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);
- They have absolutely no credible business plan to move forward over the next five years – only a commitment to limping on with soft loans;
- The current chairman is a convicted felon;
- Two directors of the new company were directors of the company now in liquidation;
- They have no line of credit;
- They are already in debt to the tune of at least £12m – increasing as I write;
- They are unable to repay that debt;
- There is still a nominal (even if we accept the BDO position above) doubt over the ownership of assets;
- The football team does not play in the top league – and European income isn’t coming soon;
- 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.
neepheid 27th October 2015 at 1:42 pm #
——————————————–
I ‘ve just had a look at the SFA’s accounts and they confirm the increased payment to the SFP
neepheid 27th October 2015 at 12:57 pm
SFP cannot “gift aid” funds to the trust as gift aid only applies to personal donations (technically “offset” against an individual’s tax liability). SFP can donate funds and write them off against its corporate tax bill if it has one provided it has no controlling mechanism over the trust (in which case it’d be a related party transaction and have HMRC sniffing around a lot – think EBTs).
As I recall, SFP & SportScotland intended to combine funds to be able to have greater impact and reduce costs (SS would administer as a grant maker just as with its lottery funds) so the JV approach makes sense. There are also tax advantages to it being done via a charitable structure. The large cash balance people have noted is probably due to timing of project spend rather than hoarding or anything sinister, and is perfectly normal (you’d be amazed how much lottery reserves exist).
The real questions here are:
1. Does this grant include any element of public funding?2. If so, why has a facility which benefitted from public funding in the past (SportScotland lottery funds) now been given a further public grant for the same thing in contravention of HM Treasury Green Book?3. What public use/access will be given (this is a core requirement of public funds) or is this a purely private facility? If the latter using public funds – hello State Aid!4. What assessment process was used to determine eligibility and need?5. Was any previous grant performance (specifically SportScotland grant which resulted in no discernible public benefit) taken into account?6. What risk assessment was carried out by the awarding body and what assurances were given by the grant recipient?7. Did the grant maker undertake financial and governance due diligence? If so, did it take into account information within the public domain? Or did it rely solely upon assurances given by the grant recipient?8. If public funds are involved, what measures and terms & conditions have been put in place to assure/protect public funds and investment? Has a standard security charge and a standard asset realisation charge been imposed as required by HM Treasury Green Book and EU law?
The sort of questions an intrepid journalist might pose (or even one with just a moral compass).
Speaking of SportScotland: it is always worth recalling that, when the grant was awarded for Murray Park back in the old days, the then-director of SportScotland was a director of Dunfermline Athletic* and close friend of Gavin Masterton. Small world, eh?
* in the interests of fairness, it should be noted that DAFC were also recipients of significant lottery funding via SportScotland.
Re Big Pink’s point that insurance may be the source of reparation for Oldco depending on the outcome of the criminal trials.
I understand that line of thought, however I question whether there would be no impact on RIFC.
Should there be guilty verdicts then a consequence is that RIFC gained assets as a result of a criminal act. Should the verdict be not guilty then of course there would be no such consequence.
In the event of a verdict of guilt of criminality , why would the company who were beneficiary of the criminal act be able to retain those criminally gained assets ?
Logically it seems to me , as suggested earlier, that the assets would revert to the insurance company who have the exposure. They are surely entitled to mitigate their potential losses.
I have attempted to stay strictly onside with regards to the forthcoming trials, making no assumption of innocence or guilt, but if i’m too close to a line then mods feel free to delete
I picked up the reference to Gift Aid from note 14 to the audited 2015 accounts of SFP-
“During the year, the company made gift aid donations of £529,945 (2014; £nil) to The Scottish Football Partnership Trust, a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation which shares common control with the company.”
That is maybe loose use of language by the auditors, unless companies limited by guarantee get special treatment (which I’m not aware of, by the way).
Barcabhoy 27th October 2015 at 2:33 pm
Seems to me that a law that allows one company’s shareholders to benefit from the criminal activity of it’s founders, while, at the same time, forcing the shareholders of another company (the insurers), to pay out as a result of that crime, would indeed be an ass.
From what little I understand of the insurance policies discussed I get the impression they are about protecting the directors and officers of the company from their actions carried out on behalf of the company; not to ensure the company holds onto the proceeds of any illegal activity of it’s directors.
Jame Doleman’s afternoon court update re Paul Paton
http://jdoleman.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/hma-vs-paul-paton-afternoon-report.html
… then
James Doleman@jamesdoleman 30s30 seconds ago Breaking Paul Paton changes plea to guilty in Lucas Zaluska assault case.
Going by the evidence reported by James Doleman, I don’t find it surprising that he changed his plea, given that three witnesses all said that they saw him hit Zaluska.
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 43s44 seconds ago
Paul Paton pleads guilty to reduced assault charge, fined £500. Given 1 month to pay.
Doesn’t seem much of a fine given that the case ended up as a trial.
“Fifa presidency: Sepp Blatter’s possible successors”
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34639723
================================
From this list of candidates there is only 1 ‘new face’ who does not have current/prior FIFA/UEFA experience: an ex-player from Trinidad & Tobago.
The rest are from the same gene pool as Blatter.
So no real change is wanted at all by FIFA: just a quick PR job will suffice.
A new figurehead in place, who can then blame all of FIFA’s recent woes on Blatter personally ?
But there will never be significant change at FIFA, with virtually all the candidates and those who vote being compliant participants in the corrupt culture at FIFA – which has been the norm since Joao Havelange days, if not before.
Not good.
Phil’s latest piece is quite explicit: TRFC ST monies already spent, bills unpaid etc.
And you just know what the ironic trigger will be to bring TRFC to its knees…
Step forward Hector – you Rangers hater – with your Winding Up Petition !
[I was going to say it will be deja vu – all over again – but that could kick off another OC/NC argument !]
I do detect a certain lack of self awareness in DAVE KING’s latest statement:
“Supporters have requested an update on the Club’s relationship with Sports Direct which is one of the key issues that I promised to deal with prior to, and after, being elected to the board of Rangers International Football Club.
It is widely known that Sports Direct applied to court for an injunction to prevent myself and my fellow directors from disclosing certain details of the agreements between the Club and the Sports Direct group, including the existence or detail of any meetings between the parties.
The gagging order prevents me from disclosing the details of our contractual relationship it does not prevent me from updating supporters on the status of the general relationship with Sports Direct.
Sports Direct continues to litigate with the Club in an attempt to enforce its wishes and demands. This seems based on the simple logic that Sports Direct can outspend the Club in legal fees and thereby deal with the Club as it pleases. I assure supporters that the Club will not be cowed by this threat and the recent lack of communication (as a result of the gagging order) belies the level of robustness with which the Club’s interest has been and will be protected.
Furthermore, I have sent letters to Sports Direct in my capacity as a director of Rangers Retail Limited taking them to task for poor business practices and corporate governance failures. The Club believed that it was entering into a joint venture with a large public company that would behave as a partner should and would conduct its business affairs in an appropriate fashion.
In my 40 years of business, I cannot recollect having dealt with a public company that is run more like a wholly owned family business and appears unconcerned with other stakeholders – partners or otherwise. It remains my intention to ensure that Sports Direct is legally and financially held accountable for its failures.”
The difference between JJ and Phil seems to that Phil reckons the money has already run out at Ibrox, whereas JJ reckons that the Ibrox wage bill can and will be met next month, but December will be a problem.
Everyone now accepts, I think, that Green will either win his case for legal funding, or King will back down prior to the hearing. If TRFC have to carry the cost, then that will immediately impact on cash flow. Lawyers do like to be paid up front, strangely enough. In fact they insist on it. Because today’s valued client can suddenly become tomorrow’s bankrupt, or prisoner 987654321 in criminal cases.
I don’t believe that TRFC/RIFC have the money to pay Green’s legals, and I don’t believe they have insurance in place either. If there was, we’d have heard all about it by now. So someone is going to have to commit some serious funds soon, if only to front Green’s legal fees.
The situation looks desperate, and if I was a “Rangers Man”, I would be gutted that just when things are finally coming together on the football side (thanks for years of misery, Ally) , it looks like another implosion on the financial side. A sugar daddy is urgently required. I doubt that the saviour will be Dave King. Arms too short, pockets too deep (or maybe empty, per JJ).
Could it have been Mike Ashley’s plan all along to come riding to the rescue when all seems lost, and suddenly become a hero to the fans? I wouldn’t put it past him, but he’ll probably want Dave King out of the picture first.
The Ashley faction has been very, very quiet recently. What’s the old saying- speak softly, and carry a big stick? I think we might be about to find out whether Ashley is really interested in “Rangers”. The fans had better hope that he is. Because if King is the only show in town, then it’s curtains, in my view.
Although no doubt “curtains” will be dressed up as “someone else’s fault” “the start of another journey” and “not terminal” by our esteemed sports journalists. Another phoenix will be said to have risen from yet another pile of ashes. Is this ever going to end?
Billy Boyce 27th October 2015 at 7:30 pm #I do detect a certain lack of self awareness in DAVE KING’s latest statement:
======================
You beat me to it !
Yes, quality insights from King simply jumped off the screen;
“…I have sent letters to Sports Direct … taking them to task for poor business practices and corporate governance failures…”
&
“…In my 40 years of business, I cannot recollect having dealt with a public company…[which] appears unconcerned with other stakeholders…It remains my intention to ensure that Sports Direct is legally and financially held accountable for its failures.”
King must, must have been laughing, [or at least grimacing a smile], when he wrote this forceful statement !
neepheid 27th October 2015 at 9:27 am # I see the Scotsman “Gossip Column” is trailing a piece which effectively concedes that Green will be getting his defence costs paid for.DAVE King and the majority shareholders at Rangers have agreed on a plan to pay for Charles Green’s legal costs – should they be ordered to do so by the court.The former chief executive is facing charges of fraud from his time at the Glasgow giants. He will stand accused with five others, including ex-owner Craig Whyte.I’d love to know what the plan is- get the fans to cough up, presumably.————————————————————————
If this newspaper comment is true then to me it is telling in terms of the position RIFC now find themselves.
Any ‘normal’ company would have no need to have “agreed on a plan to pay for Charles Green’s legal costs…”. These costs would be to the account of whichever insurance company was providing D&O cover.
For a plan to have been “agreed” by DK and “the majority shareholders”’ (thus excluding MA I take it!) to cover these costs seems to indicate that appropriate insurance cover has either not been effected or has lapsed.
We can speculate all day about why this might be but I would not be surprised if reasonably priced D&O cover might have become hard to secure down Govan way. Nothing to do with the current Court proceedings, of course, perhaps just a reflection of the bewildering changes of personnel and other goings-on since the new club started operations just a few short years ago. Insurers do like a good corporate track record, evidence of stability and past lilywhite business dealings….
RIFC may not be the ideal poster child for these criteria.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Because of the time which has passed since I underwrote Professional Indemnity policies, I thought I would dig out an up to date policy wording.
Current RSA (Royal Sun Alliance) Sun Alliance prior to 1996.
Page 7
Exclusions
The Company shall not be liable in respect of
9 Dishonesty
“any dishonest or fraudulent act or omission committed by any
person after there is reasonable cause for suspicion of fraud or
dishonesty in relation to such person
Furthermore no indemnity shall be given to any person
committing condoning or knowingly participating in any way in any
act or omission of a fraudulent or dishonest nature.”
I would be astonished if this exclusion was not used to repudiate liability.
Well if that is all that Dave King has to offer the fans then there is something seriously wrong.
With everything going and questions unanswered, the only subject matter he comments on is something most fans have put on the back burner.
Dearie me!
Billy Boyce 27th October 2015 at 7:30 pm #
I do detect a certain lack of self awareness in DAVE KING’s latest statement:
========================================
I couldn’t agree more in fact if anything I think that understates the case.
The man has clearly had an irony bypass, or for some reason he is deliberately provoking Mike Ashley, though to what end would be anyone’s guess.
Sorry folks, I hadn’t seen King’s statement before posting 5 minutes ago.
Now that is truly beyond parody -from the criminally convicted chairman of a Mickey Mouse company that has only ever traded at a loss, which has squandered all its IPO money, and which relies entirely on “soft loans” (or soft-in-the- head loans, more accurately) every few months just to stay afloat. Writing to the billionaire owner of a highly profitable (no, I don’t like his methods either) FTSE 100 company. I bet Ashley relies on King’s blustering letters for a right good belly laugh.
The TRFC fans should be chanting at the next home game, [assuming King attends]…
“SHOW US THE MONEY !!!”
Re the DCK statement:
Reading that, I immediately thought of Warren Zevon & his composition “Lawyers, Guns & Money”. Then, after a moment’s reflection, I realised that I should be thinking about Britney Spears & “Oops, I Did It Again”.
Is DCK’s statement and specifically his apparently injudicious comments on MA/SD, a corporate attempt at “suicide by cop”?
MASH suicide perhaps?
Scottish Football needs the SMSM to start doing their job.
I think we need a squirrel smiley …
What does this mean?
Does SD have a further action having won the High Ccourt action in June to enforce confidentiality?
redetin 27th October 2015 at 8:06 pm # What does this mean?
Sports Direct continues to litigate with the Club in an attempt to enforce its wishes and demands.Does SD have a further action having won the High Ccourt action in June to enforce confidentiality?
===========================
Phil originally proposed that the first court action may be followed by 2 other motions/days at the bench in England.
Maybe part 2 is due.
All eyes on a last minute case this week at the Queens bench or Rolls court. Snuck one in there at the last knockings the last visit.
Very expensive these goings on. I think the judge expressed the view last time costs claimed were “eye watering” or sum such and sent them back for justification.
StevieBC 27th October 2015 at 7:54 pm
“King must, must have been laughing, [or at least grimacing a smile], when he wrote this forceful statement ! ”
I think he was wistfully humming the old MASH theme tune “Suicide is Painless”
If King wants Sports Direct out of Rangers hair why hasn’t he already served notice the deal is being terminated? Okay, seven years is a long time, but by now it could be 6 and a half years.
I think that the king speech must be my favourite – give the man his due he always surpasses himself statement by statement- it is a scottish version of Mornington Crescent – no one knows the rules he is playing to apart from the, being mad.
If anyone gives him money it is their own fault..
Has he been in business for 40 years? Where is the documentary evidence?
Does anyone have an opinion on whether or not the King’s speech / statement was prepared with the assistance of Level42 ?
Or, did King just write his own version of reality, all by himself ?
StevieBC 27th October 2015 at 9:33 pm # Does anyone have an opinion on whether or not the King’s speech / statement was prepared with the assistance of Level42 ?
Or, did King just write his own version of reality, all by himself ?
____________________________________-
I think that one came from the heart, so forceful, Ashley must be quaking in his boots!
Imagine, ‘jetting in’ to say that! What was it that judge said? Insipid and gormless flier?
A short drama entitled ‘A big boy did it and ran away.’
Act I The Big Boy is Unveiled
Dave King (Ibrox, Stage left) – Look. There’s a big boy. He doesn’t like us and we don’t like him.
Act II The Insolvency Event
Rangers (Off stage) – Dies of insolvency
Act III The Autopsy
Dave King (Overseas) – That big boy did it and ran away
Chorus (Ibrox) – Boos. We were duped. Why weren’t we warned?
Big Pink 27th October 2015 at 9:53 am # Edit
____________________________________________________________________
Excuse me referencing my own post, but I had occasion to come across a very well respected journalist today – at least one for whom I have always had the utmost respect.
I mentioned this very thought out loud, but he defended the Record, and apropos nothing at all, alleged that “Jock Stein ruled the press in his day!”
I replied that whilst I knew this to be true, it didn’t make it right – unless of course you were viewing the universe through a pair of binoculars with one blue and one green lens equally misted up with a soft-focus filter.
He then went on the attack about “social media guys not having to worry about getting sued like the papers, because the social media guys are a bunch of balloons with no money or relevance”.
I told him that at least SFM should not be characterised as such, and his get-out was that he didn’t know anything about SFM (strange since he once offered to write a blog for us).
I countered that he was therefore unqualified to comment on SFM. I also noted that he would be pissed off if we all imagined the print media to be a homogeneous lump of paper and ink – so he had no right to do the same with social media outlets.
It struck me that much of what we are seeing is a resentment of social media, and that the best way for people who are reluctant to keep up with times to react is to denigrate and belittle – and by sticking with the flat earth version of what happened to differentiate from us.
There is a war between social and print media which the former is winning at a canter. And even the best of the MSM can’t handle that fact.
Perhaps he was irked that I was having a go at KJ’s article in the DR yesterday and saw that attack as an assault on him too. Sad, but true.
And no I can’t name him, but if it comes out in one of his columns at the weekend, he will have done so himself.
Feet of clay moments are seldom nice 🙁
Just read Richard Wilson’s report of the King statement, and no mention of what form it took. Usually you would expect to be told that a press conference had been called, or a statement issued, and, in King’s case, whether or not he’d ‘jetted in’. And with all those rumours abounding the internet, there’s no way any of the media are unaware of the interest in where King is, so you’d expect some mention of how the ‘news’ was gathered. It’s almost as if, if he is in the UK, he’s told the hacks that there’ll be no more access if they reveal his whereabouts!
bfbpuzzled 27th October 2015 at 9:26 pm #
Has he been in business for 40 years? Where is the documentary evidence?
======================================
I see what you did there.
“In 2011, a High Court Judge in North Gauteng, castigated King. Judge Brian Southwood said that the court was “unanimous in finding that he (King) is a mendacious witness whose evidence should not be accepted on any issue unless it is supported by documents and other objective evidence. It was remarkable that King showed no sign of embarrassment or any emotion when he conceded that he had lied to the (SARS) commissioner in a number of his income tax returns.”
HomunculusHomunculus 27th October 2015 at 10:09 pm #
====================
I like your animated logo there H – very effective.
Think I’ll ask for one for my Christmas…
Apologies for posting again so quickly however it occurs.
“The Club believed that it was entering into a joint venture with a large public company that would behave as a partner should and would conduct its business affairs in an appropriate fashion.”
How on Earth does he have any idea what “The Club” thought. If I remember correctly the joint venture agreement was set up prior to the IPO, I believe it featured in the prospectus.
As such it was set up between Charles Green and Mike Ashley, between Green’s limited company and Sports Direct. At or about the same time Mike Ashley became one of the major shareholders in that limited company, by buying a big chunk of shares from “Green’s Consortium”.
So albeit Mr King can use the nicely emotive phrase as above it was nothing to do with him, nothing to do with the PLC, which didn’t even exist at the time. It was a deal between Green and Ashley and it is easy to imagine why Green set it up.
a, He needed Ashley’s investment there and then and
b, He knew he wasn’t going to be about long enough for the full ramifications to become obvious.
FFS if I remember right he didn’t even use a lawyer.
StevieBC 27th October 2015 at 10:15 pm
Have this one.
Now I’ve stopped laughing at the sheer audacity of King’s statement, maybe it’s time to consider why he has issued it, and why now.
Is the Green legal fees thing the last straw, and he wants Ashley to push the big red button? Well, sorry Dave, but Ashley won’t push any buttons until HE is good and ready.
Is King going to push the big red button himself, but wants to blame Ashley for the explosion? Even the bears surely aren’t that gullible- are they?
What his statement certainly won’t do is encourage any outside investment. King says it himself- in any legal dispute, Ashley wins just by his ability to rack up the legal fees. That’s certainly true, but why tell the whole world how weak you are? What purpose does that serve?
Is King heading for the exit? How else to explain his statement? As someone pointed out earlier, “Rangers” are on 7 years notice for all the Ashley contracts. So if King stays, he has to work with Ashley for at least another 7 years. Especially since he reckons himself that Ashley will always win in court, which makes the contracts unbreakable. So why slag off Ashley if you intend to stay?
My view is that Ashley is the one who is in this for the long term. I fully expect King to give up on this venture shortly, at which point the Three Bears will talk nicely to Ashley, in the hope of at least getting their money back, and keeping the show on the road, of course.
Why Has DCK resisted making the promised investment in his beloved Clumpany?
What if
He never had any intentions of making an investment and was simply telling a porky ?
If so
Why?
Is he such a compulsive porky teller that he shoots from the hip without fear of the consequences?
Could be
Or
Maybe he so skint that he needs RIFC to pay for his trips to Scotland?
Mmmm………
That sounds plausible
Except
That begs another question
What`s the real reason he comes over ?
What if
He is playing a role helping prosecution or defence lawyers prepare for the upcoming trials?
If he was
What could the defence offer him in return ?
Could it be
Silence
………on what transpired at the 2012 Zurich meeting?
Alternatively
What could the prosecution offer him in return ?
Could it be
Immunity
……… from prosecution?
Big Pink 27th October 2015 at 10:05 pm
“There is a war between social and print media which the latter is winning at a canter.”
Did you mean former?
Well the DK statement sure made my journey into work this morning a lot more enjoyable! irony bypass for sure, but a quick squiz on the bears den tells you that most of the guys on there are still supportive of him and believe he is doing the right things?? they will not see any wrong in what he says/does until such time as the club goes into admin or worse, what was Einstein’s definition of insanity again? The litigation part of the statement suggested, to me anyway, that there are ongoing issues in front of a judge/magistrate, is this the case as far as anyone else knows?
The comments about the sports fund made me think about the whole purpose of sfm and it seems to me that in place we have an incompetent governing body who are still making millions of pounds profit, imagine what the football landscape would be like if we had some entrepreneurial / honest / accountable body in place? the difference they would make to the game in Scotland would be immense! With all the corruption charges and issues with FIFA and UEFA at the moment is there not an avenue or at least case to be made for wholesale changes to the structure of governing bodies the world over? Probably not but if we could disband and re-build the SFA at least I am in no doubt we would see significant instant improvements across the board.
Off topic but is that Eustace bloke ever going to sign on for the warbalution?
The one consistency in the annual pantomime is we have ,for the third year ,a new lead in the baddie role,hoping to sell tickets to the panto faithful and how the faithful roll up year on year,these shows have been advertised by a comic press who focus on the baddie and how he is the best thing since,well ,the last baddie,surely this type of show has ran its course and should be confined to the bin,the costumes are the same that have been used year on year and are now threadbare ,the venue,well to be fair,was once a reasonable venue but is now the equal of a cow shed and is in a state of serious disrepair ,any ticket sales for this years panto won’t be going towards much needed repairs and the disrepair will continue,the stagehands have been loyal to this show but worry if their next wage will be paid in to their accounts,there are no laughs in this show anymore and the curtain is due down,for good.
Sitting tonight watching the ICT V RC game and my email inbox is pinging with juicy posts(plural) from Phil, JJ, James Forrest & other less informed, but equally entertaining posters that I follow, all speculating about the current state of play down Ibrox way
If my inbox is an indicator, I’d venture that things are heating up nicely and that’s before we even get into litigation & courts and all that wacky stuff.
All that’s needed now is RTC to emerge from the shadows and Barca to shout “Nuclear” and we have a full house…..
Homunculus 27th October 2015 at 10:21 pm #Apologies for posting again so quickly however it occurs.
“The Club believed that it was entering into a joint venture with a large public company that would behave as a partner should and would conduct its business affairs in an appropriate fashion.”
How on Earth does he have any idea what “The Club” thought. If I remember correctly the joint venture agreement was set up prior to the IPO, I believe it featured in the prospectus.
As such it was set up between Charles Green and Mike Ashley, between Green’s limited company and Sports Direct. At or about the same time Mike Ashley became one of the major shareholders in that limited company, by buying a big chunk of shares from “Green’s Consortium”.
So albeit Mr King can use the nicely emotive phrase as above it was nothing to do with him, nothing to do with the PLC, which didn’t even exist at the time. It was a deal between Green and Ashley and it is easy to imagine why Green set it up.
a, He needed Ashley’s investment there and then and
b, He knew he wasn’t going to be about long enough for the full ramifications to become obvious.
FFS if I remember right he didn’t even use a lawyer.
======================
The person making the statement was branded a G&SL, so it would be expected that a rewriting of history or even the creation of a new testament could accompany every utterance of his.
At some point in the future a book will be written that sets out each and every contradictory and fictional statement that DK has uttered.
LUGOSI 27th October 2015 at 10:42 pm #Big Pink 27th October 2015 at 10:05 pm “There is a war between social and print media which the latter is winning at a canter.” Did you mean former?
======================
You beat me to it, although it could be a tortoise and hare metaphor.
neepheid 27th October 2015 at 3:04 pm #I picked up the reference to Gift Aid from note 14 to the audited 2015 accounts of SFP-“During the year, the company made gift aid donations of £529,945 (2014; £nil) to The Scottish Football Partnership Trust, a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation which shares common control with the company.”That is maybe loose use of language by the auditors, unless companies limited by guarantee get special treatment (which I’m not aware of, by the way).
******It’s incredibly loose language.
As I said, gift aid cannot be claimed by charities on donations from companies (whether limited by guarantee or by shares) although companies can claim tax relief by deducting the value of donations from pre-tax profits, ie. it reduces their tax liability but does not enhance the value of the donation to the charity in any way so is very different to a “gift aid donation”.
I don’t have enough detail, but my initial thought was that I very much doubted SFP – as a company limited by guarantee – made profit in the normal sense of the word and so would not claim tax relief. Digging into it, I question why they paid corporation tax in 2014 (having made a pre-tax loss of over £1m) and it therefore strikes me that they have an incredibly inefficient structure; particularly when one considers that they are simply distributing funds from the SFA and SportScotland and are not undertaking any trading activities. In any case, I can find no evidence that SFP claimed tax relief against any corporate donation.
One further point – it drives me up the wall when I see companies state that they control a charity. Companies cannot control a charity because a charity is established solely for public benefit (hence they get a range of tax and other breaks) and must at all times act in the best interests of the public for whom it has been established; the trustees have a legal obligation to do so. A charity does not therefore have an owner or controlling party and – if it “does” – then that is an abuse of charity. Football clubs are particularly flagrant in their disregard of this. I have written at length on the subject of the Rangers Charity Foundation in this area, but be under no misapprehensions, Celtic are at it too (treating the foundation as an extension of their marketing department) and I have met precious few who aren’t. A charity can own and control a subsidiary company, but the converse does not apply.
That’s all a bit of a squirrel for TSFM but there are very legitimate questions in relation to governance and probity which I think it should pose of the SFA, SportScotland and SFP as per my previous post.
**Reposted without ending which may have triggered moderation**
Cygnus X-1 27th October 2015 at 11:02 pm #Sitting tonight watching the ICT V RC game and my email inbox is pinging with juicy posts(plural) from Phil, JJ, James Forrest & other less informed, but equally entertaining posters that I follow, all speculating about the current state of play down Ibrox way If my inbox is an indicator, I’d venture that things are heating up nicely and that’s before we even get into litigation & courts and all that wacky stuff. All that’s needed now is RTC to emerge from the shadows and Barca to shout “Nuclear” and we have a full house…..
) . It does show signs of rats starting to look for the lifeboat stations though, although not quite donning the life jackets in preparation for abandoning ship (what is the nautical equivalent of walking away? Floating away? Swimming away?).
====================================
There have been some off message articles in the DR by all accounts, possibly due to Level 5 cutting down on the lamb dinners and leaving the cut-and-pasters to come up with something from another source, or sacrilege, actually having an original thought (
Clearly DK doesn’t have a pot to piss in, and his erstwhile mates have long since realised that the G&SL moniker is not just a southern hemisphere thing. Trying to wind up MA must be the last resort of a desperate man, and almost smacks of trying to tip the board over when losing at Monopoly.
The Cat NR1 28th October 2015 at 12:22 am
“(what is the nautical equivalent of walking away? Floating away? Swimming away?).”
—————————————————————————–
Drowning?
yourhavingalaugh 27th October 2015 at 11:00 pm #The one consistency in the annual pantomime is we have ,for the third year ,a new lead in the baddie role,hoping to sell tickets to the panto faithful and how the faithful roll up year on year,these shows have been advertised by a comic press who focus on the baddie and how he is the best thing since,well ,the last baddie,surely this type of show has ran its course and should be confined to the bin,the costumes are the same that have been used year on year and are now threadbare ,the venue,well to be fair,was once a reasonable venue but is now the equal of a cow shed and is in a state of serious disrepair ,any ticket sales for this years panto won’t be going towards much needed repairs and the disrepair will continue,the stagehands have been loyal to this show but worry if their next wage will be paid in to their accounts,there are no laughs in this show anymore and the curtain is due down,for good
================================================
We keep shouting “it’s behind you”, but they never seem to take any notice.
Oh yes they do.
Oh no they don’t.
[Exit stage left with coat]
Corrupt official 28th October 2015 at 12:35 am #
The Cat NR1 28th October 2015 at 12:22 am
“(what is the nautical equivalent of walking away? Floating away? Swimming away?).” —————————————————————————– Drowning?
__________________
Jet- skiing away?
Corrupt official 28th October 2015 at 12:35 am #The Cat NR1 28th October 2015 at 12:22 am
“(what is the nautical equivalent of walking away? Floating away? Swimming away?).” —————————————————————————– Drowning?
===============
John Clark 28th October 2015 at 12:41 am #Corrupt official 28th October 2015 at 12:35 am # The Cat NR1 28th October 2015 at 12:22 am “(what is the nautical equivalent of walking away? Floating away? Swimming away?).” —————————————————————————– Drowning? __________________ Jet- skiing away?
==================
JC, that’s a cracker.
It has a Bond-like imagery too, which would fit in perfectly with the retention of dignity even in retreat.
CO. Only Brian Clough was able to do walking way on water (over the River Trent), so you’re probably right.
I’m sure many folk will have experienced an incident whereby after an altercation with a wee nyaff ned, he runs away, only to stop 100 yards down the street, throw a brick that has no hope of reaching, and shout “Come ahead ya bassa”, while frilling his outstretched fingers. he then flicks the vicky before legging it, never to be seen again, when you kid on you will run after him.
Is this how Uncle Mick views DCK?
James Forrest @10.51pm
“When I look at how a lot of them blatantly lie – and I have no problem using that word – about serious issues like politics and social affairs.”
Sorry to go off topic but this brings to mind article by John Pilger in 2004 about the lies that are regularly presented to us as truths.
“By comparing this evidence with the statements, and actions of those with power, I believe it’s possible to assess fairly how our world is controlled and divided, and manipulated – and how language and debate are distorted and a false consciousness developed.”
http://johnpilger.com/articles/power-propaganda-and-conscience-in-the-war-on-terror-
Auldheid et. al. ,
Just been reading back and the discussion you had with Gerry McCulloch, he accused you of being ‘obsessed’ with your issues regarding Rangers.
I think I can speak for most readers & posters on here that the work and time you guys put in to getting to the roots of all the wrongs that have happened in Scottish football for decades is not only worthwhile and interesting but necessary. G McC suggested it had taken over your life (sounded like he was being condescending).
I used to have a hobby which I was devoted to. I worked 40 hours per week in my job and easily spent another 20-30 per week in my pastime to my hobby. I suppose that’s a concept not known to him.
There are so many posters on here who have that dedication which is why it’s the TSFM.
Phew, hard to keep up, what with Phil & JJ turning out multi updates, Clumps being outed every other day and Keith Jackson … playing golf.
I’m sure someone predicted several months ago that Llambias and Leach could be back at Ibrox by the late autumn, can’t remember who it was. Although the legal developments since might have put MA right off. On the other hand, every time it’s looked like time for Armageddon II something has turned up to keep the failing newco on its merry, big-spending way so that wee teams, living within their modest means, can be pumped to triumphal fleg-waving monarch adoring cheers — and lots of bizarre reminders about the year 1690.
Will MA seize any opportunity that might present itself? Needn’t cost him much if he opts for admin (which I suppose he could?), or cutting everything back to the bare essentials and a draconian wage cap. A few loan players might even get them to the top tier. If any legal outcome was kind to the newco might not MA might find himself with everything? Surely if King and any remaining monied bears fold and MA saves the day, MA would be welcomed with open arms.
I can’t believe that somewhere in Scotland today there is not an Editor willing to remove whatever protective shield they have given King and ask some serious questions. Are we seriously to believe that another pointless round of tub thumping about Sports Direct is going to move Rangers forward the way King promised he would do. Into the bargain Ashley is unlikely to be concerned about headlines in low readership Scottish tabloids.
King was around Ibrox in the days of the finest succulent lamb. For want of a better phrase he will know where the bodies are buried in terms of how compromised the media were. Yet many of today’s writers and Editors will not have been around at that time. I can’t help thinking they know if King goes down the most loyal lambers will go down too. After all, King has had a poke at David Murray in the past so it wouldn’t bother him in the slightest to do so again. Perhaps today’s media people are either still compromised, or feel loyalty to respected retired or older colleagues. Either way their current contributions to this shambolic story would be more fitted to the Beano or the Dandy.
I only ever recall Mr Llambias speaking to the press once. That was when he was leaving at the airport and he stated to the choppers (lamb) Go and ask Mr King where his money is and also ask him where his NOMAD is. That is called keeping terms simple so people of the we type can understand.
Homunculus 27th October 2015 at 10:21 pm #
How on Earth does he have any idea what “The Club” thought
———————————————————————————————–
If this is accurate then you are correct.
Strikes me there’s a simple balance being struck just now.
DCK is trying to get Mike to call in the administrators hoping that, just like post valentines Whyte, that will drive the masses more towards himself strengthening his RRM credentials. Do you get uberRRM’s? I can only assume he, King, takes the view that RFC#3 (or #2 post cva if that’s possible) needs him to keep the fans onside. One could even further project that King is hoping that Ashley will eventually stump up purely to avoid admin, but simultaneously will keep King at the helm.
If I was to guess Ashley’s hand I would say it would be to continue the ‘special relationship’ with more funding if needs be, but condition 1 (and possibly the only condition depending on just how profitable RRL is) is that the unclothed emperor does one.
Why would he put yet more cash in? Firstly his business reputation would remain intact – bolstering and reigniting an otherwise failing big sports brands is his forte after all – and secondly, a modest investment to get premiership involvement and ‘see how it goes’ wouldn’t be beyond the realms of impossibility. As many have commented – RFC in whatever guise will make Europe long before Newcastle so why not have a wee play first.
Can’t really see it as any more complicated than that tbh.
The only potentially threatening unknown unknown to the Ashley camp to me is the extent of his involvement behind the scenes in the period 2012-2015.
upthehoops 28th October 2015 at 7:00 am #
‘….Perhaps today’s media people are either still compromised, or feel loyalty to respected retired or older colleagues. Either way their current contributions to this shambolic story would be more fitted to the Beano or the Dandy. /
______________
Your post prompted me to have a quick look at what is offered in the world of academe in relation to the ‘journalistic ideal’.
This is from the prospectus of one of our Universities: “Investigative journalism is one of the most challenging and rewarding branches of the media business. Investigative journalists need to draw on a broad range of specialised skills.
This course is designed to suit both mid-career journalists wanting to specialise in Investigative Journalism, and recent graduates wishing to establish careers in the media. It combines practice with theory. ….
You’ll take five core classes and choose two options.
Core classes:Investigative Journalism: History & TheoryInvestigative Journalism: ProjectScots Law for JournalistsMedia EthicsMultimedia JournalismOption classes:Entrepreneurial JournalismJournalism & SocietyEuropean Political EconomyEuropean GovernanceComparative Public Policy……
DissertationYou’ll write a dissertation of 12-15,000 words on a topic related to investigative journalism. You’ll be guided by an expert supervisor.
Teaching staffThe Masters in Investigative Journalism is run by the departments of English. It is taught by award-winning journalists and distinguished academics.
___________________
And this is from a student :
“I chose the Investigative Journalism programme at…..because it’s one of the first of its kind, and truly innovative. This year, I’ve unlocked miscarriages of justice, uncovered government corruption and exposed serious health hazards..”
Ah, the idealism!
I wonder if anyone is working on a dissertation on ‘ The Scottish media and the protective cover-up of alleged corruption in the world of Scottish Football governance’
Cynically, I suppose that no tutor would be found among the ‘award-winning journalists who teach the course( and surely Radar,our friend, is not among them!) to support anyone writing such a dissertation?
There must, surely, be someone on this log who is currently taking a course in journalism. I invite her/him to give us an observation or two.
Jimbo @2.28am
I had a hobby once too. I took in a lot of sporting events. It took up more of my time and certainly more of my limited budget than it should have – attending matches and not eating properly is not to be encouraged. Turns out I was just an extra viewing a predetermined outcome, one contrary to my very participation.
So damn right I’m pi$$ing obsessed!
I’ve not seen any mention in our beloved SMSM of King’s current whereabouts. There were lots of rumours a couple of days ago that King had jetted in, but I’ve seen no confirmation. Yesterday’s statement was no doubt distributed by Level5, assuming they are still being paid, but that tells us nothing about where King is.
It has struck me before that in today’s interconnected world, King could keep the fans updated on a daily basis from South Africa, but he only seems to communicate during his brief visits to the UK. I find that strange. Maybe there is no broadband at his South African palace? Or maybe he’s not a “Real Rangers Man” after all, and finds the fans just a bit of a nuisance?
neepheid 28th October 2015 at 10:10 am #
. Surely they had no part in writing what wasn’t far off a suicide note.
I think you may be expecting a call from level5’s lawyers
Let’s be clear Dave King/RIFC/TRFC
Instead all we have is bleating about how Mike Ashley has a “bigger gang”!
Glasgow’s relative decline in the last 70 years – demographically, economically, politically – has fed into a compensatory sense of exceptionalism for Old Firm fans who also who tend to mistake their club mythos for objective history. This is most stark in the inability of some Rangers supporters to get to grips with the 2012 insolvency and its aftermath; Celtic supporters meanwhile accentuate their maverick credentials while glossing over ownership by a foreign billionaire, and years with a member of the UK political-military establishment as chairman. The exceptionalism also helps explain the continuing bias of SFM despite a stated and sincere intention to be open to all. ‘Our unique selling point is that we’re unique,’ as one Celtic blogger wrote about his club recently, without a hint of self-consciousness. Discuss.
Meanwhile here’s a couple of things about the state of play in journalism. It’s tough to be a fearless investigative reporter when you can barely afford your rent and your tax credits are under threat:
https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/one-in-five-journalists-earn-less-than-20000/
http://wilwheaton.net/2015/10/you-cant-pay-your-rent-with-the-unique-platform-and-reach-our-site-provides/
The RST chairman Gordon Dinnie has exercised a right to reply against PMGB’s assertions in the Belfast Telegraph. It’s an extremely personal attack and he also denies that the RST has assisted in meeting October’s payroll.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/debateni/attack-on-rangers-is-hateful-bile-34147053.html
Background
http://www.therst.co.uk/news/rst-right-of-reply-to-phil-macgiollabhain-published-in-belfast-telegraph/
I’m sure that if a suicide note is what you want, then Level5PR will be happy to oblige. And as suicide notes go, it’s a cracker.
You really couldn’t make some of this stuff up. Yet the bears are (once again) lapping it up.
So, with apologies to my old English teacher, if I’m to understand Phil’s latest the 3 Bears just became the 3 foreborne!
And if I’m to understand Chris Graham correctly (trying to stay balanced you know!) then Phil’s nasty old social media is complete bunkum as proven by weekly reference to, erm, good new social media.
Hope I’ve cleared that up for everyone.
Tis only a flesh wound!
Surely we can’t all be wrong. Can we?
Last night Dave King, yea the man who “hosts” board meetings rather than chairing them – thanks Gary Ralston – issues one of the most bizarre and uninformative statements you will ever read and, looking at today’s papers and BBC articles has done it again.
Yep, he’s issued a pile of manure mixing up club, company again, he impugns a pretty successful businessman – no matter what anyone may think of his practices – and what do we get almost in unison?
The statement printed verbatim with not a critical word used
The reaction tells us much more about the pathetic MSSM since we already know the GKIB ones credentials only too well.
The one thing that did strike me as odd was that according to the Rangers website Dave King issued the statement. Not either TRFC or RIFCL or Rangers Retail but the bold Dave himself.Is this a sign that, using popular footballing parlance, that Dave has “lost” the Boardroom?
Reading over Dave King’s statement about his letter to his foes (and funders) at Sports Direct. Every statement from him is so incredibly odd, or if it seems kosher at the time, tends to unravel within hours, or be shown to be completely at odds with something he said before. Is he a new breed of Surreal Rangers Man?
The thing that really bothers me is the BBC reprinting his statement verbatim without a critical word. I almost expect it of the Record, Herald and Evening Times. But the BBC? Not good enough.
Anyone know the best way to complain about content on the BBC site?
I expect Sports Direct are braced for a boycott on their stores on the run up to Christmas.
All the more for RIFC/TRFC to pay for above ticket price as overstocks next year…
Incidentally, I was on holiday recently & had a wry giggle most days at a middle-aged bear, whose whole wardrobe, down to his beach towel, seemed to comprise items, the trademarks of which are in hock to BMA. He arrived poolside on the day of the TRFC-Falkirk game in full Puma strip, socks up to his knees & all!
Not for the first time, I’m trying to work out what is going on with RIFC.
Taking some basic assumptions (which may be proven wrong at any time in this mad saga!) :
1. The current operation is running at a monthly loss (unquantified) – but is still adding to the headcount
2. There is an apparent reluctance (or inability) amongst shareholders and other RRM to ‘invest’ in the current entity
3. Access to cash from conventional sources e.g. banks, stock exchange, VCs, etc is not currently possible
4. Repayment of the loan to MA is problematic and RIFC may well be in breach of the loan conditions
5. The DCK statement seemed aimed at antagonising MA
6. Any monies from supporters groups currently being cultivated are unlikely to fund more than a couple of months of losses – but are still meaningful sums
7. MA has a reasonable merchandising income stream with low risk and security over IP and some physical assets for his loan
8. A strong possibility that D&O insurance is not available to cover Green’s legal fees
So how does this fit with what we see going on? Strong media statements on big bad boys being nasty to RIFC (Green/Ashley) will have little effect on those concerned but will create a further victim mentality amongst the bears. Stories of Whyte getting legal aid will further buttress such feelings.
RIFC standing up strong against these guys is aimed at showing how much the Board/DCK are RRM.
Tales of ‘plans’ to deal with Green’s legal fees may well be the key. If MA does not take the bait and press the ‘nuclear’ button then perhaps a Green court success will be used as the excuse to pull the plug on the operation. Sorry guys but a big boy did it and ran away. Nae choice…..
So where would that leave everyone?
MA with a loan outstanding but security over some assets – would he put that into the pot as part of a pre-pack, becoming a ‘goodie’ in the eyes of the bears? He can charge rent for the IP and assets after a honeymoon period, maybe giving any new incarnation a token stake in RRL – with strings of course.
Could the supporters’ money, with some cash finally turning up from DCK and some other RRM (I know!) be the underpinning of a new entity? Pretty much a franchise – Rangers-lite?
Could this all be why Campbell Dallas got involved? The possibility of a much larger payday? Are they already working on such a scheme? Is the SFA desperately trying to find a way out of the looming Armageddon©?
Maybe DCK gets a payoff of some kind to go away and some credible RRM emerge after all? Jim McColl fresh from saving Fergusons?
Or maybe we have it all wrong and things are indeed rosy in the bears’ garden.
I truly don’t know how this is going to turn out.
Scottish Football could do with some crystal balls.
rabtdog 28th October 2015 at 11:12 am #
‘… Celtic supporters meanwhile accentuate their maverick credentials while glossing over ownership by a foreign billionaire, and years with a member of the UK political-military establishment as chairman. ..’
_______
That, I’m afraid, is a wholly irrelevant point which does you no credit, rabt.
Whatever other clubs may have to say about themselves, or their shareholders or directors, has little to do with the Big Lie brought to birth in the 5-Way agreement and sustained and fostered by the SMSM.
The ‘exceptionalism’ of this blog lies solely in the fact that it recognises three simple facts:
RFC of 187? is dead,
Sevco5088/SevcoScotland/ TRFC ( whatever name might be the legal one for CG’s club) was founded in 2012.
and the Football Authorities betrayed their proper function in many different ways, including -deliberate failure to ensure proper and appropriate punishment for the cheating RFC(IL)
-foisting a new club on Scottish Football in an irregular manner
-and refusing to correct the sporting records to reflect only the true sporting achievements of RFC(IL), and deny TRFC’s claim to be the inheritors of those past avhievements.
redlichtie 28th October 2015 at 6:09 pm #
‘…..Scottish Football could do with some crystal balls…
_____
Some flesh and blood ones would be sufficient!
redlichtie 28th October 2015 at 6:09 pm #Not for the first time, I’m trying to work out what is going on with RIFC.
…
Tales of ‘plans’ to deal with Green’s legal fees may well be the key…
================================================
The more this saga has dragged on, the more I believe that there is no cunning plan…and whoever is currently sitting in the Blue Room is winging it – just like all the other chancers post-RFC.
[I would qualify that by saying that Llambias was probably the only one who had a plan.]
King reappears after a lengthy absence and utters the same vague, deflection nonsense whilst playing to the gallery – and which simply raises more questions than are answered – just like Whyte and Green before him.
…unless the ‘plan’ is simply to behave in the same manner as previous directors of TRFC/RIFC ?
I was recently given an account of some opinions offered in conversation by the SFA President, Mr Alan McCrae.
I have puzzled over the account.
I have puzzled over whether I should lend any credence to it whatsoever.
At last, I reasoned that it would make sense to follow my own exortation to the SMSM hacks- and ask the horse’s mouth whether he had been reported correctly and accurately, when he was speaking in an informal setting.
I accordingly today posted the letter below.
” ……. 28th October,2015
Mr Alan McCrae,President,Scottish Football Association,6th Floor, Hampden Park,Glasgow, G42 9AY
Dear Mr McCrae,It has been relayed to me that you were recorded as airing recently the following opinions: “a) that Rangers FC were not Liquidated b) that Rangers FC were put down to the third Division c) that Rangers FC were bought by Charles Green and
d), that the team currently playing out of Ibrox Stadium and calling itself ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’ is one and the same as the club known as Rangers Football Club, which is currently in Liquidation.
Naturally, I had a good laugh at the idea that anyone could seriously hold, let alone air, such patently absurd opinions.
You will, of course, accept that I understand that the opinions of any old “Alan McCrae” are of no great consequence, and that any old “Alan McCrae” is perfectly free to hold and express any opinion, however absurd, that he chooses.
However, the expressed opinions of the Alan McCrae who holds office as President of the Scottish Football Association are a matter of not inconsiderable importance , when they relate to allegations that Scottish Football was, in effect, ‘rigged’ to accommodate a new club: a new club founded AFTER the absolutely certain and unchallengeable fact of the Liquidation of Rangers Football Club ,which came about in consequence( ultimately) of the cheating indulged in by its majority shareholder Sir David Murray, when he deliberately broke , over many years, serious Rules requiring full disclosure of all payments being made to players of that club.
You have a deserved record as someone who has always had a sportsman’s understanding of sport, and who has over the years worked hard to foster both Scottish Football and recognition of the place of the smaller, ‘community’ clubs in areas outwith the Central belt.
Accordingly, may I ask you, please , to confirm or deny that you aired the opinions itemised at the head of this letter?Or-perhaps better- , could you give,as President of the SFA, the considered view of the SFA on the question of whether Charles Green’s new club, variously known as Sevco5088(perhaps)/SevcoScotland/ The Rangers Football Club Ltd is one and identical with Rangers Football Club , as founded in the late 1800s, and now presently In Liquidation?
There is a degree of interest in what is happening in Scottish Football, and I will be publishing this letter for a wider readership on the Scottish Football Monitor blog.
It goes without saying, that I will hold myself under obligation to publish your response in full to the same wider readership.
Yours most sincerely,
(me, own name)”