Why We Need to Change


Auldheid says: Blog Writer: (499 comments) July 22, 2015 at 7:21 …

Comment on Why We Need to Change by Homunculus.

Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (499 comments)
July 22, 2015 at 7:21 pm

I really would have to see some sort of documentary evidence that Rangers supporters outspent everyone else in Scottish football for a century before I would believe it, given how the source was described in the South African Court.

The fans certainly didn’t outspend the Celtic support in ticket sales, which would be the club’s main source of income (from the support), and I have serious doubts that they outspent the Celtic support in terms of merchandising, particularly on a worldwide basis. They didn’t outspend Celtic supporters in share issues. So where does this claim come from.

In essence I think he just said that, bearing in mind that he recently intimated that he needed to sell 45,000 season tickets and as a guess they have sold something like 70% of that figure. Maybe a wee prod to the people who haven’t have bought one.

As to his other main point, on re-negotiating the Rangers Retail joint venture. How long has he been saying that now. Pretty much from when he took over. What’s new which will convince Mike Ashley to do that, I really can’t think of anything.

Homunculus Also Commented

Why We Need to Change
scottc says:
Member: (215 comments)
August 21, 2015 at 9:24 pm

If you want to know the actual attendance at a football ground, rather than the ticket sales I think you could probably get it using a freedom of information request to Police Scotland. I assume they would keep a record of the number of people who were actually there for health and safety / public order reasons.

You could try starting here


Why We Need to Change
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (364 comments)
August 21, 2015 at 7:12 pm

I didn’t say we should all say “Hail to the chief”. Neither did I say it was a mantra we should all be following. So I would appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth.

I merely pointed out that it was the Celtic board’s job to decide what was in the best interests of the shareholders who put them there. That is merely stating the reality of the situation.

You may think they are making the wrong decision, and as I was at pains to point out, you have every right to hold and express that opinion. However the reality is it is a matter for them to make the decisions and act on them.

If shareholders or supporters (customers) disagree then they should make that clear. Then the board would have to re-assess their decision. That is how it works. If the supporters are not happy then they may withdraw that support, causing the business great harm.

The fans of Scottish football clubs have already demonstrated this when they ensured that Rangers were not allowed directly into the SPL (as was) or the top division of the SFL (as was).

Why We Need to Change
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (361 comments)
August 21, 2015 at 4:52 pm

The point is, it is the Celtic boards decision to make. Whilst you may think it is short term thinking on their part, and you are obviously perfectly entitled to hold and express that opinion it really makes no never mind.

If the Celtic board have decided that a certain course is in the best interests of the shareholders who elected them then that is precisely the course they should take. It is what they were put there for.

Recent Comments by Homunculus

Moving On Time?
John Clark 21st December 2020 at 23:22

I think the point is that the business has to record the difference between the purchase price of the assets, and their value, in the next set of accounts.

So what they are basically saying (normally) is that we bought that bakery business (for example) for £100 pounds, buy the tangible assets, the ovens etc, are only worth £80 so we paid other £20 for the existing customer base, the reputation etc, and that is just referred to in it's totality as the "goodwill".

As with  lot of accountancy stuff it all just looks like smoke and mirror to lay people like me. 

In Rangers case the tangible assets were, in their opinion worth a whole lot more than what they paid, but they still have to record that figure and like I have been saying, that is the dead giveaway and admission that they underpaid.

I suspect it will be part of BDO's case against the administrator.

As ever this is very much my layman's understanding with apologies to those who actually understand these things.

Moving On Time?
John Clark 18th December 2020 at 18:41

If I remember correctly there was a whole load of discussion wih regards the quality of some of the items and it turned out some was made in China, some was made in India and I think some was made in Europe, I have no idea which manufacturer actually made the stuff but I suspect it was just factories who were able to produce what was required so long as they were given the materials and the patterns.

I don't think that's too unusual but I have no experience in the field. 

Moving On Time?
Timtim 16th December 2020 at 19:54

Clearly the King is dead for Keith.

He has changed sides to the one on which his bread is now buttered.

To be fair on the current board, King's move was a bit off, even for him. He is trying to milk the fans for all he can, the board are not happy about that because that was an integral part of their plan.

They are never going to raise the full amount, certainly not quickly, but I believe he has said they can buy his shares in tranches so he could be getting regular payments from them for quite some time. 

Moving On Time?
John Clark 14th December 2020 at 17:13

I think BDO's £29m civil action against the administrator is more likely to bring out more of the truth than a botched criminal action by Crown Office as reported to them by Police Scotland.

BDO have taken their time, presumably investigated the matter properly and think they have enough to take the matter to the civil Courts. I would be surprised if they don't instruct top civil lawyers to carry out the action on their behalf. 

Bearing in mind BDO have probably already spent a lot of the money they have brought in, another £29m would be a nice wee addition to the pot.

Moving On Time?
John Clark 13th December 2020 at 14:02


One thing that still puzzles me is why, it seems, none of the other bidders to purchase the club to keep it going as a 'going concern' did not squeal at the time about the arbitrary selection of Green as the 'preferred' one who could pick up the assets cheap, while the club went into liquidation?

Why Green? why did the Administrators think that would best for them, for the creditors? A short bidding war for the assets would surely have raised at least a few tens of thousands more for the creditors.


Absolutely none of that was a factor in the administrator's decision making from what I can see. The creditors were irrelevant. 

They were working towards a pre-determined outcome involving Whyte and Green, There may have been a bit of improvisation when the CVA was rejected and Whyte was no longer required but other than that I firmly believe it was a pre-determined outcome. Let's wait and see what is determined by the ongoing proceedings. 

Remember the sale did not go ahead with the preferred bidder / chosen one. The assets were sold to another company with a very similar name, Sevco Scotland Ltd. No-one seems to ever have answered the question, when was that agreed. I believe novation requires all parties to agree to it. 

The aim was a CVA, a debt free Rangers, still the same club, still in the top division of the league etc.

When that was rejected and liquidation (ongoing) started there was a wee bit of the truth, then the re-writing of history, then where we are now. 


About the author