Whose assets are they anyway?

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

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

high beeswaxPosted on8:31 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Daily Glib and Shameless


is old steerpike dck’s new pro bono statement o’clock man…..

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on8:37 pm - Nov 12, 2015

FYI here is my report from today, nice to catch up with John too


View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:45 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Good stuff James. Enjoyed the tweets from you & Grant. Judge seems engaged in the case, but he does have a lot of background info by now I take it. 

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on8:46 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Am I allowed to suggest that Mr King is a professional wind up merchant? 

View Comment

ElCapitano2013Posted on8:49 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Firstly, and like many other recent posters, I have been lurking since the RTC days and whilst I have little to add, I now view this site as the only genuine source of news regarding Scottish Football. Many thanks to all the Bampots who devote time, effort and perseverance to ensure that justice prevails. 

Great spot SouthStandCharlie at 7.40pm. Interestingly, I was first made aware of the story by someone liking a post on Facebook which contained a link put up by Rangers Supporters Trust. However, directly below this, Facebook also show what other people are sharing and this included a link to the Daily Mail story containing the original comments made by DK in 2012 when he admitted there was a sporting advantage and apologised for this! It seems that he has told that many lies he can’t remember exactly what he said or when he said it. What is even more astounding is that so many people appear willing to believe and support him despite the fact that he has not fulfilled any of the promises he originally made regarding funding, etc. 

In general terms, I think we have now got to the point where the rest of Scottish football has to say enough is enough. If the clubs are unwilling to do this (for reasons I cannot fathom), then I would support a suggestion made in recent days for a complete fan boycott of a specific game as it may be the only way to adequately demonstrate the strength of feeling amongst the supporters. 

Anyway, back to lurking and please continue the good work!!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:59 pm - Nov 12, 2015

ElCapitano2013 12th November 2015 at 8:49 pm #
In general terms, I think we have now got to the point where the rest of Scottish football has to say enough is enough. If the clubs are unwilling to do this (for reasons I cannot fathom), then I would support a suggestion made in recent days for a complete fan boycott of a specific game as it may be the only way to adequately demonstrate the strength of feeling amongst the supporters. 

Many of my fellow Celtic fans are suggesting a boycott of the CIS Cup Semi-final if the authorities three wise monkeys stance towards Ibrox continues.  I am personally supportive of that but would never dream of telling anyone else to do the same as it is a personal choice. If it caught on (and I think it could), it would not be something that could be ignored. 

View Comment

Kentes1Posted on9:10 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Does the GSL really believe the stuff that he spouts, or has he some inside knowledge that he will get help from the loony tunes that pretend to run Scottish football for the benefit of all clubs (not just all the different types of rangers clubs).

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:14 pm - Nov 12, 2015

upthehoops 12th November 2015 at 8:59 pm #

I get the impression your board is of the “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”persuasion, but time will tell . As for DCK’s rant, who wants to strip you of legitimately won 2nd and 1st Division titles ?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:17 pm - Nov 12, 2015

I’ve had a look back at King’s major shareholder claim in today’s staement  “As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute
Firstly King has never directly held Rangers shares in his own name at any point in either the Oldco’s or Newco’s history. 

Secondly, he only became a shareholder of the Oldco, through a controlling interest in one of his companies (Metlika Trading), in February 2011, just three months before Murray sold out to Whyte.

Now let’s have a look at the numbers. In March 2000, King invested his £20M, via Ben Nevis, into Murray Sports Ltd., who held a controlling interest in RFC PLC. That investment bought him 15% of MSL.   MSL used the cash to buy new shares in a £38.4M rights issue in RFC PLC.  The £20M represented 52% of the rights issue, which bought him an indirect 10% holding in RFC (and a place on the RFC Board as a NED).

In November 2004, RFC launched another Rights Issue that raised £51.4M, mainly from Murray International Holdings Ltd (in reality funded by Bank of Scotland). King did not participate in the Rights Issue, meaning that his indirect holding, (by this time held via Metlika Trading as Ben Nevis had issues with SARS), was diluted to 5.3%.

When Murray reorganised his family silver (company and direct holdings in various Murray Group entities) in February 2011, Metlika ended up with a direct holding of that 5.3% in RFC PLC.  Metlika still retains that shareholding in RFC 2012 (IL) to this day.

So a major shareholder  …….. no!

View Comment

Kentes1Posted on9:22 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Hi there moderators.
First time poster it looks like I have written something wrong as my post is awaiting moderation any advice where I have gone wrong would be appreciated.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:37 pm - Nov 12, 2015

easyJambo 12th November 2015 at 9:17 pm #I’ve had a look back at King’s major shareholder claim in today’s staement 
“As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute”

So a major shareholder  …….. no!
eJ, are you implying that Dave King has been economical with the truth, again ?!
For the pesky Internet Bampots / Keyboard Clatterers / etc, it’s just too easy, and the fun has almost – but not quite – gone from exposing these characters as being, erm, very inconsistent.  
The Internet Archive must be a source of much frustration for all the chancers and lamb munchers involved in Scottish football.
The Bampots just might have their day wrt the SFA/SPFL/TRFC/SMSM dodginess.  
It’s taking it’s time coming, but fingers-crossed…it will happen eventually.
And when that does happen, we can then all choose to move on in Scottish football – to a brighter, positive, truthful, honest future for the game.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on9:41 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Does anyone know the purpose of his last visit,a long way to come without courting his beloved followers ,very strange indeed when he knows his lamb munchers would have written whatever he wanted them to write,a worried man maybe and his face would not have been able to hide this worry,god help the incompetents in the SFA come the TRFC AGM,his rants will be off the scale by then and I believe today’s threats are aimed at them,who else,cowering in their bunker,the dogs are about to be turned on their own,God help them.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on9:43 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Football in Scotland were told is in a bad way. In desperate need of help to lure investors and sponsors to our shores. Don’t know if that is correct or not. Suppose it could be debated for days by fans with differing viewpoints. What is certainly NOT up for debate is this: The thought of any assistance that the game may require coming from Ibrox is absolutely mind boggling. The thought of the villains of the piece who have dragged the game through the mud for years, cheating all and sundry along the way somehow seeing themselves as the saviours of our game is vomit inducing. The arrogance and threatening language displayed by the last 2 statements from Ibrox should be the noose that eventually hangs these people.

View Comment

grecian urnPosted on9:50 pm - Nov 12, 2015

OT   Her indoors has been surfing the tinterweb to buy a (by our limited resources) a major purchase, I  keep telling her to hold off and do searches for he same or similar item, thinking that targeted adds will kick in on SFM, thus far it has not happened, Madam is getting seriously peed off with me. Perhaps i would have better luck looking for Russian girlfriend.07  

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on9:53 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Big Pink:

“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.”

You forgot one group of people it is an attempt to silence. He also wants to silence debate between Rangers fans with such statements. He wants to rile up the noisy ones to shout down the quieter ones, and he appeals very much to the “us against them” mentality which is so easy to fall into. That way he gets masses onside and maintains support for his next trick.

View Comment

andyPosted on10:01 pm - Nov 12, 2015

yourhavingalaugh 12th November 2015 at 9:41 pm #Does anyone know the purpose of his last visit,a long way to come without courting his beloved followers ,very strange indeed when he knows his lamb munchers would have written whatever he wanted them to write
Ashley got him to come over so he could serve the papers on him 01

The Daily Record exclusively revealed yesterday how Ashley’s legal team were going after King for discussing his relationship with Sports Direct during the interview with White in July.
Now we’ve uncovered details of the plan to pounce on him in the hours following his visit to Ashley’s office. This involved paying to have teams of sheriff officers across Glasgow waiting for King to return on a train from Chesterfield.
They needed to serve King in person to proceed with their plans to drag him into the dock but, first, had to wait for the businessman to return to British soil.
Their big chance arrived when Ashley invited King for a sitdown to open talks about a possible renegotiation of the crippling, one-sided retail deals signed over to Sports Direct by previous Ibrox regimes.
We also understand Ashley gave his legal team an explicit order not to confront King with the paperwork during the visit.
Instead, they were told to wait until King arrived back in Glasgow, where teams of sheriff officers were waiting for him at both the city’s major stations, Queen Street and Glasgow Central.

View Comment

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on10:01 pm - Nov 12, 2015

yourhavingalaugh 12th November 2015 at 9:41 pm #


The purpose of Kings last visit?

Wouldn’t  it be ironic if King had a cosy get together with the current President and Mr Regan to discuss the probability of a forthcoming administration just as Whyte did in October 2011.

I wonder if Campbell and Stewart still have sleepless nights about whether/when Craig plans to release the recordings …..

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on10:15 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Yourrhavingalaugh-DCK’so last visit was courtesy of an alleged “kiss and makeup” meeting with Ashley which turned out to be a rouse to serve papers for the confidentiality agreement allegedly breached in the tour of the wine cellar interview. 

Grecianurn- you will only see adverts on SFM if Mrs guys does her searches on the same logon(it’s user specific)  Not same logon?  She won’t see Russian bride adverts?

Ryan – good to see you still contributing.  The last 7 days of sfm content can’t have been easy (massive understatement) for you.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:18 pm - Nov 12, 2015

RyanGosling 12th November 2015 at 9:53 pm

Nice to see you are still around 19

General trivia question to all.

Can anyone remember the last two officers of clubs who had a penchant for outrageous statements and what happened to them?
(Clues one was involved in court today and the other was last seen looking to return to taxi driving in eastern Europe). 

Along with King these two chancers show that most senior officers in other clubs today have a fair idea of how to run them for the good of the business and the fans and need no lectures from tax dodgers.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:42 pm - Nov 12, 2015

While there is talk of King wanting to deliberately crash the bus so he can maybe pick up the pieces for nowt is there a possibility that having seen at first hand the real mess there is down Govan way, along with the pressure from Ashley, that he is now looking to engineer that ‘Green/Ahmad’ moment that allows him to exit stage left without putting his hands in his pocket but pleading to all who will listen that he tried his best.

Maybe he is more than happy to leave a cluster feck behind him and keep a low profile in SA. If that happens and the club goes tits up then the angry Bears left behind will maybe finally focus on SDM. Maybe that is Kings payback for the £20m?

Green was nabbed in early April 2013, cited by the SFA a week or so later then jumped ship, only to be followed by Amhad’s own exit at the end of the same month.

These guys always have an exit plan. It is why they are so successful in making money and getting out before they get rumbled.

Wondering if the SPFL sponsors are taking bets on King being chairman by the time the AGM comes around?

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:43 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Doesn’t Tom English frustrate you?  Tonight on Shortbread I thought he was about 70% ok. 

Ridiculed King’s assertion that other clubs (officially) were calling for title stripping.
Commented on Kings implicit threats, Lecturing tone and being ‘antagonistic’.
Spoke about his (King) contrition of 3 years ago and compared it with ‘flies in the face’ of his stance now.  (agreed by other pundits esp. building bridges)
‘Demotion’ – “That’s not exactly in keeping with what happened”

Todays statement from Dave King – ‘Unnecessary’

Defended ‘Diddy Clubs’

He has so much good things to say but you can tell by the gaps in his sentences where he is trying to be diplomatic that he lacks the killer punch of Traynor.  For instance he agrees with LNS decision just like a lamb muncher. 

Shame really.05

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:54 pm - Nov 12, 2015


These guys always have an exit plan. It is why they are so successful in making money and getting out before they get rumbled.

What’s the betting CO will be in the Queens NY Honour list?

View Comment

abigboydiditandranawayPosted on11:05 pm - Nov 12, 2015

I have to say, sadly, that ALL of the fans of Rangers who switched their allegiance to The Rangers that  I know have believed every. single. word. of whomesoever has been the official representative of whichever of their clubs has spoken since 2012…
And so on it goes…fingers in ears and la la la la…
How do you start with that kind of person/group?
They are angry and they are angry because of the p¡sh they have been fed
This needs to be dealt with, and it ain’t gonna be pretty!
Somebody needs to stand tall…and it ain’t gonna be anyone in Scotland in.my opinion…civil unrest and all that

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on11:06 pm - Nov 12, 2015

Any sightings of the esteemed leader of SFA or LNS ?  You would think k there would be a carefully crafted state.ent or two .

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:19 pm - Nov 12, 2015

What’s the breaking story that KJ has latched onto?

Hector Bartins ‏@CarltonBartins
#Breaking – Big news on the way #Rangers #Sevco


keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs 22m22 minutes ago
Last RT. #developing

keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs · 18m18 minutes ago
So, we all ready for another Ashley v SFA court case? #developing

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:30 pm - Nov 12, 2015

jimbo 12th November 2015 at 10:54 pm #wottpi,

What’s the betting CO will be in the Queens NY Honour list? 
   Ah!…The auld Mick and Dave, “You’re served” routine 21 …And her with a great big bloody sword in her fist tae.  
   “Philip ! It appears one of my subjects has slipped on a 95,000 Pounds note. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:48 pm - Nov 12, 2015

This is the bit that gets me:

  “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.”

Name one person on this planet who can lecture on ‘fiduciary’ worse than Dave King? (or Craig Whyte, or Charles Green, or Sur David Murray?)  I mean really?

I’m going to go into smiley mode again. 21

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on11:54 pm - Nov 12, 2015

No doubt the same as what Phil is hinting at ,how the fit & proper descision was reached with a conflicted panel member.

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:31 am - Nov 13, 2015

Tris, BP,  I see it’s still under mod.  Doesn’t matter if you want to delete it.  Trying to have a laugh late at night when things are quiet.  If you think it’s not suiting fair enough.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on12:34 am - Nov 13, 2015

jimbo 12th November 2015 at 11:48 pm #

Fiduciary Duty and Dave King are words that should never appear in the same sentence, unless it’s an Only An Excuse script. 

These juvenile press releases serve only to heap further ridicule on King, Rangers and their PR spinmeisters. I keep expecting Graham Chapman to pop up in his Colonel’s uniform to tell Level 5 to stop being silly.21

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:42 am - Nov 13, 2015

paddy malarkey 12th November 2015 at 11:06 pm #
‘.Any sightings of the esteemed leader of SFA ….’
He has not yet even acknowledged receipt of my letter to him, let alone replied to it. Shows  what he thinks of me!02
I am prepared still to think, and hope, that he is an honourable man, and now realises that his election as President  might have been based on the perception by cunning, devious types,  that  in the many years of his vice-presidency he was an innocent, simpleton of a loon , who actually believed he was working with men of integrity; and who would not ask awkward questions, being pleased to have the confidence of his electors.
If that is the case, then the man deserves our sympathetic understanding. He has landed himself in a pile of sh.t.
Of course, some among the baddest-minded readers of this blog might, conceivably, have concluded that far from being a northern simpleton with no interest in the ‘politics’ of keeping ‘Rangers’ alive and well, honorific flags fluttering in the breeze etc, he may be instead a loyal defender of his brethren in trouble.
I myself, have no opinion on the matter.
I merely say that, in my experience, a leader who stays quiet too long ends up simply being a message boy.
Mr McCrae must speak- soon,to slap King into place, to begin with.And to face up to the absolute necessity of preserving any kind of longer term future for football as both a sport and aggregation of business interests by restoring Integrity and honest sporting competition under the agreed rules.
And to begin to deal with the’ saga’ in the way that Russia is being dealt with in athletics.
Cheating done by a knight of the realm is no more acceptable than cheating done by a state sponsored Russian athlete.
And for a convicted fraudster and questionable director of a Scottish football club to be allowed to utter threats to fellow members of the SPFL  without the Compliance Officer bringing serious charges against him is utterly unacceptable..

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:57 am - Nov 13, 2015

yourhavingalaugh 12th November 2015 at 11:54 pm #
‘..No doubt the same as what Phil is hinting at ‘
Forgive me, yhal, and not to come the old codger,  but how do I find what Phil is saying?
I need a reference : is it Twitter or a separate blog or private conversation or what?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:25 am - Nov 13, 2015

jimbo 12th November 2015 at 10:43 pm #
‘..Doesn’t Tom English frustrate you?  ..’
No more than any other gombeen man.
There’s quite a lot of them, mostly in England though, accepting ersatz knighthoods and such.

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:33 am - Nov 13, 2015

Sadly I have to agree with you regarding Phil.  It’s all hints and half hearted speculation now.  Todays revelations about TRFC accounts revealed …. nothing.  If you want some gossip now jj is the go to site.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:42 am - Nov 13, 2015

John Clark 13th November 2015 at 12:57 am #                 

In here , JC, line 32 onwards


View Comment

gerrybhoy67Posted on7:56 am - Nov 13, 2015

ratethisthenyabampots 12th November 2015 at 8:08 pm #
A very valid point regarding Mr King – HMRC said from the outset they were after those responsible so he has put himself in the dock with the others.
Maybe Big Mike will have them in his corner when it comes to his SFA court case if it ever goes ahead?
You can’t hurt the dead but you can correct their history when they’ve gone!As was established in court yesterday they are a new club so any correction is irrelevant to them.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on8:36 am - Nov 13, 2015

Not sure that a story about someone in the SFA being conflicted on Rangers would blow anything out the water.   The authorities have been conflicted on all matters Rangers since day 1 of this farce. 

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:08 am - Nov 13, 2015

zerotolerance1903 13th November 2015 at 8:36 am #Not sure that a story about someone in the SFA being conflicted on Rangers would blow anything out the water.   The authorities have been conflicted on all matters Rangers since day 1 of this farce. 

I agree ZT.
In fact I don’t think any revelation that comes out now, no matter how damning,  will significantly move Scottish Football on from this whole farrago.
The individuals and organisations involved are refusing to step outside the bunker and face the harsh realities of the real world.
The people we require to hold these individuals to account are either not willing or not able to do so; media, fans, club chairman/owners, leaders within the wider game.
It feels like the only thing that will significantly change this now is for a leader if real substance to step forward and speak sense, speak the truth. And not back down or bend the truth in the face of the inevitable media/PR/Dave King/SoS backlash.

View Comment

Methilhill StrollerPosted on9:26 am - Nov 13, 2015

Agree totally. Hampden bunker completely compromised, media telling lies, Ibrox threatening everyone in sight (again), but it seems the club chairmen/women seem to want to let the enemy kill themselves. Admittedly they seem to be doing a very good job at the moment.
Still wondering when DCK gets hauled into the CW/CG/Duffer & Duffer case (can’t forget the late Corsica’s question about the “coincidental” Switzerland meeting) and will be interested to see what happens to the SFA/SPFL (CO, SR, ND etc etc). JC – if you find the compliance officer please wake him up, take the blindfold off, and maybe [ahem] lodge a complaint.
As for what happens next I don’t think any of us will be surprised – and for those of us over 40 this still probably has more twists than Chubby Checker and Sam Cooke put together.
42 tax convictions – 42 senior clubs – surely no coincidence!!!! I’ll get the hat and coat. TGIF.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on9:28 am - Nov 13, 2015

I was asked recently why I keep going on about Rangers and what it is that I want to happen in this saga, I came up with the following:
1. A clear out of all senior officials at the SFA and SPFL, they are all tainted.
2. A properly independent body appointed to review the footballing aspects of goings on at Rangers and Sevco.  The review needs to have control over its own boundaries and should not have restrictions imposed on it.  If the review extends into other clubs so be it.
3. Without prejudging the outcome of 2. if Rangers were deemed to have breached rules, particularly on player registration, due to their operation of the DOS and EBT schemes then  they should be stripped of the relevant titles (i.e. between 1998 and 2010). These titles should be void rather than awarded to the runner up – like the 1993 Highland League.
4. A formal recognition of what is factually the case – that due to liquidation the current Rangers FC are not the club founded in 1872 and incorporated in 1899, in the same way that the current Airdrioenians FC are not the club founded in 1878 and the current Gretna are not the one founded in 1946.
5. The various spivs and chancers that have run a Rangers entity from David Murray to present should be banned sine die from any involvement in football in Scotland.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:33 am - Nov 13, 2015

So Ashley is now gunning for the SFA on another flank.

Just as a wee reminder there is no UEFA ruling to say that a person can’t have influence over two clubs or more. The ruling is that if it is shown there is the required level of influence then, if one or more qualify ,  only one team may be entered into a UEFA competition.

The SFA rules however, and rightly in my opinion, seem to be a bit tougher. With cross country ownership it seems ridiculous that someone somewhere could deny a club and its supporters the opportunity to enter a UEFA competition after qualifying via sporting endeavour.

The problem is however our old friend in the form of the clause “Except with the prior written consent of the Board”

Ashley is mostly likely combining his beef with his fine to the fact that the SFA has appeared to use the same option of Board Consent to allow the convicted tax dodger pass the Fit & Proper Test.

The argument surely being that Ashley has a record of operating a profitable EPL club and thus why not allow him to assist Rangers. Whereas our man from SA, in addition to his convictions, was a board member of the EBT riddled liquidated club whose new incarnation is running at a loss and up to its eyes in debt, including a £5m sum owed to Ashley, has been allowed to take his place within Scottish Football

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on9:37 am - Nov 13, 2015

edit: never mind

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on9:59 am - Nov 13, 2015

Well, yesterday’s proceedings at the CoS to hear Rangers and Charles Green argue over payment of Mr Green’s legal expenses certainly took an unexpected turn.
Who would have thought that Mr Wolffe’s main argument for rejecting Mr Green’s claim would centre around the timeline of when the everlasting “Rangers Football Club” transferred from Oldco to Newco!
I never expected anyone arguing for RIFC/TRFC to be raising in a court of law, the notion of how the Spirit/DNA/Lifeblood/Essence of “Rangers Football Club” transferred along with the assets. A high risk strategy I suggest!
If I have understood Mr Wolffe’s argument correctly, he is claiming that RIFC/TRFC are not liable to pay Mr Green’s legal costs because some of the charges he faces pre-date Mr Green becoming CEO of “Rangers Football Club”. His argument is that Mr Green only became CEO of “Rangers Football Club” when the assets (and the other mystical thingmybob) transferred from Oldco on 14th June 2012. Prior to this date, Mr Green was merely a Director of Sevco Scotland! This really does stretch the concept of Oldco/Newco to new unseen heights and in a court of law too.
Sevco Scotland was incorporated on 29th May 2012 with Mr Green as its sole director. So the arguments raised seem to be trying to establish a 2 week timeframe where Mr Green may have done some very naughty things, but they have nothing to do with the “Club”, so we aren’t paying.
I think that RIFC/TRFC could be in trouble with this line of reasoning as Lord Doherty was of the opinion that “you can’t have a contract with “The Rangers Football Club”.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on10:09 am - Nov 13, 2015

Completely agree.
Green’s argument would be that all of his actions relate to the formation of Sevco and its subsequent acquisition of Rangers assets, Sevco being the company which later changed its name to RIFC of which he was a director.  Some actions (particularly the negotiations with D&P) may have predated the formation of Sevco but they were all part of the same transaction.
Mr Wolffe’s argument is a very difficult one to present in a court of law, and one wonders if there is an ulterior motive there – or whether it’s just down to the ill advised instruction of the client.
JJ has pointed out the paradox that if Mr Wolffe wins this case then it undermines Charles Green’s criminal trial.  If Green loses that case it could make the assets of RIFC proceeds of crime. 
A win for RIFC in this case could indeed be Pyrrhic.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:12 am - Nov 13, 2015

Re responsibility – there’s no way CO’s name should be allowed to use retirement as a get out.

Re your question about “What is it you want” I agree with your analysis.  I would add another though that I accept should blumin well go without saying – namely that we learn from the experience.  We should bolt the various doors shut that gave rise to it.  We should bolt and padlock in particular the liquidation-and-lo-and-behold-we’re-still-here door that is now a threat, where none existed before, to the game going forward.  We should recognise the damage and costs that particular door has done and is still doing – good luck to any clubs (yes clubs!) seeking bank finance in the next wee while.  We should feel confident in our office bearers to look after the game and, if that requires a particular focus on a certain aspect, they should feel confident enough to explain to us why that is the case.  The smug(as) wee nods and winks have to stop.    

As a side note I have noticed that when I discuss my own priorities in the sevco case on forums  – namely that clubs’ ire in deciding to strip titles is only a consequence of not being able to get their money back comes, on my list, a firm second to all placemen (whether through ignorance or bliss) being held responsible and accountable.  That just seems to wind up a section of their fan base even more. I can only assume that it flies in the face of the notion that its all about them! 

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on10:14 am - Nov 13, 2015

I liked Alan Patullo’s comments in his article in the Scotsman today.


It is not clear the exact course of action King is threatening should debate continue on the matter. Given that the subject has preoccupied Scottish football in recent years, continued discussion seems inevitable.


But King’s take on the matter has not been consistent. He has previously apologised for the tax scheme and was quoted in 2012 as saying: “I follow the logic of the argument that if we lose the tax case then we probably gained some competitive advantage”. However, he has now adopted a different stance.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on10:30 am - Nov 13, 2015

From John James yesterday

Mr Brown then moves on to “the vexed question of the mythical concept of the club.” Lord Doherty states that the “articles of association show Rangers started as a club.”
Brown responded that this changed when Rangers incorporated in 1899. Brown continued: “Sevco Scotland did not buy the club they bought the business and assets of the club.There is a difference between the company and the business assets, but not between a club and a company. A club is an undertaking of it’s owners. As it has neither capacity of personality, no-one can be CEO of a club. The idea that someone can be CEO of an undertaking is just nonsense.”
Brown continued: “I realize that Rangers being the same club is a matter of life and death to some, but it wouldn’t be a proper legal case without the elephant in the room getting mentioned.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. Rangers was a basket of assets that could be sold, but these were not indivisible.The players went one way and the ground another, where is the “club” then?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:31 am - Nov 13, 2015

melbournedee 13th November 2015 at 9:59 am #
Who would have thought that Mr Wolffe’s main argument for rejecting Mr Green’s claim would centre around the timeline of when the everlasting “Rangers Football Club” transferred from Oldco to Newco!


Given the contract Green appears to hold, the ‘timeline’ is the only argument that can be put forward to defend against Green’s claim. In that, why should the Ltd or Plc be liable for costs defending alleged actions and plans that may have been put in place before the creation of said Ltd and Plc.

As you will be aware there were lots of whispering at the bench re the charges for the upcoming trial. Lord Doherty will no doubt be considering the specifics of the charges and their  ‘timeline’ in relation to when the alleged plot was hatched to purchase the assets, launch and IPO etc etc and how these tie in and balance with Green’s contract and the need for the resulting companies, at this present time,  to protect themselves from any potential fall out from the upcoming trial.

As has discussed and seemed apparent yesterday , the dilemma is the possibility of not assisting Green could result in him being represented by less capable lawyers and thus lose the case which in turn could put the assets of the club in jeopardy and therefore cause major problems for the Ltd and Plc.

Remember Mini Murray and King have a bee in their bonnets about all previous boards of Sevco but nailing them might not actually be in the best interests of the business as it currently stands.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on10:36 am - Nov 13, 2015

Having re-read the latest statement attributed to DCK over and over again I have come to the conclusion that Mr King did not write this guff. It really looks to me to have the fingerprints of a certain 1 day director all over it. The fact that he had a tweet threatening Football Club Directors if they didn’t pay attention to what was being said published almost immediately after the official release of the statement seems to strengthen the case.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on10:49 am - Nov 13, 2015

re ZT quoting JJ, did he correctly attribute it to anyone?

Have a look as James Doleman’s twitter timeline.  JJ has basically plagiarised that.  The giveaway is the elephant in the room which I strongly suspect was a James Doleman aside rather then anything mentioned in court.

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on10:53 am - Nov 13, 2015

wottpi 13th November 2015 at 10:31 am


I agree with the argument that the Company (Sevco Scotland/TRFC) shouldn’t have to indemnify Mr Green for his actions prior to the company’s incorporation on 29th May 2012.

What I couldn’t understand was the effort to argue that there was a short 2 week period where Green was Director/CEO of the Company, but seemingly not of “The Rangers Football Club” as the assets (and that other thing) hadn’t yet transferred.

Green’s employment contract and agreement to indemnify his legal costs are with the Company, Sevco Scotland/TRFC, but yesterday’s argument in court seemed to be that the agreements are with the Club thingy and that didn’t exist/tranfer until 14th June 2012. In a legal setting, this argument seems bonkers to me!

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on10:55 am - Nov 13, 2015

To be clear on my last post.  Yes its good that JJ may be educating some of the Bears.  Yes James Doleman’s account is almost certainly a very fair reflection of what was said (because it was more or less mirrored by @stvgrant) but JJ should not be implying that it is he that is reporting it first hand.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:02 am - Nov 13, 2015

melbournedee 13th November 2015 at 10:53 am

Agreed, in terms of the legal entities the timeline is pre Sevco Scotland when it was unregulated horse trading and possibly Sevco 5088 dealing with D&P (but leave that aside for another day) and then the timeline post creation of Sevco Scotland.
Once Sevco Scotland was formed then that is it in terms of a company taking on its legal identity, the club talk/ two weeks time difference from asset transfer was just nonsense.

Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:23 am - Nov 13, 2015

It seems to me that if CG were to pay for his own lawyers, he may get better ones than what Sevco can afford. 09  
   I would suggest that King should be up on a disrepute charge for his calls to “Guard them walls !” (Surely walls built by broad-shouldered masons can withstand a cannonade of ice-cream balls and a jelly hurling trebuchet)… Kidding aside. There is something dangerous and sinister about this man IMO.
    Wolfe’s argument yesterday is a puzzler without knowing the dates in question, but there was a period when two memberships existed. before the so called “transfer?” of Rangers(I.L) share to Dundee? I think it was. Is this the period he is trying to argue?
   That CG was involved with the entity, but they hadn’t yet become the entity they have become now , so he was involved with the other entity that is the same entity, but was a different entity at the time, but now are the same entity that was previously the different entity in which he played no part, because the other entity which is the same entity, was in liquidation? Therefore, although there is only one entity, they inhabited tow separate entities in time and space.   
   I’m surprised that his Lordship didn’t intervene with, “Are you trying to take the piss?” 

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on11:24 am - Nov 13, 2015

An unpopular thought.

Dave King is right! Well, about one aspect as inferred by today’s article in the Record, anyway. In particular that there is a threat of title stripping due to the large debt Rangers Of Old accumulated…

Record Sport understands that would put Hearts in the firing line, as Gers would attempt to have their Scottish Cup Final wins over Gretna in 2006 and Hibs in 2012 wiped off the history books, using the argument that they too claimed success based on a regime of reckless spending that forced the club into administration.

I think that is fair enough. No titles should be stripped because the team doing it were “overspending”. Anyone pursuing such an approach is being unreasonable. To go down that route would open a Pandora’s box of reassignment of cups and titles. It’s fair enough to spend more than you’re taking in (within FFP) so long as, if that particular strategy blows up in your face, you suffer the consequences without favour from the authorities, football and creditors.
It might stick in the craw of rival fans to lose matches and trophies to someone spending more than they can afford, but that’s life. So long as it’s above board, no undeclared payments, no third parties involved, no secret contracts, then overspending is hunky dory, no problems, go right ahead.
So, well said Dave King, case closed, and let us hear no more about stripping titles because any team spent more than they could afford.

It’s frustrating to see the threat of questioning whether Rangers won things legitimately being undermined by justifying this because they have ended up with a large tax liability (subject to possible appeal). This allows King, and many in the media, to portray any attempts to remove titles from Rangers as being unreasonable. If the main justification is because they overspent and may now have a large tax debt, I agree that such arguments are unreasonable.
Any move to strip titles should be based on other associated infractions. See Auldheid for that.
Crying about the tax debt proving they cheated just undermines much stronger arguments and I long to see such anguished claims desist.

View Comment

bluPosted on11:25 am - Nov 13, 2015

tykebhoy 13th November 2015 at 10:49 am
There is an acknowledgement by John James of the source of the court reporting:
“The Wolffe of Parliament Square

This article is predicated on the live tweets from James Doleman. I thank James for his excellent court coverage and his insights that have underpinned several articles and contributions to this site. Charles Green v RIFC is currently being heard before Lord Doherty at The Court of Session Edinburgh.”

View Comment

Methilhill StrollerPosted on11:26 am - Nov 13, 2015

Mr Brown made it very clear that CG could not be a CEO of a football club. He also made it clear that Sevco only bought the assets of oldco – and if I remember rightly there was also a statement to the effect that this was a very risky strategy because Sevco bought the assets without actually having a guarantee of a football club playing anywhere (for that I read senior or junior football).

The argument seems to be that CG then, having acquired the assets, then proceeded along the way to reach certain agreements (some 5-way as it transpires) so as to allow a team called Sevco (later Rangers) to play Brechin, Peterhead, East Fife etc and along the way put the corporate structure together by 14 June to enable CG to be CEO – and note CG’s agreement was, according to the twitter feeds yesterday, backdated to 1 June.

If I have understood the proceedings correctly then Mr Brown seems to have made a sensible case. Whether Lord Doherty thinks so, and whether he provides a positive or negative answer before the next CG case, will be worth waiting for.

View Comment

Gym TrainerPosted on11:37 am - Nov 13, 2015

Night Terror 13th November 2015 at 11:24 am #An unpopular thought.

My own take here is that any action on retrospective voiding of titles, etc would be based on incorrect/imperfect registration, since those are consequences of the (currently, pending appeal) tax evasion and the concealment of the entire contracts entered from the governing bodies (even though at least one office bearer of the SFA was intimately involved in their management when he was an officer of company SC004276)

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on11:39 am - Nov 13, 2015

In addition to my last post, I now see Paul Brennan, Celtic Blogger, agrees.


View Comment

jimmciPosted on11:52 am - Nov 13, 2015

Is it only me who us astounded by the one-sided reporting in the Herald and Record of yesterday’s court case?
Were it not for twitter I would barely have known that Mr Brown spoke on behalf of Green. Well done, James Doleman and STVGrant.
The Scotsman appear “unaware” of the proceedings entirely despite them telling us of the impending court proceedings a few weeks ago since the case doesn’t even merit a mention in today’s print edition. With them now being a regional paper, shame on them since the case was in their parish.
Also, should Peter Lawwell crack one of his wee jokes again at the expense of Rangers at next week’s AGM just watch the press come down on him like a pack if wolves for needlessly stirring the pot. In the meantime King can threaten all in a Scottish football with barely a critical comment. Or, indeed is this exactly what King is seeking to provoke with his ridiculous comments?
(Thank goodness he didn’t call anyone a f***ing fanny or that disrepute charge would have hit him like a ton of bricks.)

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on11:53 am - Nov 13, 2015

@Gym Trainer
I agree. The problem is, most fans find the overspending thing easier to grasp and be outraged about, whereas the intricacies of player registration can seem ore of an administrative and therefore boring infraction.
It suits many to characterise the Title Stripping argument as based on overspending and tax liability (subject to appeal) and even alleged sporting advantage, none of which have concrete rules to outlaw them as far as I know, rather than the specifics of registrations and hidden contracts which are provable and forbidden.
The problem is we are dealing with football, where people focus on the results on the pitch, whereas actually that is irrelevant to the question of whether Rangers broke rules on player registration and contracts.
Sporting advantage, cheating, tax evasion/avoidance, illegal tax arrangements, overspending, players they couldn’t afford, other fans’ sense of outrage. All irrelevant. If you want to pursue a legal/quasi legal case to remove titles from Rangers, it’s the contracts and player registrations. Everything else is a counter productive waste of time.
If the Nimmo Smith verdict is seen to have settled this issue, it’s game over on that front. So, if you want titles removed, LNS’s verdict need to be set aside or superceded somehow.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on11:55 am - Nov 13, 2015

tykebhoy 13th November 2015 at 10:55 am #
“but JJ should not be implying that it is he that is reporting it first hand.”
Purely in the interest of clarity I would humbly suggest that he isn’t.
1st article of 3 so far, first sentence.

The Wolffe of Parliament Square
“This article is predicated on the live tweets from James Doleman. I thank James for his excellent court coverage and his insights that have underpinned several articles and contributions to this site.”

Edit Blu you beat me 🙂

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:57 am - Nov 13, 2015

Methilhill Stroller 13th November 2015 at 11:26 am #
Mr Brown made it very clear that CG could not be a CEO of a football club. He also made it clear that Sevco only bought the assets of oldco – and if I remember rightly there was also a statement to the effect. 
MS. Wasn’t that the basis under which that D&P valued the assets? As bricks and mortar without a club playing football there.  Only the subsequent formation of a club, gave the added value. I’m not trying to open a debate about gratuitous alienation, but I think that was the point made at the time.   

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:02 pm - Nov 13, 2015

The old long established protection for creditors (nothing to do with football) and the inbuilt difference between administration and liquidation has served the game perfectly well on that score to date.  Why the supposed change now? 

Spending beyond their means is not illegal.  Romanov and Mileson (to use King’s examples) funding a clubs progress is not against the rules any more than the Old Firm using their big supports to finance players to play against those clubs with smaller fanbases is.  I acknowledge that FPP is, as I understand it, trying to tighten up on the benefactor point now (and to date has been rejected by the clubs I believe).

Spending beyond their means without a willing benefactor is where it becomes tricky.  The creditors need legal protection for sure,  but the very nature of administration is also to protect the trading party, else it would simply be torn apart Serengeti style by the creditors.  Similarly the sport needs protecting for what everyone previously thought were obvious reasons hence the various disciplinary rules in place.  

And so, returning to the financial (as opposed to football) element, amongst a myriad of other procedures, the CVA was born.  Achieve it and everyone, however begrudgingly, continues.  Don’t achieve it, you don’t, simples.

I accept, by the way, that you need a legal nail to hang any actions like title stripping on hence the rule discrepancies are the way to go.  But the impact of those rule infarctions was massive financial benefit to one club and detriment, often to the point of endangerment (oops there’s that CVA differential again) of several others.  The titles were but yet another consequence in this whole farrago and were undoubtedly important, but they shouldn’t be allowed to cover up the major impact this nonsense has had either.   

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on12:10 pm - Nov 13, 2015

Methilhill Stroller 12th November 2015 at 1:59 pm #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.
Going back a bit with this,and this has been discussed on here in the past.
Around the time of the name change from Sevco Scotland to TRFC,supposedly to register the business in Scotland,Green announced that this required the transfer of “certain” assets to TRFC.Note he didn’t say all assets.
Maybe nothing but is it possible that some assets,like Ibrox still reside with Sevco Scotland(John Browns rant)?.
I know records may differ but such is the stream of misinformation wrt this basketcase nothing would surprise me.It may also explain the reported £278k per month leaving TRFC.A hidden rental charge,perhaps?.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on12:15 pm - Nov 13, 2015

@blu thnks for the clarification.

Re LNS Auldheid keeps quoting LNs stating that some events would make a registration invalid from the outset.  One would think deliberately falsifying renumeration details in registrations so as to hide a tax avoidance scheme that must have been suspected as been evasion (why hide otherwise) and as things currently stand was illegal, is an event that makes a registration invalid.  If the registrations of any player in posession of an EBT or DOS opayment is invalid this means RFC played for over a decade with up to 11 unregistered players on the pitch

View Comment

motor redPosted on12:16 pm - Nov 13, 2015

id just like to add, what about all those foreign players deadco bought by inflating the market with their underhanded use of EBTs ,this obviously stifled our youth from breaking through and producing a better international side as well putting many clubs in great danger in the process. then there is all that money wasted by fans over the years in an obviously rigged competition. just saying.

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on12:23 pm - Nov 13, 2015

melbournedee 13th November 2015 at 10:53 am #

What I couldn’t understand was the effort to argue that there was a short 2 week period where Green was Director/CEO of the Company, but seemingly not of “The Rangers Football Club” as the assets (and that other thing) hadn’t yet transferred.
Of course, this 2 week window would correspond with the D&P/Sevco 5088/Sevco Scotland switcheroo. Is that what this is all about? Still can’t see how that would absolve Sevco Scotland/TRFC from honouring the indemnity agreement.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on12:31 pm - Nov 13, 2015

@torrejohnbhoy Sevco Scotland became TRFC which is a subsidiary of RIFC.  It is possible that some assets did not transfer to Sevco Scotland but that would leave them either with Sevco 5088 who they were supposed to be sold to or RFC(IL).  Unless there was yet another switcheroo in the alledged switcheroo 20

View Comment

Methilhill StrollerPosted on12:34 pm - Nov 13, 2015

CO – I think you are right in that my understanding of what Brown said was that there was no club, just a pile of assets which Sevco bought. Whether D&P gave the assets the right or wrong value is, I suspect, going to be part of a detailed legal discussion at an upcoming court case so will say no more on the subject.

As for “over-spending” I don’t think it matters as long as those concerned have the wherewithal to cover such costs – people usually think Real Madrid and Barcelona always overspend and (subject to any assistance from Spanish authorities) they do at least have massive income streams. Whatever DCK or his PR guff people write/say, we are not talking about over-spending here.

We are talking about what now appears (subject to appeal for now) massive tax evasion, questionable borrowing from banks, failure to disclose side letters/information, stuffing 260 odd creditors, EBT’s going beyond the football club, and a blatant cover up from the administrators of our sport that cannot be allowed to go unpunished (5-way agreements for which there was no provision in the rules), the Bryson rule (for which there was no “common sense” – with thanks to the Lordships), armageddon, attempts to put Sevco in the SPL, then championship, acceptance of alleged “fit and proper” persons,  certain clubs suffered when others did not. Did I forget the lamb munchers?

At least FIFA, World Athletics, Cricket, Baseball, Cycling etc are being seen to take the correctional steps needed so why not Football in Scotland? Until those who are responsible for the offences and those who allowed to it both happen and seemingly continue to facilitate [and do nothing about the problem] are kicked out of our game we can never move on.

At least in the past week or so we have seen a light at the end of the tunnel. My only hope that for the bampots it is a light to a brighter future and for those responsible for this farce throughout the years it is an express train coming toward them!!!

View Comment

Methilhill StrollerPosted on12:36 pm - Nov 13, 2015

Torrejohnbhoy that was exactly my thought process yesterday.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:43 pm - Nov 13, 2015

So MA is dragging SFA to the civil courts again . I thought this was frowned upon and attracted sanctions from EUFA . Unless of course it was to overturn an “illegal” transfer embargo (another can of worms ?).

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:19 pm - Nov 13, 2015

motor red 13th November 2015 at 12:16 pm

I think that is a key point in relation to the way the saga is playing.

I understand why the Bears want to keep their titles. However are none of them appear to be raging that the argument now seems to be that a whole raft of talented players could have been brought to the club at much lower costs and still achieved the same degree of success.

Had that been possible then the banks loans etc may not have been needed and the cash saved could / should have been used to develop home grown talent instead of relying on imported talent from years to come.

The rest of Sottish Football seem to be acknowledging that the period of financial madness that followed on from the start of the SDM/Souness era has had long term consequences for the game in Scotland in terms of our inability to develop our own talent.

I can fully understand why, at the time, Celtic and Rangers plumped for spending on foreign talent but so many other clubs got themselves into bother by paying for imports, some of who weren’t that great, while stifling the opportunities for home grown talent to develop.  

Because they still believe they are Billy Big Baws with access to unlimited funds many a Bear seems to think that is should be ‘back to the future’.

As Ryan implies, those with a more realistic and practical view on how the club should progress are being shouted down for the bombastic tones of years gone by.

It is the lack of development of home grown talent and a reckless attitude towards  financial mismanagement that Scottish Football needs to resolve and move on from, not just the possibility of stripping titles.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on1:22 pm - Nov 13, 2015

One to please Paddy Malarkey et all PTFC declaring themseleves debt free

Are TRFC still claiming that status? 22

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:31 pm - Nov 13, 2015

I’ve just been looking at my notes of yesterday’s ‘legal debate’.
Would it be helpful to others if I give this little snippet?
In the context of a reference  to  ” CEO of the Rangers FC” and “CEO of the Company”
Mr Woolffe:  ” … the defenders distinguish between RFC and the corporate identity. SevcoScotland only acquired the Rangers Football Club on 14th June 2012 by virtue of….so it is only from then..”
Judge Doherty :” No contract of employment with the Rangers Football Club?”
Mr Woolffe: “No”

Judge D: “How would you describe the club in legal terms?”
Mr Woolffe: ” An association..[hesitates, pauses]..the key point is timing … In Schedule 3 of the agreement [ edit: I don’t know which agreement was being referred to]  it speaks of the Rangers football club ( without ‘Ltd’) 14.6 2012 when SevcoScotland acquired Rangers FC…….”
As I’ve said before , without having sight of the text of any and all documents and papers that are referred to  it is very difficult to be sure of the significance of any particular document and where it sits in the discussion.
But I think that snippet suggests what some posters have already discussed,  a main line of argument being followed namely, the point at which an individual could be said to have been the CEO of an organisation in terms of any rights to be indemnified by that organisation.
[Not that it’s particularly or necessarily relevant in connection with this post, but I’m mindful of the reporting restrictions. James Doleman knows his way in these matters, whereas I might say something because I don’t know enough to see  how it might be seen to connect to ‘forbidden’ material.]

View Comment

Comments are closed.