Whose assets are they anyway?

Avatar ByBig Pink

Whose assets are they anyway?

It has recently been suggested to me quite strongly by two separate Finance Industry experts that no matter the outcomes of the forthcoming criminal trials into the sale of Rangers and the subsequent disposal of the liquidated assets, it is highly unlikely that the sale will be reversed. In fact BDO (the liquidators of Rangers) see the path of least resistance to any remedy (if guilty verdicts are returned) through the professional indemnity insurance held by organisations involved (I am choosing my words carefully here to comply with the rules surrounding the court case).

There is of course still the dispute between the owners of Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland to consider (although depending on the outcome of the criminal cases, that may be moot).

On the face of it, all of this is good news for TRFC and Dave King. After all, one of the main problems they have been facing is the uncertainty over the ownership of the assets, and if BDO are swinging in the direction indicated above, King and his board are free to move forward – you would think.

The recent plans to raise cash from the fans is I think a smart one, but it is still a sticking plaster applied to a gunshot wound. Rangers already have a gate income which is the envy of not just most Scottish clubs, but clubs much further afield. Their problem is their astronomical fixed costs, their dilapidated infrastructure, and possible cash outflow through the fabled ‘onerous contracts’.

Even putting in place a severe austerity package (which may be unpalatable to fans being asked to part with their cash to buy off pesky shareholders who don’t share King’s vision) does not remove the need to capitalise urgently to repair the stadium and build a squad capable of competing in Scotland. So they need to raise cash, and they need it quickly – because soft loans cannot be provided forever.

So the share issue route is the obvious way to go, and to do that effectively, a listing on an exchange is required. However our sources in the financial world don’t think it is possible that this could happen with the current regime for the following reasons (not in order of importance);

  1. They have absolutely no credible business plan to move forward over the next five years – only a commitment to limping on with soft loans;
  2. The current chairman is a convicted felon;
  3. Two directors of the new company were directors of the company now in liquidation;
  4. They have no line of credit;
  5. They are already in debt to the tune of at least £12m – increasing as I write;
  6. They are unable to repay that debt;
  7. There is still a nominal (even if we accept the BDO position above) doubt over the ownership of assets;
  8. The football team does not play in the top league – and European income isn’t coming soon;
  9. The company have astronomical fixed costs which are way in excess of their income.

So even if the doubt over the ownership of assets is removed, there isn’t an easily navigable route for TRFC into calmer waters.

My own conclusion is that perhaps the biggest single thing that is holding Rangers back is Dave King. I really don’t know what his motivation is. There is speculation that he has his eyes on the increasing cash-pot and diminishing creditor list at the Oldco. Some Rangers bloggers are suggesting  that a land-grab play is taking place. I think the former is far more plausible than the latter, but if we take his RRM credential at face-value, it seems to me that the Rangers-minded thing for him to do would be to reverse himself out of the position he is in.

That might enable the company to raise some of the cash they need to repair the stadium, rebuild the infrastructure within the club (players, management, youth and scouting etc.).

Are King, Taylor and Park really in this so they can indefinitely fork out £10m per year? Will Taylor and Park continue to ally themselves with King if he is the impediment to inward investment that we think he is? Park will most certainly not, and my information, from sources very close to him, is that he is done.

The fractures in KingCo are beginning to appear, and King himself may come under increasing pressure to do what is best for the future of the club, which is to remove himself from the equation and allow those better placed to take it forward.

It is often speculated elsewhere that SFM is a Celtic blog, and even those who give us credit for being a much broader church than that will still insist that we are anti-Rangers, obsessed with Rangers, and out to get Rangers.

The occasional outburst of Schadenfreude from commenters aside (it IS a football forum after all guys) SFM is quite definitely not editorially anti-Rangers.

I think the evidence shows that we are nothing of the kind, and it doesn’t do Rangers any favours to conflate our position on the corrupt nature of the governance of the game with that of the Ibrox club – new or old. Where we do discuss Rangers (as we have in this article), it is with an acknowledgment that the money flying around in football makes all of our clubs vulnerable to the kind of rip-off merchants who have wandered in and out of Ibrox in the past few years.

There are many areas where the SFM consensus is unpalatable to Rangers fans. But protecting all of our clubs and their fans from mismanagement is hopefully not one of them.

Also, despite the many rivalries within the game, Rangers are an important focus (old club or new) for tens of thousands of fans. As such they are of interest to ALL of us who support football in this country. Anyway, I tend to be more obsessive about my own club – and find it rather easier to be objective about others 🙂

My own preference in moving the debate forward is to get the perspective of Rangers fans on these issues. I am ever hopeful that we can have Rangers fans engage with the blog and look for areas where we have common purpose.

Nobody at SFM wants Rangers fans to have no team to support. Nobody here wants the SFA to stay unregulated and unaccountable. Nobody at SFM wants people to make up rules they go along just for the sake of a few quid. I can’t believe that Rangers fans don’t share those values.

I agree that Rangers fans are victims of this affair to a large extent, but the culprits are quite definitely not us at SFM. They need to look closer to home to find them.

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

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

1,787 Comments so far

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on8:29 am - Nov 12, 2015


OT @JohnCkark
As a child in the East End I used wake up early at weekends. My mother worked in the Glen Dairies, so and I’d often walk to the one by Dunchatten Street and once out to the one in Parkhead/Shettleston at about 7am. There was also one next us near Meadowpark Street. In those days there were scents in the morning from bakers and the various. There was a little bakery next to the old Coia’s where they sold rolls. Fantastic smell in there, a bit like the smell of fresh Italian durum rolls. Something lovely about those deserted early morning streets. This summer I took my kids on a very early morning visit to the East End. Coia’s opens for breakfast a later on Sundays so I had time to drive them out to the revamped area around Celtic Park and then on a donner off to Saint Annes on Whitevale Street (where ma auld maw used to attend). After that I went to pay homage to the remaining facade of Whitevale Baths and to see how far the demolition of the twin towers had come! And through it all some of the familar scents remain.

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on8:40 am - Nov 12, 2015


Danish Pastry 12th November 2015 at 8:29 am #OT @JohnCkarkAs a child in the East End I used wake up early at weekends. My mother worked in the Glen Dairies, so and I’d often walk to the one by Dunchatten Street and once out to the one in Parkhead/Shettleston at about 7am. There was also one next us near Meadowpark Street. In those days there were scents in the morning from bakers and the various. There was a little bakery next to the old Coia’s where they sold rolls. Fantastic smell in there, a bit like the smell of fresh Italian durum rolls. Something lovely about those deserted early morning streets. This summer I took my kids on a very early morning visit to the East End. Coia’s opens for breakfast a later on Sundays so I had time to drive them out to the revamped area around Celtic Park and then on a donner off to Saint Annes on Whitevale Street (where ma auld maw used to attend). After that I went to pay homage to the remaining facade of Whitevale Baths and to see how far the demolition of the twin towers had come! And through it all some of the familar scents remain…
===================================================
DP…roarin’ an’ greetin’ wi’ the memories…many thanks 020202

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on9:05 am - Nov 12, 2015


Danish and Essex- This might interest both of you- tons of other memories on that site.
http://urbanglasgow.co.uk/Coia_s_Cafe_corner_of_Millerston_Road_amp_Duke_St__about3711.html
Apologies for going totally OT, non Glaswegians and all those under about 40, please ignore.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on9:08 am - Nov 12, 2015


If I were writing a book there would be a chapter called Project Fear.
Hate is not the opposite of love, fear is.
If we were to be philosophical for a moment Christians believe love never fails. My experience is that is true, but knowing what love is and what it requires is a life learning lesson. To keep the philosophy short – love requires patience but it also requires courage. It’s absence in the media which reflects a part of society is manifest.
So The Telegraph article like all of which we have been barraged with is a load of fearful tripe and this is why.
The fear of compensation is really a bogey if every club seeks it. Where will the money come from? Scottish football is a closed INTERDEPENDENT industry that, if it goes the full compensation hog, will just eat itself.
That just isn’t going to happen. Stupid as football is it isn’t that stupid. So it’s much more likely deals will be done that meet the need for sporting justice without commiting financial suicide.
That brings me to a simple question. Why is taking titles away in light of all the evidence they were dishonestly won by a means that required full registration details under the rules not to be disclosed in order to get the advantage SDM admits ebts were used for to remunerate players?
It’s not as if it is TRFC who risk losing the titles. They were won by RFC. OK same club poo comes in here but clearing up that mess of their own making is a nettle SFA and SPL need to grasp.
Is all this propaganda at the end of the day driven by the fear of a number of asterisks appearing in the football history books against trophies RFC “won”?
Why is that so terrible as it’s only official recognition of what every non TRFC supporter believes. Add to that that the same club believers will simply believe the titles were fairly won anyway and it really all becomes much ado about nothing after the loving decision is made.
So we need patience to give it time for that to happen and hope that authorities will find the courage to overcome their fear.

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on9:25 am - Nov 12, 2015


Listening to BBC Radio Shortbread to get the news and the update on Storm Abigail heading our way and glad I’m not going to be way up north in Yell tonight  (where the likeable Phil Goodlad from the BBC hails.)
 
 Anyway he comes on this morning and talks well and sympathetically about a running story and a couple of conversations he has had over the last couple of days with specifically Tom Mooney, Yvonne Murray’s husband and Brian Whittle.
The editorial is obviously that these guys and others are collateral damage and “wuz robbed” by the cheating foreigners.
 
In the wake and chaos of the very current fuss about the Russian systematic doping Tom is quoted as saying “You just feel the time’s right to make a move on it now.”
Brian also said a couple of sage and interesting things like  “Unless you can prove it the law gets in the way of the truth” and “It’s not about what we know – its what we can prove”.
 
So why am I raising these here?
 
2 reasons
 
I. The parallels between SDM and the Russians
2. The BBC Editorial policy
 
Firstly to me doping is doping whether it is chemical or financial – both are influential substances that have been shown to change results.
There is clear proof on the various records that SDM ran a systematic policy of financial doping for the club that was part of his business empire.
It was a successful policy that lasted a long time and benefitted the club as a whole and the man.
 
Secondly I have two points about the BBC editorial. I’d suggest they currently fail to see that Scottish Football is full of victims no less affected than Yvonne and Brian.
 
They also seem to forget and or ignore that we might have our own medals won in questionable circumstances causing others to be victims (and I refer to the July screening on the self same BBC of “Catch Me if You Can” by Mark Daly which concentrated on the influence of Dr Ledingham and contained sworn statements from people on the inside and for balance there were denials from some about the veracity of the BBC claims.
 
So lets revisit Tom Mooney’s and Brian Whittle’s quotes and how they might be applicable to our scenario post last week’s Big Tax ruling.
 
“It’s not about what we know,
It’s about what we can prove and the law will sometimes get in the way of the truth but when we can prove
You feel the time’s right to make a move”.
 
Scottish football needs an honest BBC and some administrators who are prepared to treat doping the same way as Athletics when cheating has been proven.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:34 am - Nov 12, 2015


Any Livvie historians on? Question prompted by an earlier post last night. 

Bearing in mind three background elements – that HMRC should treat the principal Murray employees trust as separate to TRFC (which I agree with btw, not the payments to it, but the trust itself); that 3rd party payments cannot be made to players per the rule posted last night and; that the rule used to punish Livinsgton wasn’t available to the then SPL when considering RFColdco (copywrite Keef).

On what basis was the points penalty and fine applied to Livingston around (I think) 2011? 

If I recall the case the Livingston Board became aware that certain players had received payment (or benefit in kind, I forget which) from a Director who’s name escapes me.  Livingston came clean  to the SFL admitting they were now aware that payments had been made and therefore not treated correctly for tax purposes.  They were punished as a result and the shorthand headline became Livvie being deducted points for non payment of tax.

Question; was the third party element considered in the fine/penalty or was it purely the fact that Livvie were essentially behind with tax?  In fact could Livvie be charged at all if they weren’t aware of the payments?

Its interesting because funnily enough the Oldco case seems to get caught both ways – either third party payments were made from the third party trust, or they were not paying appropriate tax albeit with the retrospective hindsight of the CoS Appeal.  The unaware argument doesn’t count. As I never tire of reading “They wuz in ra’accounts

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:39 am - Nov 12, 2015


Danish Pastry 12th November 2015 at 5:28 am

If Roddy Forsyth’s chairmen do exist then it is no wonder that Scottish Football is in the state it is given the lack of the capacity for intellectual and logical thinking.

If title stripping is what is decided then a simple ** Not Awarded is all that is required in the record books to avoid any spurious talk of retrospective bonuses. Which of course we all know won’t happen because last week, to a man,  were told that players considered previous league and cup wins to be a ‘done deal’ as everything was won fair and square on the pitch. 

With regard to Sponsors surely it is better to show existing and prospective sponsors that they will be putting their cash into a honest game, rather than be conned into stumping up for a competition where one particular participant was avoiding paying tax to sweep up the sponsors prize money and as such be a tainted representative of that sponsor’s chosen competition.

Like the FIFA  scandal, sponsors have shown they are willing to ditch or lessen their involvement in organisations that are seen to be dodgy. They don’t want their name being tarnished by an organisation that their potential customer base has no trust in.This is a golden opportunity to revamp the promotion of the Scottish game – not to wallow in the past reliance on the presence of one particular club.

With regard to UEFA demanding back prize money and solidarity payments and who should pay it, then that should be Rangers. UEFA would then  be in a queue for the BDO payouts. The alternative is that if they regard the eternal entity as the same club then UEFA will be knocking on DCK’s door for the cash.

In UEFA’s eyes the SFA and SPFL will only be responsible if it is ruled that they were negligent in dealing with matters such as player registration and applying UEFA rules for team and players registrations for Euro competitions etc.
Ooops!! I see what I did there 07

View Comment

helpmaboab

helpmaboabPosted on9:57 am - Nov 12, 2015


Essexbeancounter/John Clark/Danish Pastry
Memories eh? Sometimes you feel you could just reach in and touch them.My avatar is a brick from an arch in Clelland Street rescued before demolition.(did they sell roast peanuts)Maybe sometime in the not too distant future folk will be collecting bricks from another well known South Side establishment.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on9:58 am - Nov 12, 2015


http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/rumour-mill-rangers-could-sell-key-players-sfa-vs-mike-ashley-hibs-1-3946034

Fans being softened up for January sales?

MARK Warburton has admitted that Rangers could allow key players to leave in January – if the price is right.
The Ibrox boss told the Evening Times that Rangers could be forced to sell players if the ‘right fee’ is offered, saying: “I don’t want anyone to leave the football club.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:04 am - Nov 12, 2015


I note that as opposed to giving their comments on the recent accounts as promised SoS been spending their time on facebook to call for a release of the attack hounds by asking the worldwide extensive network of Bears to  hunt down the whereabouts of Brian Stockbridge.

Being the man is currently not under any suspicion or apparently wanted by the authorities why would any fans of a football club need to know his whereabouts?

Yet the main man of SoS, Houston, is given airtime by the media.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:32 am - Nov 12, 2015


I don’t see the problem with player bonus’s. If titles are re-allocated, then so too, will be the prize money………A fitba debt for which T’Sevco are liable. No pay, No play. Pimps.
   Here is an interesting wee read from 2013. Apols if everyone is aware of it, but it’s a first for me.

https://glasnostandapairofstrikers.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/gilt-edged-justice/

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on11:07 am - Nov 12, 2015


Live tweeting being permitted from CG hearing. 

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/664750853627256832
   ———————————————————————————————-
zerotolerance1903 12th November 2015 at 9:58 am #http://www.scotsman.com/sport/ football/competitions/ premiership/rumour-mill- rangers-could-sell-key- players-sfa-vs-mike-ashley- hibs-1-3946034
Fans being softened up for January sales?
   ——————————————————————————————-
  Would Hibs be entitled to view this as an open “invitation” to offer derisory bids in the run-up to an important game?  07

View Comment

Avatar

high beeswaxPosted on11:24 am - Nov 12, 2015


i have sat in every wriggle room in the house and as things stand its impossible for lord no surrenders ” no unfair sporting advantage ” to stand.

at the time the phrase was ridiculous anyway in that it conceded a sporting advantage had been gained by rfc and suggested 41 other clubs were daft not to have gone down the tax avoidance route. a law lord basing a decision on a nations football industry avoiding reginas shilling. cheezo

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:27 am - Nov 12, 2015


On Roddy Forsyth’s phantom chairmen story, I am sure there are legal minds at his disposal who might have told him that individual players could well have claims to make against the liquidators of Rangers for any loss of earnings that occurred as a consequence of wrongdoing.

In fact, I wonder if a class action (do we call it that in the UK?) could be brewing? Daren O’Dea could be the lead claimant 🙂

Seriously though, from my lay perspective, that would seem a more reasonable route to a remedy for players who ‘lost’ bonuses.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on11:30 am - Nov 12, 2015


Funny in the past the smsm were our only sources of information outlets(pre internet bampots sort of era) concerning our game. Lamb journalism came into it’s own at the time in favour of one club (yes there was only one club at Ibrox during this period). So they had free reign so to speak. Social media came into the scene and low and behold fairer comments, balanced views and  alternative views came out opposite which were opposite to the smsm agendas. 
Now look where we are the paper sales are going down in a rate (that is of the radar) the radio shows are IMO only listened to for fans outwith Govan for the laughter factor but yet they still stick to the narrative protect the Govan clubs. Why?, as they now not only sound ridiculous but in fact are a recruitment tool for all fans outwith Govan to push for sporting integrity, transparency and justice even more (the opposite of what they want).  So from becoming a biased and only source of reporting they now are just funny and a joke.  Now to be ridiculed continuously in this way must (no matter what they say as they are social media savvy)  effect the people at the top. So back to why continue protecting the Ibrox entity and it’s fans?  Something more sinister maybe?  What will it take to possibly get a proper balanced opinion from them concerning all matters taking place at Ibrox. That is a real serious question?
Also I would like to know how many EBT’s there actually were and are all accounted for.  Watched documentary   “the men who sold the jerseys” again. Cannot praise Mark Daly enough.  

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:44 am - Nov 12, 2015


For those not following on twitter it appears the RIFC argument re Green’s fees are similar to those I spoke of a while back. Some of the offenses under consideration occurred prior to Sevco being formed and Green becoming an officer so how can the company be held responsible had be liable to cover costs for those actions.

Interesting twist in that debate in court now seems to have moved to the legal definition of the club and how the relevant contracts work, who employed Green what was he CEO of etc

Depending on what Lord Doherty says that may throw the cat among a different set of pigeons for another day. 03

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:49 am - Nov 12, 2015


CO, 

Ah, a very important point contained within though.

Club A wins and are subsequently chucked out.  Club B receives prize money (I’d be VERY surprised but heh ho.  Not another Insurance claim?  Good luck getting future cover).  But then it stops.  Club B doesn’t get to Europe.  In the leagues Clubs C-K don’t finish one step higher.  Club L don’t get promoted, Club M don’t get a playoff and so it goes on and on.

The regulations appear to be the nail to catch them on.  But monetary impact is the farthest reaching consequence that cannot be denied or defended. 

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on12:18 pm - Nov 12, 2015


wottpi 12th November 2015 at 11:44 am
For those not following on twitter it appears the RIFC argument re Green’s fees are similar to those I spoke of a while back. Some of the offenses under consideration occurred prior to Sevco being formed and Green becoming an officer so how can the company be held responsible had be liable to cover costs for those actions.
Interesting twist in that debate in court now seems to have moved to the legal definition of the club and how the relevant contracts work, who employed Green what was he CEO of etc
Depending on what Lord Doherty says that may throw the cat among a different set of pigeons for another day.
——-

Brilliant from STVGrant & James Doleman. There appears to be an open can of worms among the pigeons where the cat landed 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

jimmciPosted on12:19 pm - Nov 12, 2015


It will be interesting to nite the reaction to Lord Dohery’s judgement – no matter how it turns out.
in the run-up to the first appeal the Record helpfully informed us all he was a Celtic season ticket holder so beware, Bears.
lo and behold he returned what the media informed us was a “victory” for Rangers in the appeal despite the fact he referred about 35 cases for review.

Now this poor man is in the firing line again with RIFC v Charlie boy.

i can just imagine the opprobrium from the Bears and the media should he find in favour if Charlie. Fun and legally costly times ahead

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on12:32 pm - Nov 12, 2015


  Smugas 12th November 2015 at 11:49 am  
     A valid enough position, but if I recall correctly, Motherwell actually lost money competing in Europe due to travelling Exes. I can’t be sure and am happy to be corrected. My main point really was that fitba debts do not go through the creditors pot, and were treated differently, (rightly or wrongly) and were a condition of re-entry to the football league system. 
   It would be hard to construe a re-allocation of prize funds as anything other than a fitba’ debt, entitled to one club, but in error, paid to another. Therefore “other” club is due for the re-imbursment. 
   Forsythe is basically talking through his rectum, as the only club to suffer financially would be the new club.  
   It may just be me, although others may have touched on it, but the current PR seems to be, not from organised and structured paid PR, but more of a “Bang anything out FFS!” nature, smacking of self preservation. 
    The flapping of the branches of the tree seem to be at a higher level. A level that thought it was above the wind and is unprepared for the approaching storm. 

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on12:45 pm - Nov 12, 2015


wottpi 12th November 2015 at 11:44 am #
Yes some very interesting statements which if RIFC lose would 100% confirm new club.

It could be James Doleman and STVGrant have got it wrong or maybe RIFC counsel has shot himself in the foot.
Paraphrasing – RIFC first paid Green on 14th June 2012.  and  Sevco bought the club
How?  RIFC didn’t exist until November.  Nope they bought the assets of the club/company going into liquidation.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:15 pm - Nov 12, 2015


A sad one from any perspective, not just football . 32 ffs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34798929

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on1:25 pm - Nov 12, 2015


https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/664787008963911680

Maybe a topic for another day, But “Proceeds of Crime” legislation has become a very powerful asset to plod in recent years. It may not be just BDO who fancy a slice of the action
  I posted this back in October.

     Corrupt official 22nd October 2015 at 4:02 pm #There has been speculation where certain assets would find themselves depending on certain outcomes. One place I haven’t seen mentioned is in the hands of the crown.      Coupled with the cashback for communities scheme, I can definitely see some  community benefits…..Especially for Murray Park. http://www.gov.scot/Topics/archive/law-order/organised-crime/soc/Proceedsofcrime

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on1:26 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Storm Abigail gathering her wrath here in North West Donegal.
Hopefully to be followed by Storm Ashley!

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on1:38 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Apart from other considerations the former players who do not want trophy removal indirectly benefited from the EBTs via the wage and signing on fee inflation caused by the EBT club.
Roger Mitchell being involved with Alienation Digital seems very apt he has certainly alienated many on here…

View Comment

Methilhill Stroller

Methilhill StrollerPosted on1:59 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Whose Assets are they anyway?
It seems from the reports from JD and JJ that “Charles Green acquired the assets of Rangers for Sevco Scotland, which holds them to this day.” 
I am sure as DP said the squirrels, cats and pigeons are all having a fun day in court but does that go some way to explain why nobody can use the crumbledome as security????? It might be a very interesting afternoon!!!
Looking forward to the summing up tonight or whenever his Lordship makes his call on this.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:00 pm - Nov 12, 2015


The Scottish Government is carrying out a consultation exercise with fans regarding football governance at their clubs.

Fans are free to submit their views online via this website
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/09/8222

The Executive Summary reads as follows:

The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that Scottish football supporters have the opportunity to be involved in the decision making and running of their football club wherever possible. It is for that reason we believe it is important to bring forward legislation that protects the rights of football fans whilst also enhancing and strengthening the sustainability of Scottish football clubs.

The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 includes a provision that Scottish Ministers must consult on a range of different options to enhance supporter involvement in Scottish football clubs.
 
The views of those responding to the consultation will inform the nature and scope of subsequent regulations to be introduced under these powers by Scottish Ministers.
 
This consultation seeks to establish the support for each of the main options – a right to influence, a right to govern, a right to bid, and a right to buy. As and when a preferred option emerges as a result of this consultation, we will undertake further, more detailed and technical consideration to ensure whichever option is pursued is workable and does not result in any unintended consequences.
 

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on3:03 pm - Nov 12, 2015


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman  4m4 minutes agoBrown now moves on to “the vexed question of the mythical concept of the club”
19 retweets10 likes

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:05 pm - Nov 12, 2015


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34800109

It is so much like Armageddon that ICT have posted records profits that could be used to pay out any retrospective bonuses from title stripping!!

Clearly a club doing well – winning silverware, playing in Europe and returning a profit all with the absence of T’Rangers in the top flight.

That must rule out Kenny Cameron as one of Roddy Forsyth’s scary cat chairmen!

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on3:10 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Looks like the club/company myth could finally be blown out the water in a court of law. Please make it happen at last

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on3:11 pm - Nov 12, 2015


01

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman  3m3 minutes agoBrown “Sevco Scotland did not buy “the club” the bought the business and assets of the club”

View Comment

Methilhill Stroller

Methilhill StrollerPosted on3:22 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Tayred – Obviously having a fun afternoon as well.
As if to answer my earlier question about Sevco owning assets Brown now states:
“The team are paid by Sevco, play at a ground owned by Sevco trained by a manager who is employed by Sevco, fans buy tickets from Sevco” 
Is there going to be a melt down somewhere if this continues? Still points to Sevco Scotland owning the crumbledome but then why has this not appeared in the accounts?

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on3:25 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 9m9 minutes agoCG lawyer: The business is the preparation of a pro football team. Players employed by Sevco. Using brands owned by Sevco

err they would be owned by Sevco if DCK could find the key to the padlock on his warchest and pay that nice Mr Ashley back his £5m22

Edit to add and yes Chuckles lawyer is emphasising Sevco

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on3:27 pm - Nov 12, 2015


I think Brown is using the Sevco Scotland name to avoid confusion. This company was changed to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Unless I’m mistaken

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on3:37 pm - Nov 12, 2015


@normanbatesmum definitely but it will be sending all the TRFC supporters tonto especially if Sevco starts trending in social media

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on3:59 pm - Nov 12, 2015


I have looked up Axiom Advocates in Edinburgh. James Wolffe is listed as a “Silk” and Jonathon Brown a “Junior”.
In my ignorance of such matters is it normal for a senior “Silk” to lock horns with a “Junior” from the same “Firm”. Seems a bit strange????

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:10 pm - Nov 12, 2015


1) This Brown chap is obviously a Rangers hater !
And that other Brown chap – Bomber – won’t be happy either.

2) The ET today has a novel article in the sports section to try and provide some balance.
Two of their ‘journalists’ argue for and against – about whether King & Ashley can kiss and make up.
Whilst scanning the article with minimal interest, 2 sentences did jump out for 2 different reasons;
“…The SFA are already making noises about the money that fighting Ashley in court may cost. The same conversations will surely be going on inside Ibrox…”
– where are the quotes / unnamed sources ? Made up ‘information’ again ?
– The potentially high/massive legal cost to the SFA of fighting Ashley in court is yet another strong driver for the SFA to acquiesce to Ashley’s demands.  The potential cost forecasts might make for sobering reading – and thus make some difficult decisions easier to take at Hampden ?
If Ashley [or his legal team] and the SFA do face-off in court, I’ll eat my hat !  14 

View Comment

Avatar

occamPosted on4:15 pm - Nov 12, 2015


The gift that keeps on giving!  Hats off to the doughty band of posters!
Wrt urging from certain quarters to ‘forget everything and just move on’.  Have they never heard of the common wisdom that those who forget/do not learn from the past are destined to repeat the same mistakes?  
The truth will out!

View Comment

Methilhill Stroller

Methilhill StrollerPosted on4:21 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Normanbatesmum
Agree Sevco Scotland changed to TRFCL and that Brown might have been trying to make his point that way but we have oft discussed here why nobody seems to be able to use the crumbledome as security so thinking that there might be something behind what he was saying about the “Sevco” purchase/ownership of the assets (not the club) that CG put together?
Seemed strange to me too for a “Silk” to be locking horns with a “junior” from the same firm unless neither side were aware and the firm wanted to try and give the junior a chance to get a few more rungs up the ladder and gain experience (not to mention two sets of fees)? If RIFC win people will say it was because they had the QC against a junior but if they lose it would be difficult to argue they were disadvantaged.
Lord Doherty now going to put his decision in writing – the outcome will be interesting whichever way it goes.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:36 pm - Nov 12, 2015


StevieBC 12th November 2015 at 4:10 pm – The potentially high/massive legal cost to the SFA of fighting Ashley in court is yet another strong driver for the SFA to acquiesce to Ashley’s demands.  The potential cost forecasts might make for sobering reading – and thus make some difficult decisions easier to take at Hampden ?If Ashley [or his legal team] and the SFA do face-off in court, I’ll eat my hat !    
=================================================
I was thinking earlier today that if I was a lawyer (I’m not!) required to advise the SFA/SPFL on this fustercluck (mostly of their own making), I’d be inclined to tell them that it’s amputation time. 

Find a way to expel (or initially suspend) RIFC/TRFC from the SFA & SPFL. Shout loudly about ‘discrepancies’, ‘deception’, ‘duped’, ‘unfit persons’, ‘unpaid sanctions’, (whisper) ‘criminality’, then announce a ‘root & branch’ review to prevent anything like this happening again. Part of the process would involve leadership change, so exeunt Regan & Doncaster (with bags of gold). Take several years to complete & publish. Hope that the ‘bampots & clatterers’ find something else to interest them. 

…then I woke up20201212

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on4:40 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Statement from King

Thursday, 12 November 2015, 16:30by Rangers Football ClubShare:  
It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.
As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.
First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.
Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.
Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.
This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.
Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.
For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.

Final paragraph- they just love the bluster and threats, don’t they? No statement complete without a threat.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:46 pm - Nov 12, 2015


It was interesting that Wolffe for RIFC didn’t challenge Brown’s assertions on the nature of a “club”.
 
I don’t know if Lord Doherty will make a pronouncement on this issue in his written judgement.  I think he may shy away from giving a definitive answer and will take the Regan defence of acknowledging that a “club” can be whatever a fan wants it to be.  

View Comment

Avatar

sickofitallPosted on4:47 pm - Nov 12, 2015


https://t.co/cGCEpds7zB

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:49 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Statement o’clock.
King: “…demotion…”
===============
That’s the only quote required to confirm what a delusional d!ddy this guy really is.
King should have done what he is best at : keeping silent in SA.
However, with this latest nonsense, emotional, rambling statement…I think it shows that King/TRFC ‘doth protest too much’ !
It’s getting more interesting by the day.
Extra popcorn on standby.

View Comment

Avatar

roddybhoyPosted on4:51 pm - Nov 12, 2015


and the threats once again, they really do need dealt with once and for all

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:57 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Brass neck Statement O’clock from the pump and dump, tax dodging Chairman of a loss making business up to its eyes in debt and with court cases aplenty, telling others (including those announcing record profits today) to recognize their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders.

You could’nae make it up if your tried.

Ouch,  ma sides 12

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:59 pm - Nov 12, 2015


I know the Corinthinans at the SFA won’t want to kick a man/clumpany when he’s down, but if the last couple of statements from Ibrox don’t warrant a disrepute charge, what does?

View Comment

Matty Roth

Matty RothPosted on5:01 pm - Nov 12, 2015


StevieBC 12th November 2015 at 4:49 pm #Statement o’clock. King: “…demotion…” =============== That’s the only quote required to confirm what a delusional d!ddy this guy really is. King should have done what he is best at : keeping silent in SA. However, with this latest nonsense, emotional, rambling statement…I think it shows that King/TRFC ‘doth protest too much’ ! It’s getting more interesting by the day. Extra popcorn on standby.

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

This makes it all the more frustrating that neither the Clubs, SFA or SPFL respond with a simple defense when these silly mistruths and threats are pumped out by TRFC.
There have been so many open goals from their PR department and time after time our strikers don’t have the cojones to just slam home the ball.
The simple response to this pap would be for a statement from the SPFL to simply say they have noted the tone and content of TRFC’s statement and are currently holding judgement on EBT matters while they consider the implications. But let us respond to the accusation of of illegal demotions by making it clear TRFC have never been a member club of the SPL and they joined the bottom of SFL as a new club and clearly were not demoted by any definition.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on5:11 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Unfairly treated ………276 (two hundred and seventy six creditors) !
Yet another deflection in anticipation of more bad news ?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:18 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Tom English ‏@BBCTomEnglish 3m3 minutes ago
Dave King has a strange way of trying to douse a debate – gallon of petrol and a flamethrower

Spot on Tom

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on5:18 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Before the Ibrox hierarchy issue another statement, I’d recommend they listen to this recent episode of Analysis on Radio 4 – “Will they Always Hate Us?”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06nnnlt

I think it would be really helpful to them.

Which is why I’m posting it here.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on5:22 pm - Nov 12, 2015


There is absolutely no hope for the team playing in blue at Ibrox, while this shameless character remains at the helm. There is no hope for resolution involving them as no matter how obvious or reasoned an argument or decision is taken they cannot accept the truth.
Yes they have their friends in the press and governing bodies continuing to paper over the cracks and helping to perpetuate their myths, but it is completely unacceptable to expect the rest of Scottish Football to meekly lie down an accept their contorted version of events, especially when the simple truth is staring us in the face.
I have always said they should be banished from the game once and for all. Let some small band of realist supporters, rebuild from scratch, minus all the bitter, flat earth society and sectarian chiefs. That seems to be the only way a “peace” of some sort can grow in the game.
As I said in my email to Doncaster, the authorities failure to deal properly with this behemoth has and will continue to drive a bigger and bigger wedge between them and the rest of the game’s well run clubs’ supporters.
Let’s hope the coming months and the various court cases see them disappear along with the money-grabbing pussies at the head of our governing bodies.
Truth and honesty to conquer lies and threats in the end.
 

View Comment

Avatar

erniePosted on5:26 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Jingo.Jimsie.  Disrepute you say?  OT but if you look up the Highland League records you will see a “not awarded” against the 1993 title.  Elgin City had won it but the title was stripped on a charge of bringing the game into disrepute. Touchy chiels these highlanders, unlike the “couldnae mark their neck wi’ a blowtorch” mob we’ve got. 

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on5:30 pm - Nov 12, 2015


DCK/RIFC/TRFC are trying to force something to happen.

I suspect it’s either to get the authorities to state something unpalatable (eg definitively NC, DCK not F&P, or something else), rather than them; or to get MA to foreclose.

It’s not only to sell half season books, that’s for sure.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on5:47 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Once again, a day of truly off-the-radar, gun-toting snake-oil sales guff from Dave King. The tone of the statement is lumpen – certainly not a product of finessed PR.

Of course the words were not crafted by King himself, but neither are they affirmatory. Given the perceived double whammy attack  (Jonathan Brown in court today and SPFL pressure for a re-opening of LNS), the statement is a sales pitch directed at Rangers fans.

Given the choices to either;

a) keep a dignified silence, or

b) see a window where some reality could be injected.,

the Rangers chairman has revealed the weakness of his position, not on any specific matter but on the prevailing general climate.

The trouble is that once again the Ibrox wolf whistle has sounded off in shrill voice.

How much longer are people to face threats based on the results of their own though processes and honestly held beliefs?

How much longer will the authorities stand aside and do nothing?

King statement is nothing more than attempt to silence thought processes – of other clubs, of fans of other clubs, of Jonathan Brown, of any journalist cray enough to go off-message.

This is not Ally McCoist lashing out in frustration a presser – this is  carefully considered and targeted corporate threat.

The tide is most certainly turning though – and I reckon this statement is proof of that.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on5:54 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Maybe I’m just thick, but Rangers seem to have issued a statement today part of which says what a Judge said outwith the jurisdiction of a court will forever overrule what a Judge may decide within the jurisdiction of a court.  I would also like to know what ‘action’ they plan to take if things don’t go their way.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on5:55 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Is the king statement the Red or Grey Squirrel of the day

View Comment

Avatar

LUGOSIPosted on5:56 pm - Nov 12, 2015


While awaiting a Court Report from Mr Clark and trying to guess how Radios Clyde/Scotland cope with what appears to have happened today I cannot but help thinking of my favourite post following the Court of Session decision.
On the Kerrydale Street site one poster tried to cut through the hilarity by asking if anyone could explain, in terms a layman could understand, what the outcome of the decision was.
Came the answer: 
“Drenched breeks”.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:59 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Here’s one from left-field…
Ashley’s people could drop the court case…having secured the SFA’s support [& SPFL ?] to ‘re-calibrate’ the SMSM sport’s fraternity:
“King bad / Ashley not too bad” [but he does have money].
Media turn on King, who scarpers back to SA for good.
Ashley [or a placeman] is promoted as best option for TRFC ?

View Comment

Avatar

ZilchPosted on6:06 pm - Nov 12, 2015


There have been many times in this seemingly endless farce that I have been deeply frustrated by the silence from my club.

There have been times when I feared it was a sign of collusion.

There have been times when all I wanted was a clear signal that they were prepared to put sporting integrity in front of personal and potentially even club self-interest.

I am still waiting.

But you know what? When you see how things are disintegrating at Ibrox, literally as well as figuratively – I can wait a little longer.

Who needs to kick them when they are down?

They are self-destructing in full view.

The web of lies and distortion and cheating, spun by spivs and chancers is unravelling faster and faster.

Every statement becomes more ridiculous than the last.

Look! The King has no clothes!

Shaking in oor boots at the latest threat? Nah.

See this is the thing.

To run an organisation like a football club, with fans, players, staff and shareholders, you need people in charge that people can believe in.

You might not like them. You might not agree with the way they operate. But you have to believe that they are, on at least some level, working towards a mutually agreeable goal.

Fans and players / staff are looking for success on the park.

Shareholders are looking for a return on their investment.

Both are reliant on the club being operated successfully on the financial front.

Who, in their right minds, believes a word that Mr King, the GSL, says?

I don’t always agree with Mr Lawell, and I am not slow in speaking my mind to say so.

But deep down, I am pretty sure that he is doing what he believes to be right for the club.

At some point, I desperately want to hear my club joining with the rest of our clubs and giving that unambiguous rejection of the corrupt past and committing themselves (us) to a sporting future where the integrity of the competition is paramount and rules will be applied evenly – without fear or favour.

We have been waiting a long time, but we can wait a little longer. We need all the pieces in place. We need the decision on EBTs to be final and beyond appeal. Then will be the time for our clubs to publicly rise against the corruption.

Mr King is fond of the D-word, but doesn’t know what dignity means.

I wonder how long it will take for him to understand the other D-word – disrepute?

View Comment

vansen

vansenPosted on6:28 pm - Nov 12, 2015


‘For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.’

Hey you, yes you King, shut it! No one cares about your empty threats anymore. You. Are. Done.

Cheats then, cheats now, cheats forever. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:31 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Yes, I present in court all day. But I might as well not have been for all the sense I made of the proceedings.
First, of course, we were all duly warned that the same reporting restrictions +  applied as had applied at the Indictment hearings, and for the same reason. Many of the big Press organisations were represented by Counsel in that he attended just to register their interest and , if need be, make objections if he felt that the restictions were too broadly specified.He declared himself happy with what counsel for both pursuer and defender had put to the Court, and went on his way.
The Court allowed people to use their laptops and to Tweet, subject to all the restictions.
The restrictions related to anything that might have touched on the criminal case.
In point of fact, though, as far as I could understand what I listened to, Mr Brown for Mr Green essentially argued that  Charles had acted as a Director of the entity that had begun as SevcoScotland, became Rangers 2012, and then RIFC operating TRFC. And as a Director, and in accordance with the agreement made with RIFC  when he offered to stand down as Director, he was entitled to indemnity in respect of legl action brought against him.
Dean of Faculty ( Mr Wolffe) for the Defenders, argued inaudibly ( to me, most of the time)that at material times green was not a Director acting for RIFC.
I have to dash out now, but I’ll have a look at my notes when I come in, and see if i can add anything useful.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on6:32 pm - Nov 12, 2015


upthehoops 12th November 2015 at 5:54 pm #
Maybe I’m just thick, but Rangers seem to have issued a statement today part of which says what a Judge said outwith the jurisdiction of a court will forever overrule what a Judge may decide within the jurisdiction of a court.  I would also like to know what ‘action’ they plan to take if things don’t go their way
    ————————————————————————————————–
  C’mon UTH. That’s too easy. ! If things don’t go their way they will just kid on it did. 21 
It’s all just a conspiracy of bloggers, don’t ya know.  03

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on6:37 pm - Nov 12, 2015


I often wondered what the South African judge meant when he described Mr King as “glib and shameless”.
 Having read the statement issued today, and on reaching the part where Mr King refers to the “fiduciary responsibilities” of other persons, I now know exactly what the judge meant.

View Comment

Avatar

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on7:15 pm - Nov 12, 2015


So here I am listening to national radio Sevco, sorry Scotland, hoping to get an update on events at the courthouse today. Nae chance, not a single mention.

A decent piece of  diversion from the novice Sevco PR dept with their 4.30pm statement. The real facts of the day get discussed in a courtroom and all our national broadcaster can discuss are the inflammatory words of a convicted South African criminal.

Sickening.

View Comment

Avatar

occamPosted on7:17 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Oh for Messrs Hutton, McQuade and McConville!  
Football needs a strong Arbroath …. and the rest.
DCK’s latest rant might just have provided the impetus needed to stand up to this shower of bullies!

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:18 pm - Nov 12, 2015


I said this, either here or on another forum, a week or so ago, but with tonight’s statement from King following on from the attacks on Mash/Ashley, I’m increasingly of the view that King is trying to create a “force majeure” whereby the club will be seriously sanctioned by the SFA/SPFL or even forced into administration. How that may happen I don’t know, but whether titles are withheld, the club is given a current points deduction, Ashley calls in his loan or whatever. He is actively going out his way to antagonise everyone with the capability to hurt the club.

He wants someone to blame for all the club’s ills, whereby he can walk away claiming he had done everything he could.

Ashley, on the other hand, seems to have accepted the challenge, and will do everything he can to make King’s life as difficult as possible. He knows the financial situation at the club, but in a masochistic way he seems to want to prolong the agony with a death by 1000 cuts, rather than being seen to execute the coup de grâce by asking for his £5M back and issuing a winding up order if they don’t comply.

View Comment

Avatar

southstandcharliePosted on7:40 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Yet another example today of Dave King’s almost endless production of statements completely contracting his previous ones. 
19/06/12
“With regard to EBTs, I was on the board so I have to take some responsibility.‘And I follow the logic of the argument that if we lose the tax case then we probably gained some competitive advantage.‘I believe that, on behalf of myself and most of the board members who were with me and probably agree with me, that we should apologise for that.”
12/11/15
“First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal …..the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the club.
“The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team.
“Certain players may not have signed for the club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch.
“We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumumstances.”

Of course, the first was at a time he was trying to oust the sitting board. And the second about a club who eventually couldn’t even pay the fee of the match day face painter. 

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on7:40 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Desperate times for a desperate man ,King seems to be choking on his own noose,each statement from him it tightens another notch,then the double whammy if what Phil is suggesting happened at the fit and proper decision meeting,this game of Russian Roulette between big Mike and shifty Dave has now had 5 of the 6 chambers fired and the pistol has now been handed back to Dave,even his manager with the magic hat can not help him,no threats required.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:47 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Can we expect a late statement tomorrow/Friday…from either Hampden or Ibrox ?

Feels like the whole RFC/TRFC saga has been ratcheted right up to level 11 in the last week or so – and something has to give ?

IMO, King is the weakest link…  

 

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on7:56 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Mr Green used accounting negative goodwill. The glibmeister forgets that a an intertwined set of mutually dependent clubs and businesses require a great measure of goodwill between them to make things work. He is determined to build as much negative goodwill as possible.
bonkers what comes next?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on8:07 pm - Nov 12, 2015


In addition to the sterling work (along with James Doleman) on today’s court proceedings STV’s Grant Russell deserves Kudos to the following double edged tweet.

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 1h1 hour ago
Dave King reckons some club representatives are clamouring for title stripping. Not to come over full McCoist but… who are these people?

If you are checking in Grant, don’t be surprised if any press privileges at Ibrox are revoked.

View Comment

Avatar

ratethisthenyabampotsPosted on8:08 pm - Nov 12, 2015


Nice to hear the glib and shameless liar’s statement as he sees it today.
“As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.
First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team.”

So, Mr.King is uniquely positioned to pay HMRC his share of the EBT tax bill that in his own words he gained an advantage from. Oh, wait a minute…………..

View Comment

Flocculent Apoidea

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on8:26 pm - Nov 12, 2015


What a pity Dave King has now worked out he doesn’t even need to jet in to get headlines.  Those headlines should remark on how a convicted tax offender and notorious liar has called into question the integrity of his fellow Scottish clubs – and does so with inaccuracies and threat.  I don’t even need to check to find out if I’ll be disappointed.

I, too, suspect he’s looking for a Rangersectomy but wants someone else to perform it.

Anyone who followed (and believed) Ibrox statements would be a wee bit confused as to whether this club wants revenge on those that harmed it (or snarls to that effect) or wants to move on.  Threatening the friends they’ve made on their journey?  It’s almost as if they’re making things up as they go along.  What a shambles and further evidence of the negligence of those who allowed this to start.  

By the way, I won’t be going out this weekend.  I find I’m in the embarrassing position of being comfortably financed.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on8:29 pm - Nov 12, 2015


As each day passes IMO the anger and the feeling of resentment towards the rest of Scottish clubs grows even worse from Ibrox and I am talking about Mr Dave King only.  What other chairman would get away with these absurd and worrying threats.  I say worrying for the simple reason the biggest majority of Ibrox fans back Mr King. Their previous behaviour over the past 3 years has been appalling and now the Chairman recommends more threatening action.
I want King gone and also the club as this situation and threatening behaviour from a CHAIRMAN is really worrying IMO.
Scottish football does not want or need this club and today this was proven by Mr King, shame on him and shame on the whole of the smsm for not condemning this man’s actions today.
Here is a scenario who would want their team to play them if they get promoted and trophies have been removed??

View Comment

Comments are closed.