Some of us are old enough to remember the days when we played football in the streets with lamp posts for goals. The “baw” in my day was a plastic “Hampden Frido” (with wee studs that left yer forehead looking like a golf ball when heading it – see picture) and a “Wembley Mettoy”.
Cue memories of MouldMasters and days of pain and glory
But I digress.
The plastic ball was prone to bursting and on a good day or evening a replacement was secured by the original version of crowd funding.; However, the Calton then was a poor neighbourhood and sometimes the “baw” depended on the generosity of a single provider.
This came with risks because generous folk can still be bad losers and if the provider’s team of rags, taigs and bluenoses (remember when that didn’t matter) was getting a drubbing or a high shot was deemed a goal but he protested because he was only 4 feet 6 tall and ,with no crossbar ,height is but a subjective perspective, hence argumentative, or perhaps the goal that created a 10 goal gap occasionally saw the baw ,metaphorical if not physically, land on the slates, at which point the provider and now owner, out of his sense of entitlement as owner, grab the baw and threatened to storm off in the huff.
As long as the game was everything and in the Calton then EVERYTHING was fitbaw, the bawless plebs were only too willing to reduce the imaginary cross bar height or take their foot off the gas, hence the derogatory saying of those who capitulate too easily “they hivnae any baws”.
Memories! Wit are they like and what is the connection to modern day Scottish professional football?
I’m indebted to this article by The Battered Bunnet first posted on CQN on 30 June 2012 at https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/abject-failure-of-leadership/comment-page-2/#comment-1479329 since reproduced on other blogs including SFM but worth reproducing here:
“Senior Hampden source tells ch4news cannot see how RFC were allowed to play lastseason at all. Doesn’t believe they met finance criteria…”
Alex Thomson – Twitter
Alex Thomson’s tweets yesterday re ‘senior Hampden source’ casting doubt on Rangers’ eligibility to obtain a Club Licence last year were rather intriguing.
We have by now a clearer picture of the failure of governance at Rangers through the David Murray/ John McClelland/ Alastair Johnston/ Craig Whyte years, albeit we await further definitive details from the judgement of the Tax Tribunal. Essentially, over a period spanning 2 decades, the means that Rangers used to sustain its football operation utterly disregarded the requirements of both corporate governance and football regulation. While the scandal related solely to payments and procedures within Rangers, we could hope that it was contained internally.
However, the revelation that Rangers paid former manager Souness via EBT while he was manager at Blackburn Rovers confirmed for the first time that the scandal had become external. I understand that RangersTaxCase and Alex Thomson have further information on the extent of payments to Souness and also to Walter Smith, and look forward to the details being revealed, but it is now clear that the Rangers ‘toxin’ had leached out of the club by 2001.
The compelling question now is: How far did the toxin spread?
Was it contained within the ‘outer circle’ of former Rangers employees, however inexplicable such payments may appear? Or did it extend beyond that outer circle, and contaminate senior figures in the Game in Scotland. The contamination does not relate solely to payments from Rangers’offshore trust, but more subtly perhaps, the behaviour of individuals in positions of influence.
We know that Rangers’ Executive Chairman JohnMcClelland was an SPL Board member during the startling ramp up of EBT use from 2003 to 2005, and was himself a beneficiary of the scheme.
We know that Rangers’ Chief Executive Martin Bain was an SPL Board member 2008 to 2011, coinciding with the receipt by Rangers of the HMRC assessments on the EBT scheme, of which he was himself a beneficiary.
We know that current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie was simultaneously an SFA Director and Executive Director and Company Secretary of Rangers, and was a beneficiary of the scheme.
These parallel functions of course present a profound conflict of interest for each man, at once implementing a scam on the Game to disguise a fraud on the Revenue, while owing specific legal duties of care to the Game being scammed.
So far, so shabby.
Thomson’s tweets yesterday indicate a doubt on the part of a ‘senior Hampden source’ that Rangers were eligible to hold a Club Licence last season, thus disqualifying them from participating in European competition, and perhaps Scottish Football too. Is this doubt grounded in a retrospective review of the licence qualifying criteria given what has emerged recently? Or was there a ‘blind eye’ turned by the SFA’s Licensing Committee to information in the public domain at the time of the Licence application? In this respect the ‘Wee Tax Case’ represented a fundamental failure against at least one Licence criterion.
The proposals to the SFL clubs this week make it plain that should the SFA conclude the outstanding Disciplinary issues against Rangers with either suspension or expulsion of Rangers from the SFA(perhaps the only sanctions remaining available to the SFA following Lord Glennie’s Judicial Review) that the Game will face ‘financial meltdown’.
Concurrently, the SPL has adjudged Rangers to have a prima facie case to answer in respect of SPL rule breaches on player registration, the outcome of which will confirm that the club fielded ineligible players in upwards of 400 SPL matches. The only possible disciplinary outcome given such a sustained breach of SPL rules, corrupting the completion as it did from its inception in 1999 to 2011, is expulsion from theSPL.
As a consequence, the SFA, as the authority responsible for implementing FIFA’s Rules on the Registration of Players, will be required to act on these breaches of FIFA rules. Again, expulsion for what amounts to Championship fixing is inevitable.
Curiously, the SFL, this week asking its members to vote to admit the Sevco Rangers club into their top tier, has the same issue given that its League Cup competition featured dozens of ineligible Rangers players through the years, and further claims by Hugh Adam that its‘Premier Division’ competition during the 1990s was similarly bent through the use of ‘off the books’ payments to players by Rangers.
The scale of it all is breath-taking and were the rules of the Game to be applied, Rangers FC would be expelled from each Governing body in turn, before we even consider the extraordinary breaches of faith and duties by co-serving Directors.
But according to the SFL/SFA/SPL circular to clubs, “Rangers Terminated or Suspended’ will cause “Financial Meltdown”.
To avoid this meltdown, it is proposed by the Executives of the combined SFL/SFA/SPL that the rules of the Game are not applied to Rangers, and that the clubs effectively rewrite the rule book to permit what remains of the club to compete at the top of the SFL.
In effect, according to the Governing Bodies,the Rules of the Game CANNOT be applied to Rangers or the Game’s finances will‘meltdown’.
The corollary question this raises is: For how long have the Governing bodies been so unable to apply the Rules of the Game to Rangers? Is this a new epiphany, or a longer standing recognition?
When Rangers submitted their allegedly ineligible application for a Club Licence in 2011, did the SFA recognise that Rangers failing to participate in Europe would cause the club to fail, as it subsequently did? Were the Rules ignored to avoid ‘financial meltdown’ then?
How far did the toxin spread?
Did this recognition extend back to the period following the disintegration of Murray International, hitherto Rangers’ source of continuing funding? Was the season of ‘Honest Mistakes’ some absurd, dutiful reaction to the recognition that should Rangers fail, Scottish Football would melt down?
Was the ineligible status of so many of Rangers’ first team players noticed prior to the SPL’s Inquiry commencing on 5th March? Was it noticed in an Audit as part of the SFA’s Club Licensing process some years ago? Was it noticed by the recent SFA Chief Executive Gordon Smith, who as an Agent had represented players on Rangers’ books through his Directorship of Prostar Management and other Agencies?
Beyond the duplicity of Ogilvie, McClelland and Bain, were Rangers’ irregular practices known to others at the SFA and SPL,others who chose not to address the matter, thus further contaminated the Governing Bodies with the Rangers toxin?
It is heartening that the Liquidators of Rangers plc will be instructed to examine all of the circumstances surrounding the failure of Rangers as a corporate entity. Equally, perhaps the detail contained in the Tax Tribunal judgement will reveal further connections,hitherto unknown.
What is likely to remain hidden from view though, is the full extent to which key influencers at the Governing Bodies were aware of Rangers’ conduct and circumstances, and how this affected their behaviour and their decision making in applying the rules of the Game to that club.
What we can say with certainty now though is that the people holding office at the Governing Bodies are unable or unwilling to apply the Rules of the Game to Rangers, despite the breaches being fundamentally and profoundly corrupt. The SFA and SPL, despite having outstanding disciplinary cases against Rangers that will, in all other circumstances see the club expelled from the Game, are intent to delete the cases provided the SFL clubs accept the Sevco Rangers into the SFL’s top division.
The Rules of the Game cannot be applied to Rangers.
When the rules cannot be applied, the Game itself is broken, and we can say now with some certainty that the Rangers toxin has spread beyond the club, its former employees and Directors of the Governing Bodies, and contaminated the very Game itself. The Office Bearers of the SFA,whose FIFA mandate requires them to “protect and foster the Game” in Scotland,and “protect it from abuses”, have contrived to do the contrary, to the point where the Game is stricken.
It is for this reason that a thorough clear out of the Office Bearers in the Governing Bodies is now a prerequisite to the Game recovering from the poison inflicted upon it by Rangers. The dissolution of the Governing Bodies is perhaps appropriate.
Clear your desk Gentlemen, the bus to ignominy departs shortly.
The position that the SFA and then SPL found themselves in is perfectly clear from the foregoing. Desperately keen for commercial reasons to hold onto the “baw” they changed the rules, but never took ownership of the baw from the owner and so are still beholden to him.
Hence the blog title “We Are Going To Need Another Baw “ because the one currently in play is burst, stuffed with £14M worth of share vouchers.
What was done in 2012 was understandably commercially necessary, but the price to be paid was twofold:
- Not just to the integrity of our game then but the ongoing price now, where all energies are directed at continuing to pretend that the rules are followed without fear of favour.
- The idea that the Scottish game cannot survive without a “ Rangers” is one that most folk would accept but the danger arising, which is unacceptable, is that because of it “Rangers” think they can do as they please as a result which requires rules to be reinforced. And seen to be reinforced.
They clearly aren’t under the SFA’s own rule enforcing process called the Judicial Panel Protocol https://www.sfm.scot/jpp-perverting-justice/ not to mention Club Licensing processes that have so far manged to avoid the scrutiny that, had Resolution 12 been acted upon in 2013, would have resulted in changes that would protect the game from all those who think it is still their baw.
The general perception of supporters is that lessons have not been learned from past behaviour.
Until there is evidence that they have, for example: the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal investigating at snail’s pace the process followed in 2011 that allowed a UEFA licence to be granted to Rangers FC without question, coming to conclusion or providing reasons why it cannot by the spring, the perception will continue to be “Its all about Rangers” followed by what is the point?.
Is it not about time now that the fear that drove thinking in 2012 was faced and recognised by all clubs as unfounded and a new integrity filled baw was used?
What is there to fear now from restoring integrity to its rightful place, unless of course you were party to the thinking that kicked the integrity of our game to death in 2012 and are still in a position of influence?
1
From the Herald article.
However, there are major question marks over whether the bid will become successful, while shareholders have until 1pm on Friday to take part in the offer.
According to Takeover Panel rules the offer would fail, without Mr King having to take pay a penny for shares if fewer than 61 per cent accept the offer of those who have not already declared they will not take part.
Offer documents show that 11 shareholders including Ally McCoist and the fans group Club 1872 who hold 38% of the club shares have made undertakings not to take up the offer. Mr King has previously argued that a judge went "too far" in ordering him to make a mandatory offer at a price of 20p a share.
Could someone explain this please.
'John Clark 14th February 2019 at 12:37
Jingso.Jimsie 14th February 2019 at 10:31
'..James Blair, Director (Sole director? I'm not sure…) of Club 1872.'
************************
JingoJimsie, Blair resigned from Club 1872 in November 2017.'
———————————————————
Thank you. Apologies for my error.
So, a Monday night at 19.05 for our SC tie with Hertz . That's bound to increase the attendance . Good luck to Jambos travelling through .
Apparently a Change.org petition has been initiated to have the CO Clare Whyte sacked or for her to resign.
8,500 signatories so far, as reported in the DR, so must be true…
1) Wild guess that a supporter if the TRFC persuasion created the petition?
2) Cowardly, personal attack on a lady who is certainly NOT the person responsible for substandard refereeing – going back X number of years.
3) If Clare Whyte resigns, what would that prove? How would that improve anything?
Looks like a cheap PR stunt.
Deflection for the braying mob, in anticipation of more bad news down Govan way…?
[Mibbees her brother Craig could bail her out…?] 🙂
StevieBC @18.06
So the football hacks at the DR to a man criticised the current disciplinary process closely followed by the gleeful reporting that a petition to get rid of the CO has been started. This is shaping up to be a sexist witch-hunt which is utterly reprehensible. It would be nice to think that the SFA hierarchy would come out and support their CO in no uncertain terms followed by unequivocal statements from every club chairperson expressing the same sentiment. Surely not too much to ask.
Before I get busted by t'internet spelling police…
'Baying' mob, it should read in above comment, not 'braying'.
But, I would still contend that the 8,500 who signed the petition are donkeys!
If you listen to that lot the last 3 COs have been in someway connected to Celtic this lass seemingly works for or has worked for the firm of lawyers Celtic use and is or has been a SB holder at Celtic Park depending on who is doing the foaming at the mouth rant. Go and have a wee look at some of their sites the foaming rants are crazy it beggars belief that the admin on those sites allow the kind of language that is used.
Valentines clown @ 13.38
=====================
I've seen suggestions that there have been acceptances for up to 18m shares which is not enough to make the offer a goer as it needs 23m to take the concert party past the 50% mark.
Had King not kicked the can down the road so far that the offer happened after the last share placement, then it would only have taken 16m shares to meet the threshold. Had acceptances been made for the same 18m shares then King would have had to cough up £3.6m.
As it stands he will be content to allow those shareholders to be diluted to oblivion at no further cost to himself.
easyJambo 14th February 2019 at 22:01
6
0
Rate This
Valentines clown @ 13.38
=====================
I've seen suggestions that there have been acceptances for up to 18m shares which is not enough to make the offer a goer as it needs 23m to take the concert party past the 50% mark.
Had King not kicked the can down the road so far that the offer happened after the last share placement, then it would only have taken 16m shares to meet the threshold. Had acceptances been made for the same 18m shares then King would have had to cough up £3.6m.
As it stands he will be content to allow those shareholders to be diluted to oblivion at no further cost to himself.
===================================
So in reality the takeover panel really are toothless and had no real intention of looking after the smaller shareholders and now everyone and their dog knows that this is the case. Which will mean that the cold shoulder is just so much p++h as well a career criminal has made then bend over and shafted them.The writing was on the wall when they allowed him to have a share issue which would make it impossible to get the required percentage it would not be a surprise to learn that there had been some collusion between them of course just my opinion.
shug 14th February 2019 at 22:59
'….So in reality the takeover panel really are toothless and had no real intention of looking after the smaller shareholders ..'
*******************
Well, I suppose the TOP's aim ,they will say, was to secure compliance, by getting King to make the offer, and he has done that. And the TOP will be smugly satisfied.
The fact that he cleverly played both the City regulatory system and the Scottish Courts, thumbing his nose and giving the finger to both institutions is a disgrace, and tells us much about the inherent rottenness of the world of 'Finance' and the inability/unwillingness of Parliament to draft laws that give the Courts adequate powers to deal with 'city' types.
shug 14th February 2019 at 22:59
Valentines clown @ 13.38
=====================
I've seen suggestions that there have been acceptances for up to 18m shares which is not enough to make the offer a goer as it needs 23m to take the concert party past the 50% mark.
Had King not kicked the can down the road so far that the offer happened after the last share placement, then it would only have taken 16m shares to meet the threshold. Had acceptances been made for the same 18m shares then King would have had to cough up £3.6m.
As it stands he will be content to allow those shareholders to be diluted to oblivion at no further cost to himself.
===================================
So in reality the takeover panel really are toothless and had no real intention of looking after the smaller shareholders and now everyone and their dog knows that this is the case. Which will mean that the cold shoulder is just so much p++h as well a career criminal has made then bend over and shafted them.The writing was on the wall when they allowed him to have a share issue which would make it impossible to get the required percentage it would not be a surprise to learn that there had been some collusion between them of course just my opinion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's the bit I can't get my head round either.
Why did TOP not prevent the share issue because if the offer by the Concert Party had been made at the right time then the sharholders who are now being shafted would have gotten out. Instead they have had to stay in and were diluted by a further issue of shares made only to selected parties (most of them Concert Party members or associates). That is no protection at all and I wonder if further legal action is a possibility either by TOP or the disadvantaged shareholders.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17434346.damages-may-not-be-adequate-remedy-if-ally-mccoist-and-others-renege-on-no-sale-rangers-shares-deal/
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2019/02/11/chairman-dave-and-a-decade-of-litigation/#more-12983
between these 2 articles I am more confused than ever as to what is going on , the Herald seems to be hinting that some who gave undertakings not to sell are having 2nd thoughts while Phil is saying the TOP or individual shareholders may drag him back into court. If King isn't forced to buy up any shares then this charade has cost him approx £2m anyway, that's not being smart when the whole situation could have been avoided. He was warned not to exceed the 30% level.
Timtim 15th February 2019 at 00:09
I think what Williams is trying to say is that the undertakings are not legally enforceable.
It's not just jet-lag that has me sitting here wide-awake at 5.25 a.m!
It's the seething anger I feel at the filthy mess King has created: a mess probably far more reaching even than that caused by the knighted arch-cheat .
Murray 's behaviour and actions damaged Scottish Football probably irreparably, causing the governance body and the constituent small-to-medium businesses (which make up the limited companies that are the Professional leagues) severally and collectively to lie and cheat and abandon any notion of Sporting Integrity.
King has made absolute farces of the TOP and of the Courts.
As regards the 'irrevocable undertakings, those who signed them are up a gum tree if they try to assert that they are unenforceable.
They might have some grounds for suing the TOP, for failure to properly exercise their regulatory powers timeously and for allowing King to go ahead with the restricted share offering.
But hell mend the McCoists and other significant shareholders who happily signed an irrevocable undertaking: if they lose money, it's through their own stupidity in so doing.
On 3rd December I went off to Oz, so I couldn't attend court for
"HMA v CW (under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981), High Court, Edinburgh, 12 December 2018 "
Even if I had, I wouldn't have been able to say anything about it, because it's a case covered by this rubric:
"Court Orders postponing publication of reports of proceedings (in terms of Section 4(2)) and court directions prohibiting the publication of a name or matter in connection with the proceedings (in terms of section 11) apply.."
other such cases are:
The Rangers FC Group Ltd re Adjudication of Claim, Court of Session, Edinburgh, 15 March 2016
Charles Green v Rangers International Football Club Plc, Court of Session, Edinburgh, 12 November 2015
HMA v Craig Thomas Whyte, Gary Martyn Withey, David Henry Grier, David John Whitehouse, Paul John Clark , Charles Alexander Green and Sheik Imran Ahmad known as Imran Ahmad, High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, 16 October 2015
HMA for restraint order re Craig Whyte, Court of Session, Edinburgh, 11 September 2015
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-notices/contempt-of-court-orders
[ Shows how bored I was this morning, to be trawling through the list! I had been trying to see if the contempt charge hearing v Whyte, before Lord Glennie, at which I had been the only non-participant present, and which I could not report upon, was still under reporting restrictions. I don't see it mentioned in the list, but I also can't find a report of it in the CoS 'judgments' pages]
StevieBC 14th February 2019 at 18:12
1) Wild guess that a supporter if the TRFC persuasion created the petition?
They like a good petition.
But i like this one.
https://www.change.org/p/change-org-stop-rangers-fans-starting-petitions
………………..
I think it all started with.
Rangers Fans, Have You Signed The E-Petition Yet?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-immediate-review-of-audit-sector
Might be a bit off topic but maybe the auditors might well be more accurate with dodgy reports.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-immediate-review-of-audit-sector
Might be a bit off topic.
Timtim 15th February 2019 at 00:09
Funny how Martin Williams seems to have received or had sight of a legal document which was only to have been seen by the shareholders who signed such a ludicrous document. Hell mend them.
borderman67 15th February 2019 at 08:33
Martin Williams at The Herald did not have to do much top notch investigative journalism to report the terms of the undertakings. They were all published with the Statement on 25th January 2019 (easyjambo provided a link on that date).
All of the Irrevocable Undertakings were a pro forma with blank spaces for names, dates, shares etc. Some looked as if the blanks had been filled using a crayon. Many were filled in many miles from Govan.
I'm sure all were completed without any pressure or other unpleasantness.
Stevie BC
“But, I would still contend that the 8,500 who signed the petition are donkeys!“
still one of my favourite media bloopers when the live-on-air interviewer proudly announces “Well we’ve heard the claims straight from the horse’s mouth. Now let’s turn to the protestors to hear it from the other end…”
LUGOSI 15th February 2019 at 09:14
Thanks Lugosi. That's why I follow this blog. Always learning.
From the DR today, in Barry Ferguson's column.
Don't think I need to add any of my own comments.
And remember: this is Barry, (or rather his ghost writer), defending a keeper found guilty of a dangerous tackle… on his very own nephew!
"…And the truth of the matter here is that [McGregor] came out to collect the ball and used his feet to protect himself from any impact. It wasn’t a question of trying to do any damage to his opponent. It was about making sure that none was done to him.
Yes, if that means Lewis takes a wee whack on the shins then so-be-it. That’s football…"
In my inbox today, an example of bureaucratic incompetence by the Club Financial Control Body's Adjudicatory Chamber : the Chamber raised a review of an earlier settlement out-of-time, Galatasaray appealed, and the CAS upheld their appea"l.
"Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for Sport
MEDIA RELEASE
For further information related to the CAS activity and procedures in general, please contact either Mr Matthieu Reeb, CAS Secretary General, or Ms Katy Hogg, Communications Officer. Château de Béthusy, Avenue de Beaumont 2, 1012 Lausanne, Switzerland. media@tas-cas.org; Tel: (41 21) 613 50 00; fax: (41 21) 613 50 01, or consult the CAS website: http://www.tas-cas.org
FOOTBALL – UEFA CLUB LICENSING AND FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY REGULATIONS
GALATASARAY V. UEFA – THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS) REINSTATES THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE UEFA CLUB FINANCIAL CONTROL BODY INVESTIGATORY CHAMBER AND THE RESULTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Lausanne, 15 February 2019 – The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has issued its decision in the appeal arbitration procedure between the Turkish football club Galatasaray Sportif Sinai ve Ticari Yatirimlar A.Ş. (Galatasaray) and the Union Européenne de Football Association (UEFA).
The appeal filed on 15 October 2018 by Galatasaray against UEFA with respect to the decision rendered by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Adjudicatory Chamber (UEFA CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber) on 5 October 2018 is upheld.
The decision rendered by the UEFA CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber on 5 October 2018 is set aside. The decision rendered by the Chief Investigator of the UEFA CFCB Investigatory Chamber on 5 June 2018 and the resulting Settlement Agreement are confirmed.
On 5 June 2018, the Chief Investigator of the UEFA CFCB Investigatory Chamber issued a decision in which Galatasaray was found not to be in compliance with the break-even requirement of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations and a Settlement Agreement was concluded between UEFA and the Club. Later the same month, the UEFA CFCB Chairman determined that the decision and the Settlement Agreement should be reviewed by the UEFA CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber. On 5 October 2018, the UEFA CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber set aside the decision taken by the Chief Investigator of the UEFA CFCB Investigatory Chamber and referred the case back to the Investigatory Chamber for further investigation.
On 15 October 2018, Galatasaray filed an appeal at CAS against the UEFA CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber’s decision (the Challenged Decision). The arbitration procedure was referred to a Sole Arbitrator who examined first Galatasaray’s assertion that the Challenged Decision was rendered untimely.
Having considered the parties’ submissions on the issue of the timeliness of the Challenged Decision, the Sole Arbitrator ruled that the appeal must be upheld and the Challenged Decision of 5 October 2018 set aside, as such Decision was issued beyond the 10-day time limit which starts to run from the date of communication of the decision of the Chief Investigator to the CFCB Chairman, as set out in Article 16 (1) of the Procedural Rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body. "
(Boy, am I bored today, or what?!)
Apparently the Easdales are surrendering their shares to king I have no idea if that means selling or giving we will have to wait and see.
Might be of interest .
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/02/15/announcing-kick-back-the-ugly-side-of-the-beautiful-game/
A wee boost for CFC fans .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47259809
paddy malarkey 15th February 2019 at 16:49
1 0 Rate This
Might be of interest .
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/02/15/announcing-kick-back-the-ugly-side-of-the-beautiful-game/
…………………
Please contact the Byline Times team – via Mark@bylinetimes.com – in confidence, with any information you believe will help in this fight – no matter how small.
………………
The Offshore Game
The offshore game is a project from @taxjusticenet focusing on offshore finance, tax abuse and other forms of corruption in sport
taxjustice.net/topics/theoffs…
……………….
Should give them a call.
From the Herald
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17437343.rangers-chairman-dave-kings-8m-club-shares-offer-fails/
The only surprise is that it is not 7.40pm as yet.
Similarly 18.9m shares isn’t 19.82% of the club (it’s just over 13%).
easyJambo 15th February 2019 at 19:07
'…The only surprise is that it is not 7.40pm as yet.'
****|*************
I have not entirely given up hope that Lady Wolffe has kept in mind that while the TOP might be ready to accept that their purpose has been achieved, the Court order made by Lord Bannatyne was blatantly disregarded: and that King had clearly fed his Counsel a load of tripe about being 'impecunious' and not in control of funds etc., etc- in effect, lied to his Counsel and therefore lied to the Court.
I hope that she does him for that contempt, and thereby emulates the South Africa Courts in asserting the majesty of the Law against people who lie to the Court.
I'm sure that many Rangers fans will see that result as a great success and a vindication of King's m.o. of stalling the regulatory processes at every turn.
The fact that holders of 18.9m shares were prepared to sell reinforces King's glib and shameless credentials as he and his counsel made false representations in court, e.g. about King's impecuniosity, that no-one would take up the offer at 20p, and that Sandy Easdale had allegedly stated that he wouldn't sell his shares.
Acceptances for 18.9m shares with the old share base would have easily met the 50% threshold, so the gerrymandering has saved him around £3.78m, offset against the legal and other professional costs incurred in avoiding compliance for so long.
Looking back at the share placement that made the gerrymandering possible, you can see how devious King has been shafting certain shareholders. Authorisation for the share placement was given by a special resolution (75% vote required) at the AGM in late 2017. The result of that vote was 45.9m (78%) for and 12.8m (21.7%) against.
What that vote didn't include were the 8.5m shares that were frozen out by King's Board. Had those shareholders (BPH, Margarita, Norne Ansalt, Putney) been allowed to vote (they were included in the TOP offer and appear to have sought to sell), then the AGM resolution would have failed and there would never have been a share placement last year.
Whether or not there is a desire on the part of any shareholder to seek damages as a result of being unable to sell, because of the aforementioned circumstances, will be down to the individual shareholders themselves and would no doubt be dependent on any legal advice they receive.
easyJambo 15th February 2019 at 22:12
I'm sure that many Rangers fans will see that result as a great success and a vindication of King's m.o. of stalling the regulatory processes at every turn.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don't always make that assumption. I speak to many Rangers fans these days and they are either scunnerd with his inability to deliver the glory days again or they just don't go and have no interest in a "Scottish Football because it is shite" and have moved over to the EPL (this I think was a trend anyway)
Acceptances for 18.9m shares with the old share base would have easily met the 50% threshold, so the gerrymandering has saved him around £3.78m, offset against the legal and other professional costs incurred in avoiding compliance for so long.
==============================================================
Those legal and other costs would have been the thick end of £2.5M. So for money he can apparently afford to spend or was skint he has put himself before the Scottish Courts as a confirmed Liar. Does he really believe the judges don't talk to each other and that his card isn’t marked?
Last night I was listening to Fraser The Blazer, the players union rep. He says that every player in the PFA is against the plastic pitches.I am too.
We should do what the Dutch Eredvisie top teams have done and fund the wee teams to replace them with grass. In Scotland only the SFA & SPFL and Celtic have the real money but the others could chip in according to their means.
Thoughts please.
easyJambo 15th February 2019 at 22:12
'… and that Sandy Easdale had allegedly stated that he wouldn't sell his shares..'
*********************
I hope said Sandy has had a quiet word in Kings ear about that little untruth!
Not that I am a particular fan of said Sandy!
But if he hasn't had a word in King's ear , he must be something of a wimp, to let King away with that.
On the flight home from Oz, I watched "The Bridge on the River Kwai", featuring William Holden.
That put me in mind of that film about psycho bank robbers, "The Wild Bunch", in which Holden featured .
And, in an odd kind of way, I thought of the RIFC board and its significant shareholders.
Extraordinary the way that the synapses can work!
easyJambo 15th February 2019 at 22:12
What that vote didn’t include were the 8.5m shares that were frozen out by King’s Board. Had those shareholders (BPH, Margarita, Norne Ansalt, Putney) been allowed to vote (they were included in the TOP offer and appear to have sought to sell), then the AGM resolution would have failed and there would never have been a share placement last year.
Whether or not there is a desire on the part of any shareholder to seek damages as a result of being unable to sell, because of the aforementioned circumstances, will be down to the individual shareholders themselves and would no doubt be dependent on any legal advice they receive.
………………..
Whether or not there is a desire on the part of any shareholder to seek damages as a result of being unable to sell,
………….
If i was one of said shareholders, i would seek damages as a result of being unable to sell,and being accused of having organised crime links
Don’t know why my other post was deleted? here is short version.
https://www.scotsman.com/regions/glasgow-strathclyde/dave-king-fears-some-rangers-shareholders-have-organised-crime-links-court-told-1-4837335
He told the Court of Session on Friday that he was “100 per cent committed” offering to buy the equity of people who want a part of Rangers.
But he told his lawyer Jonathan Mitchell QC that he wouldn’t be able to make the offer to four shareholders at the club because they had links to serious criminal activity.
Speaking about the four shareholders, Mr King said: “They’ve got links to organised crime…money laundering.”
Mr King added that the shares won’t be sold.
Bogs Dollox 15th February 2019 at 23:01
Last night I was listening to Fraser The Blazer, the players union rep. He says that every player in the PFA is against the plastic pitches.I am too…
=======================
BD, I would concur that it's best to have footy played on a nice, flat, proper, well maintained, grass pitch.
For economic and community reasons, we can understand the preference for artificial pitches, certainly in the lower leagues.
Mibbees like others here, I remember playing on first generation plastic pitches, when it was like playing on concrete, you really had to trap the ball on the bounce because you didn't know it's trajectory thereafter, and in the wet…a slide tackle was neverending!
IIRC, we are onto 4th or 5th generation pitches, which I presume are significantly better than the old ones.
But what I did like about the plastic pitches included;
etc.
I didn't like the friction burns though!
I am not aware of any studies on injuries sustained on plastic pitches v. grass pitches, (anyone?)
And then you have CFC's hybrid pitch of grass and plastic, which cost a million or two to install? As early as the beginning of December I was telling the wife it looked awful, with an abundance of 'browning' patches. (It's diseased apparently, and bet it won't be a cheap fix).
And for me, it's great the smaller clubs can get their communities more involved.
No "STAY OFF THE GRASS!" notices, and kids can get huge motivation from playing occasionally in a stadium setting.
But, I think we can all agree that plastic is a massive improvement on blaes pitches… the grit embedded in both knees, the frozen surfaces which scarred you for life, [mentally anyway], boots full of grit which tore your skin off the soles of your feet, etc. Happy days…
Substantial grants are available for training pitches. Am I stretching my imagination too much in assuming that assistance could be provided for real actual competitive surfaces?.
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-receive-grant-for-pitch/
https://thescottishfootballpartnership.com/
https://twitter.com/broganrogantrev/status/1096695629659754496?s=21
Mark Warburton interview.
https://twitter.com/heavidor/status/1096701537412362240?s=21
Via David Low on Twitter.
Ex Ludo 16th February 2019 at 09:59
1 0 Rate This
https://twitter.com/broganrogantrev/status/1096695629659754496?s=21
Mark Warburton interview.
He is everywhere these days
Would the offer have reached the 50% threshold if the recent share issue (to selected existing shareholders) hadn't taken place.
A good wee read fromThe Guardian .
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/feb/15/sportswashing-europes-biggest-clubs-champions-league-owners-sponsors-uefa
Homunculus 16th February 2019 at 14:26
Would the offer have reached the 50% threshold if the recent share issue (to selected existing shareholders) hadn't taken place.
===============================
No – see my post at 22:12 last night.
paddy malarkey 16th February 2019 at 15:39
'…A good wee read fromThe Guardian .'
********************
That is a very good wee read, paddy malarkey, and thanks for providing the link.
I lift the following observations from the article:
" It would be myopic to pretend the UK is above all this…….There is more than enough dirt close to home….How well are the media doing in reporting of this?"
Well, of course, we know that our own little Football Governance body
hid for years the pile of dirt that SDM deposited on Scottish football,
added its own piles of dirt to that pile,
created a quite separate pile of dirt by the 5-Way Agreement and
continues to propagate a monstrous sporting lie
And the SMSM , instead of exposing the dirt by asking basic questions, stuffed their gobs with succulent lamb , kept quiet, and now continues to propagate the absurd lie that TRFC Ltd are 'Rangers' of 1872!
easyJambo 16th February 2019 at 19:56
Homunculus 16th February 2019 at 14:26
Would the offer have reached the 50% threshold if the recent share issue (to selected existing shareholders) hadn't taken place.
===============================
No – see my post at 22:12 last night.
===============================
A senior moment from myself.
I should have said "Yes" it would have exceeded the 50% threshold with the old share base – see my post at 22:12 last night.
easyJambo 16th February 2019 at 19:56
====================================
Thanks EJ, I wasn't reading much on Friday night.
The whole thing just seems wrong to me. Surely the rules are there to protect the shareholders at the time the concert party bought over 30%.
His tactic of "selling" shares to selected people (clearly his supporters) if not legally questionable is certainly morally so.
Anyone who sees this as a victory, and who celebrates it is ignoring the questionable ethics of the man who orchestrated it. Though to be fair it's just a further example of the appalling way he goes about doing his business and his disregard for other people.
easyJambo 16th February 2019 at 20:23
====================================
No worries, I knew what you meant.
Anyone else look on the appearance of Mark Warburton at this time as a thorn in the side of Steve Gerrard or is it just me, or is it just Karma?
Steven Gerrard is what he is, a rookie manager in his first real job trying to learn his trade.
Anyone thinking it was anything other than that was kidding themselves on.
Was in a random hostelry in Glasgow tonight, and all 20+ TV's were showing rugby live: Cardiff v. Glasgow.
[Didnt realise club rugby was so popular and place was packed.]
Anyways, point is after a few minutes watching the game I realised they were playing on an artificial surface.
So, coming back to Gerrard's request for a ban on plastic pitches, because he was "concerned for players' careers and safety"…
In a word: bollox!
If rugby players can run on plastic, slam their knees, shoulders, etc onto a plastic surface – and sometimes with another body weighed down on top of them – then football players can't complain.
They just have to adapt, as a professional should be capable of doing.
IMO.
Homunculus 16th February 2019 at 20:28
'..Surely the rules are there to protect the shareholders at the time the concert party bought over 30%.'
******************
Homunclus, have a read at
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Panel-Statement-2018-19.pdf
I have some difficulty with the fact , as it seems to me, that the TOP rides two horses simultaneously- the need for kid glove treatment for the 'businessmen' who tell them to eff off, and the need for fair play for shareholders generally.
I think they err in favour of turds like King.
As has been stated already , King would have to buy out those shareholders if the TOP had postponed his share issue to his select group. If the company* goes into administration within the next 12 months and there is a distinct possibility of that happening as pointed out by fellow Directors and the auditors then those who have been denied cashing out at 20p should have the right to sue the TOP for not safeguarding their interests. The Gerrard experiment has been a very expensive gamble and it sounds like he has thrown in the towel on winning the league this season , altho I haven't yet ruled it out. With him still having over 3 yrs of a lucrative contract left to run can they afford to offload him and his backroom team? Ashley is picking the bones of the retail deal and will have first dibs on next seasons ST money and those repairs to the roof have still to be carried out. The latest estimate for El Fraudo Morelos is £25m from the tame hacks peeking out of Traynors top pocket , I think that is the real figure they need to keep the wolf from the door. I believe the TOP are going to be left looking very foolish in the not to distant future.
Another referee getting the treatment,they will be shouting for officials from Mars next and then Willie Column to be brought back if that doesn’t work,they really are howling at the moon
Looks like StevieG has, erm, slipped up again.
From The Sun today;
"TURF WARS Rangers boss Steven Gerrard teased by fans for having artificial grass in his garden
…
It comes after Gerrard warned the SPFL they are toying with lives by allowing plastic pitches in the game north of the border.
The Light Blues boss yesterday hit out at artificial surfaces as he backed PFA Scotland’s demand for them to be banned from the Scottish Premiership.
Just over a year ago, he wrote on Instagram:
“Thank you Carl and the team @ukartificial for the excellent job they did on my garden.
“Give them a follow, I would highly recommend their work.”
…"
===============
Wonder what his wife thinks about their 'dangerous' garden now…
Timtim 17th February 2019 at 01:43
If the company* goes into administration within the next 12 months and there is a distinct possibility of that happening …
=======================================
Apologies for asking this again, but what entity do you envisage being placed into administration, the PLC or the subsidiary, and by whom.
Who does the PLC owe money to, other than it's owners.
Who does the subsidiary owe money to, other than the holding company.
Why would the owners of the PLC hand control over to someone else, who would be bound to do all of the things they refuse to do, cut costs to the point of making the business sustainable. Failing that simply liquidate the assets.
Homunculus@11.41
That’s the $64,000 question (not that I’m suggesting that this quantum will make or break the holding company or it’s subsidiary ) that will not go away so long as the financial outlook remains so bleak for t’Rangers companies. How long that precarious position can be maintained is a matter of conjecture.
Ex Ludo 17th February 2019 at 12:19
===================================
As things stand it's really quite simple.
They will continue to trade for as long as people are willing to provide them with loans. Whether those loans are repaid with worthless equity is pretty much irrelevant.
The business has traded at a loss in every year of it's existence and continues to do so. Loans are an essential part of the "business model".
I suppose it's possible that they might sell a player for 5 times any realistic valuation, the press are certainly trying to help with that. However that is at best unlikely.
Homunculus 17th February 2019 at 13:02
Ex Ludo 17th February 2019 at 12:19
===================================
As things stand it's really quite simple. They will continue to trade for as long as people are willing to provide them with loans. Whether those loans are repaid with worthless equity is pretty much irrelevant. The business has traded at a loss in every year of it's existence and continues to do so. Loans are an essential part of the "business model". I suppose it's possible that they might sell a player for 5 times any realistic valuation, the press are certainly trying to help with that. However that is at best unlikely.
Indeed Homunculos, but I doubt loans turning into worthless equity would prove such an irrelevance to the lenders.
Noting that you highlight success in player trading as also an essential component of the business plan, but there were other components such as on-field success, in domestic and Euro fitba', (possibly impacting footfall revenues), along with favourable court verdicts that need to come into play in due course. As does the continued loss-making loans being made available, and addressing the substantial in-coming/out-goings imbalances.
Negotiating a route through that wee lot, while attempting to come out the other side in profit, via some Administration/Liquidation wheeling and dealing looks an impossible task. Especially since we know BDO are trying to negotiate an out of court with wee Craigy over his asset claim. However..
Even with the best will in the world, clubs go bust. Any business can. Things just don't always go as projected or expected. Plans come unstuck and co-investors falter and fa' oot. Promised future "investment", may not be actualised.
The signs are that this is not a business in rude health. The difficulties faced clearing the many hurdles, may mean that small matter of the "Business plan", may be removed from board-room control not via a planned route, but via an enforced route.
IF, Administration/Liquidation is looming, the question Sevvies should be asking is, "Will it be voluntary, or compulsory"?….Planned or un-planned.?
Either way it is not savoury, but there are very few tell-tales that it may not be the reality. Quite the opposite.
There are no doubt many unknowns, but the knowns don't look too great.
From the latest sfsa newsletter:
Hate crime at football – have your say
This is a general reminder to notify you that the Scottish Governemnt Hate Crime Bill Consultation is open for responses until 24th February and can be accessed via this link.
https://consult.gov.scot/hate-crime/consultation-on-scottish-hate-crime-legislation/
This may be of interest to some as it deals with the definition of sectarianism in Scots Law.
I like to read The Media section of Kerrydale Street partly to gauge the current levels of sycophancy and partly to remind myself why I wouldn't give them a penny.
Yesterday someone cut and pasted an article in the Sunday Mail by Gordon Waddell in which SFA disciplinary matters were wrestled with.
Mr Waddell's opinion is, as expected, neither here nor there but what caught my eye was a reference to Celtic's use of Senior Counsel; namely the brilliant but late John Paul McBride, Q.C.
As Private Eye would put it: Who he?
The online version of the article now refers to Paul McBride but I'm struggling to think of an adequate reason why the Kerrydale Street poster's version couldn't get the man's name right.
Anybody daft enough to buy the print version of the Sunday Mail and confirm what appeared there?
The 'Herald''s Martin Williams page 2 report this morning reminds the world that King's Counsel, the Lord Davison of Glen Cova, told the Court that King 'is penniless'.
What a chump he must feel at accepting instructions from such a client!
Williams reports that while King was permitted time to engineer his way out of having both to spend millions and avoid a contempt of court charge, his hubris will nevertheless set him back an estimated £600,000 (excluding VAT) and will cost RIFC plc an estimated £52,000.
And so we have a new head of BBC Scotland, Steve Carson.
Will he ungag our Sportsound people, let them talk about the new club being new, and the 5-Way agreement? And the Res 12 ducking and diving?
Will he free up our 'newshounds' to ask serious questions about the 'Big Lie'?
Since he apparently 'ticked all of BBC Scotlnd's boxes' for the new role, I somehow doubt it.
While at the start of the season I expected Celtic to win the league title, yesterday's result indeed took them a step further to that aim but the league still has a bit to go.
On that basis I note we are now some hours on from the end of the game a Rugby Park and the tumbleweed seems to be rolling around the streets of SFM.
From 29 January 2019 Phil Mac Giolla Bhain asked the following question:-
"Consider then what type of club and what type of support base feels it appropriate to spill onto the pitch at Livingston (but now feel free to insert ground of your choice) after winning a league match.
After winning a league match…"
Answers on a post card please.
Morning JC… sounds like you have a couple of letters up your sleeve?
And roll on Wednesday evening…
when hopefully sporting karma will deal a severe blow to a club/team trying to cheat everyone that it is actually the same cheating club/team currently in liquidation.
wottpi 18th February 2019 at 10:32
When I see the instant TD's you got I almost regret my annual donation. Come on guys, surely SFM is not just a wee Celtic blog? Pitch invasions at league games is the same bollox regardless of which teams' supporters are involved.
wottpi 18th February 2019 at 10:32
10
9
Rate This
While at the start of the season I expected Celtic to win the league title, yesterday's result indeed took them a step further to that aim but the league still has a bit to go.
On that basis I note we are now some hours on from the end of the game a Rugby Park and the tumbleweed seems to be rolling around the streets of SFM.
From 29 January 2019 Phil Mac Giolla Bhain asked the following question:-
"Consider then what type of club and what type of support base feels it appropriate to spill onto the pitch at Livingston (but now feel free to insert ground of your choice) after winning a league match.
After winning a league match…"
Answers on a post card please.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Spot on wottpi.
A small section of over-exuberant idiots, get their captain sent-off. Although it could be argued he never went into the crowd as by jumping the advertising board, he was still 10+ metres from the designated crowd section. It was the crown encroaching the playing area, not the player going into the crowd.
That said, it make no difference who or where this happens it should be the same result for all. If I had my way, I would fine the hosting club, for any crowd ingress and allow them to seek redress from the visiting club, if the offending fans came from their designated ground space.
Then identify and fine the offending fans via the courts, (if possible). Maybe curb their enthusiasm if faced with a £500 fine???
Purely in the interests of research, I bought a Daily Record today. I know.
Even in my callow youth I knew it was a crap paper… but I bought it daily…for its footy coverage!
Ha!
But I did eventually stop buying it when I realised it took me less and less time to read the paper: it was just full of whole page and half page adverts.
Ok, it's taken a while but as an Internet Bampot I now fully appreciate the DR's 'quality' WRT footy coverage. 🙁
So, out of curiosity I grudgingly handed over 80p for today's copy.
Monday's edition has 52 pages.
Of these, there are about 8 pages of obvious, paid-for, third party advertising, [or c.15% of revenue generating content].
[I chose to ignore any overt or probable 'sponsored content'.]
On the face of it, and based on memory, this advertising content seems incredibly small now.
Digital advertising is swallowing up that business, of course.
My point is: everyone knows that circulation figures for print newspapers continue to fall off a cliff, at typically double digit percentage declines, year on year.
But, based on my unscientific, single sample size research… the newspapers' advertising revenue must be declining at a significantly faster rate than perhaps expected.
Ergo, the likes of Jackson, Waddell etc. at the DR will probably not be 'sports journalists' for much longer.
They can take their misinformation, copying/pasting, wilful ignorance of the truth WRT to TRFC… and just b#gger off!
Which would be nice, IMO.
StevieBC @12.59
They can take their misinformation, copying/pasting, wilful ignorance of the truth WRT to TRFC… and just b#gger off!
——————————————————————————–
Oh I think they know the truth but like all the rest won't print it!!
While I'm here can I just add my agreement with normanbatesmumfc, ernie and wottpi on the field invasion issue. I see Steve Clarke is taking it as a massive backhanded compliment to Killie (with his tongue firmly in his cheek I suspect).
wottpi 18th February 2019 at 10:32
When I see the instant TD's you got I almost regret my annual donation. Come on guys, surely SFM is not just a wee Celtic blog? Pitch invasions at league games is the same bollox regardless of which teams' supporters are involved
———
Agreed and there will be no mention of it.
A pitch invasion / incursion by fans is not right, in any scenario.
Agreed, absolutely!
IMO, Bampots – and certainly CFC fans like myself – are probably ambivalent about the Kilmarnock celebrations simply because the previous 2 or 3 TRFC fans' incursions hardly registered in the SMSM.
More importantly: nobody at Hampden seemed to take any notice, and no punishment was forthcoming.
Might read like 'whitaboutery', but if there is consistency then CFC has nothing to worry about.
[Seats damage and flare(s) are a different matter though].
Being as objective as possible: CFC should be hammered by the Hampden blazers for the fans' getting over the advertising hoardings.
But, yet again, Hampden has created its own problems by looking the other way when it suits, and further 'inconsistencies' are fully noticed by clubs and supporters.
And if anyone still had any lingering doubts about just how awful the DR is…
to appease their preferred demographic after a tough weekend – it comes up with this hard hitting piece of journalism 🙁 with the headline;
"Kid sings sectarian song calling Rangers kitman Jimmy Bell 'orange b******' as Celtic fans join in"
==========
And unsurprisingly, nobody at the DR wants to be named;
"By Record Reporter"
ernie 18th February 2019 at 11:00
=================================
Pitch invasions at any games is just wrong.
Good to see most of us are indeed not apologists for pitch "invasion" as a matter of standard celebrating a win but I also agree with StevieBC that it is not whataboutery to expect no more to be done about this event after letting previous go by without action. As he says the SFA have really boxed themselves in by ignoring the multiple TRFC pitch dancing. This is also the route of all the noise around compliance officers, retrospective bans and all that. If they hadn't let the wee sleekit hacker off the hook for his first McKenna sending off at the start of the season I suspect we wouldn't have to go through forensic analysis every week thereafter in some vain effort to justify their actions.
Of course I also expected them to be "boxed in" over other registration misdemeanours (remembering that even honest mistakes are no defence in these cases) having handed out derisory punishment for ten years of old Rangers premeditated cheating but no, their brass neck kicks in on that one so you never know. Shame on them.
JohnClark@08.56
I had a quick peruse through Steve Carson’s LinkedIn profile and I think it’s fair to say there won’t be much change in the world view of BBC Scotland. After some time as a freelancer he worked for RTÈ and BBC NI. No boats will be rocked.