of their hard earned cash to their beloved club.  So far so good.

    Then the financially distressed club/company gets all indignant, declares “How Very Dare You !”, and enlists some US based person, [it wisnae me 😉 ],  to berate this generous fans group in the DR.

    And then a founder of the fans’ group resigns.

    It’s ‘simply the best’ entertainment I’ve had this year so far !
    Keystone cops stuff. Popcorn duly engaged !09 


  40. neepheid 8th January 2016 at 4:53 pm #

    I don’t think a FSA licence is required for the CIC to loan money to another company, because the loan would not be made in the course of a business. The CIC doesn’t really have a business, and certainly not a business of lending money. That’s my take on it,
    anyway.

    However I came across the following, which is an extract from this document-

    http://www.rangersfirst.org/media/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Minutes_2014-03-04.pdf

    “But vital to understand that Money rasied by the CIC cannot simply be donated to the Club, it must be contracted and agreed by the membership, it cannot be donated the Asset Lock of the CIC prevents this. It can never be a “slush fund” for the Club board The Statutory Asset Lock means that the CIC members must agree to use money for the benefit of the Community of the members.”

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

    John Clark 8th January 2016 at 4:10 pm #

    In stating this, the Regulator would expect that such a loan would be subject to meeting the CIC’s social purpose and community interest company statement and that in providing loans of this nature the fiduciary duties of the directors have been discharged in the best interests of the company and with good faith and honesty.

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

    So what we are saying is that they don’t actually need to be within the regulated sector, or licenced in order to provide such large loans (even if it is money provided by the public).

    However is what they are doing really in the spirit of what they were set up for, and in particular what they told the support when they started making their donations. See the quote.

    There is no security being requested. There is no sign of a rights issue any time soon. This use of the money is at the very least highly speculative and could end up being nothing more than a donation to a failing business. A donation which may well be used to pay a private individuals’ legal bills.

    I’m afraid that in my view, given where the money came from, the lack of security or a real prospect of getting equity, and the likely use which will be made of it, offering this “loan” is just plain wrong.


  42. OT.
    Just spotted this ‘handbags fight’ on Twitter between 2 SMSM ‘journalists’.1919
    Are they starting to crack under the pressure of all this Internet Bampot vindication…?  
    ========================================================

    Ewan Murray ‏@mrewanmurray 2h2 hours agoScottish Cup third round weekend used to be really something to savour. As ruined by those who run Scottish football, crowds this weekend..?

    Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 2h2 hours ago@mrewanmurray Fourth.

    Ewan Murray ‏@mrewanmurray 2h2 hours ago@STVGrant fourth round weekend wasn’t something to savour to same extent. You didn’t go to games so wouldn’t understand that.
     

    Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 2h2 hours ago@mrewanmurray Two inaccurate stabs in the dark in two successive tweets. Strong work fella.

    Ewan Murray ‏@mrewanmurray 2h2 hours ago@STVGrant When precisely was the “fourth” round once widely anticipated? You utter tit.

    Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 2h2 hours ago@mrewanmurray Every year any given supporter’s team is in it. Widely anticipated until the fifth round etc. You utter joy of a man.

    Ewan MurrayVerified account‏@mrewanmurray@STVGrant nope, this has indeed gone completely over your head. Lack of experience in Scottish football the explanation, don’t worry.
     

    Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 2h2 hours ago@mrewanmurray The whole point of this was that it’s fourth round weekend this weekend. Not third. You’re welcome.

    Ewan Murray ‏@mrewanmurray 2h2 hours ago@STVGrant no it wasn’t.. As I think I can say as it was, erm, my point. In your desire to be a smart arse, you made a Roger Hunt of it.

    Ewan Murray ‏@mrewanmurray 2h2 hours ago@STVGrant (Google him)

    Slimshady ‏@Slimshady1961 1h1 hour agoGlasgow, Scotland@mrewanmurray @TheClumpany @STVGrant What is this, “Battle of the Fannies (fourth round) ?

    Arthur Stramash ‏@ArthurStramash 51m51 minutes ago@mrewanmurray @TheClumpany @STVGrant I misread your original tweet, Ewan. Possibly ambiguous? Grant a decent type. I suggest a dropped ball.

    Cloggybhoy ‏@Cloggybhoy 1h1 hour ago@mrewanmurray @TheClumpany @STVGrant Arse on plate right there @STVGrant . oooft
    ==========================
    Have a good weekend Bampots. 22


  43. Evening all.
    Catching up on todays news.I’ve now got this timeline in my head(could be rubbish but here goes).
    Monday night.Sensible guy on Twitter just posts BOOM!.
    When asked why he explains he can’t say but it’ll become clearer in a few days.
    Tuesday.Rumours & hints on twitter wrt HMRC.
    Wednesday?.DR reporter states on Twitter that there’s a major story breaking at Ibrox & all would be revealed in one hour.Nothing happens but said reporter posts that he’s left his laptop on while not at his desk as excuse for no story.
    Today someone on a CFC site posts saying they’ve seen positive evidence of a “Schedule of Arrestment” served on Rangers but this post is deleted shortly after.Still,the story won’t go away.
    Soon after,a prominent KDS poster states that a trusted source has told him the story is “The Real Deal”.
    that’s followed by this from one of the KDS mods:
    “had heard rumours of the arrestment a couple of days ago from more than one source…but assumed it was just a wind-up
    was tempted to post in the style of a certain journalist based on the rumours…but refrained from doing so 😉
    however on the basis of the current outbreak of said rumour…here’s what I was going to post..
    Some questions for the stenographers
    Is January the month when the football authorities make payments of sponsorship cash to clubs?
    Do the football authorities bank with Clydesdale?
    Have HMRC lodged arrestments with that bank in respect of a particular club’s share to cover unremitted/ unpaid PAYE/NI ?
    the answers may well be yes, yes and no
    it could all be absolute rubbish”
    ———
    Followed by this:
    An arrestment has been issued – co-worker’s gf works in that area for a finantial institution, but, as it isn’t on her caseload at the moment, few details sadly.
    Note of caution before breaking out the jelly – the last time it happened it was 5 months until the greatest Valentine’s day ever.
    ————-
    There seems no doubt that an order has been issued.The debate is by whom.Some say HMRC with others favouring the Wi-Fi company.It may also explain Mr Blairs rush to get £500k in quickly.


  44. Followed by this: An arrestment has been issued – co-worker’s gf works in that area for a finantial institution, but, as it isn’t on her caseload at the moment
    ==========================================================
    A friends friends in finance has “a caseload”.
    Must be the  Emma Peel and Christine Lagarde of Clydebank rolled into one this lady.


  45. torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) 8th January 2016 at 8:20 pm  

         There seems no doubt that an order has been issued.The debate is by whom.Some say HMRC with others favouring the Wi-Fi company.It may also explain Mr Blairs rush to get £500k in quickly. 

        A coincidence maybe, that they were also £500K short of satisfying Uncle Mick, Due to be repaid before the turn of the year…?????????    14


  46. nickmcguinness 8th January 2016 at 7:09 pm
    ‘…Dear JC,Ya mug (:-0)It’s a Studio C spoof. Very funny, though.’
    _______
    It had me going for a bit, I confess, although I was a wee bit suspicious. To my untrained technical eye it looked absolutely authentic, and it was in America, where lots of stoopidly wicked things happen.02


  47. I have no email address for Simon Barrow, CEO of the SFSA. None is given in the ‘Manifesto’.
    So I can’t email my letter to him.It’ll have to go snail mail.
    Sadly, it’s ower long to be put on the blog in full, but these are my concluding paras:
    ” Scottish Football Administration has to be cured of the deep-running sore of its failure to maintain the highest standards of administrative fairness , sporting justice, and respect for Sporting Integrity, in its dealings with RFC(IL) and with SevcoScotland/Rangers 2012/TRFC/RIFC plc, before any genuine trust can be restored.
    As I say, I missed the ‘open discussion’ which followed on the heels of the opening speeches. Had I been present, I intended to bring the essence of this letter to the meeting’s attention.
    Instead, and regrettably,I have to content myself with merely sending the letter to you as CEO of an organisation whose existence would be pointless if there were no professional football, – and even more pointless if the game is to remain under the cloud of suspicion which hangs over its Administrators and Governance.
    Yours most sincerely, ”


  48. John Clark 8th January 2016 at 10:48 pm #nickmcguinness 8th January 2016 at 7:09 pm‘…Dear JC,Ya mug (:-0)It’s a Studio C spoof. Very funny, though.’ 
       ——————————————————————————–   
       Happy new year J.C. It was actually a trial version for the SFA, who think it best to “pre-record” scenarios, which they can then edit in to the real match, just to make sure the refs don’t get it wrong. Both teams of actors will play in white and any colour jersey can be digitally added at the touch of a button, to suit any game. 
        It should be good fun, as wee baldie heids, beards and moustaches can also be added…..The tattoos are proving problematic tho’.    03

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/35265870&nbsp;


  49. John Clark,  Don’t know what I’m laughing the most at the spoof goalie clip or your reaction to it.  Your a star.  03 (Think you were being tongue in cheek though)

    On a serious note well done for the letter to SFSA. 04  I joined them a few months ago but I don’t feel engaged with them.  Fan ownership and representation are worthy ideals but there are so many more important things to be fixed in the game before that would become an issue for me.  Although some might say that if there were more fans on the Boards, they might be tended towards growing a pair and stand up to the likes of Regan & Dunky.


  50. In JC’s defence he probably didn’t watch the clip to the end. I was laughing my head off after the first penalty but then began to smell a rat. It actually became less funny the more ridiculous it got – the complete opposite of Sevco then!


  51. Just thought of a way to make the CIC loan work. If Dave King was to give them some of his ‘own’ shares in return for the £500000 then it could still be constitutional. Why should the fans group lose out? Mind you, given some of the later posts this evening, it may already be academic.


  52. The Duff and Phelps report to creditors of July 2012 includes a detailed timeline of the offers to purchase Rangers through a CVA or if that failed to purchase assets prior to a liquidation.
    This sale process is currently the subject of criminal proceedings, therefore I make no comment about the behaviour of any of those who have been indicted. It is worth though revisiting the process to understand the behaviour of those currently in charge of RIFC , members of the Blue Knights, who were an unsuccessful bidder.
    It is particularly insightful to understand the value placed by potential purchasers for a business which would have had zero debt if the CVA have been accepted . Rangers would also have remained in the SPL , in all probability been eligible for Europe and would not have lost players who subsequently left under TUPE rules.
    Tellingly Rangers would also have owned all of their own Merchandising and retail rights.
    D & P reported that there were 4 credible offers at the initial deadline. There were many unsubstantiated offers, as you would expect, but none that were deemed credible other than the 4 detailed below.
    My belief is that Party 1 was the Bill Millar consortium, Party 2 was Douglas Park, Party 3 was the Blue Knights. Party 4 not clear who this is.

    Offer 1 – Party 1
    5.4 A sale of the Company‟s business and assets for £25m. No CVA proposal required.
    Offer 2 – Party 2
    5.5 Consideration of £5m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal.
    Offer 3 – Party 3
    5.6 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 3 would obtain Company‟s shares directly. Ticketus would not claim as an unsecured creditor in the process.
    Offer 4 – Party 4
    5.7 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 4 would obtain Company‟s shares directly.
    5.8 Of the offers received at this point, analysis demonstrated that Offer 1 produced the highest return to creditors by a substantial margin.

    Duff and Phelps explained that a number of matters required clarification, amongst them Ticketus’ contract, SFA & SPL sanctions, and European participation. They then invited all bidders to make a best & final offer. It is significant that there were NO unconditional offers.


    Best and Final offers
    5.18 It was apparent that although Offer 1 offered the highest return to creditors, given the uncertainties detailed above there were no unconditional offers, nor were there any offers which were deliverable at this stage in the process.
    5.19 Despite the inherent uncertainty, in order to progress matters all parties were well informed of the risks and best and final offers were invited on 4 April 2012 with a view to announcing the preferred bidder shortly thereafter.
    5.20 The following offers were received by the deadline:
    Offer 1 – Bill Miller
    5.21 Following further negotiation Mr Miller declared himself to be the only individual remaining from Party one and subsequently lodged an offer of £10m for a purchase of the Company‟s business, history and assets. There was no requirement for a CVA.
    Offer 2 – Party 2
    5.22 No further offer was received however the original offer was not withdrawn.
    Offer 3 – Party 3
    5.23 The original offer was reconfirmed.
    Offer 4 – Party 4
    5.24 A revised offer of £12m plus additional deferred consideration contingent upon future European participation/success.
    Offer 5 – Party 5 (a new bidder)
    5.25 Consideration of £30m subject to a successful CVA proposal. No proof of funding was provided.

    Duff and Phelps then detailed the issue caused by the proposed Financial Fair Play rules being proposed by the SFA / SPL. They also confirmed that had the Blue Knights been able to come up with £500,000 then they would have been awarded exclusivity. The Blue Knights failed to deliver and that opportunity was lost.

    Financial Fair Play Proposals
    5.26 An announcement as to the preferred bidder was scheduled to be made during the week commencing 9 April 2012 however during the Bank Holiday weekend 6 to 9 April 2012 the Joint Administrators were formally advised of the proposed Financial Fair Play amendments to be issued by the SPL. A vote was scheduled to be cast on 30 April 2012.
    5.27 The SPL proposals as they were drafted would have had far reaching consequences for any of the purchasers of the Club and/or its business whether it was to be via a CVA or otherwise and as such no preferred bidder announcement could be made as originally hoped whilst prospective purchasers looked to fully understand the implications and reformulate their offers accordingly.
    5.28 Bill Miller confirmed that he would pay a refundable £500k deposit for exclusivity however, his offer was entirely contingent upon an outright rejection of the SPL resolutions on 30 April 2012.
    5.29 Party 2 did not make a further offer or increase the quantum of its offer at this time.
    5.30 Party 3 comprised of a consortium of individuals whose offer was to be underwritten by a third party investor (“the Investor”). During a telephone call on 12 April 2012 the Joint Administrators were told that terms had not yet been agreed either between the individuals in the consortium or between the consortium and the Investor. This cast considerable doubt over the ability of Party 3 to complete upon any agreement within the terms it had stipulated. However, the Investor confirmed that it would provide the Joint Administrators with a £500k non-refundable deposit in order that Party 3 be given a period of exclusivity to complete the transaction.
    5.31 On 13 April 2012 Party 3 withdrew its offer of a non-refundable deposit, just prior to a likely decision to grant them preferred bidder status.
    5.32 Party 4 withdrew its offer on 20 April 2012 citing the uncertainties facing the Club and the difficulties surrounding the acquisition of the Company‟s shareholding which would be required for a CVA. However, its advisors verbally confirmed that it would contemplate making an offer for the business and assets of the Club at a later date via a SPA should a CVA not prove possible.
    5.33 Party 5 failed to provide proof of funding or disclose details of its professional advisors. This party was the least advanced of the bidders.

    A further challenge was thrown up by the transfer ban imposed by the SFA. Prior to a preferred bidder being named Party 2 ( Park ) and Party 3 (Blue Knights) joined together, as the investor for Party 3 ( presumably King) had withdrawn his support.
    Bill Millar was then named preferred bidder , but not awarded exclusivity. The following day Sevco made an appearance and put in a bid.

    5.34 Bill Miller‟s offer and Offer 3 were the offers which delivered the best return to creditors; however on 23 April 2012 the SFA published its disciplinary hearing outcome imposing the Transfer Embargo. As this sanction was later shown by the Court of Session to be unlawful, it was unexpected and it therefore caused a further delay to the process whilst the prospective purchasers considered the implications. Bill Miller asked for further time to consider his position. Party 2 also requested further time from the Joint Administrators with which to formulate a revised bid and undertake due diligence despite using the media to call for the Joint Administrators to announce the name of a successful purchaser.
    5.35 On 28 April 2012 Party 2 and Party 3 together submitted a joint second offer, subject to a CVA, of £5.5m. The Investor had by this point stepped away from the consortium of individuals. This offer assumed that pre-existing football debtors be included in the sale. Football debtors held a value of circa. £3.8m which left this offer at a level of £1.7m, when compared to competing bids. In addition, a proposal was requested from Party 2 as to how the Club would be funded whilst a CVA proposal was put to creditors. No such funding offer was received. This new offer was made on the basis that this purchaser could and would facilitate the transfer of the Company‟s shares.
    5.36 Following further discussions and analysis of the remaining offers, the Joint Administrators concluded that Bill Miller‟s offer provided the best return to the Company‟s creditors and was most likely to proceed to completion. On 3 May 2012 he was announced as the preferred bidder, but with no exclusivity arrangement.
    5.37 On 4 May 2012, a late entrant into the sale process, Sevco, provided an indicative offer setting out the terms on which it would acquire the Company which following a number of discussions was agreed upon as follows:
    Offer 6 – Sevco
    5.38 Consideration of £8.25m on successful implementation of a CVA contingent upon Champions League participation during the next three seasons. Should the CVA fail, a binding agreement to purchase the business, history and assets of the Club for £5.5m using a newly incorporated company. Trading the Club whilst a CVA was proposed was to be funded utilising future revenue and football debtor monies, as appropriate. 


    Duff and Phelps then reported that Bill Millar had withdrawn and that further analysis of the Blue Knights offer calculated that the benefit to creditors was in fact only £1.7 million. Sevco (5088) were then announced as the successful bidder .
    A bid then arrived from an individual who had not previously bid ( Brian Kennedy ? ) This bid was for £6 million and was not relevant as the process had closed and the deal done with Sevco

    Final Sale Process
    5.39 On the May Bank Holiday weekend, following dialogue with the SFA and the SPL it became apparent that Mr Miller was considering the withdrawal of his offer. As such, a draft SPA was sent to Party 4 and Sevco. An SPA was not sent to Party 2/3 as it had not indicated that it would consider submitting any offer other than in conjunction with a CVA.
    5.40 On 8 May 2012 Mr Miller withdrew his offer.
    5.41 On 10 May 2012, Party 4‟s advisors made a verbal offer of £5m for the business and assets of the Club at which point Party 2/3 submitted a funding proposal for trading the Club whilst a CVA was proposed however the quantum of this party‟s offer remained below the Sevco offer.
    5.42 The final remaining offers were therefore:

    Offer 2/3
    5.43 The final offer was for £5.5m however the purchaser wished to retain the football debtor balance of £3.8m leaving a net benefit to the estate of £1.7m. A funding proposal was put to the Joint Administrators whilst a CVA was proposed to creditors however this offer remained uncompetitive.
    Offer 4
    5.44 A verbal offer for the business and assets of the Company was received for £5m. No CVA proposal was required.
    Offer 6
    5.45 £8.25m to fund a CVA, if the CVA failed then it would revert to an SPA with a sale price of £5.5m. An exclusivity payment of £200k and provision of funding whilst a CVA was proposed.
    5.46 Having regard to the remaining offers the Joint Administrators were satisfied that the Sevco offer provided the best potential return to creditors of the Company. Therefore on 12 May 2012 the Joint Administrators accepted the Sevco offer.
    5.47 As discussed in Section 6 below the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors at the meeting held on 14 June 2012 and a sale of the business and assets of the Club completed shortly afterwards to Sevco.
    5.48 Following the CVA creditors‟ meeting on 14 June 2012, the Joint Administrators were approached by a party verbally offering £6m for the business and assets of the Company. No offer had been received by this party in the previous 17 weeks. The person making the offer was believed to be part of the Party 3 consortium. Notwithstanding the verbal offer, the Joint Administrators confirmed that a binding contractual agreement with Sevco had been reached and the business, history and assets were subsequently transferred from the Company to Sevco.

    The criticism of the Blue Knights is that they were underfunded and missed an opportunity for exclusivity. The current circus around raising funds, settling debt, asking or otherwise for loans, is all typical of what happened with the Blue Knights at or around the CVA sale opportunity.


  53. Having long despaired on a reasoned response from fans of the erstwhile club, I find the schism twixt RF and RIFC most encouraging. Perhaps we are about to see the knuckledreamers divorced and a true sporting support exert their undoubted potential ‘mon the ‘Gers…but gently.


  54. Barcabhoy 9th January 2016 at 1:51 am #

    Financial Fair Play Proposals5.26 An announcement as to the preferred bidder was scheduled to be made during the week commencing 9 April 2012 however during the Bank Holiday weekend 6 to 9 April 2012 the Joint Administrators were formally advised of the proposed Financial Fair Play amendments to be issued by the SPL. A vote was scheduled to be cast on 30 April 2012.5.27 The SPL proposals as they were drafted would have had far reaching consequences for any of the purchasers of the Club and/or its business whether it was to be via a CVA or otherwise and as such no preferred bidder announcement could be made as originally hoped whilst prospective purchasers looked to fully understand the implications and reformulate their offers accordingly.5.28 Bill Miller confirmed that he would pay a refundable £500k deposit for exclusivity however, his offer was entirely contingent upon an outright rejection of the SPL resolutions on 30 April 2012.

    Barcabhoy, thanks for this, something i haven’t seen before or at least long since forgot if I did. And very interesting I think too.
    The bit quoted above intrigues me – does anyone know exactly what the FFP proposals were and did they get approval in the vote on the 30th April 2012, or at any later vote/date?


  55. Matty Roth 9th January 2016 at 11:16 am
    ‘…
    does anyone know exactly what the FFP proposals were and did they get approval in the vote on the 30th April 2012, or at any later vote/date?
    Try this :http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17983379

    “SPL PROPOSALS
    Minimum of 15 points deducted from any club entering administration
    10-point penalty for two seasons for any club that transfers its share in the SPL to a new company
    75% reduction in payments to any club relaunched as a new company for a period of three seasons
    Requirement for clubs to pay players on time and to report any failure to pay wages
    Requirement for clubs to report any failure to pay PAYE/NIC
    Player registration embargo imposed on any club failing to pay PAYE/NIC ”
    __
      I don’t know whether they ever got round to voting. Such was the absolute fear and panic and desperation to save RFC that they all seemed to lose their sanity!            
     

     


  56. All this talk of possible arrestment orders against Rangers. Finance is not my game. Is it only when an actual winding up order is issued that it is made public? I assume a court has to authorise such an order, or at least a Sheriff’s signature is required?


  58. UTH and others

    A few thoughts on the alleged arrestment.

    • Rangers* don’t bank with Clydesdale so I didn’t give it any credence tbh  (Somewhere in the back of my mind I do recall that you can possibly serve an arrestment on any bank on the off-chance that it banks with them though?). 
    • Arrestments are just that.  If you get a judge to agree that party A owes you x then you can serve an arrestment on party A and if any account in that name contains x in credit it is arrested until such time as the judge is satisfied that dues are paid (and cleared).
    • As a result arrestments are useless for companies in debt (and hence by definition tending towards the troubled end of the spectrum) but are lethal for those trying (or having) to operate solely in credit.  They’re lethal because they tie up the funds for the debt in question, but at the same time they tie up the same funds from being used for anything else.  Its a double whammy if you like.
    • Arrestments tend to attract trouble.  If you’re a creditor sitting considering action and you hear someone else has served one it is hardly encouragement to continue sitting on your hands.  You could argue they are therefore a treble whammy. 
    • It therefore makes it interesting where the 6.5m recent loan is currently sitting.  If its in the name of Rangers* it is potentially arrestable.  This leads me to the conclusion that it isn’t.
    • With arrestments floating around CIC need to be very very careful else it might not touch the sides.      

    Still of the opinion though that this just a little smoke.  Not big smoke just a nagging doubt that something’s burning.


  59. In providing a loan to The Rangers would Rangers First need to prove that all the deposits into their account came from ligit contributions if someone was to ask questions,only asking,we wouldn’t want to find out at a later stage that the football club has been funded by tainted money,you can’t be too careful nowadays ,know what I mean Arry.nudge,nudge,wink,wink.


  60. Barca,

    Was party 6 not the Smith/Souness bid (who may have been fronting for Kennedy but I always thought a McColl type was more likely) that arrived, just like the tackles of the latter of them, a bit late. 


  61. Smugas, you’re right that an arrestment can be served on any or all of the banks if you don’t know where the arrestee banks. It’s a catch-all strategy that works some of the time.


  63. @Smugas a couple of points.

    • I think the suggestion is that the Clydesdale arrestment is not, yet, RIFC/TRFC money but is due to be paid to them as a stage payment from the “football authorities” from sponsorship.  I think it has being pointed out that the next SPFL payment isn’t until April.  Do the SFA pay prizemoney for cup matches per round?
    • According to PZJ at least £5m of the 6.5 has been accepted by SD.  According to PMGB it hasn’t due to unacceptable conditions attached.  I know who I believe!  However I have my doubts the £6.5m has ever been in one account just, as yet, untested promises that it could be there at a specified notice.  Untested because we are talking about the word of DCK here.

  64. Surely if someone was providing funds to repay a specific loan, particularly with people like DK involved, they would insist on either using an escrow account or in them paying the money directly to the final recipient.

    I find it hard to believe that they would agree to transfer the money into Rangers’ Metro Bank account and trust that it was used to repay the loan.


  65. Following on from tyke, that is my understanding of the rumour as well.

    That the arrestment was being put on the money before it was paid out to Rangers, rather than when it was in their bank account.

    Analogous to an arrestment being placed on someone’s wages, so it would be served on the employer.

    As I understand it an arrestment can be served on any third party who holds assets of the entity to whom the arrestment relates.


  66. Smugas 9th January 2016 at 2:36 pm #
    ===========================

    Thanks for the update. I’ve read on another forum paperwork alleged to detail the arrestment was posted online then removed by the mods of the forum in question. The reason given is not that the paperwork was false, but could have lead to the poster falling foul of his/her employer. I have not witnessed said paperwork. I guess there is nothing more we can say at the moment, although it’s worth bearing in mind how long the old Rangers were allowed not to pay tax before it became public knowledge. It’s also worth bearing in mind the Scottish football authorities knew they were not paying tax long before it became public knowledge. 


  67. If there is an arrestment, and it is very much a rumour just now it doesn’t strike me that it would be HMRC who would be doing it.

    Am I not right in saying that when Hearts were having issues with paying their taxes that HMRC would normally apply for a winding up order rather than an arrestment order.

    In fact as I understand it they petitioned for winding up orders something like six times in three years.

    I know they used an arrestment order with the old club but I think that was very specific circumstances, and the money was available in a bank account held by the club to satisfy that debt.

    The main thing is though , if it is true then Rangers would not be paying their bills as they fall due and without external support (more loans) they would be trading whilst insolvent.


  68. John Clark 9th January 2016 at 11:49 am

    “SPL PROPOSALS Minimum of 15 points deducted from any club entering administration 10-point penalty for two seasons for any club that transfers its share in the SPL to a new company 75% reduction in payments to any club relaunched as a new company for a period of three seasons Requirement for clubs to pay players on time and to report any failure to pay wages Requirement for clubs to report any failure to pay PAYE/NIC Player registration embargo imposed on any club failing to pay PAYE/NIC ” __   I don’t know whether they ever got round to voting. Such was the absolute fear and panic and desperation to save RFC that they all seemed to lose their sanity!              

    Thanks JC.
    Some sensible things in there but I think a lot more could have been included.
    I think its safe to assume these were never voted through by the then SPL.
    I seem to recall that the SPFL also abandoned plans to introduce a policy to prevent a club from winning promotion if they enter administration that season.
    It is entirely self evident that Scottish Football is being kept in the bad old days just to protect clubs who can’t be bothered playing by the rules or working within the finances they have available.
    Disgusting really.


  69. I can’t see any way you could arrest monies not yet in Rangers possession even if it is en route to them.  It is either there’s and arrestable, or it isn’t!

    Unless of course the money was paid from the sponsor to ‘the authorities’ and someone at, or involved with, or a member of, the authorities pointed out – hang on, aren’t one of our recipient clubs owe us collectively £400k?

    But that wouldn’t involve a formal arrestment.


  70. Smugas 9th January 2016 at 4:51 pm
    =========================

    It can be money held by any third party, the money doesn’t have to be in the possession of the subject.

    I suppose the analogy would be an arrestment on wages.


  71. Just a curveball suggestion, but is it at all possible that the alleged arrestment is not on a secvo account or funds and is, instead, on an account/funds belonging to someone who – oh, I don’t know – isn’t supposed to have any cash outside of the country of their residence? Would an arrestment not be the best means for a foreign authority to recover undeclared or hidden cash?


  73. Grandmaster_Suck
     BBC’s Chris McLaughlin banned from Ibrox againA couple of budgies at the BBC have confirmed to me that serial offender McLaughlin has had his Ibrox press credentials removed again.
    His latest jape was to report on Rangers being investigated by the SPFL for singing by broadcasting footage of Rangers fans being attacked by riot police in Spain from years ago.
    Additionally, the BBC have repeatedly been trying it on with Rangers in background with numerous incidents since they promised fair treatment last year with the new Board coming in.
    I understand the club have not banned the BBC per se as to do so would place them in breach of broadcasting contracts and play into the hands of enemies of the club within the football authorities.
    All the club have been looking for is a level playing field, to be treated fairly as every other club seems to be.

    ___________
    enemies of the club within the football authorities 03


  74. “I understand the club have not banned the BBC per se as……..”
    when they did it last time no one noticed any difference


  75. Re Bank Arrestment’s. Firstly, I am a complete illiterate when it comes to matters like these but would it be possible that the account arrested is that of the SPFL to prevent payments due to TRFC being paid. The person who disclosed this to me seemed to be very informed on these matters. Can the regulars on here advise as to this possibility?

Comments are closed.