Why We Need to Change

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;

  1. ISM will seek to build a community of sports fans whose overarching aim is the integrity of competition in the sport.
  2. 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.
  3. ISM will provide a platform for the views of ALL fans, and guarantee that those views will be heard in a mutually respectful environment.
  4. ISM will also endeavour to inform and entertain members on a wide range of topics related to our shared love of sport.
  5. 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;

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.

 

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,978 thoughts on “Why We Need to Change


  1. GeordieJag says: July 28, 2015 at 9:27 pm

    I see from the JP Jenkins site that 586,428 RIFC shares were traded this afternoon at 27.731 pence (= £162,622.35 total value). This is by far the largest trade since the loss of their NOMAD.

    Do the numbers give any clue to who the seller is?
    =========================
    I’ve had a look at my records but there is no shareholder that sticks out as holding that number, or the sale of which would leave them with a round number.

    The shares amount to 0.72%, so wouldn’t have needed to be disclosed previously if that was the total holding.


  2. In my humble opinion , Scott Allan and The Rangers deserve each other -only a hater would say otherwise .
    WRT the share transaction, any indication as to who bought them ?


  3. What’s this ?

    “I want this to be a special season for Rangers and one that lays the foundations for our return to the top flight

    Does Mr King know something about The Rangers not returning to the top flight or am I just being overly suspicious ?


  4. Maybe the worm is turning . From The Bears Den . More loyal to the club he/she supports than believing of the artifice ?

    “This is just another PR stunt in trying to recover ground from his previous cringe worthy f up of an interview with SSN.

    There has been no investment other than derisory loan that will further erode share value to their benefit if they have their way. Still no plan, no independent Directors, no auditors, no listing and a toxic RR deal that we are having to live with as a consequence of no investment.

    Not hard to work out. He is spending our f money. He would do better in keeping his big gob firmly shut and it would spare us the spin, lies and innuendo. He really must think our head button up the back. End of!”


  5. senior says:
    Member: (66 comments)

    July 28, 2015 at 12:05 pm

    Ok the amount donated so far is £2607. I have a suggestion. To get it across the line is it possible for all contributors, as a once off gesture, two double their contribution.
    We would never live it down if for the sake of a paltry £2000 we let this brilliant forum stagnate or decline.
    I am a pensioner and my own contribution is modest so I don’t want to appear as if I am preaching

    =========================================

    I’m in concordance with that.

    lets not have the rest of them laughing at us.

    Get it done.
    End of.


  6. easyJambo says:
    Member: (715 comments)

    July 29, 2015 at 1:03 am

    GeordieJag says: July 28, 2015 at 9:27 pm

    I see from the JP Jenkins site that 586,428 RIFC shares were traded this afternoon at 27.731 pence (= £162,622.35 total value). This is by far the largest trade since the loss of their NOMAD.

    Do the numbers give any clue to who the seller is?
    =========================
    I’ve had a look at my records but there is no shareholder that sticks out as holding that number, or the sale of which would leave them with a round number.

    The shares amount to 0.72%, so wouldn’t have needed to be disclosed previously if that was the total holding.
    ===============================

    Certainly not a big player.

    Might have been my mate got more mouth than sense.

    A few of them around you know.


  7. He also bet big on a winery in OZ and lost out. Its a bit payer on the back of Phils stuff I think.


  8. Lets turn this site green.

    (although claret then amber would be preferable)


  9. Its an embarrassment to talk about DCK or for that matter the Rangers having no money when our very own site has none, we will be on the Clumpany shortly
    Shame 😳


  10. S. Petrov left Celtic with the fondest of memories.
    ————————————————————–
    Yes perhaps he did but we can never know, the fact is he asked for a transfer … we all knew he was leaving then suddenly he decided to sign up for a new contract so we kind of hoped he would stay … even though he had hardly played under Strachan. Then Villa – Martin O’Niel came in for him and offered 6.5m pounds.
    Now here is the problem, MoN would have known he was out contract, and would have been after him for free, this is before he signed his new contract that everyone knew both parties had no intention of honouring, so surely he would have been very pissed off.
    I mean it might be good to reward your old team but to rip off your new employers seems a bit odd.
    But here is the real problem with that tale, Petrov is actually the major loser, if he had left Celtic for free he could then have negotiated a 1 to 2 million signing on fee … or extravagant wages so you saying he was that generous, when he didn’t seem to interested to play for us in his last season


  11. Can a mod tell me which name I should use when making a donation? Real name, username, or posting name? Thanks.

    Doesn’t matter RNWMtP,
    Your posting name makes it easier for us to see who donated the money, but otherwise, it doesn’t make any difference.
    Tris


  12. Its an embarrassment to talk about DCK or for that matter the Rangers
    __________________________________________________________________________
    Yeah but the SFM are not trying to buy Chick Young from the BBC for 50 bob!


  13. Today’s Daily Record stating Rangers will push ahead with a third Scott Allan bid despite what Hibs said Yesterday (I’m sure the Record will be in the loop).

    In my view this is nothing other than a PR stunt, and has been all along. A third bid is unlikely to turn Hibs head. Of wider concern to me is how a skint 2nd tier club have such a vice like grip of the media.


  14. how much money do you think
    Scott Allan to be worth: bearing in mind he has only one season in the Scottish championship under his belt … 100k, 200k or 500k.
    Do you think Hibs who got him for free, pay him a salary that meets a 100k, 200k or 500k player so how do we determine the value of a player.


  15. GeordieJag says: July 28, 2015 at 9:27 pm

    I see from the JP Jenkins site that 586,428 RIFC shares were traded this afternoon at 27.731 pence (= £162,622.35 total value). This is by far the largest trade since the loss of their NOMAD.

    Do the numbers give any clue to who the seller is?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    Here is a link to a list of shareholders in May this year-

    http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/305651-who-owns-rangers-our-detailed-breakdown-of-the-shareholders-at-ibrox/

    There isn’t anyone listed with that exact number of shares, but these are closest,

    Graeme Henderson 590,164 0.72%
    Fitel Nominees Limited 585,603 0.72%

    It could, of course, be a partial disposal by one of the big players, someone starting to get out gradually, maybe?

    What surprises me is that there is a willing buyer at over 27p per share. Is this a newcomer, or one of the existing large shareholders building a stake? Puzzling.


  16. What surprises me is that there is a willing buyer at over 27p per share. Is this a newcomer, or one of the existing large shareholders building a stake? Puzzling.

    You assume that there is no side-letter or side-deal going on to change the actual monies changing hands…


  17. wottpi says:
    July 28, 2015 at 6:50 pm

    I see Charlie Miller was waxing lyrical in the Scotsman about Allan being given verbal assurances he could leave for a bigger club.
    ————————————————
    This one always cracks me up. Which professional player enters into a contract with a club – a legally binding and enforceable agreement – but then depends on an off the record, informal appendix to it? Surely the point of having an agent is to make sure that any such points are there in black and white in the contract, a verbal agreement ‘not being worth the paper its written on’. To advance the argument that the terms of a contract should be set to one side on the basis that someone winked and whispered as it was being signed that ‘don’t worry son, it a big club comes in for you, we’ll let you go nae bother- hey, it won’t even matter how much they actually bid!’ is clutching at straws.


  18. Gym Trainer says:
    Member: (58 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 9:37 am
    What surprises me is that there is a willing buyer at over 27p per share. Is this a newcomer, or one of the existing large shareholders building a stake? Puzzling.
    You assume that there is no side-letter or side-deal going on to change the actual monies changing hands…

    ============================
    Isn’t that what’s known as “pump and dump”? I’m sure that nobody currently involved at Ibrox would indulge in such shady, underhand, shameless practices.


  19. The whole Scott Allen story is becoming very tedious. Personally, I will be a bit disappointed if he goes before the coming season is completed but over the years, I have seen much more promising young players depart ER when the money on offer became too enticing for the Board to pass up. I’m used to disappointment and let’s face it there are more important things in life to worry about! I do have have one question though and that is why would any respectable business concern that has a zero credit rating expect a major competitor, with its own money problems, to extend it credit so that it can gain an advantage over them. Pity they don’t have as much brass in their pockets as they have in their neck is all I can say!


  20. This appeared in the Evening Times (as a comment under the Allan story):

    Rangers were about the 12th club in Scotland who’s owners went into administration. So the same penalties should have been applied to the Rangers as to anyone else. But when Celtic FC dreamed up a ridiculous new offence called’;”Sporting Integrity” and demanded that additional punishments should be applied retrospectively to Rangers FC, it was the Hibbys that were the first to jump on the bandwagon and offer boot-licking credibility to this nonsense. Hibernian maybes getting a wee bit of Karma now. 🙂

    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13505330.display/

    Not sure if it’s a poor attempt at a wind up but if not it shows the kind of distorted mindset among the more rabid Rangers support. Even if a wind up it shows the complete lack of willingness to own up to their (former) club’s misdemeanors and make jokes about integrity rather than show the least amount of embarrassment.


  21. I see that Livingston have had their sponsorship abruptly terminated. Going back a few months to ongoing board discussions with EddieGoldtop and his sponsorship arrangements where he was seeking clarification on his club’s stance with the SFA/SPFL and their shenanigans with Sevco…..
    Has Eddie now given up the ghost and called in his money or am I seeing 2+2 and coming up with 5?


  22. coineanachantaighe says:
    July 29, 2015 at 10:06 am
    ……………………….
    Thanks for the link, coineanachantaighe.
    For the record, the alleged on-line abuse of Scott Allan is totally out of order and so mindless. Having said that, on-line abuse has been with us for a long time and in most cases is generally ignored by the press. I wonder why, in the barely significant goings on in the lower reaches of Scottish football, the Times has bothered to give so many lines to what has become a fairly commonplace occurrence, particularly in their own backyard.
    It also seems to me that the posters commenting on the ET article forget the indefensible part that Rod Petrie played in the extraordinary measures to get the club they follow back into the business so damaged by their own club.


  23. Highland_Bhoy says:
    Member: (37 comments)

    July 29, 2015 at 8:08 am

    how much money do you think
    Scott Allan to be worth: bearing in mind he has only one season in the Scottish championship under his belt … 100k, 200k or 500k.
    Do you think Hibs who got him for free, pay him a salary that meets a 100k, 200k or 500k player so how do we determine the value of a player.
    ______________________________________________

    I think it is quite simple Highland Bhoy :irony:

    Any player will be sold when he is worth more to the prospective purchaser (funds dependent) than to the prospective seller.

    The purpose of tapping players up is to reduce the worth of the player to the selling club.

    Best example of that I can think of is when Jock Stein, through Jim Roger told Dixie Deans to tell Motherwell he was emigrating to Australia (this after a bid by Celtic had been turned down). Motherwell immediately saw an asset worth £35,000 disappear, and went back to Celtic to bite their hand off. Source: Sir Dixie himself.

    In Scott Allan’s case, unsettling the player has the effect of making him worth less to Hibs and closer to what Rangers’ valuation is. I really don’t think it is such a big deal in the grand scheme of things either. Of course it is not right that things like this go on, but Glass Houses and all that ..

    What makes this situation rather unique is the pressure that is being applied to Hibs by the press on behalf of Rangers. Usually, these things are handled in a rather more discreet, sleight of hand manner. This is more akin to having a plate of mince applied to the back of your head 🙂

    The new “facts” to emerge about the so-called verbal agreement recall to my mind the famous “Three Amigos” who all alleged that Fergus McCann had given them verbal assurances (as an addendum to a 300-page written contract!). I simply don’t believe it. And unless Charlie miller was in the room at the time the “agreement” was uttered, how does he, or anyone else, know that it happened? Again, if I may remind you (not that you needed reminding): footballers are not always the brightest lights on the Christmas Tree.

    Also, I am sure that Hibs fans will be angry at Allan’s part in this. The picture of him celebrating with Rangers players on the night of the game was deliberately leaked I think, and was a grave error of judgement. Footballers are not famous for their good judgement though 😈

    However, as someone who has been subject to online abuse and threats, I see no situation in which it can ever be condoned. Unequivocally, the treatment of Allan, if reports are true, is morally and intellectually wrong – and no amount of whatabouttery changes that.


  24. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/9724-shareholder-information

    WEDNESDAY, 29 JULY 2015 10:55
    Shareholder Information
    WRITTEN BY RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB
    Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC)

    Shareholder Information
    In accordance with S.793 of the Companies Act 2006 (S. 793), RIFC has written to certain parties whom it knows or has reasonable cause to believe are interested in RIFC’s shares requiring information about the nature of those interests.
    The undernoted parties have not responded to the requests in respect of the holdings shown after their names in brackets:
    Blue Pitch Holdings (4,000,000),
    Putney Holdings Limited (700,000),
    ATP Investments Limited (2,600,000); and
    Norne Anstalt (1,200,000).
    The total number of shares affected is 8,500,000 (c. 10.4% of RIFC’s total issued share capital).
    Article 15.5 of RIFC’s Articles of Association states that, where its board of directors (the Board) is satisfied that any person appearing to be interested in shares has been duly served with a notice under s793 of the Companies Act 2006, and is in default of providing RIFC with the information required, the Board can, in its absolute discretion, at any time thereafter by notice to such member direct that:
    a. the member shall not be entitled to vote at a general meeting either personally or by proxy or to exercise any other right conferred by membership in relation to meetings of RIFC in respect of such shares;
    b. Except in a liquidation of RIFC , no payment shall be made of any sums due from RIFC for such shares and RIFC shall not meet any liability to pay interest on any such payment;
    c. No other distribution shall be made on such shares; and
    d. No transfer of any of the shares held by such member shall be registered unless:
    (i) The member is not himself in default in supplying the information requested and the transfer when presented for registration is accompanied by a certificate to the effect that the member is satisfied that no person in default as regards supplying such information is interested in any of the shares which are the subject of the transfer; or
    (ii) The transfer is an approved transfer.
    In brief, the above restrictions affect the right to vote the affected shares, the right to receive payments or distributions in respect of the affected shares and the right to transfer the affected shares.
    Direction notices have been sent to each of the above parties indicating those parties are in default of their obligations under S. 793 and that the measures noted will be imposed until the Board is satisfied that it has received all of the information required in terms of the S. 793 Notice sent to that party.


  25. Big Pink says:
    Moderator: (327 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 11:29 am

    …Any player will be sold when he is worth more to the prospective purchaser (funds dependent) than to the prospective seller…
    ___________________________

    There is always, one might think, a premium to be added when the prospective purchaser is also your main rival! The opinion makers (the SMSM) seem to ignore that it’s not only Scott Allan’s actual value, but his value to the team, that should be considered when assessing a fair price. There is also absolutely no way Hibs could replace him with the money TRFC have offered, even if it was paid upfront!


  26. Here’s an extract from an old document of mine that shows the interested party in Blue Pitch as M Houssami, ATP (Margarita) as BC Abela, Norne Ansalt also as BC Abela and Putney as AG Corr.

    All the above parties have had some dodgy previous financial dealings or connections with Rizvi, Green and others.


  27. Big Pink says:
    July 29, 2015 at 11:29 am

    This is more akin to having a plate of mince applied to the back of your head
    ————————————————————-
    Brilliant.


  28. Re the RIFC announcement in their quest to find out who owns the shares…….Has yesterdays purchase knocked some wind out of their sails?. It looks to me like somebody has put the willies up them. Maybe King’s toe-touching meeting with Ashley will be more painful than he thought.


  29. Surely it is obvious that anyone owning shares in RIFC plc are merely waiting for the soon to come day when huge dividends being paid out when CL glory arrives at Ibrox.

    Presumably the board are now trying to out investors and possibly link them to the onerous contracts (if they exist) or indeed to Ashley.

    Still a long way to go in this saga.


  30. ( have just noticed, whether through bad eyesight or lack of care, that there is a grading system in the stars below posts . I have been just clicking the one where the cursor alights and may have inadvertently been giving posts the equivalent of a “thumbs down” . I thought all clicks on stars were a positive gesture . Sorry if I have offended anybody or lowered the rating of their post .


  31. upthehoops says:
    July 29, 2015 at 7:18 am

    In my view this is nothing other than a PR stunt, and has been all along. A third bid is unlikely to turn Hibs head. Of wider concern to me is how a skint 2nd tier club have such a vice like grip of the media.
    _______________________________________________________

    Because the media’s business model is to act as an unofficial unpaid PR outlet for this club to ingratiate with their supporters who they see as the only market that matters.

    Rightly or wrongly they think that this is in their commercial interests.

    As I said yesterday, personally I think this is utterly futile as no matter the cringing levels of sycophancy and snide digs at other clubs they still get labelled Liewell’s Phuppets/The Daily Rhebel/The Evening Thims etc etc

    It’s the same blinkered backward looking mentality that led to predictions of Armageddon and attempts to gerrymander a new team into the top division.

    Scottish Press RIP. Died chasing the tinfoil pound.


  32. Just thinking out loud – Phil has repeatedly referred to £278K being paid out of TRFC’s coffers on a monthly basis. Could these four parties be the recipients of that sum, and the removal of “dividend” rights represents a means to stop these payments, if they do actually exist?


  33. Is my interpretation correct that RIFC are trying to nulify 10% of voting rights, prevent those rights (via the shares) being sold on and saying they won’t get a dividend payment (despite WOTTPI’s tongue in cheek confidence no laughing at the back on that last one 😉 )


  34. @easyjambo don’t dividend payments have to be cleared at an agm/egm and would be payable to all sharholders on a per share basis. I don’t think there is any evidence that these shares have different rights to all the others is there?


  35. Chris Graham brags about his new club’s bargaining power over players and the size of his club:

    Chris Graham @ChrisGraham76
    See this “if roles were reversed” pish? They can’t be reversed. We are Scotland’s biggest club. No rivals to buy players we want to keep.

    Who needs rivals to buy players you want to keep when they can just do walking away? Allan McGregor. Jamie Ness. Kyle Lafferty. Rhys McCabe. Steven Whittaker. Steven Naismith.

    Scotland’s biggest club? Smaller stadium than Celtic. Smaller fanbase than Celtic. Less income than Celtic. Kicked off the stock exchange. No nomad. Not in the top league. A merchandising contract that is an idiot’s guide on how to minimise your profits: for every £10 our fans spend we will receive just 75p! No Big Cup. Only two league titles to their name. Their chairman has a criminal conviction. A previous CEO left after making comments of a racist nature. A director left after an offensive Islamic tweet. Ex-players are now fighting the club over holiday pay. The new club’s survival is dependent on Mike Ashley’s grace and favour.

    Scotland’s newest club is biggest at what? Giving the football community its longest laughfest. The Rangers – Scotland’s biggest club? Don’t make me laugh. Stop it ?????. Please.


  36. The only thing worth doing with Chris Graham is ignoring him, he was never part of the answer for Rangers, but he remains a huge part of their problem


  37. I doubt the suspension of voting makes any difference to the shareholders for the time being. No vote has been called for yet, and an updated position of holding when one is called, will nullify the suspension. I imagine that much as this has caused a tizzy in the RIFC household, it inconveniences the shareholders not a jot.
    Imagine calling an EGM when you haven’t a clue which way a vote will swing? Decisions decisions.


  38. A “Radar” Jackson exclusive from June 2014 regarding Houssami and Blue Pitch.

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/exclusive-man-behind-rangers-investors-3750868

    Houssami insisted he is the sole power behind the Blue Pitch group.

    He stressed that not only has he severed all previous ties with disgraced former executives Green and Imran Ahmad, but that HE fired them from the board.

    He was also behind the coup to topple former chairman Malcolm Murray and director Phil Cartmell last summer in the shake-up which saw James Easdale appointed to the board.

    The article leaves no room for doubt, so why haven’t Blue Pitch simply provided the details requested? I can only suppose that Houssami is just a front man for someone else, and the identity of that someone else is a very closely guarded secret.

    It’s always fun to speculate, so who could that very shy person be? Craig Whyte? Sir David Murray? Rafat Ritzvi? Whoever it is has certainly ticked the “no publicity” box.


  39. This announcement by RIFC, is really a further indication of just how weak the management team at RIFC are. Its almost August, and they haven’t even figured out who owns their shares? What exactly have they being doing, other than submitting time sheets and expenses forms? Subbuteo, presumably :mrgreen:


  40. Just thinking aloud re the shareholding announcement. Why would a member club in 41 instances and a company that owns a company that operates a member club in one instance, have to write to its shareholders asking who they are, when they’ve already written to the SFA telling them who their shareholders were/are with the SFA publicly expressing their satisfaction with the information provided.

    Just asking!


  41. Highland_Bhoy says:
    Member: (37 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 8:08 am

    how much money do you think
    Scott Allan to be worth: bearing in mind he has only one season in the Scottish championship under his belt … 100k, 200k or 500k.
    Do you think Hibs who got him for free, pay him a salary that meets a 100k, 200k or 500k player so how do we determine the value of a player.

    =========================

    Clubs have a number of ways of doing this if they so want to.

    They may want to consider:

    – potential loss at the gate over a season if fans are unhappy
    – potential loss of prize money
    – potential loss of increased income from promotion
    – potential loss of other players if they detect a lack of ambition
    – potential loss of management team if they are undermined by the board selling out key players for paltry transfer fees

    And that’s without looking at the other important factor in a sale, which is how much might the player be worth to the buyer? ie Supply and Demand

    And in addition on top of that how much is this particular player worth to your direct rivals in a forthcoming league campaign.

    So in reality it has to be much more complicated than how log is his remaning period of contract.

    In fact Hibs might feasably be better of financially by selling Allan to a club in a different league for half the cash Rangers are offering.


  42. scapaflow says:
    Member: (1339 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 1:57 pm
    This announcement by RIFC, is really a further indication of just how weak the management team at RIFC are. Its almost August, and they haven’t even figured out who owns their shares? …
    ================================
    Yes and it is rather puzzling that after such a long period without King’s presence at Ibrox, and Sky ‘interview’ aside: you would think that King would now have some relevant and uplifting news for the bears.

    Instead there is a statement about identifying long-term shareholders’ identity !

    Shirley, there must be LOTS of higher-priority, critical operational issues that King could be resolving – and publicising – like how can they improve the cashflow forecast for this season ?!


  43. andygraham.66 says:
    Member: (283 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Depending on how authentic that statement is – was it perhaps an AIM announcement?- the last paragraph pretty much turns today’s RIFC announcement into yet another squirrel.


  44. Giovanni says:
    Member: (30 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    If that’s what this is about, I imagine an intervention by Sue, Grab-it & Run can’t be far away, followed by the immediate surrender of one DCK. The fuel & glazing bill for all this smoke and mirrors must be astronomical.


  45. Who was running RIFC in August and September, 2013 ?


  46. Starman says:
    Member: (11 comments)

    July 29, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    Chris Graham brags about his new club’s bargaining power over players and the size of his club:

    Chris Graham @ChrisGraham76
    See this “if roles were reversed” pish? They can’t be reversed. We are Scotland’s biggest club. No rivals to buy players we want to keep.
    ________________________________________________________

    Paul Hartley, Barry Robson, Steven Pressley, Georgios Samaras, Kris Commons and Scott Brown among others were all variously “hijacked” according to the Scottish media by Celtic from Scotland’s biggest club whom no other Scottish club can compete with for players. What a laughably deluded statement.


  47. Craig Gordon was he not hijacked?

    Chris Graham should not treat the Petrofac Cup first round as equivalent to the World Club Championship. Proper diddy clubs regard the Petrofac as a diddy trophy not to be coveted. However this applies more to the diddies who have won major trophies.

    Ps The plural of Bully wee is Bully wee not Bully Wees.


  48. STV Sport ‏@STVSport 36m36 minutes ago
    Alan Stubbs makes call to Hibernian fans after agreeing fresh deal until 2017 http://bit.ly/1DP35ER

    =======================

    Looks like Stubbs is confident that he has the Board’s backing over Allen.


  49. The SFA Articles suggest they have an interest (and power) to obtain full disclosure of shareholder identity?

    Have they already asked and the action is simply the result or is it part of a wider manoeuvre to shed onerous contracts?

    SFA Article 13.4

    13.4 The Scottish FA is authorised to request full disclosure of the identity of all of the shareholders of a member and details of all beneficial interests represented by any such
    shareholder and all members and other relevant persons under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA will be required to meet all such requests without delay. Failure to do so will
    constitute a breach of these Articles and the Judicial Panel will have jurisdiction to deal with any such breach and to impose sanctions in relation to it.


  50. Looks like Platini is throwing his hat into the ring for FIFA President.

    A few years ago I would have thought he was an ideal candidate.

    But now, I would appreciate a new face – and preferably an outsider, if that was feasible.

    Platini would come with ‘baggage’ of promises / payback to supporters, and not a whole lot might change at FIFA.

    And under his watch, the CL has morphed into a ‘big Euro clubs’ preservation society.


  51. So!

    In the past week we’ve had:

    That pretty pointless interview with Dave King – better suited to an episode of ‘Through the Keyhole’ than Sky Sports.

    Ludicrous offers for Scott Allan accompanied by a pretty dirty media campaign.

    I am unsure, but I think a visit to Ibrox by Dave King.

    A statement that action has been taken against some shareholders whose identities are unknown, though it might be the case that the action is meaningless.

    A change in bus company to one owned by a director with no explanation as to why the change was necessary.

    An announcement that 30,200 STs have been sold, though no reference made to it being one third below the target figure.

    No mention of ‘further’ investment from the men who came to power on the back of promised ‘over-investment’.

    No word on how the ‘re-negotiations’ with Mike Ashley are going.

    TRFC show their determination to win the Petrofac Training Cup with a big win against Hibs.

    Oh, and no word on the progress in the hunt to find a Nomad, SE listing…

    So, things pretty much as usual then and the bears are happy.


  52. Giovanni says:
    Member: (30 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    At long last, an attempt to nullify the effect of the Easdale proxy votes and get the disapplication of pre-emption rights passed. The long awaited share issue cannot be far away. Let’s see if Mr King puts up or shuts up.

    ————————————-
    I see it as you do Giovanni but for:-
    ——————————————————-
    andygraham.66 says:
    Member: (283 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Grant Russell has just tweeted this via RT

    Share Information

    THE Company has in August and September 2013 sent requests under section 793 of the Companies Act 2006 to funds and nominee shareholders of the Company, including Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings asking for details of their shareholdings in the Company.
    These funds and nominees, including Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings, have properly responded to these requests.
    Grounds for action to be taken against certain shareholders for non compliance with a section 793 request have not been established and there is no basis for the Company to seek to impose restrictions on the shares held by these shareholders, contrary to recent Press Speculation.
    Accordingly the Company confirms that it respects the rights of all of its shareholders and will not seek to restrict or remove any shareholder rights unless there are legal grounds to do so for a proper purpose.
    **The Company notes recent case law (Eclairs Group Limited and Others -v- JKX Oil and Gas pic and Others [2013] EWHC 2631 (Ch)) which provides that shareholder voting rights can not be removed for the purpose of barring a shareholder from voting at a general meeting or annual general meeting.**
    —————————————–
    However after digging around:-

    Last paragraph above **, that was the case in 2013, but in May this year:-

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0179.html

    An appeal!

    If you scroll down the page to “Watch hearing” and click on any of the sessions,you will be able to get some idea, “up with which John Clark has been putting!”

    Cannot find any result. Yet. 😈


  53. Giovanni says:
    Member: (30 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    As I understand it they would need a general meeting to try to take away the pre-emption rights.

    As it stands currently they can have a rights issue of up to c40m shares, as agreed at the AGM, however this would be a rights issue and open in the first instance to existing shareholders on a pro rata basis.

    I don’t think there’s any reason it can’t be under-written though if DCK or anyone else wants to increase their holding.


  54. I note that Hibs have issued a statement condemning the social media abuse of Scott Allan and have said they will assist Police if required. Well done again for some plain talking.

    However despite all the hooha with regard to the transfer saga and all abuse being directed at the young lad, along with high profile Bears saying how welcome he would be at Ibrox I needed to find a wee video to remind me what Scott Allan looked like.

    He makes an appearance at about 40 seconds in and can be seen being applauded for his much wanted skills till the end of the clip.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dicShVw1VDI


  55. Re the Livingston FC Energy Assets sponsorship termination, and without making or suggesting any kind of connection with this, I noticed on Energy Assets Board one of those odd coincidences that seem to crop up from time to time. Look where one of their senior guys used to work :

    “John McMorrow, Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

    John was appointed as Chief Financial Officer of Energy Assets in January 2011 and is tasked with managing the financial platform for the business with responsibility for financial reporting, business forecasting and performance monitoring.

    Prior to joining the Group, John worked for Scotland’s largest private conglomerate, the Murray Group, for six years in various head of finance positions within its metals stockholding, waste management and open cast coal mining businesses…..”

    http://www.energyassets.co.uk/Our-Board

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  56. It is interesting that RIFC have banned four shareholder blocks from trading their shares because they don’t know who the owners of the shares are.

    If I am mysterious shareholder A and they have told me I can’t sell to mysterious shareholder B, how then will they know if I sell them anyway if A and B are unknown?


  57. I really think RIFC are on drugs collectively if they believe they can disenfranchise the shareholders.
    As BP says they could have no idea at all if any of the 4 now have new owners.
    Despite the appeal right now they risk yet another v v v expensive visit to court.


  58. Forgive a Luddite for not really understanding these things. However I have searched google for the details with regards RIFC removing the rights from 10% of it’s shareholders with the following results.

    I got this with a simple search.

    http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information

    However if I look in google’s cache I get this.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zlIA7GF2TisJ:www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    Very similar but it also includes the stuff posted earlier, i.e.

    THE Company has in August and September 2013 sent requests under section 793 of the Companies Act 2006 to funds and nominee shareholders of the Company, including Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings asking for details of their shareholdings in the Company.

    These funds and nominees, including Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings, have properly responded to these requests.

    Grounds for action to be taken against certain shareholders for non compliance with a section 793 request have not been established and there is no basis for the Company to seek to impose restrictions on the shares held by these shareholders, contrary to recent Press Speculation.

    Accordingly the Company confirms that it respects the rights of all of its shareholders and will not seek to restrict or remove any shareholder rights unless there are legal grounds to do so for a proper purpose.

    The Company notes recent case law (Eclairs Group Limited and Others -v- JKX Oil and Gas plc and Others [2013] EWHC 2631 (Ch)) which provides that shareholder voting rights can not be removed for the purpose of barring a shareholder from voting at a general meeting or annual general meeting.

    —————————————

    It’s almost as if RIFC decided to remove the rights of 10% of it’s shareholders. Then they thought they couldn’t do it so posted as such. Then they thought again and weren’t sure what the position was.


  59. redlichtie says:
    Member: (270 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 8:24 pm

    “John McMorrow, Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

    Prior to joining the Group, John worked for Scotland’s largest private conglomerate, the Murray Group, for six years in various head of finance positions within its metals stockholding, waste management and open cast coal mining businesses…..”

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

    ——————–
    Indeed it does.

    A quick look at his Twitter account (I presume it is his Twitter account, or someone who certainly looks very much like him) notes that he is somewhat of a Motherwell fan.

    Commensurate with his previous career in the metals industry perhaps?


  60. OT but I’m just back from a holiday visiting family in Hamburg. My Uncle a big Celtic fan (now deceased) had the Hamburg club as a customer and he was a fan. I recall him taking me to a game as a 10 year old back in 71. Anyway his Granddaughters’ whilst not mad Hamburg fans do tend to go see them but as there was a game on they asked me if I’d liked to go see ST Pauli who were playing at home on their opening day of the season. The game was a sell and one of my cousin’s daughter, my wife and my teenage son turned up at the game, we were guaranteed two tickets and unfortunately only managed to get 1 more on the day, so my poor wife ended up watching the game in the Stadium bar. Tickets for the new stand were €12 each, the atmosphere before and during the game was great, the game itself was nothing special 0-0, a crowd of about 28k, and a noisy away support. A pint of beer during the game was €4 and those people around me were very hospitable and jovial. An interesting set and mix of supporters who seemed more interested in a good day out than a result. It’s great the way supporters can enjoy a drink in and around the stadium without any problems (well I didn’t see any) and it all seemed very relaxed, a bit like the International rugby at Murrayfield. The only hassle I heard was from my wife after the game as I managed to get more drink in than her 🙂 If this was typical of a day out at German football then Scotland could learn something.


  61. Homunculus says:
    Member: (151 comments)

    July 29, 2015 at 11:15 pm

    I’m in the same boat as yourself, and don’t understand the storyline if
    Grounds for action to be taken against certain shareholders for non compliance with a section 793 request have not been established and there is no basis for the Company to seek to impose restrictions on the shares held by these shareholders, contrary to recent Press Speculation.
    and

    The Company notes recent case law (Eclairs Group Limited and Others -v- JKX Oil and Gas plc and Others [2013] EWHC 2631 (Ch)) which provides that shareholder voting rights can not be removed for the purpose of barring a shareholder from voting at a general meeting or annual general meeting.

    Grounds have not been established.
    Voting rights can not be removed .

    What am I missing ?

    The investigation thing seems to have started when Walter departed so who were the boardsmen in charge ?


  62. I think the 2013 pertains to the company being suspicious of some shareholders, but being unable to follow through due to case law precedent.

    Subsequently there has been an appeal on a similar case which may materially affect the 2013 outcome, therefore the company are pursuing the mystery men once again.

    I know little or nothing about company law but I suppose it is possible that the cloak of anonymity has been lifted by the courts and that BPH et al may have to sue to retain their voting rights.

    Certainly interesting, but only one group of folk will get richer over this – and it won’t be RIFC or BPH 🙂


  63. Post 1
    neepheid says:
    Member: (702 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 11:48 am
    http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/9724-shareholder-information
    This takes you to the official Rangers website dated
    WEDNESDAY, 29 JULY 2015 10:55

    Post 2
    andygraham.66 says:
    Member: (283 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 3:56 pm
    Grant Russell has just tweeted this via RT
    Share Information
    THE Company has in August and September 2013 sent requests under section 793 of the Companies Act 2006 to funds and nominee shareholders of the Company, including Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings asking for details of their shareholdings in the Company………

    This refers to a previous (similar request) in August / September 2013 nearly 2 years ago and ends with:-

    **The Company notes recent case law (Eclairs Group Limited and Others -v- JKX Oil and Gas pic and Others [2013] EWHC 2631 (Ch)) which provides that shareholder voting rights can not be removed for the purpose of barring a shareholder from voting at a general meeting or annual general meeting.**

    This refers to case law established in 2013 that “voting rights can not be removed for the purpose of barring a shareholder from voting at a general meeting or annual general meeting.”

    However in May of this year an appeal against the ruling in (Eclairs Group Limited and Others -v- JKX Oil and Gas pic and Others [2013] EWHC 2631 (Ch) above has taken place.
    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0179.html
    The fact that a new share statement (Post 1) has been made NOW regarding the same shareholders, suggests that the previous ruling has been overturned on appeal and the board want to ensure that these shareholders cannot vote at a future shareholders meeting. (say to remove pre-emption rights). Which has never yet been passed at any AGM/EGM to my knowledge
    My feeling, but I may be wrong, not an expert.
    Big Pink says:
    Moderator: (329 comments)
    July 30, 2015 at 12:42 am
    Much more erudite than me but yes. :irony:
    And you beat me to it. 🙁


  64. The Supreme Court hearing seems to be a reaction to a perceived corporate “raid”. Anybody know where the judgement can be found ?I think it may be a shot across the bows of Big Mick’s vessel but confess to knowing about business and the laws that “govern” it .(does Big Mike not have tanks?) You never know, though. It may give a clue as to who holds first dibs on the iconic stadium .


  65. Whatever the legal rights and wrongs of Rangers move to ban shareholders from voting we can be sure of one thing. The last place we will see any serious analysis of the move is within the Scottish media. ‘Get intae them Dave’ will be their motto, as they almost choke while gorging on official PR releases. Let’s not forget though, it’s not so long ago these shareholders were grandly referred to by the same media as ‘the Institutional Investors’.


  66. Last week we learned from Dave King that he was going to negotiate a better deal for the club with SD this week. So far all we’ve heard from him is that the board have taken steps to prevent some shareholders, hostile to the board, from voting at AGMs and EGMs. If the affected shareholders don’t react, then it could be seen as a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, Dave, what’s happening with SD and Big Mike? Oh, and what might happen to your plans for a share issue, if your move is challenged in court and you can’t have any kind of vote until a decision is reached…then maybe appealed…?


  67. paddy malarkey says:
    Member: (77 comments)
    July 30, 2015 at 2:34 am

    The Supreme Court hearing seems to be a reaction to a perceived corporate “raid”. Anybody know where the judgement can be found ?I think it may be a shot across the bows of Big Mick’s vessel but confess to knowing about business and the laws that “govern” it .(does Big Mike not have tanks?) You never know, though. It may give a clue as to who holds first dibs on the iconic stadium.

    Paddy, Homunculus provided this link: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0179.html

    If King is pursuing this line to get a dis-application of pre-emption rights it’s the most brass-necked of his actions to date EDIT: (in the Rangers case). The JKX Oil & Gas Plc court action was purported to be to hold off a ‘raid’ by a minority shareholder (“A ‘raid’ in this context refers to the exploitation of a minority shareholding to lever the shareholder’s way to a majority or actual voting control without paying a proper premium for other shareholders’ shares.”) Sound familiar? This is the man who organised a season ticket boycott and marched down the share value of RIFC to a point where he and his concert party paid less than 30% of the price Rangers fans paid. I’ve no sympathy for Blue Pitch Holdings,Putney Holdings, ATP Investments or Norne Anstalt – the beneficial owners of listed companies should be known. However, I would quite like to see some analysis in the SMSM that took account of the fact that all the characters in the Rangers fiasco are snakes.


  68. paddy malarkey says:
    Member: (77 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    ( have just noticed, whether through bad eyesight or lack of care, that there is a grading system in the stars below posts . I have been just clicking the one where the cursor alights and may have inadvertently been giving posts the equivalent of a “thumbs down” . I thought all clicks on stars were a positive gesture . Sorry if I have offended anybody or lowered the rating of their post .
    =========================
    I wasn’t sure whether getting five stars was a compliment or a claim to infamy through assocation with an ex SPL club (now IL).


  69. Big Pink says:
    Moderator: (329 comments)
    July 29, 2015 at 10:46 pm

    It is interesting that RIFC have banned four shareholder blocks from trading their shares because they don’t know who the owners of the shares are.

    If I am mysterious shareholder A and they have told me I can’t sell to mysterious shareholder B, how then will they know if I sell them anyway if A and B are unknown?
    =====================
    The sale would need to be shown on the company share register to be effective, and as such the transfer would need to be advised to the company secretary. With the AIM listing that would have been automatic.


  70. It seems that the St Mirren manager is doing what might be called a barryferguson which is more often suffered by Bully Wee followers. When are TRFC playing the World Club Championship-surely that is the only thing which would generate such a large amount of media coverage. The Scott Allan transfer saga seems to be at the Gareth Bale level of significance. TRFC should embrace the diddiness for that way lies redemption.

Comments are closed.