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were behind the scenes discussions on this point and attempts were made separately at the time to obtain such written unpublished documentation that complied with UEFA FFP regulations from Darryl Broadfoot the Head of SFA Communications, but in spite of promises it never arrived.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.
Them’s scary numbers! When we hear how crap Scottish fitba is we need to reflect on how commendable Celtic’s tilt at the European hierarchy is relative to their respective budgets and, of course, how incredible it is that Motherwell (for example) can even attempt to challenge Celtic on a match by match basis. I can do the maths but still I expect Aberdeen to win the odd trophy, it’s the hope that kills you!
I do find it a little peculiar those who want titles stripped from a club they consider to be extinct?
So if an athlete dies but it is discovered he/she had won medals through doping and cheating they should be allowed to keep them because they are extinct.
I find it peculiar that the title stripping would not be seen by real fans if applied, as the authotrities shown the protection and good name and that the commonwealth in sport comes before any cheating.
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 16:46
EJ, I agree with most of what you say – except I don’t think the penalty should have been given. I don’t think there would have been any protest, if it had not! Having given the penalty though, the ref backed himself into a corner and had to give the red card.
Anyway, I really enjoyed your comment and loved the fact that, viewing on my phone, I did not see the Star Trek image until the last moment. This added to the excellent comic timing.
A couple of thoughts about the manager’s appointment at Ibrox. Now I’m not a *Rangers apologist but, the ‘transparency’ issue. Bears are cracking up, as are the SMSM, about the silence from Ibrox.
In the past I have admired and been proud of Celtic’s wall of silence in key appointments. The press don’t have a clue. Remember Hugh Keevin’s wrongful predictions?
Also, we mocked all the leaks coming out of the dressing room and boardroom of *The Rangers in the past few months. Now they are keeping schtum. And it’s a crisis?
The Timeline? At the outset everyone was saying this has to be the right person – don’t rush it- after the previous mistakes. So now it is 5 weeks and panic has set in.
I once applied for a good job and it was 6 weeks from start finish. Worth it in the end.
Are we being a tad unfair? I know they are a financial basket case and have some dodgy directors but all the more reason to tread carefully by their better members. No?
SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZNOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 20:49
Link shows Celtic achieving what we could justifiably expect – domestic dominance (unbeaten run and four trophies in a row is still unprecedented and at the very top end of what could be expected).
i thought the differential between Celtic and the Rangers would have been much greater. So, I would say TRFC are punching well bellow their weight. (I’m no Sherlock!)
The opposite is true of Aberdeen, who are doing considerably better than their budget would suggest. Mind you, this is relative to TRFC and, if you take them out of the equation, Aberdeen are fulfilling expectations.
It’s all a bit sad really, money dictates success – except for TRFC, of course.
Jimbo, you seem to be in an incredibly forgiving and trusting mood this evening. Why can they not just be honest and say there’s ney money! If it’s gone quiet, things might be closer to imploding than we thought.
JIMBONOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 21:35 5 0 Rate This
A couple of thoughts about the manager’s appointment at Ibrox.
————-
And the coming AGM. Will king when the new manager is appointed will he be told he has to finish a solid second behind celtic. It’s not worked out too well so far
JIMBO
NOVEMBER 27, 2017 at 21:35
===============================
RIFC PLC have told the World that they are still operating on soft loans and that they need an additional £4m this year and £3m next year, just to keep the business trading.
No-one ever paints the worst case scenario in their own accounts. If anything they make it look as good as they can.
So can a loss making business like that pay compensation to another club to get their manager. It wouldn’t be easy. Can they offer him a top salary, that wouldn’t be easy either. Can they offer him a “warchest” to bring in new players, probably the hardest bit of all.
Rangers are struggling to name a new manager because the pool of available people is really small and unlikely to inspire the team and the support.
If they do bring someone in then someone has reached into their pocket to finance the move.
A little earlier this evening I saw in the on-screen side-bar of the ‘Sunday Herald’ a wee headline as follows:
” SNP Councillor suspended from MOD job after running for deputy-leadership”
I was intrigued (partly because I had been Skyping my boy in Brisbane yesterday evening, and he was discussing the bar on ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ public servants standing for political office)
I summoned the “Sunday Herald” to my screen to have a read of the story about the SNP Councillor.
The ‘Sunday Herald’ has a pay-wall.
So,when I went in to try to read the story(flagged as an ‘exclusive’!) I could only get as far as para 2.
(There’s no way am I going to give the Sunday Herald any dosh!)
Para 2 reads as follows:
“A party source said Christopher McEleny, who was also suspended from his post, was then investigated over his views on subjects including Trident, Irish politics, Rangers and his battle with depression”
This sounded really intriguing , Rangers and depression in the same phrase? Was there a causal connection?
So I hunted around on the net, and in a few minutes, came across a political blog
politicsofhope.com
and on this link to its ‘political news’ pages there was a fuller report:
http://politicsofhope.com/snp-councillor-christopher-mceleny-was-suspended-from-mod-job-after-declaring-candidacy-in-deputy-leadership-contest.html
If you have a read down a few paras you’ll find this :
” His anti-Trident position is said to have been cited as a potential conflict and he is also believed to have been quizzed about a social media reference to Rangers as a “new club” – a humorous reference to the Glasgow club’s reincarnation after insolvency.”
Now, I don’t know about anybody else, but I feel a strong desire to communicate with politicsofhope.com to put them wise to the fact that when we refer to the fact that ‘Rangers’ were not ‘reincarnated’,we are not in any mood of jocular pretence but in a mood of cold, clinical assertion of the facts
that they they did not come out Administration but died the commercial, legal and sporting death of Liquidation and still exist in the limbo of Liquidation,awaiting final dissolution
that the football club currently playing out of premises bought in an asset fire-sale [that the Administrators are currently being challenged about in Court ] is NOT the Rangers Football Club of 1872 ( awaiting legal dissolution)
and the fact that it is instead, a club founded in 2012, which HAD to apply, as a new club,for membership of a football League in Scotland before it could be,however reluctantly , admitted to membership of the SFA, and be allowed to participate in Scottish professional football.
(Can anyone help with the provision of an email or snailmail address for politicsofhope.com ( a US based political blog. The site doesn’t seem to provide a contact, or maybe it’s me that doen’t know where to find it)
I do know the address of the Secretary of State for Defence, to whom I will probably also write to ask under what piece of legislation the assertion that TRFC Ltd is a new club has been deemed to smack of treason or some such!
if there is such a piece of legislation, forsooth there may soon be a good few of us dangling at Glasgow Cross or pilloried on the (Edinburgh)Castle esplanade!
jimboNovember 27, 2017 at 21:35
‘…applied for a good job and it was 6 weeks from start finish.’
___________
Your mention of 6 weeks reminds me-it’s been 6 weeks since Lord Bannatyne took the matter of the Takeover Panel’s request (that he issue an order to secure King’s compliance ) to avizandum.
I wonder whether we might expect him to arrive at a decision? before Thursday?
As regards whether ‘we’ are being unfair, the answer,I think is that ‘we’ are having a bit of schadenfreude fun:and the TRFC Ltd support is all at sea, not knowing whether there is any kind of coherent plan, or any kind of meeting of minds round the board table.
Each of the directors (especially those in the concert party) must be extremely worried about what Lord Bannatyne’s decision will be, and cannot be in any kind of proper state to think about things like managerial appointments when they might personally be facing a huge liability or being viewed as a pariah in the business market place.
The situation is unique. RIFCplc is the first to to be taken to the Courts by the Takeover Panel.Every other ‘dodgy’ concert party has had the street cunning to know when to say ‘ok, ok we’ll comply with your instructions’.
It falls to RIFC plc to have a Chairman, already with a ‘history’ (of many more years duration than the history of TRFC Ltd) , who is so stupid as to think that he alone ,of all the sharks and conmen and shysters in the ‘City’ can defy the ‘City’ regulators.
One recalls “The Caine Mutiny”, when Captain Queeg is eventually seen to be a huge liability…..
EB
do you believe that the EBTs used by ragers 1872 were loans or wages for players
A simple yes or no will suffice .
Ern B
“I accept RFC brought the game into dispute……Stripping medals from a dead sportsmen for bringing the game into disrepute seems a tad heartless.”
……………………………………….
1. The dead, as you know, are unable to feel any hurt.
2. Dead sportsmen who knowingly indulged in cheating practices in order to gain an unfair advantage over honest competitors are unworthy of our compassion.
3. Besides, as Shug McDiarmid almost put it,
“A living man/club upon a DEID man/club thinks,
And ony sma’er thocht’s impossible”.
Rangers died. That’s all.
The rest is noise.
We’ve all moved on and have no wish to be dancing on the heads of angelic pins being embellished by such as yourself.
I’m sure I’m not the only one totally bored with the rubbish being spouted by EB. At first it was interesting going over some of the old ground but enough is enough.If some feel they have to reply because they can’t let the lies go past without comment, well I understand that, but surely the time has come to ban this person as he/she is clogging up the site with mistruths.I do find myself skipping large portions of SFM now and it annoys me that I might miss something relevant, interesting or amusing by trying to avoid this pest and the resulting correspondence.So an appeal to the mods, Please, Please ban this squirrel.
An AGM coming up on Thursday.
No Derek McInnes, maybe Alex but maybe not him either.
A Humpty Dumpty dressing room with a team that can’t be put back together.
Financial issues with hard pressed suppliers starting to revolt.
Unhappy lenders in the blue room whose best option turns their cash into valueless shares.
Cold shouldering being considered further dividing the directors from their chairman
Grumbles from the more informed bears.
An ongoing rape of their £18.72 club’s funds with no benefit to their team.
A Whyte book synopsis being touted maybe with some tasty recordings.
Hints (Threats?) of some kind of return of SDM, maybe as part of some new group or consortium.
Deafening silence from the press about anything other than the press releases they are fed.
Not quite so deafening from our resident EBster squirrel who burns his midnight oil to blindsight us , his non believers.
BallyargusNovember 28, 2017 at 09:02
EB has shown every single trait of a troll, and I, too, am amazed at how long he has been allowed to spout his meandering p*ss. Like a little boy who has just found out he can use his willie as a hose, he’s waving it about, expecting some of it to hit the target. (My apologies to the ladies who visit and contribute to this site who will never have indulged in this childish practice
)
Unable to back his assertions with fact, he tries to define what a fact is, by introducing his own rambling nonsense. As an example, in response to John Clark, he wrote this nonsense:
‘Facts need to be incontrovertible my friend.
This leaves no doubt as to the fact that a Club is a recognisable entity that can be owned and also be operated by a company.’
Well, if a club can be ‘owned’, it can be sold. And a club that is sold will have a paper trail. A paper trail that leads directly to the purchaser and owner. When the list of what Charles Green purchased from RFC’s administrators was published, there was no mention of a ‘club’ on it (it didn’t even mention the purchase of the club’s ‘history’). So, neither Charles Green, nor Sevco, bought Rangers Football Club (not the genuine article, and not even the ethereal one), the factual documentary evidence is there. So where lies this football club now? Is it the case that Green forgot to buy ‘the club’, and it now languishes in a drawer in a BDO office awaiting liquidation, or is it simply the case that EB is talking p*ss whenever his fingers spray the keyboard?
EB, give your keyboard a chance to dry, and find a wall to p*ss against instead!
One example of someone talking p*ss instead of facts is the following extract:
‘a Club is a recognisable entity’
Isn’t it strange how this ‘recognisable entity’, of the form EB claims, was never recognised before RFC’s failed CVA, and remains in no recognisable state since! The only recognisable form of any incorporated football club is the one that is actually a limited company. It really is that simple; and factual.
NB Of course, EB’s ‘fact’ has already been, quite literally, laughed out of court when described by Lord ? (can’t remember which one, there’s been so many involved in Rangers/TRFC’s long list of court cases) as involving metaphysics
Back on track, away from squirrel bashing, and looking towards the upcoming AGM.
I think there are two things the optimistic bears are looking forward to from this years lie-fest, and that is the announcement of a new manager (or maybe just the promise of a world-beating one) and the voting, and ultimate passing of, the resolution to dis-apply pre-emption rights.
The manager situation may, or may not, be resolved on Thursday, but it is almost a certainty that the pre-emption rights resolution will be passed, so what will that mean to the finances of RIFC/TRFC?
While I am sure that it will, ultimately, result in some more money coming in, courtesy of some bear-fleecing, the main benefit will be the debt for equity swap which will remove the directors loans from the club’s accounts. Now that will be a benefit in that it will save the club all that interest it’s been paying to the lenders…
What’s that you say? They are interest free? Really?
So the vast bulk of shares distributed will result in nothing more, and at best, TRFC complying with UEFA’s FFP regulations! And that’s assuming all the loans will be exchanged for equity.
I have no doubt that there will be more cheers that boos (booze?) at Thursday’s AGM, and that the SMSM cheerleaders will continue in the weeks ahead, but I’d suggest that the bears with enough money to buy any more shares peruse the prospectus very carefully to ensure that all loans are irrevocably bound to be turned into equity, and that their money won’t, ultimately, be used to pay off some of those loans that they only have Dave King’s word are from RRMs! That might be something well worth raising at the AGM, and demanding a full and frank (honest might be too much to ask for) answer, which should be taken into account when voting on that resolution.
Oh look! More P*ss. Will someone please dig out the mop and bucket?
Ern Becker:
“yadda yada yadda….”
The Rangers AGM has been brought up so here’s a wee game, what is the distraction going to be.
What is the popular issue which is going to be brought up to blind the shareholders to the carnage their PLC has become. Clearly it will relate to the football team but that is in a mess both financially and in football terms. So they need something else, something the support can take as a positiove.
Here’s my guess, I’m allowing myself 2
1, The club have decided to look at the Celtic supports allocation for games. They are considering cutting the allocation to the same as every other club and putting them in the same part of the stadium. they will consult with the support, via Club1872 and make a decidion prior to the end of this season. They can then put any change in place for next season
2, They have now looked at it and are going to seek permission to put in a rail seating area. It will be the same size as Celtics, however because the stadium has a smaller capacity it is a bigger percentage of the total capacity. This will be costed and a decision made on the vialbility.
Motherwell have decided not to ‘waste time or money’ by appealing the red card shown to Cedric Kipre on Sunday.
Find this bizarre if Ryan jack can escape two surely if you feel aggrieved you would take it the full road. Why would it be waste of time if you feel he is innocent surely you would seek justice based on Ryan jack cases and why would it be a waste of money are you saying it would be prejudged against you, welcome to the Sevco SFA Motherwell.
bigboab1916
November 28, 2017 at 13:31
==================================
Occum’s Razor.
He committed the foul, it was a red card offence, he was sent off.
Appealing it would be a waste of time and money.
There kind of isn’t anywhere to go with the appeal. They can hardly say he was making a genuine attempt to get the ball.
Folks
The last week or more remind me of the Would I Lie to You episode with Kevin Bridges.
https://youtu.be/IkXxmMUIx8k
Now EB or Big Pink for the love of God can we leave this episode behind with one final clarification from me?
The SPL did not vote RFC out of the SPL. In fact I think RFC were amongst the club’s voting to give Sevco the place being vacated by RFC’s demise.
What happened was the SPL voted not to let Sevco start up a football business in the very top tier, just as the EPL, out of fairness to clubs below the EPL, would not vote for Celtic or any Scottish club applying for entry into the EPL. It’s unfair, not that difficult a concept to grasp to a reasoning person.
Losing the SPL slot was the consequence of RFC no longer being a going concern, as the only place they were going was into liquidation.
Hey Boris
read Auldheid at 14.03 today.This actually happened.
The clubs were voting to allow a new club in,Charles Green’s team were applying to get into the,then,
SPL.Rangers Football Club took part in that vote.
So you see,at that time there was still a Rangers and ALSO a team applying for membership.
1+1 does not equal 1.
2(TWO) separate teams.
I have no need for a degree in Rocket Science
To a Squirrel
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An’ foolish notion: What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us, An’ ev’n devotion.”
Robert Burns (with update)
Auldheid
November 28, 2017 at 14:03
————————————————
This will get it.
https://youtu.be/IkXxmMUIx8k
Auldheid
November 28, 2017 at 14:03
————————————————
This will get it.
https://youtu.be/IkXxmMUIx8k
To be scrupulously fair and to illustrate the impartiality of SFM, can I point out that the football authorities have already clarified that Rangers* entered the first round of the Cup during the 2012/13 season because the determining factor was which division they inhabited at the time of that Cup competition. Which division, if any, Rangers* were in the previous season had no bearing on the matter. I’m surpised Ernest, our resident expert, missed this fundamental point.
It goes without saying his other arguments are entirely manufactured.
Peculiar
Post at November 28, 2017 at 15:15
Link changed to   at end after an edit.
second post, November 28, 2017 at 15:21 ok if no edit??
never mind squirrels, now gremlins??
HOMUNCULUS
NOVEMBER 28, 2017 at 13:03
The Rangers AGM has been brought up so here’s a wee game, what is the distraction going to be…
=================================
Yes, was consdering the same H.
I’m thinking that King might have to pull out his most shameless, glibbest whopper from the hat at the AGM, to make the bears smile – or at least confuse them ?
1) Manager.
If they don’t have a bum on the hot seat by Thursday, yes King could claim that TRFC is in ‘final negotiations’ with a world class manager, and can’t be rushed. So watch this space!
[Then next week Level42 instruct the SMSM that Ancelotti is not in fact coming to Ibrox.]
2) Cash.
King could announce that a ‘major investor’ is in discussions to team up with TRFC and its 500 million global support.
Again, watch this space!
[Just like King’s promised GBP 50M, nothing transpires.]
3) Celtic.
Always plenty of scope to deflect by pointing over at CFC.
Mibbees King could suggest that a complaint is being readied to the SFA, claiming that Celtic’s financial dominance is ‘really hurting’ Scottish football ?
[So hypocritical / shameless, that King just might try this squirrel ?]
Either way, should be an interesting AGM.
Highlander
November 28, 2017 at 15:29
==========================
That was not my understanding of the rules, I thought that all SPL clubs and a few SFL clubs were entered in the latter stages. That being determined by their place at the end of the previous season.
Given that the promoted and demoted clubs would fit into either group it didn’t make a difference they would get seeded either way.
Is that not correct. If it is correct, is it just another piece of nonsense that the SFA came up with in this “special case”. They knew it was a different club, knew that club could not be seeded, but came up with a justification (outwith their own rules) to prevent awkward questions.
AJ
“Of course, like every other club at the time, it already fell under the laws of the land, regardless of whatever the laws of the SFA and Scottish League said, and had it fallen into insolvency and failed to satisfy it’s creditors (even before incorporation), it would have died then, too.”
——————————————————————————-
Of course, just because the SFA, UEFA and FIFA call them “Laws of Association Football” does not mean that they are actual legal “laws”.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 28, 2017 at 15:45
Also, as I queried when Ernest first showed up, nobody has sought to challenge the footballing authorities for treating Rangers so shabbily.
Why, because Green knew he ended up with the best fudged deal he could to help him on his money making way.
Ashley, King and the rest who have had elements of control in the newco Blueroom know the truth. Far better to ‘move on’ and not rake over the coals for fear of what may be uncovered.
EB You have taken my comment out of it’s context and applied it to an entirely spurious opinion that you appear to cling to in desperation.
Your attempt to conflate what I said is risible whataboutery.
HomunculusNovember 28, 2017 at 15:50
HighlanderNovember 28, 2017 at 15:29==========================That was not my understanding of the rules, I thought that all SPL clubs and a few SFL clubs were entered in the latter stages. That being determined by their place at the end of the previous season.Given that the promoted and demoted clubs would fit into either group it didn’t make a difference they would get seeded either way.Is that not correct. If it is correct, is it just another piece of nonsense that the SFA came up with in this “special case”. They knew it was a different club, knew that club could not be seeded, but came up with a justification (outwith their own rules) to prevent awkward questions.
_______________________
In a situation with absolutely no precedent, and the assumption that it would never arise again, I am sure that the SFA would happily cobble together whatever explanation they could come up with that shied away from the truth of exactly why the team playing as Rangers found itself in the first round of the Scottish Cup. I very much doubt there is a rule that covers what they would have us accept as the truth, so, once again, we are expected to accept whatever an organisation none of us trusts says.
The problem for them is – none of us trust a thing they say, so none of us accept a thing they say, unless there is clear, factual evidence to back it up. Exercising ‘discretion’ is not adhering to the rules, it is circumventing them. Every time ‘discretion’ is used, they are, by definition, acting outwith the rules. If there was no rule covering what happened when TRFC entered the first round of the Cup, then either TRFC were treated as a new club (as any new club would be), or the excuse was made up (and they kept very quiet about it, too, as only Highlander can remember it, and had it been widely published it would have been discussed ad nauseam, and ingrained in our collective memory (and well done to Highlander for keeping the blog’s integrity paramount)).
I’m not sure if it’s relevant, but the TOP has issued a “Disclosure Table” update today which includes King / RIFC among the list of “amendments”. I don’t know what if anything has changed, or whether it indicates that something has moved on in the last couple of days.
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/disclosure/disclosure-table
The Notes (#9) that go along with the table indicates that “The company is instead required to publish all announcements on its website.”, but there doesn’t appear to be any update there either.
Rangers v Vale of Leven, Saturday 17th March 1877 Challenge Cup football match. Entry one shilling.
If Rangers FC were only a club before incorporation and not a company, what were they doing taking money at the gate? Did they pay taxes on gate receipts?
If you want to see the advertisement for the above game it’s right there on Google images.
easyJamboNovember 28, 2017 at 16:35
I’m not sure if it’s relevant, but the TOP has issued a “Disclosure Table” update today which includes King / RIFC among the list of “amendments”. I don’t know what if anything has changed, or whether it indicates that something has moved on in the last couple of days. http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/disclosure/disclosure-table The Notes (#9) that go along with the table indicates that “The company is instead required to publish all announcements on its website.”, but there doesn’t appear to be any update there either.
___________________
Might be something to announce that might prove somewhat awkward just before the AGM, do you think?
misterlightbulbjokeNovember 28, 2017 at 17:12
Attachment
Rangers v Vale of Leven, Saturday 17th March 1877 Challenge Cup football match. Entry one shilling.If Rangers FC were only a club before incorporation and not a company, what were they doing taking money at the gate? Did they pay taxes on gate receipts? If you want to see the advertisement for the above game it’s right there on Google images.
_____________________
Unincorporated clubs, of all description, can sell tickets for entry to events. They can even make profits, although the money is generally used for the upkeep of facilities such a football pitches and dressing rooms. I may be wrong on this part, but they would only be liable for tax if they distributed dividends to their members, but, of course, any employees – groundsmen etc, would be liable for income tax. Clubs such as bowling clubs, that make profit, generally distribute it amongst their members by way of Xmas goodies, like discounted beer or presents for kids or old folk, though mostly profits are retained to meet future repairs and upgrading.
At the time you speak of, of course, a lot of clubs would have been paying players ‘expenses’, so they would have been a bit better off than most of their workmates in their day jobs
EB
Depends on what you mean by “insolvency evidence.” If you mean that they are somehow miraculously solvent again because the kind liquidator man took away all the nasty debts then you would be horribly, undeniably and embarrassingly mistaken. And there’s that pattern that you yourself mentioned forming again…
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 28, 2017 at 17:26
Following your link brought me to here, where any announcements are to be made as
The Takeover Panel Executive has granted RIFC and Mr King a dispensation from the requirements under the Code that announcements must be published via a Regulatory Information Service (RIS).
https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/
I can see nothing new there .
paddy malarkeyNovember 28, 2017 at 18:00
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 28, 2017 at 17:26Following your link brought me to here, where any announcements are to be made as The Takeover Panel Executive has granted RIFC and Mr King a dispensation from the requirements under the Code that announcements must be published via a Regulatory Information Service (RIS).https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/I can see nothing new there .
______________________
Thanks for that, Paddy, but I am not so sure there is nothing new there, though I haven’t visited it before so am only guessing, but at the bottom of the statement, Dave King is described as the ‘Offeror’ with RIFCplc described as the ‘Offeree’. Without any actual understanding of what it’s all about, it looks a bit like an offer (for the shares) is being made by King, but RIFC/King have been given dispensation to only publish it on the company website. It’s genuinely over my head, so don’t quote me
David Cunningham King 10 SEP 2015
Q and A
Q: Could the legal action present problems in terms of the ownership of the club?
A: There are certainly a load of complications as to where things might end up. Craig Whyte has now come up with this new Worthington claim. There are a lot of messy things which will have to be dealt with.
We have a vision going forward where I would like to see us taking Oldco out of liquidation and putting assets back into Oldco – putting Rangers back into the old company. We can’t do it while all this stuff is being sorted out.
Q: Why is reviving the Oldco important to you?
A: It would be a good thing to do. It would be back to the traditional Rangers. I think the supporters would like it. It is not economically important but it is something I would like to do.
Q: A sense of closure? You could almost put an asterisk beside these past few years?
A: Exactly. You can never rewind what has happened but in 100 years’ time you might look back and say there was a blip of four or five years in Rangers’ history when this all happened and it was resolved to the norm again.
It’s a miracle.
Easyjambo, and any other more able to understand these things than I, have you had a look at the link Paddy gives below? Then clicked on the link next to DAVID CUNNINGHAM KING?
It takes you to a Form 8 (OPD) which, still way over my head, looks like it might be interesting if you’ve not read it before.
paddy malarkeyNovember 28, 2017 at 18:00 ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 28, 2017 at 17:26Following your link brought me to here, where any announcements are to be made as The Takeover Panel Executive has granted RIFC and Mr King a dispensation from the requirements under the Code that announcements must be published via a Regulatory Information Service (RIS).https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/I can see nothing new there .
WOODSTEINNOVEMBER 28, 2017 at 18:27 1 0 Rate This
David Cunningham King 10 SEP 2015
———-
just to add
Surely the Foundation of Hearts and the supporters paying Direct Debits (I believe that’s the case) with a view to buying Ann Budge out are investing in a Scottish football team.
I believe it is now known as “quasi equity”.
As you say, it is no doubt contrived nonsense from the SFA, but they did indeed say it (2nd round).
Allyjambo November 28, 2017 at 18:36
Easyjambo, and any other more able to understand these things than I, have you had a look at the link Paddy gives below? Then clicked on the link next to DAVID CUNNINGHAM KING?
============================
I recall looking at those documents at the times and all they are is a statement of the shares held at that date, being the starting position prior to any offer being made.
With regard to today’s document published by the TOP, there is nothing I can add to my post at 16:35.
#prayforjohn
What a laugh on Radio Clyde there. A caller – John from Hamilton – called in to speculate on the new manager at Ibrox. The wife starts off in the background to give him an ear bashing.
https://audioboom.com/posts/6521836-clyde-1-superscoreboard
(short clip)
AllyjamboNovember 28, 2017 at 19:40
‘…..We can only hope that time, one way or another, will remove that blot from Scottish football.’
_________
Conjures up a pleasant vision of certain people doing time for crime!
HomunculusNovember 28, 2017 at 19:51
Surely the Foundation of Hearts and the supporters paying Direct Debits (I believe that’s the case) with a view to buying Ann Budge out are investing in a Scottish football team.I believe it is now known as “quasi equity”.
_______________
But these investors, of whom I am one, are hardly new to Scottish football, Homunculus, and are investing totally from the heart (you are right about the monthly DDs). Indeed, the example of Rangers demise is more likely to have the opposite effect on the preparedness of supporters to invest in their club than it would have on the unemotional investment decisions of some mega-rich entrepreneur – looking to lose some of his millions in Scottish football
.
As an example of how the Rangers mess might effect a potential large investor, from, say, the USA. If he has any sense about him, one of his first calls would be to Bill Miller…’I was led to believe this was the biggest club in Scotland, if the biggest club in Scotland can get itself into that sort of a mess, the rest must all be basket cases! If you want my advice, stay out of Scottish football, the supporters will hate you before they’ve even seen you.’
easyJamboNovember 28, 2017 at 19:56
Thanks for the info, EJ, looks like my post on the subject was all mince
ALLYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 28, 2017 at 21:09
================================
I see what you mean about people already being investors, as in paying money into the club for games, merchandise etc. However I think I am right in saying the whole idea of FOH, BIDCO etc is in addition to that, it is with a view to the supporters having substantial ownership of the club.
I take your point re the negative effect regarding Rangers, however that is up to the clubs to sell the game and themselves. I use Celtic as an example. While it was all going on Celtic moved from the Nike Deal (The swoosh in Celtic Park) to the New Balance Deal. If anything that was a positive development.
I think Scottish football has a future however it has to be a realistic future and that involves teams living within their means, considering if we have too many senior clubs, developing new Scottish talent etc. I think David Murray and his madness re providing massive loans (of other people’s money) created a totally false view of our game, and I think we are really only recovering from it now.
I also think this version of Rangers will struggle to survive, and it is because they never learned the lessons of the past. If anyone should have it is them.
HIGHLANDER @19.54
I remember a few years ago on here an old squirrel or two came up with some of their own theories on why Sevco started the cup competitions at the very first hurdle.
I remember too, Paul McBride famously saying that you could drive a coach and horses through the SFA’s rule book, which he of course did himself.
The SFL, as it was at the time of Rangers demise, had a more set-in-stone set of rules, particularly in it’s own cup competition, the League Cup. No sign of discretion anywhere, their seeding was based solely on a club’s league position in the previous season. Absolutely impossible therefore, for a club who finished 2nd in the top division not to be seeded.
It’s just a pity that whoever set up the Q&A session with Regan didn’t ask the same questions to Doncaster eh?
jimboNovember 28, 2017 at 20:20
‘….What a laugh on Radio Clyde there. A caller – John from Hamilton – called in to speculate on the new manager at Ibrox.’
_________
That led me to have a wee look at Shanghai SIPG, and the Shanghai Daily (English language) online, and then to wikipedia where there is this
‘….Shanghai SIPGOn 4 November 2016, Villas-Boas became the manager of Shanghai SIPG, replacing Sven-Göran Eriksson for the Chinese Super League club.[44]Becomes Glasgow Rangers manager ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Villas-Boas
Has John frae Hamiton put that wee edit in? Or will there be a surprise announcement on Thursday?
My post above should, of course, have said David Longmuir, who was head honcho at the SFL, rather than Neil Doncaster!
However he seems to have taken his huge payoff and disappeared so you’d have to find him first.
Allyjambo November 28, 2017 at 21:14
easyJamboNovember 28, 2017 at 19:56
Thanks for the info, EJ, looks like my post on the subject was all mince
============================
Perhaps not. There’s speculation on Rangers Media that King has been told he has to comply.
It would be a bit ironic if King thought he would avoid some flak at the AGM by unveiling a new manager (old manager), but was usurped by Lord Banntyne’s ruling. Surely his Lordship wouldn’t stoop so low as to use the AGM as a bit of leverage.
John Clark November 28, 2017 at 21:43
Has John frae Hamiton put that wee edit in? Or will there be a surprise announcement on Thursday?
======================
There have been five edits on that page today, the last of which at 21:37 removed the bit about Rangers.
Just terrible if their otherwise carefully planned perfectly strategised swoop for the bestest manager ever was temporarily delayed by that pesky rangers hating vengeful takeover panel too.
EB do you believe that the EBTs used by ragers 1872 were loans or wages for players A simple yes or no will suffice .
easyJamboNovember 28, 2017 at 23:06
Allyjambo November 28, 2017 at 21:14easyJamboNovember 28, 2017 at 19:56Thanks for the info, EJ, looks like my post on the subject was all mince============================Perhaps not. There’s speculation on Rangers Media that King has been told he has to comply.It would be a bit ironic if King thought he would avoid some flak at the AGM by unveiling a new manager (old manager), but was usurped by Lord Banntyne’s ruling. Surely his Lordship wouldn’t stoop so low as to use the AGM as a bit of leverage.
______________________
I have to wonder, though, at this dispensation RIFC have been given that allows them not to publish a statement via a Regulatory Information Service, with a statement on their own website being sufficient. I wonder if this dispensation has inadvertently allowed/facilitated RIFC to delay announcing/keep a lid on the CoS ruling until after the AGM, by which time King will have returned/skulked back to SA (assuming he turns up in the first place).
I am also wondering if King will actually turn up for the AGM, and if he doesn’t, what will it signify?
All speculation on my part, of course, without a thread of knowledge (other than what we already know of King’s outlook on the law and how to comply with it).
My forecasts for the positives that will come out of tomorrows Rangers AGM
1. We need to ensure we get the right Manager to stop Celtic doing ten in a row (even though this will be the third time we’ve said that!)
2. The new Manager will have a very significant transfer budget (well, what we tell the media he has spent will be significant, and they won’t ask for evidence!)
3. We are gobsmacked at the quality of the people who have applied (thank God they are willing to believe anything we tell them!)
4. Don’t listen to anyone who says there is no money to pay compensation (even though the accounts say we need an additional £4M we don’t have just to keep the lights on for the rest of the season!)
5. We are looking into getting Celtic fans out the Broomloan Road Stand (however, the Police won’t let us and anyway we like the £49 each they pay for a seat!)
6. The great trebles won by Rangers in the past actually meant something (WATP!)
7. I’m here for the champions league music, i don’t do walking away…..Huge applause
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 29, 2017 at 07:11
I am also wondering if King will actually turn up for the AGM, and if he doesn’t, what will it signify?
———–
https://t.co/QB7jRIVZPo
he just jetted in
Cluster OneNovember 29, 2017 at 07:50
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 29, 2017 at 07:11I am also wondering if King will actually turn up for the AGM, and if he doesn’t, what will it signify?———–https://t.co/QB7jRIVZPohe just jetted in
____________________
Thanks for the info, Cluster, must have good news to deliver at the AGM. He’s even on time for the game tonight
I note that JJ (sitonfence) is breathtakingly announcing that one of his impeccable sources tells him that Club 1872 bought shares from Mike Ashley for 28p. Unfortunately, in one of its many announcements, the Rangers Observer told us on June 23rd 2017 that the price was 27.5p. I regard the Rangers Observer as a fully fledged Jim Traynor mouthpiece so I assume it is correct.
Please keep up JJ.
Has the TOP issue finally hit? See the link below from the Rangers’s web site
https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/
Please see via the undernoted links the Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures received by Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC) as required under Rule 8 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers.
Details of RIFC in respect of whom relevant securities Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures must be made can be found in the Disclosure Table on the Takeover Panel’s website at http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk, including details of the number of relevant securities in issue, when the offer period commenced and when any offeror was first identified. You should contact the Panel’s Market Surveillance Unit on +44 (0)20 7638 0129 if you are in any doubt as to whether you are required to make an Opening Position Disclosure or a Dealing Disclosure.
The Takeover Panel Executive has granted RIFC and Mr King a dispensation from the requirements under the Code that announcements must be published via a Regulatory Information Service (RIS). Any Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures required under Rule 8 of the Code may be made to Rangers by email to [companyenquiries@rangers.co.uk] and will be published on Rangers’ website at [https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/]. A copy must also be sent to the Panel’s Market Surveillance Unit by email to monitoring@disclosure.org.uk.
Rule 8.3 Disclosures – Rangers International Football Club PLCRiver and Mercantile Asset Management LLP – LINKGlenmuir Limited – LINKMASH Holdings Limited – LINKClub 1872 Shares CIC – LINKAlIstair Murdoch McCoist – LINKAlexander Easdale and family – LINKMASH Holdings Limited Dealing Disclosure – LINKClub 1872 Shares CIC Dealing Disclosure 1 – LINKClub 1872 Shares CIC Dealing Disclosure 2 – LINKJulian Wolhardt’s Dealing Disclosure – LINK
Rule 8 Opening Position Disclosure:
Offeror
David Cunningham King – LINK
Offeree
Rangers International Football Club PLC – LINK
AllyjamboNovember 29, 2017 at 07:11
‘.. I wonder if this dispensation has inadvertently allowed/facilitated RIFC to delay announcing/keep a lid on the CoS ruling until after the AGM, ‘
__________
I was thinking similar dark thoughts, so I tried to read up a little about it.
The offer required to be made is an offer to acquire the shares of other shareholders
That is, it’s not the company making a generalised public offering, simply an internal matter concerning the rights of existing shareholders,and therefore there is no need for public information via the Regulatory Information Service(s).
No other non-shareholder would have a right to buy shares at 20p ( or whatever)
And I suppose existing shareholders can be expected to be keeping themselves informed by reading the company website page to keep an eye open for statements about investor matters.And that page already contains details of King’s holdings/interest in the company.
I can’t remember whether the first appearance of King in the Disclosure Table had that ‘no need for Ris disclosure’. Perhaps he had to apply and the dispensation was routinely given.
I wouldn’t think it was any kind of concession above and beyond the norm.
It’s probably just coincidental and not related to the AGM.
( I doubt if the Takeover Panel would be in any mood to do King any favours: they are part of a very different ‘establishment’ )
But I have to confess , reading through the Takeover Code is hard going, and I might be entirely wrong.
When it comes to anything and anybody to do with the saga, the levels of distrust are very, very high!
John ClarkNovember 29, 2017 at 12:00
It probably was just me looking for some shenanigans (as if we don’t get enough), though I didn’t think the TOP would be knowingly aiding and abetting King or RIFC, but he is a rather glib and shameless one, and, I suspect, quite good at pulling the wool over the eyes of even regulatory bodies when gaining a little time to pass an awkward date in his diary might be to his advantage. My thoughts were that, without this dispensation, the RIS statement (assuming the TOP got their ruling) would have been posted by now (again, no idea if this is the case), but, due to ‘technical difficulties’, the statement on the RIFC website was delayed.
Total speculation, of course, but on this quiet morning, something to exercise our brains by mulling it over
Keith, where did all these marbles come from ?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-helped-save-rangers-11605147
“Until then King’s greatest legacy – the very reason he came back to town in the first place – will remain very much at risk.”
https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/tax-court-labels-king-shameless-glib-liar-1027561
Southwood said the court had seen King testify for four days and “are unanimous in finding that he is a mendacious witness whose evidence should not be accepted on any issue unless it is support by documents and other objective evidence”.
“It was remarkable that King showed no sign of embarrassment or any emotion when he conceded that he had lied to the (Sars) commissioner in a number of his income tax returns. In our assessment, he is a glib and shameless liar.”
Keith, rearrange into a well known saying, if you can engage brain.
Spots can’t leopard its change a.
Giovanni
November 29, 2017 at 10:43
=================================
Is that in the same piece he described another blogger as a plagiarist.
woodsteinNovember 29, 2017 at 12:43
Keith, where did all these marbles come from ?http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-helped-save-rangers-11605147
___________________
Reading that Jackson piece I got the feeling that I was reading the setting of the scene for tomorrow’s AGM rather than a demand from a journalist for what he purports to be demanding. Everything he says now was written in various blogs by the internet bampots since before, and during, the reign of Dave King, while Jackson and his fellow PR spouters were doing their best to put lipstick on the pig. I imagine that King/Traynor has prepared answers to all the points Jackson has raised and tomorrow night/Friday morning, the DR will publish a piece that is, most likely, already drafted by Traynor telling the world (well the bear world) how King has clarified the position with everything he (Jackson) raised, and so all is well. There will be very little, if any, in depth analysis of what is said (other than what is handed out by Traynor), in the DR or any other mainstream publication, but they will keep a close eye on what the bampots say – to use next year (if there is a next year) as if it is the result of their own genius.
Jackson could have written a much more telling piece if he’d merely listed all the promises King had made, then compared a list of what had come to fruition to what had not. But that was not what was required of him. Instead he has set up some whipping boys for King to use as his excuse for failure.
Add ‘heads to roll’ (Robertson and/or Dickson and/or Allen)* to the list of positives for the bears!
*Dependent upon the cost to fire each, or all, of them
CLUSTER ONE
NOVEMBER 29, 2017 at 07:50
ALLYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 29, 2017 at 07:11
I am also wondering if King will actually turn up for the AGM, and if he doesn’t, what will it signify?
———–
https://t.co/QB7jRIVZPohe just jetted in
==============================
Hmm…
So King is in Glasgow now: but will he attend the game at Ibrox tonight?
And if TRFC loses at home to the Dons – will the raging bears direct their venom at King and the Directors’ Box?
Chants of “Sack the Board” outside the stadium after the game – to set up an eventful AGM?
This perfect Ibrox storm has the makings of a total clusterf###.
Absolutely!
I fully expect the Sheep to hump Sevco 3-1 and have placed a fiver on that score at 28/1 , with any return converted to beer tokens . I am undecided whether to exercise the rights vested in my 10 shares in RIFC to attend the AGM, but if I do , I will be wearing my wellies as I expect I will be wading in pish .
Stevie BC.
Funny that the two of the folk named by Jackson are part of the Board or administration that made the UEFA licence application in 2011.
Paul Murray was on the Board I think and Alistair Johnson was the Chairman who signed the accounts… just saying like.
When he is describing people as “chancers” and talking about Dave King liberating Rangers from loathsome characters do you think he is forgetting that Dave King is a convicted criminal. Who has been described in the most derogatory terms by Judges.
Is he also forgetting that when King “saved the club” he also operated as part of a concert party, and refused to follow the instructions of the Takeover Panel or even after losing his appeal. That he is awaiting judgement from the Court of Session and that all sorts of potential problems are awaiting him.
He’s not the saviour Keith, he’s a very naughty boy.