Over the past couple of years, we have built a healthy, vibrant and influential community which recognises the need to counter the corporate propaganda spouted by the mainstream media on behalf of the football authorities.
The media have, not entirely but in the main, been hostage to the patronage of those in charge of the club/media links, and to the narrow demographic of their readership. Despite a continuing rejection of the media’s position by that readership (in terms of year on year slump in sales) there is an obstinate refusal to see what is by now inevitable – the death of the print media. The lamb metaphor in fact ironically moving to the slaughter.
The football authorities in Scotland, once the country that gave the world the beautiful game, are rigid with fear that their own world will fall apart – because they are wedded to the idea that only one football match actually matters. To that end they will do whatever it takes to ensure that it continues. They have long since dispensed with the notion that football is an interdependent industry, and incredibly, even those who are not participants in that match follow like sheep towards the abattoir.
The argument is no longer that one club cheated and got away with it. The debate that we need to have is one about what is paramount in the eyes of the clubs and the media . Is it the inegrity of sporting endeavour, or box-office?
For out part, independent sites like this have accelerated the print media’s demise, and there have been temporary successes in persuading the clubs to uphold the spirit of sport. However our role has up to now been to cast a spotlight on the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and downright lies that routinely pass for news. News that is imagined up by PR agencies and dutifully copied by the lazy pretend-journalists who betray no thought whatsoever during the process.
Despite our successes, it really is not enough. We have the means at our disposal to do more, but do more we need to change ourselves, because the authorities sure as hell aren’t gonna.
We need to provide meaningful insight into the game that removes the Old Firm prism from the light path. We need to provide news that has covered all of the angles. We need to entertain, inform and energise fans of sport and all clubs.
We need to do that from a wholly independent perspective. None of this refusing to tell the truth about club allegiances. There is no reason why intelligent men and women can’t be objective in spite of their own allegiances (although the corollary absolutely holds true). Our experience of the MSM in this country is that the lack of arms-length principles in the media has corrupted it to such an extent that they barely recognise truth and objectivity. We need to be firm on those arms-length principles.
In order to do that we have put together a plan (with enough room to manoeuvre if required) as follows;
We will rebrand and re-launch as the Independent Sports Monitor. We have acquired the domains isMonitor.co.uk and IndependentSportsMonitor.co.uk, and those will be the main urls after the re-launch, hopefully later in the summer.
The change in name reflects the reality of our current debate which is not always confined to Scotland or football. It will also give us the option in future of applying the success of our model to other sports and jurisdictions through partner sites and blogs. This should also help in our efforts to raise funds in the future. However any expansion outwith the domain of Scottish football is some time away, and will depend on the success we have with the core model.
Our mission statement will be;
- ISM will seek to build a community of sports fans whose overarching aim is the integrity of competition in the sport.
- ISM will, without favour, seek to find objective truths on the conduct and administration of sport. We will avoid building relationships with individuals or organisations which would bring us into conflict with that.
- ISM will provide a platform for the views of ALL fans, and guarantee that those views will be heard in a mutually respectful environment.
- ISM will also endeavour to inform and entertain members on a wide range of topics related to our shared love of sport.
- ISM will seek to represent the views of sports fans to sporting authorities and hold the authorities to account.
We have estimated our (modest) costs to expand our role as per recent discussions. The expanded role will take the form of a new Internet Radio Channel where we hope to provide 24/7 content by the end of the year. It will also see a greater news role where we will engage directly with clubs and authorities to seek answers to our questions directly. And we will seek to contact the best fan sites across Scotland with a view to showcasing their content.
We have identified individuals who we want to work (initially on a part time basis) towards our objectives, we have identified premises where we want to conduct our business, and we hope to move into those premises during this summer.
To finance these plans there are a couple of stages;
- Initially (as soon as possible) we need to pay accommodation and hosting costs for the first year. To do so, we hope to appeal to the community itself. Our aim is to raise around £5000 by the end of August.
- There are salary costs (around £15,000) attached to our first year plan, but these have been underwritten by Big Pink, and equipment costs (est. £3000). These will be reimbursed if the advertising campaign we recently started bears any fruit (we will not know about that for a few months).
- It will not be too discouraging if we make losses in the first couple of years, so if necessary we will seek crowd-funding to finance our plans if the resources of the community itself prove inadequate to smooth a path to break-even point.
Our first year may be a perilous hand-to-mouth existence, but I am certain the journey will be an exciting and enjoyable one. We will also need to search our community resources for contacts at clubs; players, officials, ex-players, local journalists etc. Please get in touch if you have any in at your club.
We also hope to tap into the expertise of our community for advice, comment and analysis of developments, and we will be looking for any aspiring presenters, journalists, sound and video editors, graphic designers (and lots of others) to help us find our feet. Any offers of assistance would be gratefully accepted.
We mustn’t lose sight of why we are doing this. It is because we love our sport, because we want to be able to continue to call it that, and because the disconnect we find in Scottish football, that of the conflicting interests of the fans and the money men, will never be addressed as long as the fans are hopelessly split.
The ultimate goal is to allow sport – not our individual clubs – to triumph over the greed and corporate troglodyte-ism of those people who run it. I am confident that we as a community desperately want to be able to make a difference. That is why I am confident we can achieve our aim of becoming a significant player in the game.
Football Fan says:
June 29, 2015 at 9:20 pm
Having fun? your excerpt from my post and your response have no connection.
Do you have any basis whatsoever for saying that a club cannot exist without a (SFA) membership?
================================================================
The basis is the context,and the context of my discussion relates to the SFA rules and clubs under SFA governance,i thought it unnecessary to differentiate between clubs in general and SFA clubs.
As occasional contributor, and daily lurker, I have become very disappointed in this site. Before engaging with Football Fan, ask yourself, what is his purpose? Pointless, spiraling arguments with no purpose beyond distraction. He is welcome to do so, of course, but joining in simply adds your weight to the distraction. If starved of attention he will go away.
This has happened before. I’m asking people to stay on point and do not allow yourself to be distracted. We live in interesting times.
your excerpt from my post and your response have no connection.
=============================================================
I did say i wasn’t getting your drift,i fail to see how one can transfer membership from one company to another without the club being involved in the process.
Football Fan says:
June 29, 2015 at 9:31 pm
=======================================================================
Since the debate concerns SFA rules and the SFA rules only apply to member clubs i am not getting your drift.
=====================================================
🙄 aye I can see why, ok
OxfordED def Club: [treated as singular or plural] An association dedicated to a particular interest or activity: I belong to a photographic club
OxfordED def membership: The fact of being a member of a group: countries seeking membership of the European Union [as modifier]: a membership card
So a club can exist without being a member of the SFA, however as you say to be a member of the SFA a club has to possess a membership.
so Club without membership of SFA = just a club
Club with SFA membership = an SFA member Club
Membership without club = a vacant membership
Membership and club status are distinct separate things, therefore transfer of membership is from one club to another (note CLUB) it is not transfer of club.
no transfer of club took place – can you show that it did?
TheClumpany says:
Member: (90 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 7:03 pm
Clumpany, forgive me, I am a fan of your work. One thing confuses me though.
“But if Sevco win – even narrowly – it could give them the early momentum that they failed to generate last season.”
Did they not actually beat Hibs in the first round of the Challenge Cup last season.
You present a strong case with regard his “fit and proper” status. Presumably the Scottish football authorities used similar thinking.
================================================================
Morality is very subjective,that is why it is wise to stick to the law,there was no legal basis for refusing DK.
One must also assume DK provided some proof of his financial position.
Membership and club status are distinct separate things, therefore transfer of membership is from one club to another (note CLUB) it is not transfer of club.
======================================================================
I believe the transfer is from company to company,not club to club,and as i said i fail to see why or how the SFA could agree to the transfer of a membership from company to company without the contingent club attached.
beatipacificiscotia says:
June 29, 2015 at 9:49 pm
you’re right (goes away and kicks myself) 😀
my last comment though to FF, using words like normalcy wasn’t the normality in the Bayview bar of my youth.
Football Fan says:
Member: (119 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 9:40 pm
The basis is the context,and the context of my discussion relates to the SFA rules and clubs under SFA governance,i thought it unnecessary to differentiate between clubs in general and SFA clubs.
=====================
A club is an “SFA club” if it has an SFA membership. Whether a club exists or not is an entirely different issue. An SFA membership can clearly be transferred without the “club” being attached. For example let’s say that X ltd is an SFA member, and runs a club called Auchtermuchty Utd. X Ltd is liquidated. The SFA could then transfer the SFA membership of X Ltd (in liquidation) to Y Ltd, who run a club called Fair Isle Wanderers.
That is all within the rules. There is no requirement that I am aware of, for the club to attach to the membership, when there is a change in the legal entity holding the membership.
Hours later and he is still here and worse still he is being given the attention he craves.
Haywire says:
June 29, 2015 at 8:51 pm
Again, and in deference to the Mods, I have to tread gently here, and treat FF as, possibly, a member of the Monarchy, however, I am quite amazed at how he is getting you all to dance to his slightly off-tune melody.
———————————————————–
It’s a slow news week, and the close season means that a bit of philosophical to-ing and fro-ing is as close as we’ll get to a football match in this country for a while.
Football Fan says:
Member: (121 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 9:53 pm
Clearly there was no legal basis for refusing Dave King, he wasn’t refused. There was nothing stopping him owning shares, there was nothing stopping him being Chairman (once the Court of Session settled the potential phoenixing issue with regards the name).
However much as you keep repeating that it is irrelevant. The test was not whether there was a legal impediment.
The question is whether or not he was fit and proper to run a Scottish football club. I am of the opinion that he is bad for Scottish football for several reason, including his recent convictions, his documented lying, the fact that he was a director of a club which failed to pay it’s taxes on at least two occasions, the fact that he was a director when the same club went into administration.
However given that the Scottish football authorities have made it clear over several years that they will do anything to facilitate any club with Rangers in it’s name playing it’s home games at Ibrox it’s hardly surprising that they passed him.
As far as i am aware he has broken no laws since his conviction …
—————————————-
That is one of the best things I have ever read.
So as far as you are aware Dave King has not broken the law in under two years,
————————
Was the club not very recently fined by the SFA,(dual ownership or something) And was this club’s chairman not Mr king,at the time?(Happy to be corrected )
does a football law count?
Cluster One says:
Member: (204 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 10:07 pm
They also ran up huge tax debts when he was on the board. Not actually criminal (so far) but I do believe that there are some pesky rules with regard clubs paying their social taxes.
Homunculus on June 29, 2015 at 9:51 pm
TheClumpany says:
Member: (90 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 7:03 pm
Clumpany, forgive me, I am a fan of your work. One thing confuses me though.
“But if Sevco win – even narrowly – it could give them the early momentum that they failed to generate last season.”
Did they not actually beat Hibs in the first round of the Challenge Cup last season.
______________
Good Evening!
Yes of course you are right, they beat Hibs in the Challenge Cup in the first competitive fixture of last season. And then it all went wrong!
I was making no more sophisticated a point than saying that awin against one of their main rivals at the start of a much-lauded new era COULD get the season off to a flyer (as opposed to getting buried by Hibs and a sense of crisis breaking out!)
It might not of course! As happened last season!
Cheers!
Homunculus says:
Member: (32 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 10:04 pm
‘…However given that the Scottish football authorities have made it clear over several years that they will do anything to facilitate any club with Rangers in it’s name playing it’s home games at Ibrox it’s hardly surprising that they passed him.’
_________
And utterly shameful that they did, of course.
(I am strangely reminded, not for the first time, of the old Spencer Tracy/Robert Ryan movie ‘Bad day at Black Rock’, in which some evil men try to prevent truth coming out, having long ago lost any sense of right and wrong, but know only the fear of being found out, and having to hang together or face hanging separately.
My edit button is not working so sorry for another post.
Classic deflection strategy
As the teams stand TRFC and Hibs, How will TSMSM make it look like a straight win for TRFC, the way the did before the play-off’s with motherwell.
Good Evening (again!)
Here is a short piece expressing appreciation of the many talents of the Scottish sports media…
Hope someone out there finds it worthwhile!
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/the-not-so-travelling-circus/
Enjoy the rest of the evening!
There comes a point when a patient parent has to say to the attention seeking child “enough is enough” . In my opinion that time has most definitely arrived. Please can the mods stop the site being derailed by one individual. ? Thank you.
That is all within the rules. There is no requirement that I am aware of, for the club to attach to the membership, when there is a change in the legal entity holding the membership.
=======================================================================
I think the rule could be used for the transfer of the same club membership from one company to another,they would be unwilling to do so if the new company did not own the club.I believe once the club was sold to the new company the rule could be applied.
t all goes back to the club-company separation,anyway it shouldn’t really matter,the SPL vote broke the conditions,in my opinion.
Cluster One says:
Member: (205 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 10:23 pm
As a guess Hugh Keevins will just talk rubbish. Others will do the same.
If memory serves he predicted that Rangers would beat Motherwell so badly at Ibrox that the second leg would be a waste of time.
He sort of got that right.
never thought I’d say this but the blog is dire tonight , “football fan” is bringing the blog down….cmon guys stop taking the bait
Football Fan says:
Member: (122 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 9:56 pm
Membership and club status are distinct separate things, therefore transfer of membership is from one club to another (note CLUB) it is not transfer of club.
======================================================================
I believe the transfer is from company to company,not club to club,and as i said i fail to see why or how the SFA could agree to the transfer of a membership from company to company without the contingent club attached.
===========================================================================
Because there is no such thing as “the contingent club” to attach.
RFC plc (In Liquidation) was the Club, the legal form of the Club was RFC Plc. It doesn’t exist any more. It wasn’t transferred, it was liquidated after it’s tangible and intangible assets were sold to another company.
That other company was a football club that applied for and successfully admitted to membership of the SFA at a later date. Tthe club” wasn’t one of the assets sold, neither was it’s membership of the SFA nor SPL
casper999 says:
Member: (9 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 10:26 pm
There comes a point when a patient parent has to say to the attention seeking child “enough is enough” . In my opinion that time has most definitely arrived. Please can the mods stop the site being derailed by one individual. ? Thank you.
===================
If each of us stopped feeding then the Mods would have no need to do anything.
Homunculus says:
Member: (34 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 10:30 pm
Cluster One says:
Member: (205 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 10:23 pm
As a guess Hugh Keevins will just talk rubbish.
3-0 TO TRFC HE SAID.
Thanks for the reply 🙂
casper999 says:
Member: (9 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 10:26 pm
I tried my best
Lack of imagination – not often I think of Spl and the EPL in the same way. But news that Chris Boyd is off to Killie and Petr Cech off to Arsenal both struck me as underlying reasons why teams from this isle really struggle in world football. Is there really not a better bet to play centre forward/goalkeeper for Killie/Arsenal than two players who, to be fair, are past their sell buy dates (ok Arsenal paid, but there wont be a resale value).
I care little about the EPL (other than trying to avoid my son getting contaminated by it – his English team is Woking, his big team is…) but I do despair at the lack of trust in SPL teams to pull through young talent – it is getting better but days like today just drag us back to an over hyped over paid era that ended in tears for pretty much all of us. If we could just nail the past and then concentrate on the future we might get somewhere as a football nation.
Because there is no such thing as “the contingent club” to attach.
=================================================================
I refuse to get involved in the whole club-company debate,according to the SFA the club was sold to the company they transferred the same membership to,the membership was contingent on the club being sold to the newco.The fact it was a condition of transfer tells me the club was contingent.
My rule of thumb is i cannot find a rule they broke,discretion is like a blank cheque.
John Hughes the latter day Yogi was never, to use the kind of comparison favoured for TRFC possible signings, the Beckenbauer type of player more the Jim Holton type, yet his teams are noted for a modern well considered type of play. The same may be the case for Elbows he might want play of the first Dutch school type, unlikely though that may seem.
Say no to temptation folks…difficult though it may be…who was it that said that when talking with a particular kind of upper middle class person it was impossible to know whether one was dealing with a genius or an idiot…say no to temptation
Football Fan
You keep using the term company instead of club.
In football there are two constructs.
A CLUB which is a single stand alone entity and operates as any company would to not only field a team on field but do all the administrative work off field that allows a team to appear on field. I submit that was how RFC operated and so are a CLUB as UEFA define it in their licencing rules.
Or
A CLUB with a contractual relationship with a COMPANY to operate the CLUB. That is a company which is separate from the club and has the documented right to operate the club. Art 45 says there must be a written assignment between the CLUB and COMPANY ie proof that the Company has the authority to apply for a licence as if it were a single CLUB. Articles 12 and 45 of UEFA FFP set it out.
RFC being a single club were liquidated and the membership bestowed on it by the SFA was transferred to the new applicant which was Sevco that became TRFC a Club apparently now run by TRIFC the Company.
The SFA could just have easily buried the membership bestowed on RFC with the club RFC and created a new one for Sevco/TRFC under normal rules for a new club entering the SFL.
Instead of using those rules it chose instead to use Art14 of SFA rules that prohibits a xfer to make a transfer. It’s almost as if the illusion of continuity had to be made at all costs, not least invoking a rule that allowed discretion rather than applying the existing rule for a new club entering the then SFL. The rule that would have been used if say Spartans had applied.
That rule then would have granted Associate Membership of the SFA and after 5 years the club could apply for full membership.
So RFC (Unless the SFA can produce documentation, which they had to approve under Art 45, showing a company had a contract to operate RFC) were a CLUB in footballing administration terms and your COMPANY to COMPANY transfer presentation on which the continuity myth depends simply does not and never did exist.
Footnote. Whilst there is no proof, the decision to use Art14 was almost certainly at the demand of Charles Green for commercial reasons that the SFA would have been more than ready to agree to, having forgotten their role as protecters of the games integrity as they too became entrapped by the commercialisation of the game and the money it brought them.
Roddyboy 10.33
Normally I don’t bite but it was interesting to hear where the idea of a continuing company first got aired (and don’t tell me Neil Patey did his own research to come up with his view) and whilst the person to whom the response is addressed might be unwilling or unable to accept don’t forget there are many more reading the responses who can then challenge the myth on an informed basis drawing on football rules.
thank you to those who strapped on there boots and highlighted further what many of us thought all along about a certain posters obvious position.my question was intentional[hearts cva] so we could speed up the process and put this to bed, now we can ignore and move on. thanks again for what was very much a training game for most in the end.
Auldheid says: June 29, 2015 at 11:44 pm
Normally I don’t bite but it was interesting to hear where the idea of a continuing company first got aired (and don’t tell me Neil Patey did his own research to come up with his view) and whilst the person to whom the response is addressed might be unwilling or unable to accept don’t forget there are many more reading the responses who can then challenge the myth on an informed basis drawing on football rules.
=========================
To the best of my knowledge it was first mooted by Neil Doncaster as early as 30th April 2012 as per the CQN article below.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=8839
easyJambo says:
Member: (674 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 1:17 am
The You Tube video in which Patey appears relates to a STV programme dated 16 Feb 2012 (4 days after Administration announced I think).
However I doubt Patey came up with the company idea off his own bat, but if he is a Rangers man he might just have done so, the alternative being too much for him to contemplate but I suspect the SFA knew from December 2011, following a dinner involving Craig Whyte, Ali Russell, Campbell Ogilvie and Stuart Regan at the Hotel Du Vin of RFC’s plight and by February 2012 a “legend” was in the course of being created.
Apropos nuttin, are they still deid, the deid things ? Or is it not about being deid at all – Is it more a like caterpillar/butterfly metamorphosis – a continuation of the life force but in a different form ? Is there a filter on the letters “gsl” in sequence ? Is that somebody shouting on me to come in ?Hope all the sane people are abed .
PS have you seen the ref in the Chile v Peru game ? He’s making ours look like quality professionals .
Been interesting reading the posts over the last 12-24 hours and the circular debates that have sprung up, not really the level of debate we observers are accustomed to tbh 😈
The RST v PMG spat is a funny one with BM commentators on his site agreeing with Phil, no doubt to be hounded for the rest of their lives for doing so, but again shows the fall back tactic of playing the man and missing the ball completely??
Off topic a bit here but here goes, I live in Melbourne, Australia and the biggest sport here is the AFL (Australian Football), now in the last couple of years the league has recruited a couple of new teams, to expand their reach in QLD and NSW, and again in the last few years they have signed a $1billion tv deal with foxtel (sky). Now the population of Aus is roughly 25 million and AFL is very much a regional sport, only ever international is a hybrid game between AUS and IRE, why can’t Scotland achieve financial recognition at this sort of level? the way the sport is marketed and the associated TV programme’s are first class, perhaps a wee head hunting exercise for the newly departed CEO should be in order?
Anyway looking forward to some 4 am rises in the new season!
FWIW (and I know it’s not very much!) I’m of the opinion that there must be something going on in the background we’ve not to see. How else do you explain the lovely wildlife jumping from branch to branch?! Lovely to see but dreadfully distracting. Just my tuppence worth. ?
Homunculus says:
Member: (34 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 10:04 pm
================================
It has always been my belief the SFA intended to grant King fit and proper status to run Rangers no matter what. The lack of any detailed explanation as to why they did so I believe backs up my view. Whether or not it is down to bias or commercial interests the SFA in my opinion want Rangers to be the strongest, most powerful club in Scotland. I am guessing that they viewed King as someone who had the financial wherewithal to achieve that, therefore they cared little about the fact he is a convicted criminal. Whatever his guilt in the past he will not harm Rangers so why not let him in? There is one thing I keep asking myself though. Did they ever ask for proof of his funding or did they get swept along on the tidal wave of real Rangersness which has allowed King to get where he is with no substance so far? If they did, then as my old Granny used to say, ‘Hell mend them!’.
upthehoops says:
Member: (759 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 7:16 am
There is one thing I keep asking myself though. Did they ever ask for proof of his funding or did they get swept along on the tidal wave of real Rangersness which has allowed King to get where he is with no substance so far? If they did, then as my old Granny used to say, ‘Hell mend them!’.
===================================
King may well have been able to demonstrate to the SFA that he has wealth enough to fund the Ibrox club. However that wealth is most likely to be in the form of shares in South African companies, cash in South African banks, and property in South Africa.
What the SFA may have omitted to ask King was how exactly he planned to get any of this wealth out of South Africa and into Ibrox.
Under the South African exchange control regime, the only way King can get any meaningful amount of money out is to demonstrate that the money will be invested in a way that benefits South Africa, for example by generating healthy dividends that would be repatriated.
I somehow can’t see an “investment” in the Ibrox money incinerator ticking any boxes with the guardians of the South African exchane control regime- which is extremely tightly policed.
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (464 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 11:44 pm
Roddyboy 10.33
Normally I don’t bite but it was interesting to hear where the idea of a continuing company first got aired
———————————-
easyJambo says:
Member: (674 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 1:17 am
To the best of my knowledge it was first mooted by Neil Doncaster as early as 30th April 2012 as per the CQN article below.
—————————————
Easy J
Wasn’t Doncaster’s mutterings at the time in response to Bill Miller’s “incubator” bid of 20th April 2012?
That involved a successful CVA and eventually paying off what was owed though. I always believed CG stole that idea and dropped the bits he didn’t like……Like getting a successful CVA…… and paying back what was owed………and the mooted, much higher CVA offer of £11.2m
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17789810
Can anyone answer these questions for me ?
1. Which entity played Brechin City in the Ramsdens Cup On 29th July 2012 ?
2. What kind of SFA membership did that entity have ?
3. Why did that entity need such a membership ?
Corrupt officialCorrupt official says:
Member: (92 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 8:22 am
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (464 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 11:44 pm
Roddyboy 10.33
Normally I don’t bite but it was interesting to hear where the idea of a continuing company first got aired
———————————-
easyJambo says:
Member: (674 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 1:17 am
To the best of my knowledge it was first mooted by Neil Doncaster as early as 30th April 2012 as per the CQN article below.
—————————————
Easy J
Wasn’t Doncaster’s mutterings at the time in response to Bill Miller’s “incubator” bid of 20th April 2012?
That involved a successful CVA and eventually paying off what was owed though. I always believed CG stole that idea and dropped the bits he didn’t like……Like getting a successful CVA…… and paying back what was owed………and the mooted, much higher CVA offer of £11.2m
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17789810
………………………..
iirc … The first mention of ‘another’ version of Rangers(il) for our consumption, was on the RTC site.
RTC explained how it would be possible for a ‘newco’ to emerge.
However, is it possible that as RTC seemed to be ‘privy’ to certain sensitive information
…there had already been ‘plans’ discussed on how best to accommodate getting rid of the Old Rangers and the Debt, then shoehorning the New Rangers minus the Debt into the Scottish Football system as if nowt very much happened and also, to alleviate any public discourse (riots etc)…hence the secrecy of the Secret 5way ‘Agreement’ !?
Sunning myself abroad for the past week and for the first time in over a week have looked at an SMSM website to catch up on comings and goings.
Have just seen the latest list of signings, targets and trialists and burst out laughing out loud at poolside.
I’m not in any way intending to offend any of the players named but am thinking back to the new chairman’s previous comments of a salary bill that would need to increase three or four times versus last year and needing a team not for the Championship but the Premiership.
Then this…..possibly the way they should have approach starting up again post liquidation in Division 3 but so at variance with DCK’s previous comments as to be scorn worthy.
What are the Bears thinking believe ing anything from Ibrox just now.
Warburton and Weir were either desperate for a job or got one helluva whack up front…maybe both but this will surely end in tears.
Talking of scorn….I see as ever our hacks are totally absent of criticism when it comes to Rangers. Well at least they’re being consistent.
By the way, where is Captain Eustace? Could not see any mention if him or have I just missed it?
The posts from FF follow a pattern from his previous incarnations. The bottom line is that no matter what arguments are put forward, the mantra is: The Eternal Rangers have been Victimised.
He/She/They are not interested in facts or even opinions, just the opportunity to drip feed an idea which makes no sense. Engaging with FF is a cul de sac.
jimlarkin says:
Member: (317 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 9:37 am
RTC explained how it would be possible for a ‘newco’ to emerge.
However, is it possible that as RTC seemed to be ‘privy’ to certain sensitive information
———————–
You may be right Jim, However it’s a racing cert that Paying off what was due, wasn’t part of their survival talks. That would have been dismissed early doors as a non-runner
Bards
It was a team playing under the ownership of Sevco using an ultra vires membership category which carried the name ‘conditional membership.’
It was necessary to create such a category because at that time the team did not have any of the then three (now two) membership categories of ‘Registered’ ‘Associate’ or ‘Full’.
Had they gone the normal route available to a new club which was to have a Registered membership then apply within 14 days for Associate Membership there would have been no need to go ultra vires, but that would have made it impossible to put forward a continuity argument. Sevco simply did not apply for Associate Membership within the 14 day time frame from the time they were granted access to SFL in mid July. Why they did not is one of the 5 way agreement mysteries.
I’d need to check why it was necessary to go ultra vires. It had something to do with the xfer of SPL Membership from RFC to Dundee which had not happened yet.
Good Morning
The oldco/newco debate could go on until we are blue in the face(no pun intended)
However we are where we are and questions need to be asked.
The media spin is about to end and a ball will soon have to be kicked.
Does TRFC have a team to field in a few weeks?
How will they pay for this team?
Are their taxes up to date?
Have they produced a business plan which demonstrates sustainability for the coming season?
Are HMRC being vigilant?
What steps have the SFA and SPFL taken to ensure that TRFC can start and finish the season?
Are they prepared to exercise the powers they have to ensure that this is the case and imposee proper governance of our game?
This is important and everything else is just a smokescreen.
Auldheid says: June 30, 2015 at 11:03 am
===================
SPL Press Release ~ Share transfer approved
Friday 3rd August 2012
At eight minutes past ten this morning, the member clubs unanimously approved the transfer of Rangers’ SPL share to Dundee Football Club.
Dundee FC is now a member of the SPL.
Read more at http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spl-press-release–share-transfer-approved-2012-08-03/#CQ77WZyGsYS72IaA.99
————————–
The players who played in the Brechin game had to be given dispensation from RFC PLC as per the attached.
Bards
Here by the awesome power of social media is a lot more on what happened in July 2012.
http://thefrontofthebus.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/when-spl-ratified-sevco-as-new-club.html?m=1
Hoop 11.07.
I appreciate the point you are making but unless we get accountability we are never going to get answers from the SFA.
Attempts at addressing that are being made and I am pretty sure everyone will be interested. I’m hoping it will only be a few weeks before those steps can be made public, in the meantime no more squirrel shooting from me but I rather think we have kicked in that particular squirrel’s nuts.
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (466 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 11:36 am
Bards
Here by the awesome power of social media is a lot more on what happened in July 2012.
================================================
Thanks Auldheid (and AllyJambo) I knew the information was there and I found a few links that backed it up, e.g.;
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jul/27/rangers-relaunched-brechin
But that letter is the “pièce de résistance” and should be the end of any doubt…. for those of sane mind !
😀
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2015 at 1:44 am
The You Tube video in which Patey appears relates to a STV programme dated 16 Feb 2012 (4 days after Administration announced I think).
However I doubt Patey came up with the company idea off his own bat…
——————————————————
Interesting that in the youtube clip, Neil Patey says that liquidation “means the end of the current Rangers football c – company”. It suggests to me that he was about to reply intuitively using the word ‘club’ but then needed an extra split second to rearrange his thoughts before changing tack. Whether that was because he had rehearsed the ‘company’ line of argument in advance, only he will know.
Er… so If membership of SPL was transferred to Dundee, and it’s all about continuity…. does that mean that Dundee are actually the holders of a world record number of championships?
Who drew the short straw this month and had to pick up the Sevco wage bill?
19,000 ST sold acc to Chris Jack of the ET who also rejects on Twitter any lunch meetings with the RST
Edit:
PMG says it was 8,000 plus 2,500 from supporter clubs as of last Wednesday.
Neepheid
“I somehow can’t see an “investment” in the Ibrox money incinerator ticking any boxes with the guardians of the South African exchange control regime- which is extremely tightly policed.”
Agree with you entirely, more so given the former head of SARS is currently Minister of Finance. As I have posted before I believe DCK has real problems in extracting money from SA and any major investment into Ibrokes will result in questions from the authorities – again surely he, and others, knew that before he started which makes me think someone else could quite possibly come out of left field as the next savior as part of a pre-agreed plan – whether he/she has any money and are prepared to put it into a bottomless pit is of course again open to question [yet again].
So with MA on the sidelines, and Newcastle reserves unlikely to be of help next season (at least for now) maybe DCK could sign some Bafana Bafana players as an RSA related “investment”? It would be cheaper than going to the lower leagues in England and Dean Furman would be given an opportunity to go back to where he started given he is currently looking for a new club. One wonders why he hasn’t been mentioned already given his history (did he not captain the Youth team at one time?) and the level5 PR spin?
The story continues…………….
Meanwhile after last season’s cup final one is not overjoyed at drawing Falkirk away in the Petrified cup. We really do need a strong East Fife for that tie.
I think I can answer my own question about picking up the wage bill, season book cash will, of course, be flooding in. 🙄
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (466 comments)
June 29, 2015 at 8:24 pm
Auldheid, an absolute tour de force. Even I understand how it works now 😆
Good Afternoon.
Deadline day for Sevco season ticket renewals!
Chris Jack suggests 19,000 have been sold. Phil Mac Giolla Bhain suggests considerably fewer…
Mind how you go, or you may find yourself marched down to Ibrox to help boost the sales!
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/the-flog/
So, based on todays estimates season book sales are somewhere between 10,500 and 19,000. If it is the top figure (and if my memory is correct) that would be a 40% drop on last year.
40% not renewing – based on the top figure. We really are talking the end of days based on this. Allowing for concessions and VAT (I know) my back of a fag packet calculation is £8m for the club coffers.
Has anything, anything at all been heard from DCK since the latest EGM and his, ahem, mystery trip to London?
Park, Taylor, Letham and Gilligan won’t want to be left holding the baby when the bathwater runs out. If they don’t have a plan in place on how to fund the coming twelve months then they have a decision to make.
I’ve said before, DCK has no reputation left to lose. These four gentlemen do. If for instance you operate main dealer franchises these are granted by Companies who jealously guard their reputation.
Going bust mid season with all the season ticket money gone and only half the games played would potentially lay the directors open to charges of insolvent trading.
Would you risk it?
45k season books would still require further shareholder funding to make it through the season. If this last roll of the dice has failed then there are only two options left.
1. Sell out for a quid to MA
2. Pack up and go home
The contortions of the SFA/SPFL/SMSM if it is number one will be breath-taking to see.
And Armageddon just doesn’t bear thinking about :irony:
Edit: I’ve just re-booted my malfunctioning fag packet – it is of course about £5m not £8m as I incorrectly stated above.
I’ve just had a look at last year’s season ticket sales. According to the BBC, 17000 renewed for the 2014/15 season. That was at the height of King’s boycott campaign.
So if 19000 have renewed, that’s probably just about everyone who had a season ticket last season.
The true test will come over the next few weeks, with the general sale, when we will see how many of the boycotters return to the fold. The total figure sold for 2013/14 was just over 36,000, according to the accounts, so around 17,000 didn’t renew last year.I’ll be very surprised if they don’t get at least 30,000 sold in the end. The newspapers are certainly providing enough free advertising!
neepheid says:
Member: (656 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 3:31 pm
Cheers for the figures.
Tincks says:
Member: (140 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 3:22 pm
…
Going bust mid season with all the season ticket money gone and only half the games played would potentially lay the directors open to charges of insolvent trading.
Would you risk it?…
============================
Absolutely…not !
And I would guess that there must be some predefined, minimum critical ST renewal number – which if not achieved would result in the Directors ‘stepping away’ if only to protect their backsides, as you suggest.
What that minimum ST figure is, I don’t know.
But with a significantly reduced ST income upfront, then there is a real risk of RIFC/TRFC operating on fumes and tenuous ‘future promises or assumptions’ to boost the cash flow.
And the silence from King is just appalling.
If he had any respect for ‘his club’ he would at least communicate an apology to the bears and that he had tried, but failed to put TRFC on an even keel.
STICKY:
After listening to SFM-ers’ views on the re-branding of the site, we have decided to retain the name Scottish Football Monitor. Funds permitting, when we launch the radio channel over the summer, we will brand that outlet with a more generic moniker so we can have freedom to feature other things aside from football.
Really there has never been any intention of diverting or diluting focus from the Scottish Football one we have at the moment, but I think we have to accept that I did not articulate that very clearly from the outset.
To be clear, as long as we are in business, the Scottish Football monitor will be here, doing what we do now, and if all goes to plan, much, much more.
We have a small group of very dedicated individuals who have, with your help, worked hard to make our community the thriving, tolerant and intelligent one that it is. Our main aim in the coming months is to give a greater voice to that community, under the banner of SFM.
The RSL’s media spokesman has responded to Phil’s claim that DCK tried to sell his shares to MA, after unsuccessfully attempting to get MA to loan the other £5milion.
Merlin, has been able to confirm the meeting took place, but his sources have been unable to conform the details. Interestingly, Merlin says he doesn’t believe the claim, but, an outright denial from his sources is conspicuously absent. (Its fair to point out that the RSL are not fans of DCK)
In astronomy, sometimes the presence of a body, can only be determined by its effect on other bodies. Its fair to say that the principle holds for other forms of investigatory work.
oh the irony…… https://exposingtherhats.wordpress.com 🙄
TBK says:
Member: (140 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 3:51 pm
That is just priceless.
Penny for PMG’s and Clump’s thoughts on that piece.
Last season Newcastle United loaned 5 player to “Rangers” to help them gain promotion. As far as we know not one club, including those that were in the pay-offs, protested. Also as far as we know there has been no attempt to change the rules re the amount of loan players from the one team.
In effect if he so wished MA and NU could loan them 11 players.
NU are never going to win the EPL so if they manage to be in a safe position come January they could loan out virtually their whole first team without breaking any rules.
It also doesn’t seem right that MA is deemed to hold undue influence and was fined a token amount but was not told to desist or that further interference would result in a bigger penalty.
So it seems to that it’s not just the SFA and the MSM that go along with what’s happening but all the clubs in professional football Scotland and until that changes it’s hard to see what influence anyone or any organisation outwith the cosy clique can have.
I love this site and read it every day and also some of the others that link to this one, but I fear we are all preaching to the converted (except for FF).
Anyway, keep up the good work and the information which we don’t get anywhere else.
Ok, I admit it, I’m Craig Whyte. 😐
TBK says:
Member: (140 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 3:51 pm
—
An absolute belter.
I have no inside knowledge and reserve the right to make a Chris Graham of myself over this but I would be truly astounded if the contributions of Phil and Clumps were coming from the same pen. The styles are chalk and cheese.
I like reading both blogs and their authors’ contributions on here. And not that anyone is asking for it, but if you forced me to choose, I would say that Clumps’ is the more polished. This is significant because Phil, for obvious reasons, often points out that he does this for a living and invites financial help.
It’s not just that Clumps doesn’t do that is clearly only in it for the laughs, it’s that if you were blogging for a living, you would maybe ask for contributions for your most stylish and most humorous material. I’d have imagined so anyway.
I’m The Clumpany and so is my wife
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SYc_flMnMQ
neepheid says: June 30, 2015 at 3:31 pm
The true test will come over the next few weeks, with the general sale, when we will see how many of the boycotters return to the fold. The total figure sold for 2013/14 was just over 36,000, according to the accounts, so around 17,000 didn’t renew last year.I’ll be very surprised if they don’t get at least 30,000 sold in the end. The newspapers are certainly providing enough free advertising!
===========================
The figure quoted by Rangers for 2014/15 at the Ahmad ring fencing case at the CoS in September, was 23,361.
The interim 2015 accounts (to Dec 2014) gave the final figure as 24,589.
The average income from each ST last season was approx. £250, net of VAT.
Prices have gone up this season by 5%, but it’s not enough to make a major difference.
Let’s imagine that 30,000 Season tickets are sold, between renewals and returning boycotters. That would mean a cash take of around £7 million, after VAT. That is simply not going to see them through the season, especially given that merchandise income will be minimal unless someone finds the £5m to pay off Ashley.The accounts show £7.5m from retail for 13/14. That’s a very big hole to fill.
Even though they sold 36000 STs for 13/14, and received £7.5m retail, they still had to have an emergency share issue in September 2014. The money raised (just over £3m) got them only to December, when Ashley had to step in with loans of cash and players.
Without a huge cash injection very soon, this business is doomed- in my opinion.
We still don’t know all the facts of course, but what we do know;
– TRFC is loss-making
– TRFC doesn’t have a line of credit
– TRFC has just lost c.half its squad
– there is reasonable doubt about whether TRFC has the cashflow to fulfill it fixtures
next season.
TRFC does not operate in a bubble, and its viability is extremely relevant to the other Championship clubs, and to Scottish football in general.
The PR mince, the lack of SMSM questioning of the SFA/SPFL/clubs, perceived agendas, etc is just noise in the great scheme of things.
To most reasonable fans, IMO, it looks like the Govan club could/should go bust.
It’s just a question of when.
Notice that the London based PR fellow say that PMG controls the Clumpany not the he is Clumps. We need to be told if The clump meister is a puppet on an Irish String.
easyJambo says:
Member: (676 comments)
June 30, 2015 at 4:49 pm
neepheid says: June 30, 2015 at 3:31 pm
The true test will come over the next few weeks, with the general sale, when we will see how many of the boycotters return to the fold. The total figure sold for 2013/14 was just over 36,000, according to the accounts, so around 17,000 didn’t renew last year.I’ll be very surprised if they don’t get at least 30,000 sold in the end. The newspapers are certainly providing enough free advertising!
===========================
The figure quoted by Rangers for 2014/15 at the Ahmad ring fencing case at the CoS in September, was 23,361.
The interim 2015 accounts (to Dec 2014) gave the final figure as 24,589.
The average income from each ST last season was approx. £250, net of VAT.
Prices have gone up this season by 5%, but it’s not enough to make a major difference.
_____________________________________________________________
I think we are seeing classic news management in action @Level5PR
(i) Set an overly ambitious target: State it Publicly (45,000) target to encourage and inspire the faithful to subscribe.
(ii) Leak the narrative that you are woefully short of target, setting up your detractors for a fall, and spurring the wavering faithful on through fear.
(iii) Announce a result that is between (i) and (ii) so that your detractors have the wind taken out of their sales, with everyone focusing on succesful avoidance of scenario (ii) rather than failure of scenario (i).
They did EXACTLY the same thing with the Share issue.
Move along there. Nothing to see here.