Fergus McCann v David Murray

1240
132702

How Celtic Turned the Tables on their Glasgow Rivals by Stephen O Donnell:
A Review by Auldheid.

Stephen’s previous publication, Tangled Up In Blue provided a detailed history of the rise and fall of Glasgow Rangers FC PLC from 1872 until their demise in 2012. Clearly a lot of research had been done to cover the period in such detail and his follow up publication Fergus McCann v David Murray etc carries on with that tradition. It is a smorgasbord of a book with many different issues succulently served up in its 350 pages.

It tells of events under David Murray’s tenure at Ibrox which began in November 1988 and ended in May 2011 when he left Craig Whyte holding the rope that became a noose just under a year later in April 2012 when Whyte was found guilty of bringing Scottish football into disrepute whilst Murray claimed he was duped.

Readers of the book will come to the conclusion that if anyone did the duping it was David Murray and it wasn’t just Craig Whyte he duped but Scotland’s national game. If ever Murray were to be tried for crimes against Scottish football then this book would be cited as evidence.

It was against the background of David Murray’s tenure at Rangers that Fergus McCann first arrived on the scene in April 1989 with proposals to inject £17M of New Capital into Celtic that the Celtic Board rejected as per minutes:

Proposals put forward by Fergus McCann to provide finance for various capital expenditures were unanimously rejected by the Directors’; and then again in August of the same year: ‘Mr McCann’s latest proposals were discussed and it was hoped that this was a final discussion on the subject. Latest proposals were rejected by Directors.
Fergus later returned to the fray and the chapter on how he was successful in ousting the Board in 1994 is an informative read, particularly if in that period single parenting cares took precedence over caring for Celtic.

I was amused reading the tale of discontent aimed at the old Board after a Ne’erday 4-2 defeat to Rangers in January 1994 when a bemused Walter Smith was watching the hostility aimed at the Celtic Directors box, one fan in the main stand screamed at him, ‘What are you looking at, it’s got fuck all to do with you.”

For me anyway there were a few “not a lot of people know that” moments like that in the book.
The contrast between Fergus McCann’s and David Murray’s style was immediately evident, but the impact of Fergus’s shorter tenure from 1994 to 1999 became more than evident after McCann left and the author does not miss the role servile journalists played and hit the wall for turning Celtic supporters against McCann during his tenure, whilst they dined on Murray’s succulent lamb. A role that in the end helped bring about Rangers end, but not the culture of servility when covering the activity of Rangers FC PLC successor club from 2012.

Sky TV get it in the neck too and if David Murray played the part of Colonel Mustard in killing Scottish football through his financial recklessness and duplicity, Sky are the lead pipe whose toxicity still dictates the nature of the current state of play.( I said it was a Smorgasbord)

Fergus kind of did what it said on the tin. In his case a tin of nippy sweeties, but it was interesting to read about his early years when even then he was described as “a cheeky upstart” but his “idiosyncrasies” and appearance under a bunnet, disguised a sharp if impatient business mind where for him getting straight to the point was akin to procrastination.

So too has Murray’s early years been covered including his rejected attempt to buy Ayr Utd, a rejection by Ayr Directors, who considered Murray was too hot headed and most volatile, that infuriated him.

Their conclusion that he was trying to get Ayr United on the cheap with only £125k of his own money involved was an indicator of his strategy of using other people’s money to invest and not his own. Other people including unsuspecting taxpayers to a tune of £50 million or so.

As you follow the narrative of both Fergus McCann and David Murray and the events that surrounded them, you end up wondering how so many could have been fooled for so long by one guy, but when you have the Scottish media in your pocket it was difficult to separate fact from fiction during the tenure of both. You also wonder how Murray remains a Knight of the Realm since.

Luckily for Celtic Fergus knew business fact from PR fiction and avoided the illusion in which Celtic’s main rivals continue to struggle to this day.

The great pity is that few, if any of the Scottish main stream media will even give this book a mention, because if you don’t write about it, it never happened, except it did and this book is proof.

I therefore recommend anyone interested in the future of our game buys it and asks, is it not now time to revisit the purpose of Scottish football?

Auldheid

1240 COMMENTS


  1. Scottish FA to make up to 18 staff members redundant following review. Also predicting losses of around £4.5 million due to COVID-19
    ……………….
    What chance have clubs


  2. paddy malarkey 4th November 2020 at 15:44

    And I'd wager that the CEO with Oriental eyes isn't responsible for covid-19 either

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

    Who?


  3. I note that in the recent consultation process, only 20 SPFL clubs (less than 50%) agreed to give the SPFL board/exec. extra powers to deal with virus related circumstances that may arise.

    I seem to recall 27 clubs gave the SPFL their backing with 2 abstensions in the resolution to force an independent investigation into the SPFL and events surrounding Omnishambles I.

     

    I said before the later, that to not have an independent investigation at that point would have a cost further down the line (greater than the cost of an investigation). It was an opportunity to draw some kind of line under what had happened, either forcing necessary change or clearing individuals names and thus making it more probable that at least 76% of clubs may support a reslolution to give the SPFL the powers they seek.

    Hollywood often squeeze out a sequel but the SPFL won’t make money on the back of Omnishambles II

     


  4. Reasonablechap.

    Covid was an unknown unknown that has hit all football clubs.

    The ones who will best survive are the ones who were on a solid footing and reacted quickly to deal with the situation.

    Those who continue on as normal are the ones most likely to run into trouble.

    I see little or no evidence of T'Rangers acting anyway different from the old club. That being,  trying to spend their way out of trouble in the hope of some Euro success.  In 2012 the unknown unknowns were that the money from never ending share issues dried up, Euro runs ended and Hector finally came calling.

    Not saying the current club is going to fall but it is a tightrope they are travelling along.

    You could surmise that the £4 m is to cover the loss of income from home gates at Euro ties. Therefore the club may have budgeted (gambled) on that income stream and Covid has blown that out the water much the same as McCoists Euro failure.

    It really is a case of seeing how long 'investors' can keep funding the club to the required level of spending.


  5. Reasonablechap

    Plenty other unknown unknowns

    What is the true cost of transfer business.

    Has Morelos and other chums been asking for more cash

    What is the overall wage bill like.

    Are Euro bonuses and other financial incentives being paid but no gate income to cover it.

    T'Rangers aren't the only ones. Dundee Utd must be on a shoogly peg with their wages to income ratio.

    I have always tipped my hat to the financial juggling going on at Ibrox but still convinced it wouldn't take too much for the pack of cards to fall again. It may never come to that but no one should be surprised if it did.


  6. Most senior clubs will have liquidity problems right now as restrictions continue to bite.

    And you can guess what could be happening now, or shortly, WRT the SFA’s treatment of clubs going bust.  There could be lobbying at Hampden by clubs most at risk – to get exceptional treatment due to covid impacts.

    TRFC could even position itself as a ‘leader’ of those clubs, to force the SFA/SPFL to accommodate their demands.

    And, TRFC could simultaneously try to exploit any restructuring concessions given to clubs to try to ‘legitimise’ their continuation lie, and their claims to unearned trophies.

     

    Separately, RIFC doesn’t have a break even plan: at best, it’s winging it.

    Even with EL revenues, the previous 2 years returned eight figure losses.  The RIFC Accounts for ’19/’20 – which Ibrox is rather reluctant to release – will show yet another loss of c.£10M, or more.

    Murray applied financial doping by using other people’s money – mostly Bank of Scotland money.

    Financial doping is still present at Ibrox – and again, there is no oversight from Hampden.  The only difference this time is that not one bank will risk giving RIFC even one pound of credit!


  7. Homunculus 4th November 2020 at 21:49

    Sorry , some fans of a certain new club refer to PL as Pete the Jap , etc , I think in light of his arched eyebrows . Hilarious , innit ?


  8. reasonablechap 5th November 2020 at 08:24

    I think that certainly in recent years, it would be much more accurate for it to read…

    "When you pull on that jersey you are not just playing for a football club, you're playing for a PLC"

    Sorry, me no understandy…

    I thought the separation was an accepted given now no…?


  9. reasonablechap 5th November 2020 at 08:24
    “When you pull on that jersey you are not just playing for a football club, you’re playing for an Engine room subsidiary.
    Should have had that on the dressing room at ibrox back in the day. Players may have gone that little bit extra;-)


  10. Shot yourself in the foot with that one.

     

    "When you pull on that jersey you are not just playing for a football club, you're playing for a PLC"

    Wonder what TUPE would think.


  11. TUPE was one of my favourite Rangers / The Rangers pieces of nonsense Charles Green came up with.

    I wondered at the time, did he genuinely believe the bunkum he was spouting. Or was it just more propaganda to try to strengthen the "No Change here" lie. 


  12. Homunculus

    I'm sure he, being a most Reasonable Chap, had all his employees backs ………….stabbed!


  13. bect67 5th November 2020 at 16:59

    He wasn't best pleased with the 6 who decided not to sign a contract with his new club and decided to go elsewhere.

    That was clearly possible because a, with the club failing their contracts were no longer valid and b, that also meant their registration reverted to the association.

    So they could agree a contract with any club they wanted, and their registration would automatically be passed to that club.


  14. Homunculus 5th November 2020 at 16:53

    TUPE was one of my favourite Rangers / The Rangers pieces of nonsense Charles Green came up with.
    ……………..
    The thing with TUPE, the players who walked away were criticised by Green ( water of a ducks back to the players who walked away)
    But when Sandy Jardine accused the players who were aiming to leave Ibrox for free of greed after they refused to transfer their contracts to Charles Green’s newco.
    Never sat right with me how some players who walked away were welcomed for turning up at ibrox years later.
    A Giant of a man in the ibrox fans eyes, and so critical of the ones who walked.I don’t think he would have welcomed the players who turned up years later.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9359682/Rangers-in-crisis-Sandy-Jardine-blasts-greedy-wantaways-as-John-Fleck-and-Juan-Manuel-Ortiz-look-to-leave.html


  15. Cluster One

    A Giant of a man in the ibrox fans eyes, and so critical of the ones who walked.I don’t think he would have welcomed the players who turned up years later.

    they players left a club that had died,what annoys me is that they knew it died,left and then  signed for sevco and insisted it was the same club that they said was no more,where is the journalists ti pull them up over this…i know i know 


  16. Prompted by the earlier references to 'playing for a plc', I had a wee refresher look at the genesis of the Big Lie. 

    Those already familiar with the detail may talk among themselves while I re-state the simple facts for the benefit of new readers of the sfm.scot blog and/or persons who, unpaid as PR people for RIFC plc, might actually not know the facts.

    The indisputable facts are these:

    The football club founded by the 4 Young Men on Glasgow Green in 1872 as The Rangers Football club was incorporated as The Rangers Football Club Ltd on 27 May 1899 , registered with Companies House under number 4276.

    It was re-registered , keeping the same number 4276, as a Public Limited Company and changing its name to The Rangers Football Club plc on 31 March 1982.

    This company ,number 4276 ,was, of course, the entity that owned the share in a football league, and on that account was a member of the SFA and permitted to play in the professional game.

    It went into Administration (ruined by the vaulting ambition of SDM, its majority shareholder) and while in Administration changed its name to RFC 2012 but, of course could not change its number, 4276.

    On 31 October 2012 Lord Hodge ordered that the entity bearing company number 4276 be wound up, appointing BDO as Liquidators. The entity that bore number 4276 was, of course, the football club  Rangers of 1872. 

    Turning to the new creations, we find that TRFC , the football club, started life as SevcoScotland .

    SevcoScotland was incorporated , came into being, on 29 May 2012, with the number 425159.

    It changed its name to The Rangers Football Club  Ltd on 31 July 2012, but had to keep the same CH number-425159.[ And there was a question to be asked as to why that new entity was not seen to have been in breach of the provisions of the Companies Act 2006 by calling itself by the very same name as an existing company which is in Liquidation but still legally 'existing'. I feel a letter coming on!]

    There is absolutely no legal way that TRFC is a continuation of the club founded in 1872. (and for an IPO Prospectus that appears to claim otherwise, that might be a problem)

    (and the Trump-like ass-hole of a QC who , like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, seemed to believe in ectoplasm, the essence , the 'what-it's-all-about-ness' of a football club that died being transferred into a newly created being may go hang! God grant that he may never be elevated to the Bench)

    The SFA is a lying, cheating governance body , it must be concluded, in having struck  a deal with CG under which it sold the  soul of Sporting Integrity and agreed ( under secret 'blood oath' of confidentiality!) to allow a new club to claim entitlement to the sporting honours etc of a club that was in front of their very eyes lying in the death grip of Liquidation even as their poisonous pens were signing the filthy 5-Way Agreement.

    I have no wish to see Scottish Football as a whole collapse on account of covid-19.

    But there is no club that has not at least acquiesced in the Big Lie, albeit with varying degrees of culpability. There will be , and are, clubs who shared the view of the late and much honoured and respected Turnbull Hutton who told it as it was, but for variable understandable reasons did not feel like making martyrs of themselves in the bullying culture of Scottish football business.

    But then again, perhaps 'martyrdom' is sometimes required for the sake of truth.

    So, perhaps, there would be some kind of just retribution for wrongdoing if covid-19  kills them. 

    Tell the truth, and shame the devil is maybe the wisest   counsel in the end. 

    [ on a lighter note, can I say that at about two o'clock this afternoon I was 'asked' by Mrs C to give the grass a cut. I did so, because it was a beautiful afternoon, slightly chilly, but with the sun shining in a blue sky. 

    Serendipity number one: Just after I got the mower plugged in  in the garage and had come out into the ten by ten square yards of grass of the back garden, I heard the sound of geese. I looked up , and there above was a skein of geese in beautiful geometric V-shape, heading east of North! 

    Now, there must be somebody on the blog who knows about these things. Why would geese be flying north at this time of year as opposed to south?

    Serendipity number two: About an hour later  what did I hear and see in the sky but a delta-winged aeroplane , flying due east but maybe too high to be on the regular course which sees them banking to the north and west to come into an approach to Edinburgh airport.

    Those two little serendipities fairly cheered me up.

    Life is about more than cheating sports governance bodies, or club Boards, none of whose members will, I guarantee, sleep as happily as I, easy with their conscience and unworried about their finances.]

     

     


  17. John Clark, thanks for that post, which I have copied for future reference.

    Even the denier RC can comprehend those facts.

    As to the geese, if my memory serves me right, they fly north to a special feeding

    place , get a right good fill and then they are on their way for the winter.

    As I am “ on” I will take the bait about jambo.

     I just can’t understand where he is coming from as regards his 2012 statement.

    Does he not go to court regularly for cases pertaining to that time?

    Sometimes I do wonder where he is coming from.

     I must say I have the very highest opinion of him as regards his court, financial expertise.

     I think he is wrong just to say let’s move on. In my opinion a lie is a lie and I for one will

    state that fact until hell freezes over. Cheats fc must be held to account. The disgusting BBC

    and the so called sports reporters too.


  18. Something to break the monotony next week

    “LORD TYRE – T Sadler, Clerk

    Wednesday 11th November

    By Order

    A54/19 Charles Green v The Chief Constable of Police Scotland &c  …”

     NB No access code for virtual hearing yet provided

     

     

     


  19. John Clark 6th November 2020 at 13:12

    Something to break the monotony next week

    “LORD TYRE – T Sadler, Clerk

    Wednesday 11th November By Order A54/19 Charles Green v The Chief Constable of Police Scotland &c …”

    ==========

    Lord Tyre will have to tread carefully with the polis!

    (Bet he's never heard that one? enlightened ).

     

    And I read recently that the SFA is considering redundancies.

    IMO, the SFA doesn't need an unqualified, £300K+ p.a. CEO.

    That must equate to c.10 Hampden 'worker' jobs.

    And what about President Petrie?

    Does anybody know his salary?

    He's not like previous Presidents, but much more hands on and more like a CEO.  Can't imagine Petrie is paid the same rate as his predecessor Macrae for example?

     


  20. StevieBC 6th November 2020 at 16:33
    And I read recently that the SFA is considering redundancies.
    ……………
    Is the compliance officer one of them? Not one person from ibrox has been cautioned for bringing the game into disrepute early this year.


  21. John Clark 6th November 2020 at 13:12

    Something to break the monotony next week

    “LORD TYRE – T Sadler, Clerk

    Wednesday 11th November

    By Order

    A54/19 Charles Green v The Chief Constable of Police Scotland &c …”

    NB No access code for virtual hearing yet provided
    …………………….
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49289188
    £20Mill charles is looking for.
    Has anyone worked out just how much the ibrox debacle has cost the tax payer, and just how much the ibrox debacle have gone through in their 8 year history trying to keep the show on the road. And just how much the ibrox debacle has cost the whole of the game in scotland.
    Was the cost worth the effort SFA? Just how much would have been saved to the game in the summer of 2012 if the SFA had just said NO?


  22. Sorry to be a wee bit tardy in raising this minor issue – I blame the US elections. However the recent share issue doesn’t quite add up – literally. The previous statement of capital dated 5th October says the total number allotted is 302,881,982 and the recent statement dated 3rd November says they allotted a further 19,314,931 to give a new total of 322,196,912. Well what caught my eye is just the last digit of each number. We start with 2 and add 1 and the answer is 2 – not when I went to skule!

    Now I realise that all this high finance is above my pay grade – but I can coont.


  23. Cluster One 6th November 2020 at 17:34

    '.. And just how much the ibrox debacle has cost the whole of the game in scotland?'

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    It cost the game its very soul, Cluster One, its very soul.

    No one now, perhaps especially RIFC plc ,who benefited most from the governance bodies' readiness to lie, can believe that the SFA is capable of fundamental honesty and true sporting integrity?

    What may be said of the pronounced unwillingness of the SPFL clubs to give their Board powers to act vis-a-vis covid-19 situations can certainly be said also of the general body of the SFA membership.

    We all know from our personal working lives that even if you benefit from the cheating of your boss, you'll know the measure of the man- namely, that he is a man without personal honour or integrity, who is just as likely to act against you deceitfully as he acted for you. 


  24. Giovanni 6th November 2020 at 18:23

    '..the recent share issue doesn’t quite add up – literally..'

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    Good spot, Giovanni.  Proof positive that Companies House mean it when they say they don't 'verify the accuracy of the information filed'!

    I wonder who in Ibrox actually keys in the info on the  SH01and doesn't have someone check it before he presses 'send'? 

     


  25. On the subject of sports cheating:

    "A four-day hearing in a landmark legal case that could strip Russia of its identity at the next two Olympic Games and four years of world championships opened on Monday"

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/article-sports-court-opens-four-day-hearing-in-russian-doping-case/

    """""

    Lausanne, 5 November 2020 – The hearing in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) arbitration procedure between the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) took place, as scheduled, from 2-5 November 2020.

    In light of the travel restrictions and sanitary measures in place in Switzerland and in the Canton of Vaud due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing took place in a mixed format with the majority of participants joining via video link.

    The Arbitral Panel in charge of the arbitration will now deliberate and prepare the Arbitral Award containing its decision. While it is difficult to predict exactly how long this process will take, it is anticipated that the Arbitral Award will be notified to the parties by the end of this year.

    Once the exact date is known, CAS will publish a short note on its website to advise when and how the decision will be announced."

    https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6689_posthearing.pdf

    _________

    Sport is sport, and cheating to win is not 'sport'.

    In the case of SDM's Rangers the cheating was established as fact ( even if no lying cheating bast.rd has  ever (so far) been held to account and appropriately punished)

    We await the decision on whether the Russians cheated.

    Is Russia too influential to be found guilty? Too big to be challenged or found guilty?

    Has the  the Arbitral panel had the benefit of 'Brysonism'?  Or LNS views that purchasing the services of sportsmen ranked among the best in Europe does not give any advantage to the sports club that does so?

    I'm smiling to myself as I recall the whole bloody nonsense of the saga of the death of a cheating football club , the denial of that death by  the governance body of Scottish Football and the construction of  the most ludicrous lie that a new club created in 2012 is actually 140 years older.

    Honest to God!

    Even the Russians (or, to be topical, the 'Donald') wouldn't hope that such a lie would wash!broken heart

     


  26. John Clark 6th November 2020 at 00:44

    In a recent conversation on Twitter @Jas72Boyd quoted the following excerpt as "uncontested legal opinion" of the continuation of the club (sic)

    "[21]      The Rangers Football Club Plc ceased to be the owner and operator of a football team in consequence of the sale to SEVCO Scotland Limited by its administrators on 14 June 2012 of substantially the whole of its business and undertaking, including Rangers Football Club.  Article 6 of the Articles of Association of the SPL provides:

    ”a share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a person who is the owner and operator of a club and if a member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a club then such member shall cease to be entitled to hold a share”.

    The share in the SPL Limited previously owned by The Rangers Football Club Plc was not transferred to SEVCO Scotland Limited, the new owner and operator of The Rangers Football Club Plc.  Dundee Football Club was transferred a share in the SPL, and played in the SPL in the 2012/2013 season.

    [22]  In respect of the 2012/2013 season, Rangers Football Club played in the third division of the SFL."

    https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7  

    OPINION OF LORD BANNATYNE In the cause ALBERT IAN KINLOCH (AP) Pursuer against CORAL RACING LIMITED


  27. sannoffymesssoitizz,

    We cannot deny – it is there within the rules in black and white – that the fiction of a football club being a distinct entity from the corporate entity is enshrined in the constitution of the SFA and SPFL.

    ONCE this fiction is adopted, the continuation of Rangers FC 1872 is a given. Allow the conjuring trick of separating "club" from company, the sleight of hand of sevco = Rangers FC is a fait accompli.

    Moaning about the effect whilst paying no heed to the cause is futile in my opinion.

    Tell me this: what challenge has been made to this model in preposterousness that is at the heart of the football rulebook in Scotland?

    What challenge – financially backed and in the courts as that is where this change must be made, the other member clubs will never bother – has been made against the fiction?

    8 YEARS since we saw a conjuring trick played out in front of our very eyes by the authorities, using the tools their own rulebook gave them.

    What legal challenge has been made to those rules?


  28. sannoffymesssoitizz 7th November 2020 at 09:18
    Jas will only post what he wants you to read.
    I am satisfied that what did not happen was that the SPL moved or demoted rangers to a lower division. rangers ended up in a lower division by the entry into a contract that allowed them to join the SFL in the third division.
    Best to ignore him and his delusion, otherwise you could end up being his lap dog


  29. brian_d84 7th November 2020 at 09:55

    "..the fiction of a football club being a distinct entity from the corporate entity is enshrined in the constitution of the SFA and SPFL.

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    I give you this, brian_d84:

    At a general meeting of the SPL on 22 October 2012, a resolution was passed making some amendments to the Articles of Association.

    Article 14 was deleted in its entirety and replaced by this:

    " Art 14.   If a member shall   

    i) cease to be entitled to hold a share 

    or

    ii) take, suffer or be subject to an Insolvency event, then that member or its manager, interim manager, receiver, administrative receiver, judicial factor, administrator, provisional liquidator, interim liquidator, or the equivalent in office or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board …….transfer the Share held by it or any of them to such other person as the Board shall direct…. and the club owned and operated by such member shall…cease to be a member of the League  and the club owned and operated by the transferee shall on the transfer of the Share being registered  become a member of the League in its place."

    That amendment took effect on 22 October 2012. Rangers Football Club plc entered Liquidation nine days later( under the new name of RFC 2012 plc given to it by CG to try to hide the fact that it was Rangers Football Club of 1872 that had been liquidated)

    It is so abundantly plain that it was the football club that ceased to be a member of the League that it is difficult not to conclude that those who deny that fact are, if they are not mentally ill, deliberately blinding themselves, and trying to blind others, to the truth, with all the ridiculous nonsense about holding companies , or RFC of 1872 merely having changed ownership, and SevcoScotland /TRFC being RFC of 1872.

    SevcoScotland did not exist as a legal entity before it was incorporated on 29 May 2012. 

    It did not become a football club until it was admitted into the SFL on 13 July 2012.

    Rangers Football Club plc still was a shareholder member of the SPL on 30 October 2012.

    The really distressing thing is that so many in Football governance and the print press and the BBC have made whores of themselves in generating the bast.rd progeny known as the Big Lie.

     


  30. Thanks for your response at 12:47 on 7th November 2020 Cluster One 

    I posted this earlier because it was the first time I’d come across this argument and I’d not taken much interest in the case in question.

    I can assure you that as a former HMRC Company Compliance Investigation Officer, I’m nobody’s lap dog and I was not at all taken in by his comments, especially as the following excerpt from Lord Bannatyne’s Decision (that I’ve highlighted in bold type) is clearly not credible. 

    “The share in the SPL Limited previously owned by The Rangers Football Club Plc was not transferred to SEVCO Scotland Limited, the new owner and operator of The Rangers Football Club Plc.!!! 

      


  31. Thanks for response at 09:55 on 7th November 2020  brian_d84

    As far as I recall Scots' Law states that the legal identity of company and company is indivisible, regardless of anything in the Constitution and/or Articles of Association of a members' organisation, which in the case of the SFA and SPL/SPFL are in reality cabals.

    The fact that none of the other members of these cabals has challenged these amendments is not surprising, but is still an utter disgrace. 


  32. sannoffymesssoitizz 7th November 2020 at 19:05

    Thanks for your response at 12:47 on 7th November 2020 Cluster One

    I posted this earlier because it was the first time I’d come across this argument and I’d not taken much interest in the case in question.
    …………………
    Every few weeks jas pops up on twitter with this. selects the parts he wants to select, and as you pointed out leaves out the parts he wants. sometimes he changes club to team to suit a narrative. In the end when he is defeated he changes the subject or blocks for a time, then pops up a few weeks later thinking everyone has forgotten.


  33. sannoffymesssoitizz 7th November 2020 at 19:05

    ".especially as the following excerpt from Lord Bannatyne’s Decision (that I’ve highlighted in bold type) is clearly not credible. .."

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    That bit of Lord Bannatyne's judgment is just absolute, self-contradictory mince in what it says about the ownership merely changing.

    I thought so at the time, and still think so. 

    But of course, we have to remember that Lord B was dealing with the simple question of whether a club merely named as 'Rangers' on a betting slip and playing in the SPL at the time was 'relegated' to the third division under SPL rules.  

    He must have sweated blood,poor man, trying to find ways of saying that the 'Rangers' of the betting slip was not actually the 'Rangers' that were no longer in the SPL  and that it was a wholly different football club (brand new) that was playing in the 3rd division, and therefore that the punter had lost his bet!

    His judgment was correct in the end of course: RFC plc had ceased to be a member of the SPL, and was not in existence to be able to be  relegated!

    The 'Rangers' of the betting slip was the SevcoScotland /TRFC taking up for the first time a place in Scottish Professional football.

    Mr Kinloch quite correctly lost the case.

    But I sympathetically think that Lord B , poor man,  had suffered  a wee wobbly in not seeing straight off that RFC plc had not in fact been sold to CG, even when he saw clearly that CG had not become the owner of a share in the SPL.

    I, at this time of night, shake my head and, as it happens even as I type, take the hand of  Mrs C who has just come in to the kitchen and give it the usual affectionate squeeze, without hurting her swollen knuckle.

     


  34. John C
    To be fair, the Trumpian proportions of misinformation via the press and the khazi paralegals on social media would confuse the most learned of m’luds.
    In the circumstances, Lord B deserves a pass.


  35. John

    That bit of Lord Bannatyne’s judgment is just absolute, self-contradictory mince in what it says about the ownership merely changing.

    ======%%%======

    ANY governing body from the SPFL to SFA to UEFA to Government to the Legal system and not forgetting YOUR own football clubs say one thing, You and a few other rival football fans have a different opinion/interpretation, which of course, you have every right to have and express.

    However, bottomline is that no-one is going to change their opinion and out in the real world, there isn’t even a debate.

    ===

    On another theme that Homunculas touched upon a couple of pages ago. The continuation or otherwise of  Neil Lennon as Celtic manager is a question that I think may soon be resolved. I’d obviously like him to stay but going by what he has been saying to the media about video analysis (Daily Record), I think it’s starting to look as though he himself wants out, but for Peter to write him a large cheque on the way out the door.

    My prediction (outside bet) is that today, win or lose, is the last game Neil ever manages a professional football team. Perhaps it’s time in life to prioritise his own health.

    I don’t know when the PLC have their AGM or it’s even allowed at present but Peter may have to look out his deflector shield for it. He may even give Res12er’s a chance to make a headline, but little more.

     


  36. Whilst nothing changes or improves at Hampden,

    then nobody is going to change their opinion about the levels of honesty and integrity in the Scottish game.

    That is the 'gift' that Ibrox has bestowed on the game since 2012: a permanent cloud hanging over the game.

    In the real world the debate about The Rangers lying about being Rangers FC is actually going to peak in 2022, IMO.

    As much as The Rangers tries to reinforce the '150 years' deception, there will be equally loud cries of derision from supporters of all the other clubs – who played the game by the rules.


  37. StevieBC 8th November 2020 at 11:18

    I don't think there will be "…equally loud cries of derision from supporters of all the other clubs …"

    Speaking only for myself, I am content in the fact that there is a clear trail from the entity that was formed all those years ago to the one which is being liquidated. It may have changed the type of legal entity it was but it is definitely the same entity, it still exists, albeit it is currently being liquidated.

    I am also content that, whilst various organisation may have said various things with regards it's status their actions made it clear that they considered the new club just that. For example if it was the same club which was second in a league why did it have to apply to join that same league the following season. Why did it have to apply to join a different league instead, and be place in the bottom division of that league. The simple reason is that it was newly formed, it wasn't a member of a league or an association. 

    It may be important to supporters of the new club that they continue pretending they support the old one, the one they allowed to die. It's not that important to me, I know the truth, no matter what lies other people try to propagate.


  38.  

    1. StevieBC 8th November 2020 at 11:18
    2. I'm still stuck at thge bit where RFC was founded in March 1872 ,but they are celebrating 150 years since founding in 2021 . And it will be a genuine celebration of the founding of the club which is currently in the hands of liquidators , not the club currently topping the Premiership . Some folk may ignore the difference , but I'm suire the media will alert them to their folly .

  39. Paddy Malarkey
    I’m still stuck at how 1873 became 1872. I’m sure it wasn’t because it brought a money spinning 140th forward by a year in a time of penury. I’ve been told it’s because they ‘discovered’ a first game a year earlier than they thought. That seems a bit slipshod, history and chronology-wise. I wonder if there any other historical anomalies surrounding club/company/ethereal entity? 😂😂😂


  40. reasonablechap 8th November 2020 at 08:51

    "..ANY governing body from the SPFL to SFA to UEFA to Government to the Legal system and not forgetting YOUR own football clubs say one thing,.."

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    And that "one thing" is, of course, an untruth!

    Man dear, you're kind of like the Donald, inhabiting a self-constructed world that has nothing to do with truth. 

    I've mentioned Galileo Galilei a couple of times before, and I'll mention him again: it did not matter that he was disbelieved ( and 'prosecuted') when he asserted that the earth moves round the sun: he was right, and all the disbelieving in the world-whether by Pope, Emperor, King(ha!) or the besmocked yokels in the equivalent of the Louden Tavern in the Glasgow of the early 17th century, could not and did not change that fact! 

    Rangers football club founded in 1872 ceased to be entitled to participate in Scottish Football when it ceased to be a shareholder  of the SPL and, in consequence, ceased to be entitled to membership of the SFA. 

    Your personal inability to accept that fact is a matter of indifference to me- you can , if you like, pretend to be Bill Struth ,or one of the Four Young men of Glasgow Green, and I'll shake your hand and buy you a good-humoured pint as you recount your history.

    It's when influential business men ( one or two of whom  have been found not to be entirely the clean potato) get involved in distortion of truth for financial reasons that untruth begins to matter.

    And it's when a sports governance body engages in supporting and fostering a ridiculous sporting untruth  that  integrity is lost, and the game's a bogey!

     


  41. Big Pink 8th November 2020 at 16:55

    "…..I’m sure it wasn’t because it brought a money spinning 140th forward by a year in a time of penury.."

    """"""""""""""""""""""""

    To which I reply by referring you to my post at 22.06, with the observation  that if they can  lie about TRFC not being a new football club created in 2012 in the face of  abundant and easily accessible  evidence to the contrary, lying about an event which occurred 139/140 years ago would be a scoosh!broken heart 

    But, fairmindedly, there might be some kind of evidence ( a contemporary press report, somebody's personal  diary entry, a copy of a contemporary letter to a relative, a note of interest  in the minutes of a contemporary lodge meeting, or in the City archives ( Parks department) .or whatever. 

    To make the claim is easy. To substantiate the claim is perhaps not quite so easy-especially when the claimant is already living a lie!

    If there is any evidence to support the claim ( and there may well be) it would be interesting to see it!


  42. I had sat down tonight to post about ‘reporting restrictions’ in some ‘saga’ related cases, but got caught up in the posts with RC and the posts about the date of foundation of Rangers FC. I’ve said my piece about that.

    What I had wanted to mention is that I went up into my attic ( wherein is my ‘library’) earlier today to hunt out my dad’s Army Pay Book and the letter the padre in Italy wrote to my mammy to say that ‘ your husband has been a bit wounded’ (  leg blown off on Monte Cairo!) but ‘is in good spirits’.( I was minded to pursue a gap between him being in the military hospital in Chester and being transferred to Erskine Hospital)

    Anyway, my bundle of notebooks in which  I scribbled my notes of  the various ‘saga related ‘ hearings I attended is up there in the attic. 

    I came down the ladder with one of those notebooks. I have it here in front of me.

    The first case in it: 6 May 2014.

    ‘Imran Ahmad v The Rangers Football Club’, before Lord Armstrong. Mr McBrearty QC, for Ahmad, Mr Somers QC, for TRFC.

    I’ve  struggled very hard to decipher my scribbles ( I think I must  have been trying not to be seen taking notes)

    I can see that it was about the Sheikh wanting £500 000 of RIFC plc’s money to be ring-fenced for him in case they went bust.

    The Sheikh claimed that CG signed a contract under which the Sheikh was due that sum.( Section 15F of the Act of 1987 was cited, according to my note)

    What I wasn’t sure about was whether that case was under ‘reporting restrictions’

    I looked at the current list of such cases shown on the Court of Session website but I don’t see it.

    I don’t see it on the ‘Court of Session judgments’ pages as being a reported case, nor is it to be found on Baillii as a reported case [ cases are reported only if there is some special feature of general legal or public interest significance]

    Can I conclude that I am free to put my notes on the blog without being in contempt of Court?

    Not that there is anything terribly exciting to report: just the general line of the arguments( as I understood them) put forward by Counsel for each party.

     


  43. My post of 00.16 above: it is the Debtor’s (Scotland) Act 1987 that was referred to.
    And it’s away past my bedtime.
    Goodnight all.


  44. John

    Man dear, you’re kind of like the Donald, inhabiting a self-constructed world that has nothing to do with truth. 

    =====%%%=====

    First time I’ve been compared to Donald Trump or a political leader of any kind angry I’m more accustomed to it being James Traynor (on here) or Seumas Milne (elsewhere) !! 

    One thing that stuck me about Trump was the way he managed to attack others, citing pretty much what he had done or was doing himself. Ironic perhaps, but I think you do the same above.

    You use the phrase “self-constructed world”, it is plain wrong.

    What we have is a legal interpretation of the question at hand that is accepted by the footballing authorities, the justice system, the football clubs and so on. It’s the black and white reality, period.

    You and others on here strongly disagree, as you have every right to… but the phrase (self-)constructed world would be much more applicable to the relatively small band of followers to your version of the unofficial truth. You construct your truth (legal interpretation) but it has little to do with the actual official interpretation (at all levels) and therefore reality. 

    You can construct a world where we can all choose to ignore what X authority or government put forward, disregard the legal system and their take and go against the very institutions (clubs) that you support…….but you’d be looking at a true chaos.

    Perhaps you can write to clubs who were behind Rangers on their 10 year rankings (which included points gained prior to 2012) and therefore received less prize money from the UEFA pot as a result. It would be a waste of time,…. ask yourself why? 

     

     

     


  45. sannoffymesssoitizz 7th November 2020 at 09:18

    In a recent conversation on Twitter @Jas72Boyd quoted the following excerpt as "uncontested legal opinion" of the continuation of the club (sic)

    "[21]      The Rangers Football Club Plc ceased to be the owner and operator of a football team in consequence of the sale to SEVCO Scotland Limited by its administrators on 14 June 2012 of substantially the whole of its business and undertaking, including Rangers Football Club.  Article 6 of the Articles of Association of the SPL provides:

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    This (my highlighted piece) is surely bunkum!

    The whole of a business would surely include the ALL of the debts and liabilities of said business?? Or else it is not "whole".

    Except we know the schemers and governance charlatans only passed on the football debts as they knew fine well the ruse would be challenged by footballing creditors with unpaid debts. Their silence was bought by this slight of hand, allowing football to continue in the newly formed twilight zone of Scottish Football.

    Why none of the other creditors among the 273 called this out is baffling, unless of course they were "staunch" fans themselves, or if not, made aware of the far reaching tentacles of the establishment club, (including NI desperados) which could finish their business entirely, or worse…….


  46. normanbatesmumfc

    "…the whole of its business and undertaking…"

    ====

    Yes, that factual error did jump off the screen! 

    And I guess the current restrictions gives TRFC a break from "You're not Rangers Anymore!" chants from away supporters.

    Any reasonable person would have even less respect for the current iteration of 'Rangers' than the original version, IMO.


  47. normanbatesmumfc 9th November 2020 at 11:13
    Except we know the schemers and governance charlatans only passed on the football debts as they knew fine well the ruse would be challenged by footballing creditors with unpaid debts. Their silence was bought by this slight of hand, allowing football to continue in the newly formed twilight zone of Scottish Football.

    Why none of the other creditors among the 273 called this out is baffling,
    …………………………
    In a statement, BDO said: “The joint liquidators, following extensive deliberations with their professional advisors and the liquidation committee, have taken the decision to issue a claim against the former Rangers’ administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, of Duff & Phelps.

    “During the course of the liquidation, questions have arisen regarding the strategy previously adopted by the former administrators, which have not, to date, been adequately answered.

    “In seeking clarity, the joint liquidators have been left with no other option but to pursue the matter via the Scottish Court. The joint liquidators look forward to the resolution of this matter.”

    BDO added: “The joint liquidators consider that the former joint administrators failed to take actions which would have reduced costs during the administration period and realised additional value from the company’s assets over and above that obtained from the sale of the business and assets to Sevco.”
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38896812
    ……………..
    They may find something. Has this legal action ever came to anything?


  48. NBMA

    Why none of the other creditors among the 273 called this out is baffling…

    ====%%====

    You answer yourself.

    Or as you even (XX%? jokingly) suggest, perhaps the creditors are all in on the sting.

    —-

    I said last week that I would leave you guys to the OC/NC thread but the comparison to Trump surprised me !!

    I'll try and not engage any further in the 8 year old subject/ circle to no-where. You'll be happier in a place where everyone nods their heads in agreement, whilst trying to forget the real world and I note still next to no comment on Easyjambo's stance, especially in the case of John Clark. Better not to let uncomfortable stuff get in the way.

     


  49. Am I reading this correctly?

    Do we really have a discussion prompted by @Jas72Boyd on Twitter? A discussion which includes the views of the reasonablechap on the street?

    A glaring omission from the discussion is the fact (and I mean fact as opposed to opinion) that @Jas72Boyd and reasonablechap are the same person.

    Many alternative names have been used but a good rule of thumb is that if someone is spouting pish it's probably Spoutpish.


  50. reasonablechap 9th November 2020 at 14:51

    I’ll try and not engage any further in the 8 year old subject/ circle to no-where. You’ll be happier in a place where everyone nods their heads in agreement, whilst trying to forget the real world and I note still next to no comment on Easyjambo’s stance, especially in the case of John Clark. Better not to let uncomfortable stuff get in the way.

    You obviously believe that EJ’s parting shot (not his first and hopefully not his last) amounts to a damascene conversion on his part and have frequently tried to elicit a response from someone in the Celtic “prism” as you call it. I have reproduced below (in bold italics) the final, and important, part of EJ’s post and give my non Celtic interpretation:

    “No matter how many times the blog returns to the events of 8-10 years ago, no-one in the football authorities or in the SMSM is listening, nor are they likely to change their mind now.

    I believe that it is now time to move on. Not to forget what happened, but to move on all the same.

    That is what I plan to do.”

    In no way do I interpret that as meaning the he has in any way changed his view. My take on it is that he has concluded that the authorities and media are not going to change their stance so it is pointless banging on about it. I kind of lean toward that myself in that I can’t see them changing their mind (in the case of the media, again) but cannot bring myself to accept that the BIG LIE has won. That is a step too far for me. JC and others on the other hand stoically believe that the BL will eventually be exposed.


  51. Bordersdon

    "In no way do I interpret that as meaning the he has in any way changed his view."

    ====%%%====

    Look again……" …I believe that it is NOW time to move on. …"

    I fully realise that no-one on here will fundamentally change their view on events. Wrt EJ, as I said in previous posts, it was his personal decision to move-on that I was referring to.


  52. reasonablechap 9th November 2020 at 16:56

    ——————–???————————————–

    I think I explained my interpretation and the context of EJ’s “moving on”. 


  53. reasonablechap 9th November 2020 at 09:59

    "

    You and others on here strongly disagree, as you have every right to… but the phrase (self-)constructed world would be much more applicable to the relatively small band of followers to your version of the unofficial truth.

     

    You construct your truth (legal interpretation) but it has little to do with the actual official interpretation (at all levels) and therefore reality. You can construct a world where we can all choose to ignore what X authority or government put forward, disregard the legal system and their take and go against the very institutions (clubs) that you support…….but you’d be looking at a true chaos."

     

    Lets look at the legal definition then and here’s one Donald who speaks for the legal system and puts to bed your argument. Liquidation means liquidation of the entity (Donald’s word) that was Rangers Football Club 1872 Incorporated and changed to Sevco 2012,

    The switcheroo required to take the pennies of the gullibears, and soothe what we saw the grief and death in the family statements outside Ibrox and the scribes with the 140 years history gone in 8 minutes. We were there to witness it, we saw the trial of the fall guy in Glasgow and the clearing of his name and witnessed the biggest stich up and shame brought to Scottish Football by a knighted chairman who was hell bent on flucking the tax man, the very same organisation employed by the Queen who gave him his title. Below is the real Donald are you calling him a liar?

     

     

    "Former Ibrox vice chairman Donald Findlay says Rangers are a 'new entity' which must establish 'its own history and tradition' 

    • Donald Findlay feels sorry for Rangers fans who have stuck by the club
    • The former vice chairman does not know if Rangers will be promoted
    • Findlay is saddened to see a great club struggle 

    By Stephen Mcgowan for MailOnline

    Published: 10:25, 1 November 2014 | Updated: 10:54, 1 November 2014

    •  

     

    Donald Findlay QC should be comfortable in the midst of David Somers and co. He was once one of them. Vice-chairman of the company indeed.

    But these days he neither recognises the faces or names of the Rangers board. Or, indeed, the 'new entity' – his words – that they represent.

    .

    'It is a different club,' he tells Sportsmail bluntly. 'They may play at Ibrox and they may play sometimes in royal blue jerseys.

    'To me this is a new Rangers which has to establish its own history and tradition.

    But it's not the Rangers I know. To me, genuinely, it is a new entity.'

     

    +5

    •  

    In Rangers circles this kind of thing is heresy. When liquidation became inevitable Charles Green, the former Chief Executive, insisted vocally he had paid £5.5million for the assets and history of the oldco in May 2012. Recently, Livingston's programmed editor lost his job after wading into a contentious topic in a match programme.

    'You can buy assets,' he concedes, 'but you can't buy history. You can't buy tradition. History and tradition are in the heart and in the mind. You can't buy that.

    So is Donald wrong in his analysis and legal thinking concerning what was liquidated, was he wrong to state that the club was the same entity and in doing so meant that when liquidation came and with no unincorporated mechanism been used and no CVA what went was Rangers Fottball Club 1872 with a change of name merely applied before the tax man released the hounds and called it a day by putting this burden on society out of its misery.

    Are you willing to challenge the findings of the newspapers and the court and challenge the words of the Donald(qc). |For to date not one so called loyal fan has stepped forward to challenge any of this, why would that be?

     


  54. reasonablechap 9th November 2020 at 09:59

    ‘…What we have is a legal interpretation of the question at hand that is accepted by the footballing authorities, ..’

    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    No, we don’t. 

    What we have, with due respect to his Lordship, is the adoption of an actual error of fact by Lord Bannatyne when he made the observation that Rangers Football Club plc had been sold  to a new owner. 

    It had not: the CG consortium did not buy the football club in its entirety: it bought (dirt cheap!) merely some of the significant assets of the distressed football club but did not clear the the bulk of the scandalous millions of pounds of debt necessary to pay all of its creditors and thus bring the club  out of administration. In consequence the club entered Liquidation, lost its share in the SPL under Article 14 of the Articles of Association, and consequently  lost  its  membership of the SFA. 

    (Incidentally, the question before the judge was not whether ‘TRFC ‘is Rangers Football Club of 1873/2(?) but whether a club ,called merely ‘Rangers’ on a betting slip, was playing in the third division on account of poor football performance ( ‘relegation’ under the rules of the League) when in the season before, a club named ‘Rangers Football Club’ had been playing in the SPL or on account of other reasons. 

     The judge no doubt relied on the submissions made by Counsel for Coral Racing Ltd as to the ‘facts of the case’, and Counsel no doubt relied on his briefing solicitors, who no doubt relied on the Football Authorities’ view. The Football Authorities of course had long before created and fostered the lie that RFC of 1873/2(?) had  uniquely among Scottish football clubs which have entered Liquidation, somehow retained its share in the SPL and its membership of the SFA!

    It is to be regretted (probably by no one more than Lord Bannatyne himself) that he did not advert to the fact that RFC of 1873/2(“) was in liquidation , not remotely involved or participating (whether  well or badly)  in Scottish football , and that TRFC was manifestly in the Third division because its life had only begun when it was admitted to that division as a new club, and it therefore could not possibly have been ‘relegated’ from a higher division.

    The judge arrived at the right verdict but with a wobble in his reasons!

    I’m pretty sure that his Lordship would not ever formally declare that a legal entity created in 2012 is the identical entity that had been created in 1873/2(?) when that earlier entity is in Liquidation, its major creditors still unpaid!

    I hadn’t the resources at the time ( nor do I now) but if I had had, I would have explored the possibility of  having Lord Bannatyne’s adoption of a factual error in his judgment raised in any appropriate and proper forum.

    Can I just add that I am beholden to no one for what I say , or how I say it [usually respectfully and, I hope, never intentionally too hurtful to fellow-posters ] and that I have been and am enriched by almost every post and poster on this blog, in one way or another.
    People have come and gone over the years and I miss their contributions of detailed knowledge of facts, or helpful references to ‘historic’ material , their jokes and one-liners (eg the very recent ‘Tyre tread’  reference).

    And people will continue to come and go. 

    I will continue to take on every ‘denier’ who pops up to defend the SMSM, the BBC, the Scottish Football governance authorities, and I will do so not to bore people , but to make sure that new readers , or casual readers know the facts.

     


  55. John Clark 9th November 2020 at 18:27

    I always revert back to what people within football did, not what they said. There are a lot of simple questions and answers with regards that and they have been covered before, however for me the main ones remain.

    If it was the same club that finished second in the SPL the previous season why was it not treated as such when the new season started.

    Why did it have to apply to join the SPL if it was already part of that league.

    On what basis was it refused entry.

    Why did it have to apply to the SFL (a different league) and when allowed in why was it put in the lowest division.

    Why was it not a member of the SFA, had to apply, and was granted a "conditional membership". 

    The SFA and the SPL treated Rangers in the same way they would have treated any other new club. That's what happened in the real World. 


  56. bigboab1916 9th November 2020 at 17:43
    You and others on here strongly disagree, as you have every right to… but the phrase (self-)constructed world would be much more applicable to the relatively small band of followers to your version of the unofficial truth.
    ………………….
    Now imagine if you will a world were a large gathering of people were told their club cheated the game for years, and the guy they thought that was bringing that success was doing it in a way not within the rules. Then imagine he got rid of it all for a pound. The new guy that they thought was going to carry on that success and do everything above board, turned out not to be the right guy either. Now imagine this large gathering of people thought the next guy to come along was the right guy this time.(Third time lucky and all that) Now imagine this large gathering of people stood by the third guy like they did the last two, they gave him his full backing, held red cards up against liquidation.Had a fund raiser,even called it a fighting fund. Now imagine this large gathering of people stood right behind the third guy and backed him even more when he promised he wanted a CVA to preserve that history.Now imagine how this large gathering of people felt when they realised they had backed another dud. What a red neck, how could they face the world, how embarrassing,what to do now.Now imagine this large gathering of people sick together and pretend the third guy they backed (and to try and save face) was a dud but they pretend they backed a winner, but the pretence has to fly in the face of everything they backed at the start when the third guy began to move in. They still get a red neck, they face the world, but the pretence covers the embarrassment.The more they pretend the third guy was a winner and all they wished for, the more they believe the embarrassment fades away.
    But it must be a right red neck when others point out they backed three duds.So they (self-)constructed a world were they don’t want to live with that. Problem is, forever they must.


  57. Homunculus 9th November 2020 at 21:28

    '..The SFA and the SPL treated Rangers in the same way they would have treated any other new club. That's what happened in the real World'

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    Indeed it was ( and I myself have fom time to time referred to the fact that at the beginning the Football authorities behaved properly.)

    Then somehow the rot set in and the Big Lie was created, whether out of fear, greed, intimidation, corruption or whatever.

    We have to get at the roots of that.


  58. Boab

    Can’t open first link (no log-in).

    Can you please elaborate on what I presume to be the latest conspiracy with the what would seem to be the Dallas family or a Craig Whyte, who seems to have undergone considerable cosmetic surgery.

    When Andrew Dallas is the referee, Celtic almost always win (bar one 0-0 draw at St.Mirren). Rangers have dropped considerably more points (than Celtic), when AD is the ref for their games. The Grandmaster must be seething at his incompetence.

    I’d also note that nothing was said (except a recent post on here by me) when Rangers didn’t get a League penalty in very nearly a year but when opposition defenders start to think basketball methods might be the way to defend, there is a outcry without mentioning the context of a barren year…..or that there seem to me to be generally more penalties being awarded in football this season. eg. Ferguson (Aberdeen) has scored more penalties.


  59. Regarding the term I used and others have picked up on, ‘the real world’….

    Another example where it could be employed could be Celtic and the League title for last season.

    Some will say Celtic are on 8.75IAR but the real world has deemed it to be 9. However much rival supporters convince themselves of the former and that the omnishambolic awarding of a title means it shouldn’t fully count, I’m afraid it does. Any opportunities to lobby against the perception have now passed.

    I think personally that the * should have it’s obvious place beside such an award but now accept how it is and get on with it. 

    Some talk of fans making a protest/noise when Rangers celebrate their 150th. If Celtic were to win 10IAR then some Rangers supporters will loudly point to 2019/20*.

     

    Scottish Fitbaw, the Glasgow goldfish bowl, the Old Firm bickering, tribal rivalry, self-interest….Then, Now, Always….

     

    ps. I guess the Real Real World is somewhere beyond that, especially now. 


  60. reasonablechap 10th November 2020 at 10:39

    I think personally that the * should have it’s obvious place beside such an award but now accept how it is and get on with it. 

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Perhaps you have moved on/accepted it as you know fine well it was won on merit????

     

    I would be happy to see an asterisk beside the award, (highlighting the season was called early), once the illegally won titles by the arch-cheats, (your original rangers club) have been stripped as should have been the minimum consequence of said cheating/lying/tax-withholding/obfuscation!!


  61. normanbatesmumfc @ 11.44

    Re RC

    Adapted by me (stuff in brackets) from the urban Dictionary to describe – only imho ye ken- his ‘input’ to SFM:-

    “Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone …either through wisecracking (not), posting (predominantly) incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness, and is meant to be funny (in a twisted sort of a way I guess)

    It does have some social/entertainment value – but not much else.

    The other definition is more succinct and perhaps accurate in this case.

    “Being a pr**k on the internet because you can”


  62. It's amusing to look again at the 'Rangers International Football Club IPO' [ that , in my opinion, was authorised by the FCA in breach of its statutory duty!) and see the misleading way language is used to hide the plain truth.

    I give as an example what is said in SectionB.3 of the 'Summary' :

    "RFCL [ed: that is, The Rangers Football Club Ltd] acquired the assets and business of the Club on 14 June 2012 from RFC 2012 plc and now operates the Club and other ancillary businesses. Immediately prior to Admission, the Company will acquire RFCL pursuant to the Share Exchange Agreement, which is conditional on the Placing Agreement becoming unconditional in all respects, save for Admission, and will be the holding company of the Rangers Group. It is the intention of the Directors and the Manager for the Club to return to top flight football as soon as possible…"

    First of all, the Summary could not say  (any more than could the Administrators! ) that Rangers Football Club plc had been purchased as an existing  football club: the best they dared to say was that 'RFCL acquired the assets and business of the club..'    then slip in the '.. and now operates the Club..' as if it had bought the Club!

    Secondly, it keeps silent about the fact that the entity that acquired the assets was not on 14 June 2012  a football club, but a consortium named SevcoScotland.

    Thirdly, the assets were bought from Rangers Football Club plc[In Administration] not from RFC 2012 plc, the  name that was given to Rangers Football  Club plc shortly before that club went into Liquidation, a change deliberately made so that official records would not show clearly that it was the 140(139?) year old 'Glasgow Rangers' that had in fact entered Liquidation and was no longer a member of football league or of the SFA 

    Fourthly, note the deliberate use of the word 'return' in the sentence 'It is the intention of the Directors and the Manager for the Club to return to top flight football as soon as possible…"

    There are four misleading elements in that paragraph alone, which the FCA should never have allowed to be included.

    It is an absolute affront to us all that the FCA, far from being a trustworthy regulator was at the very least inefficient to a degree absolutely unacceptable.

    And it is even less acceptable that the authors of the IPO must themselves have been encouraged to write what they did  in the knowledge that deceitful Football Governance in Scotland had and would again on request  rubber-stamp the false claim that holding company of the new RIFC plc was none other than the Rangers FC of the 4 Young Men of Glasgow Green in 1873/ (2?)

    There may be some question of the Donald's mental health that might explain his ridiculous propensity for fantasy.

    There was  no such excuse for those in Scottish Football governance in 2012 ,or now: they knew what they were doing and persist in  betraying their office of trust.

    Bad cess to them.


  63. reasonablechap 10th November 2020 at 10:39

    when Rangers celebrate their 150th.

    angryangryangryangry

    What one would that be?

    deceit

    a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers (Proverbs 6:16-19)


  64. “Moving on” means;

    • you accept that The Rangers is the same Rangers FC (1872)

    PLUS

    • you accept that several years of fielding ineligible, EBT players, (and who won numerous titles and cups), is irrelevant.

  65. ‘reasonablechap 10th November 2020 at 10:39

    I think personally that the * should have it’s obvious place beside such an award but now accept how it is and get on with it…’

    #########################

    Talking of asterisks, I feel that the (then) SPL were derelict not to place an * next to the team which finished second in the Premiership in season 2011-12.

    The final standings can be seen here: https://spfl.co.uk/league/premiership/archive/299

    That (and a short footnote detailing what befell the team) would have prevented much of the OC/NC debate.

    Have we decided who played Brechin City on 29/07/12 yet? 

Comments are closed.