Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?

By

Was it Bill Nighy who said I’ve had an epiphany? …

Comment on Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show? by Smugas.

Was it Bill Nighy who said I’ve had an epiphany? Well I’ve just had one too – with knobs on!

Were any cases dropped from the appeal as guilty? Don’t really care how many – one’s enough. No my new beer is, at what time were these dropped? The LNS guilty verdict, by which I mean actions proven to be in contravention of SFA/SPL rules could have been on Neil Doncaster’s desk anything up to two years ago. And that’s a long time in football.

Smugas Also Commented

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 21:41

Whilst we’re at it I want clarity on two points (for LNS if nothing else). Were the 30 odd not appealed? And was the bill actually paid?


Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
Ordinaryfan says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 21:30

Correct. It galls me that Rangers should be described as anything like innocent (and kudos again to the your call caller for saying it) I just feel that to challenge him on this point is unnecessary (one might even think he was deliberately provoking us, shirly not) when there is sufficient evidence in the accepted ‘guilty-as-charged’s.

The more I think about this the more I see the likely result. To strip the relevant titles is a purely cosmetic exercise at the end of the day. It has no impact on newco, oldco or any usco for that matter. It’ll be a point of principle for pub debates for the next twenty years, but nothing else of material substance outwith this at the end of the day. I will say now, that is exactly why it is insufficient for me.


Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
So much info to try and keep up with at present so apologies if I’ve missed any points.

Jabba pushing the innocent line is fine by me. Of the 81 cases circa 30 odd seem to have disappeared into the ether with a suggestion that Rangers settled out of court (or would have had the cheque not bounced) Presumably the 3rd Dec Creditors meeting will tell us this? Of the 50 odd remaining cases HMRC found against another 5 or 6 which Rangers accepted. That leaves 45 odd that Rangers were indeed innocent notwithstanding specific evidence and extensive opinion that suggests that the operation, never mind the morality, of the trust loans was wrong. So, Rangers were innocent in 45 odd cases. Great. Fine. Dandy. Still guilty in 35 though. Spartans were also innocent as they did get the date right on page 1 and look whgat happened to them.

And I’ll just take the chance to echo support for Andrew from Bridge of Weir on Your Call. Punching (footballing) above your weight is NOT the same as living beyond means. Couldn’t agree more.


Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  


About the author