Bad Money?

738
119982

It’s now seven years since the festering sore on the skin of Scottish Football became fully septic, causing the liquidation of Rangers Football Club. Many of us at that time felt that the environment which had enabled the systematic, industrial scale cheating by that club, having now been exposed as unfit to fulfil its purpose, would be dismantled and replaced by something more accountable, more transparent, more honest.

Many more of us thought that other clubs who were the victims of the cheating that had gone on would be seeking a clear-out and a rewrite of the rule book, if for no other purpose than to ensure that a repeat was not possible.

We were all mistaken.

Let’s be honest about this. Football, whether it is played in Scotland or Argentina, at the Maracana Stadium or at Fleshers Haugh, is a rules-based endeavour. The rules of the game – both on the field and in its administration – are there to ensure as level a playing field as possible, to ensure that the constraints put on one club are the same for the rest.

Referees are in place to ensure the rules are complied with on the pitch, albeit with varying degrees of success. No matter what you might think of the guys in black, their craft is carried out in full public gaze, and consequently they are accountable to public opinion.

Off the field though, things are rather more opaque. Without the revelations of Charlotte Fakes for instance, we would never have known that a club had applied for a licence with false information, to a committee partly comprised of two folk who were employees of that club, and by extension part of the deception. Nor would we have known that the Chief Executive of the SFA had written to the club in question looking for approval on how the controversy surrounding the issue of the licence could be managed in the media.

The detail of the crimes of the people in charge of our game are the domain of those who have relentlessly pursued the truth of these matters. The devil is always in the detail, and the real devil is concealed in the fact that many of us are forced to switch off when confronted by the daunting prospect of having to follow that multi-threaded narrative.

In that regard, we owe much to the likes of Auldheid and EasyJambo (and many others) who unravel those threads for us and present the facts in a way most of us can follow. By doing so, they have allowed us to keep our eye on the ball.

Despairingly though, the upshot is that no matter what the facts tell us, Scottish football, at boardroom level, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, has no interest in seeking justice, or more importantly, clearing house.

The sins of the past will be the sins of the future, because the authorities have learned no lessons in the wake of Rangers’ liquidation, and in fact have now enshrined Doublespeak as the official language of the game.
No sporting advantage is a curious phrase used to describe sporting advantage
Imperfectly registered in lieu of not registered
Same for Different

I could go on, but the sins of one club, whilst fundamentally undermining the integrity of the sport in this country, are not the real problem. The authorities who set out to distort, bend, break, and tear up the rule-book are.

So too are the clubs who have refused to back their fans’ demand for proper oversight of the game, who have stood back and said nothing (except: “nothing to do with us guv!”) whilst their Patsies at Hampden do their dirty work, refusing to engage with or explain themselves to fans. These are the real culprits, they who have betrayed the trust of their own supporters. And if we are looking for a reason, look no further than their bank balances.

The recent scandal where the SPFL shared the outcome of its Unacceptable Behaviour report with the Scottish Government on the basis that it would not be made public shines a harsh spotlight on this.

The football authorities currently receive public funds from government, but in a “have your cake and eat it” scenario, they are accountable to no-one but themselves – and that’s how they want to keep it.

Publication of the SPFL report would put them at risk of having the accountability that they fear thrust on them. No-one in football wants the sectarian blight on our game to be cast under the glare of public focus. Especially if it becomes apparent that the game itself is the medium in which sectarianism thrives best.

And they know that it does exactly that. The trouble is that the societal divisions caused by sectarianism is a money maker. The old adage sectarianism sells has never been truer. The divide and rule model of empire applied to football. It is good box office.

But making football accountable could force measures to be put in place to cut out sectarian behaviour – and the clubs do not want that. It’s not the fear of being held responsible for their own fans’ behaviour under Strict Liability that worries the CFOs of our clubs – it’s the fear of losing the hatred which sees the money – bad money if you will – roll in.

Why did the cover up take place? Because losing Rangers was just not acceptable to football. Removing one of the vital protagonists in a money making cartel that thrives on hatred was a greater fear than any altruistic notion of sporting integrity (also now Doublespeak for “lack of integrity”).

Who could have foreseen that amidst the chaos surrounding Rangers demise, that they were only a symptom of the greed and couldn’t care less attitude of the money-men in football, and that our eyes would eventually be opened to the possibility that the football industry in Scotland is itself the enemy of public harmony?

Ironic perhaps, that the beautiful game, born out of the sense of community felt by the founding fathers of all our clubs, would emerge as a major malign influence in those communities.

There is no doubt that football is not prepared to cede any of its sovereignty to its customer base. They will go on – as long as we continue to bankroll them – in exactly the same way, like their bedfellows in the media a self-regulating industry with little or no regard for the public.

I am a supporter of Strict Liability, and we have already had discussions on the pros and cons of such an intervention. It is also clear that there is no SFM consensus on that. I want to leave that aside for the moment, because we do have a consensus surrounding our desire to see greater accountability in the game, and it is clear that fans’ voices, however temperately and eloquently articulated, are falling on deaf ears at Hampden.

The women’s game at the World Cup has recently provided us a window into the past, of the origins of the sport in Scotland. That which is a celebration of each others endeavour, skill, excellence and culture. The spirit of our game nowadays is a million miles away from that, because the market has taken over. 

Taming the wild excesses of the market is the responsibility of government. It’s about time the Scottish Government did just that. It is certainly clear that the SFA or the SPFL have zero interest in reining themselves in.

We have suggestions if anyone is listening.

738 COMMENTS


  1. Cluster One 2nd August 2019 at 19:35 

          Following on from my post above, something i came across the other day. https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1155942708562653186/photo/1 ……………. King has always pushed to get his placemen into ibrox. 

       —————————————————————–

        Good post C1 as it got me thinking. Do you think Uncle Mick would be more amiable to deal with, if his old pal Llambias (or A. N. Other), was given his job back?…. Could a thread-bare bear be tempted do the dirty?. 

         No matter how hopeful I may be, I don't see Ashley cutting off an income stream, and the best avenue to the truth will still be with Res12 and the courts, (when presented to them properly). 

        I do see him(Ashley) in the driving seat, knowing when to submit the bill if he wants the cash, and almost certain Sevco death.,Or, if he wants more clout, when to threaten a Winding Up Order. 

        "A new sherrif in town or deid?", might tempt some, or all, of the concert party to pursue a solo career.

         He would still own the debt of course…….Simply offering time to cough,  on his terms. …..The same as he did with his "Loans".

         The big question is, will having the debt be worth his while, or will he just take the cash?….

         Will this season, once again, be the season of the much loved, and mirthfully missed, "Blue-room musical chairs"?

        Whatever, it's not going to be straight-forward.  A major event, with major reactions. 

        There can really only be one explanation for King's punch-drunk stupidity in decision-making and desperate skelpings…… His desperate battle to maintain control.

          

        

        

          

         

         

    View Comment

  2. easyJambo 2nd August 2019 at 17:41 Tynecastle today in readiness for the LA Philharmonic Orchestra's performance at the Festival.

    _________

    That Phil Harmonic is some player, EJ, isn't it great to have him at Tynecastle? mail

    View Comment

  3. Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 19:39

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Apologies if I wasn't being clear.

    I'm not saying a buyer should buy the company and deal with the debt and all the other baggage. I'm thinking that they could buy the "club" from the Administrator after a failed CVA and start over again with new owners as Sevco Scotland II. That's why I mention the franchising concept.

    Sevco II would stay in the Premiership with a points deduction for an insolvency event because that is where it is headed without a serious injection of capital. Sevco I would be liquidated. The rules as they are now allow it.

     

     

    View Comment

  4. Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 19:39

    '…At least McCann had a support grateful to him for saving the club from oblivion .'

    +++++++++++++++

    And prior to that, of course, a bolshie support calling the Kelly Board to account and seeing off the nonsense bids from chancers [Cambuslang indeed!] or other property speculators.

    If TRFC supporters were to direct against King and Co even a fraction of the anger that was directed by the Celtic support against the failed and failing Celtic board, they might have prevented the new club reaching the perilous stage it has reached.

    View Comment

  5. Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 21:23

     

    I'm thinking that they could buy the "club" from the Administrator after a failed CVA and start over again with new owners as Sevco Scotland II. 

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

    After a failed CVA what comes next is the liquidator selling off the assets to get the maximum return from the creditors. 

    What happened when the previous club's CVA failed was not how administration is supposed to work, only a group of charlatans would have even attempted it. 

    View Comment

  6. Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 17:34

    "with franchising already allowed under SFA rules"

    ———–

    Corrupt then, corrupt now, corrupt forever. A concept unknown in Scottish football, manufactured by Doncaster for the sole purpose of maintaining an income stream despite the liquidation of a club characterised by 80 years of explicit sectarianism and 10 years at least of financial doping. An income stream that would have been there anyway, with a new club and 50,000 people looking for something in blue at Ibrox to support,  and with most probably relieved to have the opportunity to ditch the historical baggage.

    The consequences of this, in my opinion, have been a resurgence of the old supremacist sectarianism and a realisation among fans of all clubs that the playing field will always be skewed as long as the current SFA / SPFL structure remains.

    How far are they prepared to go to maintain this strategy and ensure the success of any club purporting to be "Rangers"?

     

    View Comment

  7. macfurgly 2nd August 2019 at 21:03

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

     

    Bearing in mind this time it was £15m to Rangers for Morelos, the club's valuation apparently.

    The £30m was Morelos' wages. £10m a year for 3 years.

    He knocked back c£200k a week it seems.

    That lad must be really confident in house own earning potential. 

    View Comment

  8. Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 21:23 Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 19:39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Apologies if I wasn't being clear. I'm not saying a buyer should buy the company and deal with the debt and all the other baggage. I'm thinking that they could buy the "club" from the Administrator after a failed CVA and start over again with new owners as Sevco Scotland II. That's why I mention the franchising concept. Sevco II would stay in the Premiership with a points deduction for an insolvency event because that is where it is headed without a serious injection of capital. Sevco I would be liquidated. The rules as they are now allow it.

    ___________

    Right, Bogs, sorry. Yes, but I personally don't think it will get that far and is more likely to end with a CVA should they fall into administration, purely based on the grounds that the total debt might be manageable and I feel Ashley would be content to accept a reasonable payment in a CVA while retaining the kit deal. Timing, of course, would be vital, like now while they have some ST money left to pay off Close Bros secured loan.

    View Comment

  9. Would any sane businessman (or woman) buy this operation with the history of characters that have been involved? Who knows what onerous contracts lie under the bonnet . The retail one that we do know of is toxic enough and I doubt Ashley will release his grip just because King has departed. The stadium issues are shrouded in mystery as regards claims on the title not to mention the hinted at roof problems (all gone quiet on that one) asbestos in the main stand and the rebars that seem to be holding it together . It is very interesting to note that King has not traded his debt for equity , where it puts him in the queue if there is an admin I'm not sure but getting something must be better than holding worthless shares in a bankrupt company. If significant revenue isnt brought in via the transfer market and/or they fail to make the Europa Group stage then things could worsen rapidly

    Transfer window closes EPL- August 8 ECL- August 6 Spain, France +Germany -Sept 2 Italy-August 18 MLS- 7 August Portugal- September 22 – SPL -Sept 2

    Aug 8/15  Europa 3rd stage – Aug 22/29 Europa 4th stage

    further diary dates are Aug 16th for the 450k payment and Sept 23 for decision on damage amount. I don't know how things will pan out but I do know that if I was a creditor I would want my money asap.

     

    View Comment

  10. Homunculus 2nd August 2019 at 21:51

    That lad must be really confident in house own earning potential. 

    "Alfredo Morelos: Rangers striker urged to 'address speculation' by Steven Gerrard"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49205675

    Wtf  Freddy? Get out there and tell them. You DID NOT knock back £200k per week, you DID NOT cost us £15M. Get out there Freddy.

    View Comment

  11. Corrupt official 2nd August 2019 at 21:03
    ………….
    king has been sniffing about ibrox since 2012.In 2012 he wanted to sue David Murray for £20 mill.
    In Aug 2013 he agreed to pay the SA Revenue Service R706.7 million to settle his tax debt, then in Dec 2013 he pledged i’m ready to put cash into gers.
    https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1157036741737484288
    By 2015 he wanted to pay back every penny of clubs debt and bring back gers oldco. By 2017 he had paid Ashley £3mill to renegotiate a better retail deal and by 2019 he has made a right mess of everything.
    King has not been trying to manipulate his way to the top at ibrox to now be told what to do.
    “A new sherrif in town or deid?”,
    I believe if king was to go down he would take it with him, he has not hung around this long for nothing

    View Comment

  12. Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 21:08
    2 0 Rate This

    easyJambo 2nd August 2019 at 17:41 Tynecastle today in readiness for the LA Philharmonic Orchestra’s performance at the Festival.
    ………………….
    Times like these one can only think back to Jimbo and his brass bands, how he would have loved that.
    ……………….
    Ps. will get that sorted tomorrow BP

    View Comment

  13. Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 21:23
    The rules as they are now allow it.
    ………………….
    Because of that it was decided to persevere with the current system, which sees clubs handed a 15-point penalty for entering administration and 25 points if it happens again within a five-year period.”

    It has also been agreed that, in future, the SPFL Board will have the sole responsibility for adjudication regarding clubs who might face liquidation.

    “It will be down to the board to determine any conditions for a transfer of membership if a club is liquidated and attempts to go down the newco route,” said the source.

    “That may include any new owners posting a bond for security.”
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-football/10631856/Scottish-football-abandons-plans-to-automatically-relegate-clubs-in-administration.html

    View Comment

  14. Any truth in the rumour – that I've just started – that there has been a £30M bid to lure James Traynor away from Ibrox?

     

    Apparently the bold Boris is keen to bring Traynor down to London to be his dedicated 'spin doctor'.

     

    After watching Sky's reportage on the massive, Chinese  bid/non-bid for Morelos during the week, Boris is convinced that Traynor will be able to easily shift any old bollox to the MSM down south.

     

    King has demanded that the transfer money is paid directly to him – in black bin bags of readies.

    King has also insisted on driving Traynor himself direct to Downing Street… without passing Shirebrook and without losing £10M.

     

    Traynor's PR p!sh output has not just jumped the shark…

    it has jumped a dead, bloated, blue whale washed up on a scummy, rubbish strewn beach on a deserted island,

     

    …alongside all the discarded and washed-up, Scottish newspapers.

    enlightened

    View Comment

  15. Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 21:23

    '.I'm not saying a buyer should buy the company and deal with the debt and all the other baggage. I'm thinking that they could buy the "club" from the Administrator after a failed CVA and start over again with new owners as Sevco Scotland II. That's why I mention the franchising concept.'

    ++++++++++/

    I think I know what you are thinking, Bogs Dolox: pretty much what I am thinking!

    The SFA/SPL/SFL got a huge fright when the consequences of the knighted cheat's dirty, dirty cheating eventuated.

    They themselves then cheated and lied.

    They arranged matters so that the dirty cheating was not punished as it ought to have been -by expulsion from Scottish football in utter ignominy and shame. 

    Instead, they allowed a brand new club they had newly admitted into Scottish Football to claim in the commercial market place to be the most successful football club in the world in terms of sporting honours and titles. Having already lied, they must now continue to lie.

    In their guilt, they had to hastily redraft 'the rules'. 

    They are beneath contempt.

     

     

    View Comment

  16. StevieBC 3rd August 2019 at 00:06

    '..Any truth in the rumour – that I've just started – that there has been a £30M bid to lure James Traynor away from Ibrox?'

    ++++++++++++++

    James Traynor? Who he? 

    The most useless turd of a PR man whose main talent lies in getting up the noses of the very people (who, if they had any personal integrity, would tell him to gtf).

    What a useless, bullying, hectoring, geezer to have as a PR man!

    I very much regret that any tiny fraction of what BBC Radio Scotland paid him in his support for 'Rangers' came out of my licence fee!

    He has been as useful as  PR man as Blair has been as a company secretary.

     

     

    View Comment

  17. John Clark 2nd August 2019 at 21:30 Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 19:39 '…At least McCann had a support grateful to him for saving the club from oblivion .' +++++++++++++++ And prior to that, of course, a bolshie support calling the Kelly Board to account and seeing off the nonsense bids from chancers [Cambuslang indeed!] or other property speculators. If TRFC supporters were to direct against King and Co even a fraction of the anger that was directed by the Celtic support against the failed and failing Celtic board, they might have prevented the new club reaching the perilous stage it has reached.

    __________________

    And this is what I was referring to when I said the SMSM (inadvertently, I'm sure) helped McCann – by providing the bears with so much mirth inducing coverage of their hated rival's travails that they actually kept the Celtic supporters fully informed of the true state of their club. Even now there appears to be a huge section of TRFC's support believing the club they now support is in fine health, and that is why they would, almost certainly, be unprepared to welcome a saviour not prepared to put stopping 10 in a row at the top of his agenda.

    View Comment

  18. Not withstanding the fact that Hebei Fortune already having a full quota of foreign players, amongst a host of other things, made the story ridiculous, but has anybody considered that whoever released the squirrel was implying that they made an illegal approach to the player or his representatives.

    No official bid – no acceptance of a bid – no permission to talk to player or his representatives.

    Morelos rejected terms – how could he know what terms offered with Hebei not having permission to talk to him or his agents

    View Comment

  19. Can’t do link things but recommend the BBC article on EFL sides Bury and Bolton this morning.  Site veterans will notice “a tone” that used to be used in reporting on Club financial matters up here too.

    View Comment

  20. Homunculus 2nd August 2019 at 21:48 Bogs Dollox 2nd August 2019 at 21:23 I'm thinking that they could buy the "club" from the Administrator after a failed CVA and start over again with new owners as Sevco Scotland II. ================================================ After a failed CVA what comes next is the liquidator selling off the assets to get the maximum return from the creditors. What happened when the previous club's CVA failed was not how administration is supposed to work, only a group of charlatans would have even attempted it.

    _____________________

    Just been thinking about that, Homunculus, about how the quantum of debt of RFC was so huge, and still not fully known at the time, that the likelihood of any creditor getting a reasonable payment from the sale of the club's assets was negligible. So negligible that no one was watching how the administration was being conducted. All scrutiny was directed at how they were going to 'save' the club.

    Now, however, the creditors in an administration are more likely to feel they could get a good dividend and, quite possibly, be more likely to insist on getting full value for the assets of TRFC, which was so very clearly not the case when the original club failed to achieve a CVA – at no time were the administrators trying to amass the maximum income from the sale of assets ahead of 'saving' the club.

    So, it might well be that if TRFC falls into administration that the unsecured creditors will look for a very healthy dividend, and remember, for his own benefit, King, himself, was looking for the real Rangers Football Club to be liquidated! Who's to say he won't join with the creditors and look to maximise his return from a liquidation. A liquidation that sees the break up of all the club's assets.

    I think it's a certainty that should RIFC/TRFC be heading to an administration that Dave King will be looking to maximise any dividend/reduce his loss from the sale of the club's assets.

    View Comment

  21. Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 07:48

    ———————————————————–

    Indeed, however always bear in mind that people didn't lend money to TRFC, they lent t to RIFC which in turn lent it to TRFC.

    So as far as I am aware TRFC don't actually owe King any money. They owe it to RIFC of which he is a major shareholder. 

    I believe that Close is owed money directly by TRFC but as I understand it they are a secured creditor so the CVA would be or no interest to them. They would get their money before the CVA, which is for the benefit of the unsecured creditors.

    It goes back to the question, why would the board of RIFC be willing to right off tens of millions in debt. Other than in some fantasy World. They would be more likely to "buy" the assets from their subsidiary, but can they do that if other people hold security over them. 

    View Comment

  22. Homunculus 3rd August 2019 at 08:27  Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 07:48 ———————————————————– Indeed, however always bear in mind that people didn't lend money to TRFC, they lent t to RIFC which in turn lent it to TRFC. So as far as I am aware TRFC don't actually owe King any money. They owe it to RIFC of which he is a major shareholder. I believe that Close is owed money directly by TRFC but as I understand it they are a secured creditor so the CVA would be or no interest to them. They would get their money before the CVA, which is for the benefit of the unsecured creditors. It goes back to the question, why would the board of RIFC be willing to right off tens of millions in debt. Other than in some fantasy World. They would be more likely to "buy" the assets from their subsidiary, but can they do that if other people hold security over them.

    _____________________

    While you are correct that TRFC don't owe King any money directly (as far as we know) if King can control RIFC he effectively controls TRFC, and the signs are that he does control RIFC, then if King wants to push for liquidation (remembering this is all very much conjecture) my point is that the dividing line between the holding company and the club is of no consequence when it comes to what happens to the assets of TRFC.

    The fact that Close Bros loan is secured doesn't make much difference to the overall picture (though might make it worse) as they will have to be satisfied first, either with what's in the bank account, or if there's not enough, by taking control of the secured assets. I am sure they will want the cash. The upshot of that is there will be a smaller pot to be shared out amongst the remaining creditors, making a CVA less attractive to them than if there was no secured creditors. 

    It's all conjecture, of course (but funmail), but whatever transpires, the dividing line between RIFC and TRFC is not going to make the least bit difference to what happens to the assets should it come to administration and is not going to be a factor in saving the club, other than making it administratively easier to sell the club should the quantum be sufficient to satisfy the debts or a CVA be accepted.

    On the debts that belong to TRFC or RIFC. Is the SDI case not against the club as opposed to the holding company? If it is, that would mean any subsequent debt would belong to TRFC, and so the bulk/all? of the debt would belong directly to TRFC, though, again, that makes no difference to the overall picture.

    View Comment

  23. Cluster One 2nd August 2019 at 23:08 10  Allyjambo 2nd August 2019 at 21:08 2 0 Rate This easyJambo 2nd August 2019 at 17:41 Tynecastle today in readiness for the LA Philharmonic Orchestra’s performance at the Festival. …………………. Times like these one can only think back to Jimbo and his brass bands, how he would have loved that. ………………. Ps. will get that sorted tomorrow BP

    _________________

    Funnily enough I thought of Jimbo when I was posting the link last night. I do hope he's well and if you're looking in, Jimbo, please give us a wee shout to let us know you how you are laugh

    View Comment

  24. Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 09:40

    I'm not disagreeing with you AJ, just pointing out that it is the parent company (controlled as you say by King) who will be the major unsecured creditor. In an administration they would be looking at what was left over after the secured creditors were dealt with.

    The current assets with security over them are 

    (1) All and whole the subjects on the west side of Broomloan Road, Glasgow registered in the Land Register of Scotland under title number GLA68492; and

    (2) All and whole the subjects known as Edmiston House, Harrison Drive, Glasgow, G51 2YX, being the subjects registered in the Land Register of Scotland under title number GLA29534 and GLA62016.

    (3) Training Centre Youth Academy, Auchenhowie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow 

    (4) Floating charge

    Unless there are rules against it, RIFC will be the creditor which will agree to accept or reject a CVA. So basically writing off tens of millions in debt or liquidating the assets of TRFC to get the cash in to then distribute between the shareholders, King included.

    That's if the administrator sees a Ltd Company which is a viable business going forward, after having decimated the playing squad, sacking staff, and cutting costs wherever possible. 

    I just don't see the fantasy scenario where someone comes in and buys the subsidiary with all of it's assets for £1. I have been wrong before though. 

     

     

    View Comment

  25. Homunculus 3rd August 2019 at 10:48 Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 09:40 I'm not disagreeing with you AJ, just pointing out that it is the parent company (controlled as you say by King) who will be the major unsecured creditor. In an administration they would be looking at what was left over after the secured creditors were dealt with. The current assets with security over them are (1) All and whole the subjects on the west side of Broomloan Road, Glasgow registered in the Land Register of Scotland under title number GLA68492; and (2) All and whole the subjects known as Edmiston House, Harrison Drive, Glasgow, G51 2YX, being the subjects registered in the Land Register of Scotland under title number GLA29534 and GLA62016. (3) Training Centre Youth Academy, Auchenhowie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow (4) Floating charge Unless there are rules against it, RIFC will be the creditor which will agree to accept or reject a CVA. So basically writing off tens of millions in debt or liquidating the assets of TRFC to get the cash in to then distribute between the shareholders, King included. That's if the administrator sees a Ltd Company which is a viable business going forward, after having decimated the playing squad, sacking staff, and cutting costs wherever possible. I just don't see the fantasy scenario where someone comes in and buys the subsidiary with all of it's assets for £1. I have been wrong before though.

    _________________

    I'm not disagreeing with you either, Homunculs, just enjoying the debate laugh

    I doubt, though, that a holding company could ever be allowed to vote on a CVA as it has control over the debt racked up in the first place, and I'm sure that's not the only reason why. What's more, should TRFC fall into administration, as RIFC's only asset, RIFC would follow as night follows day, and vice versa.

    Without the necessary legal qualification or knowledge, I feel sure I can categorically state that debt to a holding company does not bestow on the holding company the right to vote for, or against, a subsidiary's CVA. If for no other reason it would leave a massive loophole running right through company law that any and every crook and conman would use incessantly.

    View Comment

  26. Allyjambo 3rd August 2019 at 11:04

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

    This seems to relate to what you are saying

    "With the support of 75% (by value) of the unsecured creditors who choose to vote on the proposal (at least 50% of whom must not be connected to the company), a company can use a CVA to impose legally binding terms on dissenting unsecured creditors"

    So the holding company would have even less control over a CVA of it's subsidiary than it would normally have due to the level of debt.

    So the issues with administration for TRFC and using that to "shed debt" would include.

    1, Dealing with the unsecured creditors.

    2, Getting a CVA through.

    3, Getting an administrator who wouldn't decimate the staff at all levels.

    4, The fact that the debt being shed is mostly to the PLC in the first place.

    5, Having a viable business going forward.

    Liquidation of the assets individually to raise cash for the creditors just seems like a much more realistic prospect if you want to raise money.

    The alternative, selling the whole lot for £1 brings in the sum total of £1 for the creditors but loses all of the assets, all of the debt, everything. Why would King etc want to do that. Who would want to take it on.

     

    View Comment

  27. Homunculus 3rd August 2019 at 12:35

    Thanks for that, Homunculus.

    I think it's important to remember, too, that as the only asset of RIFC, and assuming RIFC had external debt at the time, if TRFC falls into insolvency, RIFC must also become insolvent having no income, and no assets, to support/cover it's debts. The whole shooting match would be in administration, with, I suspect, RIFC's administration, as the holding company, encompassing that of TRFC.

    View Comment

  28. Cluster One 2nd August 2019 at 23:05

          I believe if king was to go down he would take it with him, he has not hung around this long for nothing. 

    ————————————————–

        I would agree with every word of that and go further, in so much as he would do so without even the slightest nod, to the legality of his actions…….

        On the other side of the coin, I doubt Ashley would bat an eye-lid having him jailed. 

        I was alluding more to the hold he has over the other bears being fractured. A hold that must be wearing thin and the cause of many sleepless nights. 

        Of course I am only speculating, that Ashley would rather have if not more management/control, then at least, "easier", management/ control, over his revenue stream…………He appears to be in, or close to, a position to get it. 

        In no way, are Sevco in a position to receive a "favourable settlement", and even the rampaging hordes must have twigged to that by now. (?????). ……T3B's will most certainly have.

       And yeah……I think big Mick might enjoy the vindication in taking it  back.

        TBH though, Ashley has so many options available to him, it would be a lucky guess to predict……… King?… No so much.

     

    View Comment

  29. There have been reams and reams of SMSM coverage of TRFC financial woes in Court in the last week.

     

    There has been even more chatter right across social media about the latest, embarrassing Ibrox shambles.

     

    Yet, not a peep from our leaders in Scottish football.

     

    Nothing from the SFA.

    Nothing from the SPFL.

    Nothing from club leaders, ( although TRFC did 'reassure' their fans that it's not as bad as it seems… ).

     

    Typical.

     

    And I presume that the SFA CEO is simply banned from engaging with the SMSM – to express his views and display some leadership ?

    [Rhetorical question.]

    Or, has Petrie locked Maxwell away in the Hampden bunker?

    View Comment

  30. Hello to all of you. Great to see informed debate continuing on here. I haven't missed a day since I joined and still love the banter. Don't really feel informed enough to enhance the debate but it does arm me with info for discussions with others. Keep it going.enlightened

    View Comment

  31. Homunculus 3rd August 2019 at 12:35

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

    I’m sure this has been answered before but I’m still confused over why there is a Standard Security listed for Auchenhowie created in 2002 but not delivered until 2012 in favour of the Scottish Sports Council and also a Charge (SC42 5159 0011) for Auchenhowie created and delivered in 2012 also in favour of the Scottish Sports Council.

    Are there two separate loans involved or is this a touch of belt and braces after 2012?

     

    View Comment

  32. Giovanni 3rd August 2019 at 16:35

    I’m sure this has been answered before but I’m still confused over why there is a Standard Security listed for Auchenhowie created in 2002 but not delivered until 2012 in favour of the Scottish Sports Council and also a Charge (SC42 5159 0011) for Auchenhowie created and delivered in 2012 also in favour of the Scottish Sports Council.

    Are there two separate loans involved or is this a touch of belt and braces after 2012?

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

    I'm sure that they relate to the same "security". I suspect that some elements of the transfer of the security from RFC (2012) plc (IL) to Sevco Scotland/TRFC were missed first time round in 2012, but were sorted out in May 2015.

    Those omissions may include a "negative pledge", in that TRFC could not offer Auchenhowie as security without the permission of Sportscotland.  The question only became relevant when Sportscotland became aware of Sports Direct taking a security over Auchenhowie for a loan in Feb 2015. Sportscotland would have wanted to preserve their first ranking security.

    View Comment

  33. easyJambo 3rd August 2019 at 18:13

    '….The question only became relevant when Sportscotland became aware of Sports Direct taking a security over Auchenhowie for a loan in Feb 2015.'

    ++++++++++++++++

    I rather took the view that Sportscotland were unaware ( or maybe were not bothered) until 2015 that legally TRFC Ltd was not the Rangers FC of 1872 that had signed anything and therefore could have repudiated any contract signed in Murray's time.

    I believe Sportscotland took their eye off the ball, and simply bought into the myth that TRFC was the same Rangers and had merely changed owners.[I posted about this some longish time ago]

    On the back of the experience of having the then First Minister sticking his oar in in defence of a tax cheat ,and of a SMSM stuffed full with succulent lamb and wholeheartedly determined to propagate the myth of 'continuity Rangers' and avoid any criticism of SDM,  my trust in Sportscotland as a body handing out public money fell to zero.

    [I may have written to them, might even have got an anodyne reply- but I can't be bothered at this stage to check]broken heart

    View Comment

  34. jean7brodie 3rd August 2019 at 15:18

    '..Hello to all of you..'

    ++++++++++++
    Haw, 'Passionflower', broken heart I was beginning to think you had been locked up by the Spanish Inquisition  for supporting Catalan independence or something!

    It's very good to have you back and to know that you are safe and well…..

     

    View Comment

  35. StevieBC 3rd August 2019 at 14:13

    '…And I presume that the SFA CEO is simply banned from engaging with the SMSM ..'

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Of all the many indicators that there was an underlying collusion between the 6th Floor and Ibrox, Regan's readiness to obey CW's order NOT to send a particular letter is perhaps the most telling.

    Following the Regan example, Maxwell of the SFA will utter nothing to the Press that has not been okayed (is that a word?) by Ibrox.

    Maxwell, like Regan, is of course an employee. But he is not an employee in the same way as the other employees at Hampden Park ( to whom I attach no blame for working for such a rotten-at-heart organisation) 

    He has to do as directed by the Board.

    Or resign: and by so doing send a message to the world that Scottish Football 'governance' is a sham, a pretence, addicted to fostering a monumental lie for the most base reasons,  and desperately scared of being investigated by an independent body.

    I think Maxwell should resign.

    Indeed, I think no one with the interests of Scottish Football at heart  should choose to apply for or accept the post of CEO, until the stable has been cleared  of the horseshit and those who dumped it, and who keep dumping it.

     

    View Comment

  36. John Clark 3rd August 2019 at 22:07

    easyJambo 3rd August 2019 at 18:13

    '….The question only became relevant when Sportscotland became aware of Sports Direct taking a security over Auchenhowie for a loan in Feb 2015.'

    ++++++++++++++++

    I rather took the view that Sportscotland were unaware ( or maybe were not bothered) until 2015 that legally TRFC Ltd was not the Rangers FC of 1872 that had signed anything and therefore could have repudiated any contract signed in Murray's time.

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

    Sportscotland may or may not have been aware that they held a security over Auchenhowie prior to Rangers insolvency. However, they would certainly have been aware of RFC's demise.

    The 2002 security lodged on 6 July 2012, makes reference to Sevco Scotland having acquired the property on 15 June 2012.  I can only assume that the administrators lodged the updated security with Companies House.

    The administrators would have been in contact with Sportscotland prior to the sale of assets, given that it was a secured creditor of the club.  It may be that all the administrators advised was that they would do the needful to change the property owner and that Sportscotland was happy with that, at that time.

    The problem only arose what TRFC granted security over Auchenhowie in February 2015 to SD, possibly without Sportscotland's permission.

    Someone in Sportscotland may have been advised of SD's interest, or discovered it for themselves, after the event. Alternatively, someone at TRFC realised that security had been granted to SD without Sportscotland's permission and sought to correct the problem.  The newer security includes a "negative pledge", hence the May 2015 document.   Paul Murray witnessed the new security document on behalf of TRFC.

    View Comment

  37. easyJambo 3rd August 2019 at 23:43

    '..It may be that all the administrators advised was that they would do the needful to change the property owner and that Sportscotland was happy with that, at that time.'

    +++++++++

    Yes, that is certainly a possibility.

    But Sportscotland seems still to have been somewhat lax in ensuring that the 'new ' property owner was the entity that had signed the original contract: specific reference had to be made to the  contracts signed by RFC 1872 being accepted by TRFC .

     

    View Comment

  38. If the 'soft' loans given to TRIFC were converted to shares does this mean that any inter-company loans, if indeed they were classed as such, to TRFC would then be cancelled?

    Has NOAL converted loans to shares?

    If TRFC goes into administration, can creditors not pursue TRIFC for moneys owed?

    I have tried to get my head around this omnishambles of a business for years and still can't figure it out.

    It seems to me that there are 2 assets:

    1  Season ticket revenues

    2  Ibrox

    As things stand, I think asset No 2 has more future value than asset No 1.

    View Comment

  39. finnmccool 4th August 2019 at 02:51

    If the 'soft' loans given to TRIFC were converted to shares does this mean that any inter-company loans, if indeed they were classed as such, to TRFC would then be cancelled?

    It's a fair question. The loans to RIFC were converted to get round the UEFA FFP rules. However, if the loans to TRFC still exist as debt then surely the 'club' have not got round the rules at all and would still be in breach, although I guess that would really depend on what the accounts say, re income and expenditure at TRFC level

    View Comment

  40. scotc @ 9.11

    Auldheid would have a better understanding then me but my understanding is that UEFA accept the concept of a holding company operating the club and would not be concerned if the holding company meet FFP even if the club wouldn't.  What I am unsure out is the level of debt the holding company is permitted before it doesn't meet the FFP criteria.  I would assume it has to be a percentage of group turover given that RIFC has no revenue stream other than dilution of its own shares

    View Comment

  41. Cluster One 4th August 2019 at 10:41

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

    Indeed, as they are secured creditors.

    However as soon as SD have a legally enforceable debt (even if unsecured), and TRFC don't pay it, then there is nothing to stop them moving for a winding up order. 

    The defence against that would obviously be placing the club into administration, and that's when things start to get really messy.

    The only other option is paying them what they are owed.

     

    View Comment

  42. So, when are Duff & Duffer expected at Ibrox?!  enlightened

     

    Somehow, this time around I don't think they'll be Administrators of choice. 

     

    But, IF things are as bad as we think – and there is not another mysterious source of funding to keep the lights on – then you would expect Robertson or King to make extremely discreet enquiries to validate all their options, in all eventualities?

     

    View Comment

  43. From The Sun;

    "OVER THE TOP

    Fans destroy disabled section as Rangers score late winner against Kilmarnock

    FANS spilled on to the pitch as Rangers scored a last minute winner against Kilmarnock…"

     

    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4564658/fans-destroy-disabled-rangers-kilmarnock/

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

     

    And it seems that there was also confusion / delay for TRFC fans getting into the Killie ground.

     

    Not an encouraging first game of the season for the SPL.

    View Comment

  44. In today's smsm and on the first weekend of the SPFL 

    Mr David Provan writes.

    To be fair to the ibrox board they have backed Gerrard to the hilt. God knows what it's done to the balance sheet, but punters won't lose sleep over the numbers if it puts a proper team on the pitch.

    ……………

    Have the SMSM learned nothing?

    Have the ibrox fans learned nothing?

    The last time the ibrox fans never lost any sleep over the numbers as the board put a proper team on the pitch, the club ended up going into liquidation.

    Tell me this David. will they care if it all comes crashing down around about them?

    Was there ever a question of God knows what it's done to the balance sheets back in the murray years.

    Maybe this time around it could be better to ask and look into. Maybe there are lessons to be learned of not sitting on their backsides eating lamb.

    Getting a proper team on the pitch cost the first ibrox club to die.

    What could be the cost to the ibrox club this time in trying to get a proper team on the pitch ?

    View Comment

  45. John Clark 3rd August 2019 at 22:23

     

    Thanks John. Not far off the mark there. I have actually been captured by loads of grandweans all 7 and under!!!!!

    Think a stint as a modern day Dolores Ibarruri would have been preferrable!!!! No slight to the great woman intended.

    View Comment

  46. Since it’s quite.
    Cluster One 4th August 2019 at 18:13
    8 0 Rate This

    In today’s smsm and on the first weekend of the SPFL

    Mr David Provan writes.

    To be fair to the ibrox board they have backed Gerrard to the hilt. God knows what it’s done to the balance sheet, but punters won’t lose sleep over the numbers if it puts a proper team on the pitch.
    ……………………
    I came across this quote from Mr Provan from Dec 22, 2013.
    “Rangers are still paying the price of sir David’s dance with the Devil”
    Maybe in a couple of years i may come across another quote from Mr Provan that goes something like
    “Rangers are still paying the price of Mr king’s dance with the Devil”

    View Comment

  47. Cluster One 4th August 2019 at 21:37

    “..Mr Provan from Dec 22, 2013…'Rangers are still paying the price of Mr king’s dance with the Devil'”

    ++++++++++++++

    But in 2019 the SFA have not yet paid the full price for having supped with the father of lies by their laughably ridiculous 5-Way Agreement and the granting of a UEFA licence to RFC of 1872.

    They will pay the full price, sooner or later, as and when this or that individual may be charged with and convicted of conspiracy to defraud.

    'Sport is as sport does"  and CAS has a useful role in matters of Sports rules and regulations. 

    But when it comes to actual crime, CAS has no place and the Criminal Justice system in any jurisdiction kicks in.

    I'm looking forward to that.

    1.  
    View Comment

  48. rougvielovesthejungle 4th August 2019 at 18:11

    '…They all know, they’re nae completely daft!'

    +++++++++++++

    Yes, of course they all know.

    And they all know the nonsense of the 'continuity Rangers'  5-way agreement and  they know that a liquidated football club ceases to exist as a football entity.

    But their employer, the BBC ( or BBC Scotland)  clearly told them to buy into the Big Lie. 

    And they did.

    View Comment

  49. Angus Howarth in the 'Scotsman' today has this in his report on the crowd problem at Kilmarnock yesterday

    " Police Scotland confirmed they assisted Kilmarnock officials and that all away supporters were in the ground 15 minutes after kick-off"

    Well, the video clip I saw showed a number of absolutely useless mounted police officers doing absolutely nothing to prevent a build-up of noisy fans at the exit gate getting more frustrated by the second as the game got under way with them still outside. Had the gate not been opened, it would have been forced, with the likelihood of injuries.

    I would have thought it would be standard police practice to station a horse or two between gathering fans and such gates to discourage the idea of breaking-in if the queues at the turnstiles begin to get restive.

    Be that as it may, though, it's not really good enough for a journalist merely to parrot what a police spokesperson says. There were questions to be asked about a potentially dangerous situation and the late response to it.

     

     

    View Comment

  50. StevieBC 3rd August 2019 at 14:13

    There have been reams and reams of SMSM coverage of TRFC financial woes in Court in the last week.

    There has been even more chatter right across social media about the latest, embarrassing Ibrox shambles.

    Yet, not a peep from our leaders in Scottish football.

    Nothing from the SFA.

    Nothing from the SPFL.

    Nothing from club leaders, ( although TRFC did 'reassure' their fans that it's not as bad as it seems… ).

    Typical.

    And I presume that the SFA CEO is simply banned from engaging with the SMSM – to express his views and display some leadership ?

    [Rhetorical question.]

    Or, has Petrie locked Maxwell away in the Hampden bunker?

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

    Now we have Sevco scoring their first goal of the season, celebrated by thousands singing "The Billy Boys". Add to that a pitch invasion, stadium damage and players cavorting with fans on and off the pitch, (including one stopping for a "selfie" with a fan). Thereafter more renditions of the banned song.

    Still nothing from the beaks at Hampden. Must still be away on their Summer hols Stevie BC.

     

    By the way, has anyone broke the news to Steeeeeevie Geeee! They've only one point in the 86 min league this season! 

    View Comment

  51. In any normal, reasonable MSM the sentiments expressed within this article should be widespread across the SMSM today – after yesterday's TRFC game.

     

    But, it is surprising in its honesty, so kudos to Bill Leckie.

    And hope he's wearing a tin hat today!

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

     

    "EVERYONE WELCOME

    Until Rangers tackle bile fans spew, they will never be club for Everyone or Anyone

    writes Bill Leckie

    Fifteen minutes and 23 seconds into the opening game, thousands of travelling fans told the board exactly where they could stick their diversity.

    That’s how long it took them to wipe their backsides on the Everyone Anyone initiative and tell the watching world that they were Up Tae Our Knees In Fenian Blood.

    …"

    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4565822/rangers-fans-sing-bill-leckie/

    View Comment

  52. Actually, regarding yesterday's TRFC game, there is a point which is just being reported which should be the focus, IMO.

     

    It's being claimed that TRFC supporters INSIDE the Killie ground opened a FIRE EXIT gate for those fans trying to get in.

     

    The Police have denied opening the gate.

    Killie has claimed that turnstiles had failed to operate.

     

    The SFA/SPFL MUST investigate this.

     

    Or, better still the Health and Safety Executive.

     

    And there must be repercussions for ANY travelling support which conducts itself in such an irresponsible and dangerous manner, IMO.

    View Comment

  53. It will be interesting to hear what the Clyde SSB team have to say about the ‘wild celebrations’ (copyright BBC) after the winning goal was scored at Rugby Park yesterday. The SPFL/SFA are probably hoping for a steer with regards their own statement.

    View Comment

  54. tykebhoy 11.49.

     

    I'm not au fait with detail of break even requirements or the detail of TRFC Ltd accounts re their income streams, but this article sets out the principles when UEFA first introduced the break even  concept and how that has softened over the intervening years.

    The link is to  Part 1 which then links to Parts 2 and 3 and it's a very informative read in terms of  the underlying principles at play.

    https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/the-evolution-of-uefa-s-financial-fair-play-rules-part-1-background-and-eu-law-by-christopher-flanagan

    In terms of a club operated by a separate company I know there has to be a written contract between the 2 parties and if memory serves me well if insolvency occurs the UEFA licence granted is not transferable but I'll copy the actual UEFA Article.

    Between the two readers should get an idea of the principles UEFA intend their rules to uphold and the distance between those principles and those of the Scottish Football authorities.

    View Comment

  55. StevieBC 5th August 2019 at 13:42
    But, it is surprising in its honesty, so kudos to Bill Leckie.
    “EVERYONE WELCOME

    Until Rangers tackle bile fans spew, they will never be club for Everyone or Anyone

    writes Bill Leckie
    ………………..
    He was doing so well on his article about the ibrox fan base but just to even things up he had to have a dig at the Green Brigade

    View Comment

  56. 'Kilgore Trout 5th August 2019 at 17:35

    Everything will be Kilmarnock's fault by Wednesday at the latest.' 

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

    TRFC has already turned its deflectors to the maximum, 'Wisnae us!' setting & as there is no 'strict liability' in Scottish football, the SFA/SPFL will automatically consider it Kilmarnock's fault.

    View Comment

  57. However, the spokesman for Rangers said: "Rightly or wrongly a gate was forced but the real cause of the serious congestion and crushing which occurred outside the stadium before and after kick off cannot be disguised. 

    From BBC .

    When is it ever right to force a gate to gain entry to a stadium . And according to Killie , the delays getting in were partly down to enhanced searches for smoke bombs and pyros , among other things .

    View Comment

  58. Tykebhoy.

    Here are the relevant UEFA FFP Articles from UEFA FFP 2018. What intrigues me is the terminology as in no mention of any holding company anywhere in UEFA FFP, which raises the questions:

    Are RIFC  PLC a football company ?

    Do they have a written contract with The Rangers FC Ltd?

    Whose name is  now on the application from Ibrox for   a UEFA Licence, The Rangers Football Club Ltd or Rangers International Football Club Plc ? 

    (in 2012 pre administration when The Rangers Football Club PLC applied for  UEFA licence (that was refused) the applicant named on the application template was Rangers Football Club.

     

    Article 45 – Written contract with a football company

    1 If the licence applicant is a football company as defined in Article 12(1b), it must
    provide a written contract of assignment with a registered member.

    2 The contract must stipulate the following, as a minimum:

    a) The football company must comply with the applicable statutes, regulations,
    directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and
    its affiliated league.

    b) The football company must not further assign its right to participate in a
    competition at national or international level.

    c) The right of this football company to participate in such a competition ceases
    to apply if the assigning club’s membership of the association ceases.

    d) If the football company is put into bankruptcy or enters liquidation, this is deemed to be an interruption of membership or contractual relationship within the meaning of Article 12. For the sake of clarity, should the licence  already be granted to the football company, then it cannot be transferred from the football company to the registered member. 

    e) The UEFA member association must be reserved the right to approve thename under which the football company participates in the national competitions.

    f) The football company must, at the request of the competent national
    arbitration tribunal or CAS, provide views, information, and documents on
    matters regarding the football company’s participation in the national and/or
    international competition.

    3 The contract of assignment and any amendment to it must be approved by the
    UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league.

    Article 12 and 1 b says.

    Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant

    1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
    for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
    either:

     

    a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
    league (hereinafter: registered member); or

    b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
    company).

     

    View Comment

  59. easyJambo 5th August 2019 at 20:30
    Everything about outside the stadium and no mention of the arrests inside the stadium.
    ………….
    We are aware of a video which appears to show Rangers supporters opening an access gate in response to pleas from supporters further back in the crowd. This has been characterised negatively by various media outlets including the Daily Record and BBC Scotland journalists. Having watched and listened to the video in question, there is genuine concern from distressed supporters that there is a dangerous situation building up in the crowd and that this gate should be opened to relieve pressure.
    ………………………..
    So who was putting pressure on supporters further back in the crowd?
    Was there a Star wars type crusher forcing them forward?

    View Comment

  60. Anent the crowd behaviour at Rugby Park at the weekend whilst not condoning anything I'm not sure the GB covered themselves in glory? Or is that ok even it has feck all to do with football? One thing is sure this season even this early is that the two cheeks are back and the press/media and both cheeks are loving it. Plus sa change as they say!!

    View Comment

  61. Cluster One 5th August 2019 at 20:50

    So who was putting pressure on supporters further back in the crowd?
    Was there a Star wars type crusher forcing them forward?

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

    The video footage I saw of the gate being opened did not suggest that there were lots of fans pressing up against it, only fans shouting for the gate to be opened (to get into the ground quicker or to bypass the turnstiles?)

    View Comment

  62. bordersdon 5th August 2019 at 21:11

    Here we go again with the two cheeks. You sound just like the media, if Rangers have to be condemned for something Celtic have to be brought in to even things up. If you have something to say about Celtic and it's supporters then say what you mean. Don't use the two cheeks as it has no relevance here. Celtic supporters, including the Green Brigade, did not break down gates to illegally enter a Football Stadium nor did they enter the field of play, and certainly did not jump on a roof covering and endanger lives.
    So if you have a point to make re the GB then state it plain and simple and I'm sure many (including Celtic supporters) will agree with at least some of your criticisms.

    View Comment

Comments are closed.