What follows is a record of an exchange in October with David Conn of The Guardian in respect of an article written by him in August 2016 reporting the arrival of The Rangers FC in the top tier of the SPFL.
In that article David Conn suggests that there was no tax overdue in respect of “The Wee Tax Case” of 2011 because he was told by the SFA that agreement had been reached with HMRC to postpone payment until after the Takeover by Craig Whyte and on those grounds the SFA granted a licence.
For such an agreement to pass UEFA FFP rules muster it had to be in writing, signed by HMRC and dated 31st March 2011 or earlier. There were behind the scenes discussions on this point and attempts were made separately at the time to obtain such written unpublished documentation that complied with UEFA FFP regulations from Darryl Broadfoot the Head of SFA Communications, but in spite of promises it never arrived.
Not surprising as, had it existed, Celtic would certainly have been informed when they first wrote to the SFA in December 2011 – thereby rendering Resolution 12, placed at the 2013 Celtic AGM requesting UEFA to investigate the UEFA licensing process throughout 2011 as truly unnecessary.
The first e mail (edited with cosmetic changes to aid reading by a wider audience but no change of sense) made the following points to Mr Conn on 9th Oct 2017…..
Dear Mr Conn.
On 5th August 2016 you wrote an article about the arrival of “Rangers” into the top tier of the SPFL.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/05/rangers-scottish-premiership-tax-issue
(* A relevant extract from that article – in italics – can be read separately at the end of this blog)
Given that the Craig Whyte trial in July 2017, revealed discrepancies (already known to the Celtic shareholders pursuing Res12) between what was stated at the trial and what was reported to the SFA and UEFA during 2011 in terms of the status of the wee tax case liability, then it would appear that your article:
- Does not fully reflect what took place, giving the impression over two paragraphs that a written agreement signed by HMRC to postpone payment had been reached between HMRC and RFC by 31st March 2011. Had this been so it would mean that there was no overdue tax payable at 31st March 2011 as UEFA define an overdue payable to tax authorities.
- However what was revealed in court in July 2017 was that RFC had accepted the liability before 31st March 2011 and so it was not “potential” with “discussions continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised”, as reported in RFC Interim accounts on 1st April 2011. It was for this reason the SFA have asked their Compliance Officer to investigate what took place and had there been a written agreement to postpone prior to 31st March 2011, there would have been no need to describe the liability to the SFA in the way that it was.
- Further your article does not fully reflect the reason why “Rangers” had to wait three years before playing in European competition, which was that UEFA viewed “Rangers” as a NEW club/company. This was not mentioned although the SFA, who advised you they held an unpublished HMRC letter also held a copy of a letter dated 8th June 2016 from UEFA Head of Club Licensing Andrea Traverso (copy attached) to that effect.
Consequently will you be following the SFA Compliance Officer investigation, and indeed will you be telling him the basis on which you reported the SFA’s position in your article of August 2016 without revealing sources of course?
Importantly in terms of all your other investigatory work into skulduggery, are you also aware that despite what you may have been told by the SFA, Resolution 12 was and is ultimately about making the SFA more accountable and transparent to supporters, an aim which I think you would surely support and is there any chance of you helping with that aim by considering what has caused the SFA to finally capitulate and do what Res12 asked for in 2013, albeit domestically?
A national football association using the media to try to derail a genuine investigation into their behaviour is surely of national, never mind Scottish, interest?
In some ways it matters little now if Rangers gained and retained that licence by deception as the court statement indicates, with the result the SFA Compliance Officer is conducting an investigation.
What matters more is that the SFA have used the absence of accountability to cover up their part in the licensing process, not just from March through to September 2011 but to ignore genuine enquiries from supporter/shareholders of a member club from 2014 to July 2017. During which time their positions;
- that the bill had not crystallised, or
- was subject to dispute or
- was under appeal or
- that after 31st March, monitoring was not an SFA function, as stated by SFA CEO Stewart Regan,
were exposed (in court) as self-serving myths.
The SFA and how poorly they serve the game in Scotland because they are accountable to no one is THE story of Resolution 12 and you could help bring accountability about by reporting how you were duped by the SFA in August last year and report on what the Compliance Officer finds.
As it is your August article has undermined your reputation somewhat as someone whom I understand seeks better accountability and transparency from football authorities.
PS what Celtic shareholders lawyers reported to SFA, and when, is available if you decide to engage.
Yours etc
After a couple of reminders, one copied to The Guardian Sports Editor a reply was received dated 8th November 2017 in which Mr Conn said.
Hello
Thank you for your emails and apologies for not having replied sooner; I have been very busy recently. I have seen that some questions have been raised about the piece I wrote in relation to this. I understand that this issue has been of great interest to people; however, I do not currently have plans to revisit it.
Thank you for your interest and apologies again for not replying sooner.
D Conn
As the SFA Head of Communications, Darryl Broadfoot, who departed from his post in January 2017, would most probably be the person to whom David Conn spoke. He is the same person who failed to clarify this article at:
by STV reporter Grant Russell, who also recently departed from his job at STV.
The STV article omitted certain references about UEFA treating The Rangers FC/The Rangers International FC as a NEW club/company, a piece of unsolicited information that was contained in a UEFA response to Celtic shareholders’ lawyer from Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing) and which was copied to the SFA a week before STV published.
Some may also remember the strange episode where The Guardian accepted an advert from the Celtic AGM Resolution 12 requistitioners in 2016 attempting to draw the attention of Resolution 12 on a tax evasion aspect to the wider tax paying British pubic. Having accepted payment for a “Persistence Beats Res12tance” advert, The Guardian for some unexplained reason changed their mind and decided not to publish and refunded the payment.
They have been coy on answering who, what or why they changed their mind and as can be seen from the above reply from David Conn appear unwilling to pursue the UEFA 2011 Licencing issue further (at least for now). Hopefully those plans will change when the SFA investigation is complete, whatever the result.
Mr Broadfoot although no longer an SFA employee, appears to be continuing in some capacity as an SFA spokesman given his appearance on BBC Sportsound on 8th November along with Paul Goodwin of the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) to discuss the findings of an SFSA survey involving over 16,000 supporters that highly criticised the SFA for their governance of Scottish football. The programme segment can be heard here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQRFX2vOWUvkaeRAEEYL3vzMqdXGFE8T/view?usp=sharing
The overriding point here though is not the credibility of main stream media outlets, which is at an all-time low, but the use of those outlets by the SFA officials using the media in an attempt to produce an outcome that suits them and a single SFA member club at the expense of the value of the shares held by shareholders in another SFA member club.
Awareness of the impact on shareholder value of member clubs by SFA decisions is yet another issue that an enquiry into SFA methods/processes should address, particularly since HMRC made the SFA aware in 2009 of their concerns about Rangers use of ebts in player contracts.
Until such an investigation takes place the SFA will be viewed as no longer fit to govern Scottish football in its present form.
Extract from Conn Article of 5th August.
Even now, an allegation persists the SFA was deficient in allowing Rangers a licence to compete in the Champions League during that season, 2011-12. The case, based on leaked documentation from the time and pressed by a group of Celtic supporters on their club to pursue as resolution 12 of the 2013 annual general meeting, was recently argued strongly in a report by the Tax Justice Network campaign.
The argument is that in breach of Uefa rules against clubs having overdue tax payable, Rangers owed £2.8m on a discounted options scheme following a successful HMRC challenge known as the “wee tax case”.
The SFA is adamant its committee which considered the licence dealt with the issue thoroughly and received the necessary evidence the tax was not overdue according to Uefa rules. One informed source involved with the issue at the time, who did not want to speak publicly owing to continuing criminal proceedings against Whyte arising out of his tenure at Rangers, said that at the initial deadline, 31 March 2011, HMRC had agreed that the £2.8m did not need to be paid until after his May 2011 takeover.
Before subsequent 30 June and 30 September deadlines, Rangers, by then owned by Whyte, are understood to have told the SFA they were in discussions with HMRC over the money owed. Uefa rules allow tax not to be treated as “overdue” where there is a written agreement with the tax authority for payment to be extended.
The SFA, although declining to disclose details of the documentation it received, citing confidentiality with its member clubs, told the Guardian via a spokesperson: “The Scottish FA has always been clear the licensing award issued to Rangers in 2011 by the licensing committee was correct. The process is audited on an annual basis by Uefa.”
Uefa, pressed on the issue again recently, said: “The licence for the 2011-12 season was granted by the SFA and there was no reason for Uefa to doubt this decision.”
Uefa has said it has no need to investigate further if the tax was in fact overdue according to its definition, because after that season, Rangers’ fate anyway equated to a sanction for breach of the rules: they could not play in European competition for the following three years. HMRC, taking a stern view of clubs defaulting on tax, declined to approve a company voluntary arrangement with creditors and Rangers went into liquidation.
Re the Craig Whyte book ‘leaks’. It will not really matter what he alleges because no-one in authority will look into it, if looking into it is potentially detrimental to Rangers, or any ‘real’ Rangers man. Look no further than the fact that despite being found not guilty in a criminal court, Whyte himself was still portrayed as guilty by the football authorities and the media immediately following the verdict. Much of the accusing came from ‘real’ Rangers men, the same men who were part of a Rangers board deemed by the highest UK Court of deliberately withholding tens of millions from the public purse due to their wrongful use of EBT’s to pay players. Despite this these men still hold a vice like grip on the football authorities and the media, and incredibly are still allowed to be Directors of the current Rangers. This state of affairs has to go way beyond football.
fan of footballNovember 22, 2017 at 07:40
‘…I think he was sourced to do a job and he did it.’
_________
And I think one of the great mysteries is why that whole possibility was never , to my knowledge explored and really dug into.
I believe that the whole filthy saga had its genesis in the greed and cleverness of someone far more skilled and persuasive in the worlds of venture capitalism, and high finance and business, and hugely influential in legal, political,’Media’ and sporting circles, than in the superficial skills-set of any tuppence ha’penny ‘asset stripper’ of whom anybody in the county[except, perhaps, the occasional ‘award-winning mega-millionaire-spotting journalist’] could say ‘I ken his faither.’
Oh, that we had had a ‘Paradise Papers’ team of journos, ripping the bull-shit out of every sleazy character involved.
I’m probably too old now to have a realistic expectation either of living long enough or of retaining my faculties long enough to see the day when all the muck will come oozing out.
But that day will come, no question.
So, it seems that there is great online interest in this potential CW book? Is it a Hitler Diaries episode or the real thing?
6 years ago, I would’ve been salivating at such a product, but now, after everything that’s happened, I must confess, that my interest has completely waned, given that simply, we know more or less the full story?
However, one outcome would change my thinking, and that is, if such a book shines a light, on the collusion, and corruptness of the SFA, SPL, & all the nefarious individuals, involved at the time, including the clubs, and hopefully leading to the removal of these individuals, and significant structural change, in the way that Scottish football is governed.
Indeed, if CW can be the catalyst of this type of change, then perhaps, he is the John the Baptist figure, that we’ve all been longing for, and he can rest assured that I’ll be spending quite of a bit of my children’s Xmas present money on his tome.
Please stop feeding the EBster.
That’s all the people behind him want.
Please ignore his posts and his responses.
UTH
Specifically who has this vice like grip on the football authorities and media? It seems everybody, whichever team they support, is unhappy with the authorities and media. Reading, listening and interpreting the exact same things but coming to completely different conclusions.
On on that note, whilst I don’t agree with our new poster, I have enjoyed reading his posts and the responses from the more clued up on here.
As for JJ, it seems to me he is just offering his readers an updated version of succulent lamb. Let’s call it cyber lamb. I think he knows his audience well and has no problem playing to it.
I think everyone has been poorly served and continues to be poorly served by the SMSM. Is that because of an agenda, finances, a lack of journalistic talent or just the media doing what the media do? Take your pick, I guess.
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARK
Couldn’t agree more with any of your points, although I would add that vested interests most definitely have a grip on the media. I think money has always been at the root of this thing.
The relationship between the press and the SFA, encompassing the cosy old colleagues relationships between PR companies (who let’s be clear are in the business of selling lies not news), club directors and journalists (who are happy to sell those lies as truth) is corrupt.
The good news is that people no longer believe what they read. The bad that people no longer believe what they read unless it suits them.
I would like to congratulate our new friend Ernie on the occasion of his 60th post since he joined up with us way back in, err, 8 November!!
Wish he was buying his candles from me 🙂
I don’t have an issue with disagreeing with the media. That is nothing new. I do have an issue with the following
1. When a social media contributor takes the time to explain to previously naïve uninformed affected (should that be infected) by football individuals like me that an explosive story, apparently backed by verifiable facts, is about to break and specifically, then tells me how he/she suspects the media will portray it, if indeed they cover it at all, and if so only because they are forced.
2. When the MSM then behave entirely as predicted with unnerving accuracy.
3. When challenged on this the MSM then ask us, the affected parties, to either ignore the individual “just cos” or to believe their version backed by nothing. When their lack of factual background is challenged they then attempt to create an alternate reality which is, unsurprisingly, immediately deconstructed and then, on said deconstruction they then ask us to also ignore said deconstruction and revert, meekly, to yes but “just cos…”
And specifically on JJ’s whyte diaries I am not obliged to take them at face value. But I’m not going to ignore them either, just cos…
BP @ 12.04
Yes but specifically on this saga. If the SFA had said (essentially) “new club, your own fault, can’t penalise the old club now everybody just pissing get on with it” where would we be today? Markedly different? Id wager the only significant difference would actually have been a stronger ‘Rangers’ as they could probably have sold a div 1 entry that bit easier thus avoiding them ‘investing’ 14m in winning and hence distorting two part time leagues. Apart from that, I genuinely can’t see how anything else would have been markedly different, apart from the reduced requirement for a smoke detector in EB’s house. (and I refer not to the candles, more in the undergarment department!)
eeugh!
Smugas
That’s the great irony. I’m pretty sure a cleansed Rangers would be in a better place today. Maybe because the regenerated entity would have been much less of an attraction to the collection of neds and spivs who have been around it as flies to excrement.
A renewed rangers may have attracted a better quality of people. Maybe even people who have football expertise in their number – unlike the current TRFC board.
Attributed to Jonathan Swift 1710
“Besides, as the vilest writer has his readers, so the greatest liar has his believers; and it often happens, that if a lie be believed only for an hour, it has done its work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale has had its effect…”
Don’t let the Truth limp give it strong legs and great big tackety boots on here.
A complete and utter cover up if ever there was one.
It is patently obvious that the MSM, the current and former members of the SFA and some leading PR officers are up to their neck in it.
The Compliance Officer must be tearing his hair out trying to draft his decision which I am fairly certain will exonerate his current employer.
Then hopefully we will see the Resolution 12 men and Celtic take it on.
Judicial Review anyone?
“BIG PINKNOVEMBER 22, 2017 at 12:09
I would like to congratulate our new friend Ernie on the occasion of his 60th post since he joined up with us way back in, err, 8 November!!”
Can I just clarify that it’s nae me! My only recorded fantasy belief was Santa. Also, stop feeding the troll.
If I’m reading it correctly John James is selling the fruits of the labour of Craig Whyte and someone who is described as former Sun reporter Douglas Wight.
In exchange for money Mr James is offering what he describes as Premium Copy.
That’s Copy as in Copyright; as in Copyright Law and as in Copyright Law Infringement.
I’m sure Mr James has entered into an agreement with Mr Whyte and Mr Wight which will allow all parties to keep belly from backbone.
To do otherwise would be, at lowest, freeloading and, at highest, potentially litigious.
I wonder if this Douglas Wight is any relation to the Douglas Wight who featured in H.M.A. v Sheridan? That Douglas Wight was the News Of The World news editor in Scotland and he managed to achieve the High Court equivalent of a Double First; being charged with Perjury for evidence given during a Trial for Perjury.
LUGOSINovember 22, 2017 at 15:42
‘…I wonder if this Douglas Wight is any relation to the Douglas Wight who featured in H.M.A. v Sheridan? …’
__________
There’s a blurb on Amazon Books describing a Douglas Wight:
“..Douglas Wight is the writer or ghost of nine non-fiction books, and is the co-founder of 22five Publishing Ltd, whose first book Hot Right Now: The Definitive Biography of Rita Ora was published in October 2015……………..A journalist for over 20 years covering news, features, politics and showbiz, he also helps publishers achieve national newspaper serialisations for new titles.He has reported on world news events including the Dunblane massacre, the legacy of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine and the aftermath of the World Trade Centre terrorist attacks. A former reporter for The Sun, he has also worked for the New York Post and was a celebrity interviewer and book”
Perhaps not so much a ‘Paradise Papers’ type of journalist, more just a parasite. Of course, the Wight described by Amazon may not be the Wight of the Whyte book!
**A wight, incidentally, is a reanimated corpse, either human or animal,
Probably of interest to John Clark only.
There is an unstarred motion at the CoS scheduled for tomorrow with Lord Tyre.
P997/17 Note: RFC2012 Plc for orders under 4.16 Brodies LLP
The court reference number is a new one, so I don’t know if it is related to the current BDO v D&P action (P115/17) which is also with Lord Tyre.
Section 4.16 of the Insolvency Act 1986 seems to refer to giving notice of anyone who wishes to appear in support of, or against, the petition, but has a debt outstanding (RFC creditor?).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1925/article/4.16/made
It may just be a formal notice to creditors re the distribution of a dividend or something similar.
BillyJ
The funny thing about the episode around the Traverso letter is that the SFA have never made any statement with regard to if they recognise TRFC as the same club as RFC.
There was a week between the SFA being notified how UEFA perceived the matter (and UEFA’s justification that because UEFA viewed TRFC as new, they could not be sanctioned), and STV going public with a different version mid June.
That was after STV were advised to hold off until what Traverso said was made public, which happened at end of June 2016, but STV published their version on 16th June anyway.
So not only were STV kept in the dark by SFA on what Traverso said but when what Traverso said was made public, the SFA never took the opportunity to make a clarifying statement.
Such a statement would have either
a) put the issue at rest whether it was because there were reasons why TRFC and RFC were the same club that stand reasoned scrutiny or
b) the SFA were bound by UEFA regulations and principles and so TRFC were new with an explanation why.
The SFA reluctance tells me that if a) were applicable such a statement would have been made and in the absence of any clarification b) applies but clarification cannot be given because it calls into question why SFA agreed to the application from Sevco to have the membership of the SFA held by RFC transferred to TRFC in July 2012.
Sevco/TRFC could have taken the normal route to full SFA membership under the rules at the time which was first become a Registered Member of The SFA as result of getting a SFL place. Then apply for Associate SFA membership within 14 days of being Registered then after 5 years of Associate Membership, assuming that was a shoo in, apply for Full SFA Membership.
The commercial value to Sevco of not waiting 5 years is obvious not to mention greater voting rights.
Perhaps out of fear that Sevco would walk away the SFA and SPL agreed to this extra ordinary process using the discretionary powers under Art 14 of SFA articles even although UEFA did not recognise that transfer as conferring continuity of SFA membership.
Auldheid,
good analysis, can I add that the timing of the Brechin game in the cup possibly helped rush through this rotten deal.
Who played Brechin indeed. If they had taken more time to consult and negotiate their wheeze it might have worked out better but in my view it was all about keeping up the pretence that Sevco were indeed RFC and this couldnt have held up if the cup game didnt happen.
What was required therefore was the invention of the ‘conditional membership’ to allow a non football club to play in the cup, thereby giving them access to the leagues. Cue the renaming of the club and hey presto! IT IS RANGERS AFTER ALL!
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKNOVEMBER 22, 2017 at 10:43
Specifically who has this vice like grip on the football authorities and media? It seems everybody, whichever team they support, is unhappy with the authorities and media. Reading, listening and interpreting the exact same things but coming to completely different conclusions.
============================
I think it was obvious who I was referring to. There are currently three Directors at Ibrox with the full blessing of the SFA who were part of previous boards at Ibrox which purposely denied the public purse tens of millions of pounds. The media are okay with these people still holding positions of power in the Scottish game as well. If that is not a vice like grip what is? As far as what everyone else thinks, unless people, and particularly Rangers fans, are willing to admit the crime against society that withholding of tax on that level is, then their opinion counts for nothing in my view. Surely those three men should be banned from Scottish football sine die? What is it that prevents them being subject to any scrutiny whatsover? It’s way beyond mere football in my view.
https://www.rangersobserver.com/news/2017/11/22/rangers-agm-2017-preview
——————
King himself has committed £7m worth of financial guarantees through his family trust, New Oasis for the coming years. This effectively means that should that cash be required by the business then he will personally provide it.
———–
TOP look away now
BAD CAPT MADMANNOVEMBER 22, 2017 at 19:00 3 0 Rate This
Auldheid,good analysis, can I add that the timing of the Brechin game in the cup possibly helped rush through this rotten deal.Who played Brechin indeed. If they had taken more time to consult and negotiate their wheeze it might have worked out better but in my view it was all about keeping up the pretence that Sevco were indeed RFC and this couldnt have held up if the cup game didnt happen.What was required therefore was the invention of the ‘conditional membership’ to allow a non football club to play in the cup, thereby giving them access to the leagues. Cue the renaming of the club and hey presto! IT IS RANGERS AFTER ALL!
——————
Scottish Football League rules clearly state that new clubs must gain SFA membership within 14 days of being accepted into their organisation – which means that business must be concluded by Friday.22 Jul 2012.
————
Rangers v Brechin City 29th July 2012.
Sevco were indeed RFC and this couldnt have held up if the cup game didnt happen.
Kelty Hearts v the rangers did’nt happen
UPTHEHOOPS
NOVEMBER 22, 2017 at 19:03
=========================================
Ah but no, The Rangers Football Club Ltd only has two current Directors and a secretary.
James Blair (Secretary)
Andrew Dickson (Director)
Stewart Robertson (Director)
You must be thinking of Rangers International Football Club PLC. That’s just the holding company which owns the shares. It isn’t actually the club.
I reckon what we are reading on other sites, not sites directly related to the more familiar ones of old, are regurgitated Paul McConville extracts. I would go as far as to say a lot of the new posters arriving recently were Admin deniers on that site at one time and left when the shit hit the fan.
The final act usually when acceptance is obvious is to milk it for what it is worth, an interesting quote today, Rangers have been punished enough, is this a reference to let the dead be still now and stop flogging its remains. i would agree death was indeed the ultimate punishment.
How many more books do we need regards what we know, who cares what Craig White did and how he did it and who helped him, at the end of the day he is another two bit ganster who would stoop low enough to take your pension from you and to me his kind are not worth the oxygen. I would rather an extra wee selection box than feed some wee toe rag.
My hero this Christmas is this guy.
https://www.channel4.com/news/alex-thomson-meets-general-mladic-in-1995
A real journalist and always worth a read.
easyJamboNovember 22, 2017 at 17:20
“…….The court reference number is a new one, so I don’t know if it is related to the current BDO v D&P action (P115/17) which is also with Lord Tyre…”
__________________
Thanks for the heads up.,eJ.
It might possibly relate to Henderson & Jones, shareholders of the now Rangers Football Club group Ltd, interested in establishing their claim .(The legislation cited is, as you remark, related to folk who claim to be creditors in a Liquidation)
The attendance of Counsel is not required, I think, so there probably won’t be any discussion, maybe just a solicitor or two formally lodging Henderson and Jones claim on the funds secured by the Liquidators.
Wind and weather permitting, I might toddle in. No time is mentioned, so I assume normal kick-off at 10.00 a.m!
John Clark November 22, 2017 at 22:54
———————————
The Henderson & Jones case number was P231/17. There’s been no further hearings on that case since 31 May 2017.
bigboab1916November 22, 2017 at 22:20
‘.https://www.channel4.com/news/alex-thomson-meets-general-mladic-in-1995.A real journalist and always worth a read.’
__________
Not, of course, to equate the horrors of genocide with the lies and cheating of a football club (now in Liquidation) and the even worse perversion of truth by a Sports governing body, there are two aspects in common:
first, the liars know they are lying
second, the Truth always emerges,sooner or later.
As surely as we have today seen General Mladic sentenced to life imprisonment, two decades after his crimes were committed, many if not most of you, possibly even I, will sooner or later see our present Football governance people exposed as people who in a simple matter of sport, for God’s sake,were prepared to abandon Integrity.
One could spend an idle hour or two wondering what they might be prepared to do if the stakes were higher than the price of cheating to accommodate a cheating sports club!
easyJamboNovember 22, 2017 at 23:22
‘…The Henderson & Jones case number was P231/17.’
___________
Someone new, then?
I’ll need to go in then to try and find out who!
( I did try to find out how the ‘Petition’ numbering system works. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals web site didn’t seem to be of any help, even in trying to find a specimen of Form 4 ( mentioned in section 4.16) and other form numbers below number 5!)
John ClarkNovember 22, 2017 at 23:25First, the liars know they are lying
second, the Truth always emerges,sooner or later.
The De nial of Death is a 1973 work of psychology and philosophy
Lots of hints of ghost writers appearing this place is like A Dickens novel , lots of visitors appearing for Christmas, guess who wrote the above book?
Some of us with an auld heid might remember
Ernie,
My apologies for the unfortunate conflation 🙂
Maybe we should find a term to differentiate the other guy from you
Reading over the extracts of Craig Whyte’s book on JJ’s site, methinks CW protests his innocence too much but is able to do so because he has not faced charges in areas where he was guilty.
The Judicial Panel that charged him with bringing the game into disrepute did NOT, in spite of charging him with non payment of PAYE and VAT, charge him with non payment of the wee tax case tax in spite of him having given a written undertaking to do so.
That charge was never put to him in his trial for some reason, but nevertheless Donald Findlay pleaded in Craig’s defence that the wee tax case liability had been appealed.
It hadn’t as is set out at
http://celticunderground.net/rangers-fc-appealing-the-wee-tax-case-in-2011-and-their-uefa-licence-application-for-201213/
along with Craig’s knowledge of what was really being done.
Finally the submissions by RFC to UEFA during his tenure in the FFP monitoring checkpoints in June and Sept do not represent the true situation.
My point here is that we all have feet of clay and it would be a mistake if truth is the objective of the book for Craig not to be open about the whole episode as the failure to do so will detract from the credibility of the narrative.
bigboab1916November 22, 2017 at 23:35
‘…lots of visitors appearing for Christmas..’
_________
The visitors however , as you may have noticed, over the last six years, have always laboured under the handicap that they have to try to defend untruths.
More than that,they are never quite sure whose instructions , whose brief, they are to follow [was there an echo?]
There is something less than perfect amity and agreement in the board of a plc that is crippled by
a)having a Chairman who has been taken to Court by the Takeover Panel, and who at the very least faces ‘cold shouldering’ in the [Stock]market place, or being ordered by the Court to put millions of his personal monies at risk and face a jail sentence if he does not comply,
and
b) has some members who may face being called upon by the Takeover panel to make the offer that their Chairman refuses to make
From whom on that divided Board at any given time are they taking instructions as to what the party line should be in terms of a social media PR effort should be?
And,of course, there is something less than perfect amity in the ranks of the SFA, whose needs to be protected in any kind of PR effort have to be considered.
There are members of the SFA ( most of the members of the SPFL, for a start) who are at odds with the SFA over the need for an independent review, which the SFA refuses to accede to.
So, our visitors are in some difficulties as to what or whom to defend.
This blog has, in my opinion, no such difficulty.
It wants no more, no less, than the truth.
It believes the ‘Scottish football community’ has been lied to by the governing body.
It has not thus far, seen any kind of reasoned , based on fact, argument that it may be wrong in that belief, other than the basest of arguments, relying on a ‘pragmatism’ that puts the power and influence of one cheating football club above even the most basic concepts of sporting integrity and fair play and personal honour.
Our visitors are welcome, because they inevitably show the cloven hoof as being less than honest punters .
level 5 has a long long way to go!
If the ibrox club lost many fans with the truth that they are a new club when they started in the lower divisions it may just have brought the ibrox board around to the fact that they should live within their means, and by now they could be on the road to being well run. Many of the fans who would have walked away would soon have returned to see a team who play out of ibrox that wear blue that the fans sing the same songs and if they reached a cup final would be demanding a 50/50 split of tickets. what ibrox has now is a fan base high on expectations that the board can’t live up to. That is what will see the ibrox fan base dwindle for years instead of a steady growth in fortunes and fans in future years.
I’m confused. So now a club CAN die?
or is he mistaking ‘dying’ with ‘not winning stuff.’
For those of you who wish to do so, I recommend a read of the Rangers Observer website’s preview of the forthcoming AGM. If Dave King reads it he really will think he could get away with telling them the world is flat.
https://www.rangersobserver.com/news/2017/11/22/rangers-agm-2017-preview
This is my favourite bit.
“With the RIFC accounts already released and analysed, financial considerations are obviously a large part of the AGM. What is clear from the accounts is that the club is on a sound financial footing …”
A loss making business c£19m in debt with no proper banking facilities relying on loans from it’s directors, shareholders annd their associates just to keep the business afloat. Predicting further losses and loans for this season and the next.
How in the name of goodness is that “a sound financial footing”.
Surely that’s a spoof site.
What puzzles me is why are the continous use of loans acceptable in the eyes of the SFA to keep a ship afloat.
Should not the SFA be asking the question,last time we allowed a club to live on loans it embarrassed itself to the point it could not even pay back its tick from the local newsagents.
With apologies to all, but I couldn’t let that post go unchallenged.
EB @ 00.54 (your post in quotes. Apologies if my breaking it down into chunks changes the context at all. That is not my intention).
Sorry, where exactly were they going to go?
Firstly, my post 07.33 was only partly tongue in cheek. Under your reasoning RFC cannot become extinct. In your world that isn’t possible. Secondly, serious ‘real’ bidders for an ageing sinking behemoth caught in its own web of deceit? Agreed. They were offski. All bidders, including those interested in essentially a sporting franchise with undoubtedly massive potential and with both reserves and proven management capability to fully utilise that? You would still have had plenty of those. Either way it made precisely no difference to the rest of us. There would still have been a team (I’m deliberately avoiding the word club for hopefully obvious reasons) called Rangers whether we liked it or indeed whether you did. (there’s also an obvious joke about you not caring anyway, but its cheap so I won’t make it!)
Id query the close proximity of “both” and “need.” Again you are referring to the model that you want to see, the short term fix as it were, not what is realistic and achievable and not what is necessarily in the best interests of the rest of the clubs in the competition. The reality is what the rest of us do in fact. And that includes Celtic, whether you like it or not. Of course it goes without saying that Celtic’s current reality particularly grates with you and yet you somehow then expect the rest of the clubs support in addressing it.
Well at least you’ve clarified what you meant by “extinct,” my suspicions at 07.33 are realised Actually, there’s a huge world of sporting franchise operators out there who surprisingly aren’t idiots. You could have tried McCann, F in the phone book for starters. I wonder what scared them off?
If only somebody had told you. Not the nonsense part, that much was glaringly obvious. But there were clear, self evident dangers in pissing off the investment community to the degree you did and continue to do. They were widely discussed on here and elsewhere.
No sh!t. But let me guess. The model is completely rigid. Completely unchangeable. And the “bigger” part is non negotiable. Just cos.
As do I (with you). Relates to the concrete model argument above of course. Out of interest, how many do you think would have walked, permanently, particularly if a decent board management structure had led a successful phoenix operation? And specifically, what if the SFA had shown some balls, called the new club for what it was and, given the penalty – the ultimate sacrifice being paid as it were, the clubs then let you bunny hop into Div 1, not 3 (resolution 2 of the SFL vote as I recall). What number (not individuals, assume some would be replaced by others) would have crowds permanently gone down to had you fought up to where you are now (but of course with Ally’s £14m still in your pocket)?
I agreed with the commercial necessity argument long ago with ecoboy (whatever happened to him I wonder?). But integrity was sufficiently sacrificed with a questionable new club vote and the various website shenanigans that you appear to now lend ultimate credence to. It was then burnt at the alter by asking the rest of the clubs to swallow that what happened then somehow didn’t. Integrity had to be sacrificed to a degree by all clubs and it was. It then needed to be sacrificed, hung, drawn, quartered and put on public display for your club(s). No other. Will some kind of resulting grudge fixture marketing ploy work short term? Yes probably. Will it damage the game going forwards? Unquestionably. But then the marketeers will be long gone by then won’t they.
As to your latter point, I agree to an extent (I don’t quite understand your small s comment, sorry). The club is the fans. As I’ve said above the fans would still have been there. Integrity didn’t need to be completely shafted to achieve this.
Im glad you finished this way. I cannot add anything to complement or demonstrate your viewpoint any better.
John Clark November 22, 2017 at 23:33
I did try to find out how the ‘Petition’ numbering system works. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals web site didn’t seem to be of any help, even in trying to find a specimen of Form 4 ( mentioned in section 4.16) and other form numbers below number 5!
===========================
I had a look too but I can only find references to UK and English court system.
You could probably guess at the common P231/17 format with P = Petition(?), 231 = case seq. no. and 17=2017
Other prefixes used at the CoS include A (Appeal or Action ?) CA (Civil Appeal or Action ?) HCA (High Court Appeal) etc.
Sheriff Court and High Court references generally start with SCS (Scottish Court Service ?) or APP (Appeal)
The UK ones are easier to understand e.g. the EBT Supreme Court decision was [2017] UKSC 45 on appeal from [2015] CSIH 77. So it is “Year – Court – Seq no.” (CSIH is Court of Session Inner House)
Speaking about living on loans. Again with apologies to the JJ fans, he is getting basic stuff wrong again. Stuff that everyone has known for a long time.
“There are a number of takeaways from the enclosed text in bold italics typeface. It seems apparent that Octopus loaned Whyte £20m with season books as collateral. The fee for such an arrangement was £7.5m. ”
That is wrong, it is not the Ticketus business model. They buy tickets for events at a discounted price. The tickets are then sold by the event organiser (club) at face value. The organiser gets a small commission for doing it and the remainder of the proceeds goes to Ticketus. Their profit is the discount minus the commission.
The point being the customer believes they are buying the ticket from the event organiser and are unaware that they are buying from a third party who is getting a large chunk of the money for themselves. From the organisers perspective they get cash up front which obviously helps their cash flow. Particularly if they need money to fund the event. Just using the service is tantamount to a declaration that you are having cash flow issues.
BIGBOAB1916NOVEMBER 23, 2017 at 10:29
I think I am correct in saying that Financial Fair Play, along the lines of the Uefa model is yet to be introduced in Scotland therefore the SFA and the SPFL can do hee haw, despite knowing how these types of situation mostly pan out in the long terms.
The only thing on the books at present is a points deduction for an insolvency event. Other than that the footballing authorities in Scotland have a ‘hands off’ approach.
FFP is operated by Uefa but PSG’s relatively sudden rise to the top and results like the hammering of Celtic last night, purely based on Qatari money, shows its not worth a sook.
Whos conning whom
What kind of fan wakes up one morning to be told your seat has been used to pay off a bank debt so a shyster can come in and release me from my tax duties and bank debt allowing me to buy into bigger riches, and now he needs you to put your arse back on it whilst he shafts you and leaves and another shyster will come in out the ashes and sell you the same seat with the pretence you are watching the same show.
look we know that turning water into wine is a neat trick if you can pull it off, but, come on Resurrection, seriously, cannot die, keep bouncing back, like you can keep repeating the same thing, honestly.
Roll on the 30th November 2017 to see the wooll been pulled over the gullie bears eyes this one will be good, we have already done all above.
Will it be pony up
or
tell all the WATP you know
there gonna bee seeing 10IAR
easyJamboNovember 23, 2017 at 11:01’I had a look too but I can only find references to UK and English court system’
________
Yes, thanks, eJ.
I got in to Parliament House this morning 9.50, confirmed from the notice board that Court 6 was the right one for petition 997/17, that it was indeed scheduled for this morning ( hand-written date),waited outside Court 6 until 10.10.
The Court remained locked, and there was no sign of life.
I went to Reception, where the chap phoned to try and find out what happened.
I was then referred downstairs to the Petitions department, where, having duly signed in, I was told by the chap who was reading from his screen, that Lord Tyre had dealt with the petitions on the schedule in private. The chap wouldn’t/couldn’t say anything more.
It was suggested to me that I might email, on the same day that I attended, to ask what the outcome of the Petition was. The Court of Session Petitions-department page does not give an email address, so I phoned ten minutes ago- bad time, lunch time, I suppose,- and left a message.
We’ll wait to see whether I get a call back!
I
Homunculus
November 23, 2017 at 12:38
“there is a short video available on Youtube of him saying it.”
And with a flourish.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkbSD56hlY
BIGBOAB1916NOVEMBER 23, 2017 at 12:27
Roll on the 30th November 2017 to see the wooll been pulled over the gullie bears eyes this one will be good, we have already done all above.
================
Since King and Co took the helm the AGM’s appear to have been pretty farcical affairs. If there has been any dissent or strong questioning the media poodles present haven’t reported it. Here are some classic moments of recent years
– We just made a few phone calls and paid Ashley off
– Rangers financial status is the envy of football clubs over the world
– Rangers has decided to become a living wage employer (they are not)
– We will spend whatever it takes to overtake Celtic
This utter tripe is then repeated verbatim via the media and they all live happily ever after for another year, leaving the AGM having topped up their superiority complex to the brim. All the various disasters which happen during the year are forgotten (or perhaps banned?) at the AGM
upthehoopsNovember 23, 2017 at 13:19–
We just made a few phone calls and paid Ashley off – Rangers financial status is the envy of football clubs over the world – Rangers has decided to become a living wage employer (they are not) – We will spend whatever it takes to overtake Celtic
Spot on could you imagine the kellys making that claim whilst cooking the books and dodging bills, they would have been annihalated. They were calling them in for a debt and already the funeral was been prepared the hearse ordered, crest cracked and waiting on the grim reaper to get his robes and scythe ready.
This is why they hate the bunnit and why we love him all the more so. Had he foretold this he would have been God, the Bunnet and Walfrid immortal.
Hello, I am enjoying a very sunny climate just now. That, and the odd prosecco, is great. Some shoite on here though
Catch my drift?
Can I ask if I am the only woman on here? I feel lonely and abandoned and think we need more female input. Thoughts?
WOODSTEIN
NOVEMBER 23, 2017 at 13:08
=====================================
One is forced to wonder, who would be recommending the rejection of a CVA to save the club, what madness is this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18360427
It is interesting to read some of the stuff there and to compare it to what has subsequently happened and indeed the current situation.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 23, 2017 at 19:08
From the article, did anything ever come of this , or was it bluster ?
Whyte is threatening to take legal action against the Scottish Football Association, who deemed the businessman unfit to hold an official position in the game when he was handed fines totalling £200,000 for bringing the game into disrepute.
“I will be going after them,” he said. “I will be looking at legal options against the SFA.
“They have a lot to answer for with their defamatory statements about me which formed the basis of their so-called investigation.
“Scottish football’s regulators are inept and have showed themselves up. But they have no jurisdiction over me.”
Hello Jean. Never posted before but just would like you to know your not alone! Love the site and have followed it from the beginning. Probably like many others,I feel I know all the regular posters and (now that I have had the courage to actually post) would like to thank you all for all your hard work and perseverance. The truth will triumph. And Jean, I totally get your drift. ?
jean7brodieJEAN7BRODIENOVEMBER 23, 2017 at 18:30 9 3 Rate This
Can I ask if I am the only woman on here? I feel lonely and abandoned and think we need more female input. Thoughts?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is Brenda still looking in? I wonder how those clocks are coming along?! ⏰⏱⏲?
Edit to add:
Miss a lot of the original posters; Danish, red’, resin, rabT amongst others ☹️
Homunculus
November 23, 2017 at 19:08
———————————————
That was the article Green was talking about in the clip, but I could not find it cheers.
Tucked away now.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 23, 2017 at 19:08
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18360427
——
Duff & Phelps published revised and approved proposals to creditors on Thursday.
Among the revised proposals was that HMRC would nominate Malcolm Cohen and James Bernard Stephen of BDO as joint liquidators, rather than Duff & Phelps, if the club was to be wound up.
UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 23, 2017 at 13:19
Here are some classic moments of recent years
– We just made a few phone calls and paid Ashley off
– Rangers financial status is the envy of football clubs over the world
– Rangers has decided to become a living wage employer (they are not)
– We will spend whatever it takes to overtake Celtic
This utter tripe is then repeated verbatim…
============
There is certainly no shortage of tripe here but how does the bit about them not being a living wage employer sit against the statement in the recent accounts? This says “The Club has chosen to adopt the voluntary Living Wage rate as a minimum for employees over age 25” (page 16).
It seems an odd and unnecessary thing to even mention in the accounts if it’s not true. What makes you think this is just another in a long line of porkies?
causaludendiNovember 23, 2017 at 21:13
‘…Miss a lot of the original posters; Danish, red’, resin, rabT amongst others ‘
____________
So do I.
Because their posts were sound, because they were based on the realisation that ,at the very least, there were questions to be asked .
Questions not so much about ‘Rangers’ in a mindless “fans’ football yah-boo +expletives’ forum” kind of way, but serious questions about
the truth about Murray’s reasons for trying for years to sell Rangers,
and the truth about the reasons for the £1 sale to Whyte,
and the nonsense of the MBMB (aye, Keith!) and (later)all the rest of the crap from the FTTT,and Bryson……
and the ultimate nonsense of the 5-Way agreement and the Big Lie.
AND the continuing refusal of the SFA to open its actions to independent scrutiny.
There was also great humour, and ( from Danish Pastry, Glaswegian reminiscences which I enjoyed)
I hope they ( including the Shakespeare-hating Essexbeancounter) are all well and thriving, and still occasionally dipping in to the blog.
And I hope Brenda will communicate with Jean7!
SmugasNovember 23, 2017 at 10:52
‘…With apologies to all, but I couldn’t let that post go unchallenged.’
____________
I can see the script.
John Clark: ( removing his pipe, mouth agape in astonishment): ‘ Smugass, by heavens, in your forensic dissection of an unsound intellectual argument you remind me of my dear friend, Sherlock, who went over the Reichenbach Falls.”
Smugass:”[tamping tobacco into the bowl of his pipe] ” Come,Clark, Ernest Moriarty’s arguments were so puerile and lacking in logic and reason that not even he could conceivably have believed them to be relevant or valid.”
John Clark: “Nevertheless, Smugass, that was a splendid bit of work.”
claraboNovember 23, 2017 at 20:54
“….The truth will triumph…”
_____________
Love the nom-de-plume, clarabo(w)!
And you are absolutely right.
And I am not a ‘minute man’
(isn’t the internet wonderful! I’m old enough to have heard my dad and mum talk about Clara Bow as having seen her movies-at the time!)
Welcome aboard.
GEORDIEJAGNOVEMBER 23, 2017 at 23:04
There is certainly no shortage of tripe here but how does the bit about them not being a living wage employer sit against the statement in the recent accounts? This says “The Club has chosen to adopt the voluntary Living Wage rate as a minimum for employees over age 25” (page 16).
It seems an odd and unnecessary thing to even mention in the accounts if it’s not true. What makes you think this is just another in a long line of porkies?
=====================================
They are not an Accredited Living Wage Employer. I believe only Hearts are in Scotland. What Rangers do is the same as what Celtic do, which is on a voluntary basis. At the time of that particular statement Celtic were getting hassle from the Celtic trust at their own AGM about not becoming Accredited and of course this was much seized upon by the media. King then slipped it in at the Rangers AGM and hey presto we had the Daily Record the next day saying it was ’embarrassing’ for Celtic that Rangers were doing what Celtic refused to do, even though Celtic had been doing it for over a year! We also even had the allegedly more reasonable Graham Spiers congratulating Rangers. All back to my point about tripe being repeated verbatim by the media, and King knows it. I’m sure there will be another pop at Celtic at the forthcoming AGM with the media swooping on it like a pack of rabid hounds.
Edit – Rangers recent accounts also say they comply with UEFA Financial Fair Play. Many others disagree.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 23, 2017 at 19:08
One is forced to wonder, who would be recommending the rejection of a CVA to save the club, what madness is this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18360427
It is interesting to read some of the stuff there and to compare it to what has subsequently happened and indeed the current situation.
====================
Wouldn’t it be good if the media outlet which ran with the story actually followed it up, or is that too much to ask?
Now now Cluster One. You missed the funniest bit. Now he seems to want a rule to follow!!
Hello Clarabo. Great to see your reply. Hope you keep posting and maybe hear from Brenda soon
UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 23, 2017 at 13:19
There is certainly no shortage of tripe here but how does the bit about them not being a living wage employer sit against the statement in the recent accounts? This says “The Club has chosen to adopt the voluntary Living Wage rate as a minimum for employees over age 25” (page 16).
It seems an odd and unnecessary thing to even mention in the accounts if it’s not true. What makes you think this is just another in a long line of porkies?
——————————————————————————-
They can decide to pay the Living Wage to employees over 25 without being a SLW accredited employer. Only Hearts are accredited (http://scottishlivingwage.org/accredited). My understanding is that accreditation commits the organisation to ensuring that they only use contractors who also pay the LW (eg window cleaners, security staff etc) as well as paying it to their own employed workers. so carefully worded but not necessarily a porkie.
John ClarkNovember 24, 2017 at 01:00
Through the pipesmoke could I request a script amendment and modification of a continuity error Sir, if I may…
I can see the script. John Clark: ( removing his pipe, mouth agape in astonishment): ‘ Smugass, by heavens, in your forensic dissection of an unsound intellectual argument you remind me of my dear friend, Sherlock, who went over the Reichenbach Falls.”Smugass:”[tamping tobacco into the bowl of his pipe] ” Come,Clark, Ernest Moriarty’s arguments were so puerile and lacking in logic and reason that not even he could conceivably have believed them to be relevant or valid.”John Clark: “Nevertheless, Smugass, that was a splendid bit of work.”
Smugas: Just one small trifling feature John, if I may be so bold, a mere morsel of misapprehension, a soupcon of controversy if you will with a dash of debate.
ITS SMUGAS!
Anyone noticing JJ site becoming like the (
) media full of exclusives we told you first.
Boring Craig White I was duped also. And other bloggers been palmed off. This was explained in Downfall all thats been dished out now is who said what. The damage done was predicted, all we are reading now is the history of characters in the fall.
“OK lads I’ve saved the club. Rangers will continue (with no need to expand). Our titles won’t be stripped (with no need to expand). B%&£”ds were going to put us into Div 3 but we showed them and with our friends in Divs 2 & 3 whom we are eternally grateful to and happy to contribute towards the new tv deal for have negotiated a position in Division 1 which we’ll wade (snicker) into and refuse to surrender in (sicker snicker) and hopefully, with the help of our players who have agreed to stay on (no need to expand) in this journey you’ll see us back in the top flight next year.”
I’ll say about 42,000.
How about………………………
Dear Loyal Rangers fans
As you know the club you supported has been placed in liquidation.
Given all the recent fans protests against the prospect of liquidation – you all know what that means in the real world.
However the spirit of Rangers lives on within you, the loyal fans.
Fortunately, we have managed to secure football at your beloved Ibrox by buying the main assets of the club and we have the support of HMRC who still wish to see football being played at Ibrox.
However this comes at a price.
Previous administrations have lied to the fans over the years and have been reckless with the clubs finances, to the extent they nearly killed off all hope of football being played by a team in blue at Ibrox.
This can never be allowed to happen again.
The failings of those running Rangers killed the club you all loved. The blame for this lies at their door and their door only.
From this day on we vow to bring back pride to Rangers Football Club by running the club in a responsible manner so that what has gone in the past can never happen again.
This will not be easy and it will take time to rebuild the football club into one that provides a consistent and serious challenge for title both at home and abroad.
However with the support of the loyal fans we have a great foundation on which to rebuild the footballing heritage along with creating a new vision for football at Ibrox.
We know you would do anything for your club but we will not take advantage of that love and passion or the financial support you give.
We vow to operate in an open and transparent manner with full dialogue introduced to the fans groups.
We intend to bring in responsible and credible business people to develop our vision for the way forward.
The new Rangers will be run on sound financial principles and the future of the club will never be gambled again by reckless risk taking.
Our aim is simple, to build a club fit for the 21st Century. The history and spirit of Rangers is important but we feel it is the future that should be the focus of all our attentions.
We want you to join us in that journey.
Please appreciate that this will be a painful journey as, even with our large fan base, rebuilding the club will not see immediate successes. However we believe you will enjoy the journey and have pride in the club we intend to create.
All we ask is for your continued support and a degree of patience as we take on this challenge.
——————————————————————————————–
The alternative is of course.
We know you are a bunch of disorganised suckers who will cough up at the sign of any reported sugar daddy who spouts off about the glories of the past and domestic and Euro domination using other peoples money we can’t afford.
Roll up Roll up and flush you cash down this large toilet which leads to the same place your old cash went.
Whats wrong with the rule that was used?
This link is quite informative.
https://www.clydefc.co.uk/news/2012/07/10/4139/#.WhflEWdLHcs
NOt to pick on Clyde per se but notice their observation that the application isn’t based on, to use their term “logic.” Notice their rejection isn’t based on (the parking of) “sporting integrity.” It is based on the blatant blackmail, misinformation and complete lack of contrition being used and abused at the time although the fault for that does not entirely lie at “Rangers” door.
And why the hell having sold to the Ibrox crowd, whom we at least agree are a pretty demanding bunch, that “Rangers” had continued would they then chase around telling all the websites that you refer to that they were wrong?
WOTTPI
Mineses would have worked better than yourses.
There are probably still people who pine for Lehman Bros or BHS. Companies fail, it happens. The bullish*t around the ibrox continuity myth is a function of small town whataboutery. Stop arguing it, it only feeds the troll. We should be concerned with the denial and corruption in the SFA, SPFL and SMSM. The prevalence of spivs at ibrox is interesting but any discussion of same activates the whataboutery, leave them to it.
And in other news, I look forward to the “Save me from my Pittodrie hell pleads McInnes” headlines this weekend as the big team pretence rolls on. The SMSM acting as recruitment agency for their beloved cheek of choice this week is nauseating.
SmugasNovember 24, 2017 at 09:44
‘…ITS SMUGAS!’
_____________
My dear fellow,a thousand apologies!! Pure accidental too heavy depression on the key as I searched for the colon key!
SmugasNovember 24, 2017 at 11:53
Whats wrong with the rule that was used?This link is quite informative. https://www.clydefc.co.uk/news/2012/07/10/4139/#.WhflEWdLHcsNOt to pick on Clyde per se but notice their observation that the application isn’t based on, to use their term “logic.” Notice their rejection isn’t based on (the parking of) “sporting integrity.” It is based on the blatant blackmail, misinformation and complete lack of contrition being used and abused at the time although the fault for that does not entirely lie at “Rangers” door. And why the hell having sold to the Ibrox crowd, whom we at least agree are a pretty demanding bunch, that “Rangers” had continued would they then chase around telling all the websites that you refer to that they were wrong?
______________
Reading through that statement is such a clear reminder of the pressure the SFL clubs were put under, and that, at that time, the football club they were being pressurised into admitting didn’t actually exist (as a football club) and there was no guarantee that it would exist as one in the near future. It is also noteworthy, and I don’t know if it was picked up at that time, that no alternative club was put forward in the event Sevco were unable to fulfil the role as a newly admitted club. So, not only were those clubs in the SFL, and particularly those in SFL3, under tremendous pressure of lost revenue (as the SPL were threatening, illegally it would seem, to withhold money from the SFL should Sevco be refused admission) they also had the threat of starting the new season one club short, as there was no alternative club ready to step in at such ridiculously short notice.
It’s quite fitting, it could be said, that a club that was born from the assets of a cheating, liquidating football club, should, itself, enter football by way of threats and blackmail.
Don’t disagree with what you say AJ. But the choices to me were twofold. That they would have to field a skeletal operation (lets avoid club) in Div 3 and that is probably all that would be required to win it. Or an entity with a bit more fat on the bone recognisable to EB in Div 1 IF they could get the agreement of the SFL clubs, particularly those in Divs 2 & 3 who were going to miss out on ‘the journey’ to do so. They appear to have done the square root of zero to get that agreement which is what eventually nailed them to the 3rd division in the first place (although credit to Clyde for highlighting that because of the in/out fait accompli that was being presented to them that if they did vote no to Res 1, as the evidence presented, the “logic,” suggested they should they (any Rangers) wouldn’t be playing at all)).
What is less clear is what basis Green’s confidence to create this bizarre stand off was on. EB doesn’t like my master plan. Apparently its fantasy. Whereas his version just needs the rest of us to pretend it isn’t fantasy that’s seen them burn through the GDP of a small African country just to get closer to the top and then to complain that they don’t like what they see when they get there.
And that is where he appears to be struggling somewhat.
I don’t agree that there was a risk of not having a 42nd clu…dammit, team for two reasons. Firstly where exactly was the team called Rangers (and there was always going to be one) going to go? And secondly, even if they did throw the rattle oot the pram having cut their nose off with it first there were other able contendors who could easily have stepped up to the Div3 level, as indeed they have subsequently done. Clyde (and I’m not picking on them as I said before) were clearly trying to make the best out of the unprecedented situation that was being forced before them. You can’t blame them for that.
JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 24, 2017 at 12:52 5 0 Rate This
SmugasNovember 24, 2017 at 09:44‘…ITS SMUGAS!’_____________My dear fellow,a thousand apologies!! Pure accidental too heavy depression on the key as I searched for the colon key!
……………………………….
I feel sure SMUGAS will cut you slack, JC.
anybuddie would feel depressed if circumstances dictated they must use a colon key….
Now that Derek McInnes has publicly said “Naw” – wrt a move away from Aberdeen…
2 observations;
1) IMO, it is a shocking way for any football club to conduct business.
TRFC tried to unsettle an opposition team’s manager – and indirectly pressure / intimidate his Board.
TRFC can deny this, but the Bampots can easily detect coordinated SMSM support for TRFC’s benefit.
And the SFA should now be having a word with the TRFC Board, re: bringing the game into disrepute ?
[I know!]
2) TRFC seemed to have identified McInnes as their number one choice from the outset.
They have raised the bears’ expectations unreasonably – again.
So, which up and coming, successful, ambitious manager could they attract now to Ibrox ?
In the absence of another ex-RFC player, I would suggest none.
So, TRFC has to significantly lower the bar – and in order to get a bum on the manager’s hot seat before next Thursday’s AGM.
A quick appointment – of e.g. McLeish – might be doable, but this type of appointment could disappoint the bears significantly…and a ‘feel good’ bounce just might not happen.
Just an increased level of frustration / anger at the Board ?
I watched a wee funny Youtube cartoon again today and it is still hilarious!!! No offence intended to anyone, seriously. It is called ‘Explaining debt to a …’
There are very bad words in it so beware!!
Mods delete as you see fair.