Why We Need to Change

By

I have to admit, Sky sending a crew to SA …

Comment on Why We Need to Change by Allyjambo.

I have to admit, Sky sending a crew to SA had me wondering if King was about to announce some genuinely good news to the bears. A deal with Ashley or genuine investment, possibly no more than a date for a share issue, but something positive to up the ST sales.

I did give myself a dose of reality and thought of all such previous PR splashes, where promises were made, ludicrous promises mostly, that never came to fruition in anything other than embarrassing disaster.

But last night was neither. Last night we saw how lots of money can be spent in search of an exclusive – that results in a few minutes of airtime. And that’s it, all we saw and heard, was ‘airtime’, and not even ‘hot air time’. I certainly have the feeling that there was more time spent on ‘setting the scene’ than there was minutes of King’s words, and this a man who’s previous statements have been rather long, though just as empty of substance as last night’s Sky filler.

It did, however, have all the hallmarks of Jim Traynor’s scripting and I suspect Level5 will be paying their office rental this month on the strength of the fee Sky will be paying them for this access to their client.

Allyjambo Also Commented

Why We Need to Change
You know the talk of a new auditor; King cleared as fit and proper (again) this time by ISDX; another share floatation… is/was it all genuine? I mean, I can only think of reading about the King clearance and share floatation on PMGB’s blog, and can’t remember where I read of the ‘new auditor’, with no ‘official’ announcements or anything attributable to the board on any of the stories. Yet many people seem to have accepted it all with the usual caveats and the discussions have centred round the viability of raising £20m and would it be enough? At the same time, it could be seen as encouraging news for people as yet undecided on the wisdom of buying a season ticket – in lieu of any un-conflicted RRMs.

Has there been anything that could be described as an official statement from RIFC/TRFC, on any of the three developments? Or is it all just rumour, carefully placed in such a way that it creates a feel-good factor without leaving the board with yet more egg on their face should it all, or some of it, end up as a non-event?

Obviously PMGB isn’t involved in any way, other than possibly as the conduit to the wider audience of ‘good news’ rumours put out in the City where such rumours usually find ears to pass them on to journalists.

King, and or his people, wouldn’t be the first at Ibrox to use similar tactics, though I suspect King has used them to greater effect than most in his normal business deals and is possibly (though perhaps I am misjudging him) the one who knows how to best use the rumour mill to create a ‘company on the up’ aura to lure potential investors (or, in this case, co-investors).

None of the ‘rumours’, if that’s what they are, gave anything out as a ‘done deal’, just hints that something positive was happening. We know King is happy to give out the message that problems are well on their way to be being sorted, only for that to be seen as patently untrue once deadlines are passed.

Phil is now, with some justification, throwing cold water on the auditor story, and add to that the fact that it is now quite a few days since the ‘RIFC have/nearly have an auditor’ story broke, so, it would surely be reasonable to expect that when such stories break that they are very close to a conclusion, and that on conclusion they would be officially announced with great pleasure. Similarly, if there was any depth to the stories of King’s ‘fit and proper to fleece’ status and of the share floatation, something more concrete would now be in the public domain.

Perhaps there has been something more official from club sources that I have missed, and my apologies if that is the case to all and sundry, but I am always suspicious of good news being put about when it’s just left to grow wings without any confirmation, especially if no one (from the board) has put their name to it.


Why We Need to Change
John Clark says:
Member: (1113 comments)
August 18, 2015 at 10:18 am

I am in agreement with both you and wottpi, though I think you would probably both agree with each other, in that I expect wottpi would seek to see Stewart’s ‘opinion’ debunked for the cop-out it is.

One of the problems our blog will encounter in trying to encourage high profile guests is that people who want to be interviewed by the media do so for a reason, usually having a book/record/movie to sell, or a career to advance, or, occassionally, a point of view or belief to put across. The latter are probably the only category who would be prepared to take part in a SFM debate or interview, and very few, if any, who hold the opposite view to, say, John Clark or myself, for they know it would be challenged, unrelentingly, and would only stand up if it is, indeed, valid.

Nobody with a weak argument allows themselves to be grilled by an agressive interviewer, such as Paxman, unless they have no choice. In Paxman’s case, ‘no choice’ equated to him inviting his ‘victim’ onto his show, as refusal to appear would be seen as cowardly and weak. We don’t have that luxury.

I’d suggest that, to reach the wider audience we seek, we would first have to get a reputation for good interviews and debates with football people with good stories to tell, or contovercial points to make, that don’t come across as aimed against any one club.

Alternatively, in a totally make or break kind of way, go for the extreme controverciality (is that actually a word?), that no one would want to miss (though a few radios might fly through a good few windows), of an interview with a certain Irish blogger.

In truth, my sympathies are with those who have the job of finding the guests to fulfil the ambitions of the blog, it’s not going to be easy.


Why We Need to Change
upthehoops says:
Member: (829 comments)
August 18, 2015 at 7:17 am

And that from a man with political ambitions!

Oh wait, he’d fit in perfectly. Scotland is desperate for politicians who will turn a blind eye for the sake of a few votes.

‘Move along now, nothing to see here,’ the perfect answer for anyone seeking to climb the ladder at either Westminster or Holyrood.

Where are the politicians, or journalists, seeking to right wrongs?


Recent Comments by Allyjambo

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Big PinkJanuary 2, 2018 at 13:54 
AJI suspect the TDs are not from SFM folk (remember the ratings are available to all manner of trolls). It is a disgusting world-view if made in earnest. A shocking way to score a point if not.
_________________-

I didn’t, for a moment, suspect they were from anyone who posts here, even the more prolific troll posters are better than that, I am sure. 

For some time now I have had the feeling that there is someone, or some people, coming on here and just TDing a number of posts without bothering to read their content, either out of malice or as some sort of concerted effort on behalf of people with reason to dislike our message. It really is quite strange how, suddenly, a number of posts receive one, two or occasionally three thumbs down in very short order, and often posts like uth’s, that could offend no one, receive these petty TDs as a result. 

I can honestly say that I have never read anything from our regular, or occasional, posters that might suggest they would TD anything relating to that terrible day. I include, of course, all supporters of Celtic and RFC/TRFC who have, over the years, made their arguments on SFM. My experience of Celtic supporters talking of that day is one that leaves me certain in the knowledge that only the basest of their support (and we all have them) were not badly effected by the disaster and in full sympathy with the deceased, their families and the wider Rangers support. 

I can still remember that night, sitting in the Queens Arms in Edinburgh, watching the death count rising on the TV, waiting for one of our mates we knew was at the game, getting more and more nervous until he appeared. It had a lasting effect on me.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
upthehoopsJanuary 2, 2018 at 08:52 29 2
Rate This
On this day in 1971, the Ibrox disaster happened during a Rangers v Celtic game at Ibrox. 66 fans died in a crush. Some of us remember that day, some of us may even have been there, while some of us would not even be on this earth at the time. We are all football fans. Nobody should go to a football match and never return home. Rest in Peace.
_____________

Wow! I know we are not meant to put much store on the thumbs up or down, but two people have given thumbs down to this post! Who on earth could find fault with a post respecting the dead from the Ibrox disaster?

It kind of confirms my belief that there are people coming onto this site who don’t read the posts, but are assigned with the task of creating the appearance that there is some disagreement with posts that mostly criticise Rangers(IL) and TRFC and hit the TD button without thought.

Alternatively, of course, it could just be that others, like myself, have difficulty hitting the correct symbol on tablets or mobile phones, I certainly hope that is the case here.

Thanks to Upthehoops for reminding us of that sad day, something we should do every year as a mark of respect for those who died on Scottish football’s worst day.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_______________________

DBD, though I used your above post to highlight the impossibility of separating club from company, I have to agree, to some extent, with the thrust of the post. While I am not sure that by declaring himself bankrupt that King could escape the wrath of the TOP and CoS, he isn’t going to do anything for the benefit of your club if it doesn’t benefit him, or save him, at the same time.

That said, however, King’s ‘ownership’ of the NOAL Trust was established in court to the judge’s satisfaction, and I doubt that he would get away with making further loans to RIFC plc through it or any other hidden avenue, once declared bankrupt. Indeed, despite my limited knowledge of bankruptcy laws, I am certain that King (or anyone else) can’t just announce bankruptcy and clear themselves of all fiscal responsibilities, they have to prove they have no money to meet their debts, and as far as we know, King doesn’t have any – and if he had, the court would make sure the funds in his NOAL Trust would be used to meet them, as far as possible, with, I am sure, an investigation into what other (disguised)investments he holds. One thing’s for sure, he would not be allowed to ‘lend’ any money to RIFC/TRFC, and, if he does, indeed, have substantial debts, his creditors might well force the return of his existing RIFC loans to meet his debts.

One thing’s for sure, the law will not allow someone to avoid the consequences of breaking the laws and regulations of the land by availing one’s self of the laws of bankruptcy! While a little tax cheating scrote like Barry Ferguson might get away with transferring his assets to his wife, just prior to receiving his tax bill, King and his money are already on the court’s radar and I doubt that even his Masonic connections would be enough to let him get away with further fraudulent behaviour.

Something I am sure of, and has to be considered before wondering if bankruptcy is a way out for both/either King or RIFC, and that is – you have to have debts that you demonstrably can’t meet before you can petition for bankruptcy. Unless King has very substantial debts, that outweigh, at least, the funds held in the NOAL Trust, then he has no grounds to declare himself bankrupt.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_________________

Hi, DBD, and a Happy New Year to you.

While your recent posts have been pretty good, showing a realistic approach to what’s happening at your club, might I ask how it could be that the chairman of RIFC’s selfishness, and I presume you include his dishonesty in that, could lead to your club’s downfall, if, as you’ve previously claimed, the club is separate from the company? Surely, in your belief structure, it would only be the company, TRFC Ltd, that would ‘fall down’, and the club would just sit around, responsible for none of the inherent financial chicanery of the ‘overspend our way to success’ ethos that permeates at Ibrox, until some new ‘football company’ is set up to carry the can again!

I know it’s a bit early in the year to reintroduce the OC/NC debate, but I am wondering if you’ve, perhaps, come to realise that the idea that a football club can, for some skewed reason, escape the consequences of it’s own greed, is pretty ludicrous?


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
ODDJOBJANUARY 1, 2018 at 13:42
Allyjambo,Thanks.I also suspect that the assignation of ” ra deeds” would provoke an angry response in some quarters
___________

And I suspect that the assignation of ‘ra deeds’, should it ever come to pass, might well be the last throw of the dice! What’s more, once any assets are used as security, it reduces the amount the current lenders are likely to get in the event of liquidation. It may well be that the directors, who are now refusing to give more loans, have, rather than reached the end of their free funds, decided that the lending has reached a level greater than, or close to, the total value of the group’s assets.

It’s one thing lending without security when in a position to ensure there is enough in the pot to, more or less, cover the amount of the loans, it’s an altogether different thing once someone else gets that security!

Whatever the accounts give as a value for the fixed and current assets, the directors will all have a very good idea of the realisable value of those assets (particularly the heritable asset value), and should total creditors begin to outstrip that value, they may well begin to wonder if it’s time to call in the administrators. Granting security over some of the heritable assets would only hasten the moment for unpleasant decisions.

If PMGB is correct in saying King is looking out for loans secured on the club’s heritable assets, then I am certain that the rest of the directors would carry out proper due diligence on the potential lenders before granting any security. Not that they have any dodgy characters in their midst, or anything, just that they are canny businessmen.


About the author