Did the MSM learn anything from the Rangers saga?

Earlier this year, Rangerstaxcase.com explained the meaning of ‘Succulent Lamb’.  It was a phrase – referring to the art of journalists who accept what they are told (right or wrong) in return for privileged information – that became a well known euphemism for ‘bad journalism’.

Unfortunately, the death of Rangers FC has not changed the ‘bad journalism’ prevalent in the Scottish red top media.

The ‘code of practice’ for journalists states:

…public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.

The highlight in bold above is my emphasis.  Let us now apply this to a story which was published earlier this week, about the poor Falkirk Tannoy Announcer who was ‘suspended’ by Falkirk.  His crime?  Reading out the half time score as ‘The Sevco Franchise v East Stirling’

Let’s look at one example of the Succulent Lamb journalists in action:

The Herald:

FALKIRK have suspended their stadium announcer for referring to the newco Rangers as “The Sevco Franchise”.  Fans of club reacted angrily to the comment, made during Saturday’s game against Raith Rovers.  Dave McIntosh used the term to poke fun at Rangers’ financial troubles after they were liquidated. Falkirk have ordered him not to return until an internal investigation has been carried out.

Now, a reader of TSFM decided to do what all journalists should do… research.  How, by simply asking Falkirk why he was suspended.  Thanks to ‘Senior’, here is the email (all names removed to protect privacy):

Not only are the MSM failing to report the facts, they are failing to “seek truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”  Surely the real story is why does a SFA member club feel the need to protect the safety of an employee from the actions of another member club.  Isn’t that the question that the MSM should be asking?

And why are credible threats from one new member to another older member being tolerated, without charge, by the very organization tasked with protecting OUR game.  Another in a long line of questions that the SFA need to be asked.

—-

StevensanPH is an exiled St.Johnstone fan living in the Philippines – he runs the SaintinAsia blog writing about all aspects of Scottish Football.  Thankfully the MSM don’t sell papers in the Philippines…”
142 Comments
  1. haudmajaikitt


    Not sure if this has been posted before.

    It’s from Solicitors WHM May Lawsuit newsletter:

    “Seeking the truth? Read the Judgement, not the newspapers

    The Rangers Administration has excited the media. Acres of newsprint, hours of television time and millions of pixels have been devoted to probably the highest profile administration ever in Scotland. 

    Without adding to the clamour of debate regarding the possible outcome of the administration, WJM take this opportunity to point out that sometimes reading court judgments, rather than looking to newspapers for a journalist’s interpretation of the decision, can offer an accurate account of what is really going on.

    Reading Lord Hodge’s Opinion on the Note of Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, joint administrators of Rangers Football Club plc, is one sure way of finding out what’s really happening with Rangers.

    Lord Hodge’s Opinion, given on 23 March, has been dissected by football fans and journalists all over Scotland. Many Rangers fans were – and are – frustrated by the lack of information coming from the administrators and the apparent misinformation coming from other sources.

    In his Opinion, Lord Hodge provided some clarity.

    He gave an outline of the agreements between Rangers and Ticketus, which the Club’s administrators are seeking to tear up. In a four-year deal Ticketus paid £25,376,125 to the Club in the current 2011/12 season. The money was for season tickets due to be purchased by fans until the deal ended at the end of May 2015. In effect Rangers fans would no longer be purchasing their tickets from the Club but would purchase them from Ticketus.

    He also outlines the options that have been offered to potential purchasers and the need for these options highlights the uncertainty and difficulties that both the administrators and potential purchasers have in moving the process forward.

    Although Lord Hodge was ultimately unable to come to a decision as to whether the agreements could be breached, his Opinion gives those interested in the case a clearer picture of what has happened, what is currently happening and what can be expected to happen in the future.”

    LawSuit! May 2012 | Lawsuit! | News | Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP, Solicitors

    The opinion of LH (23 March 2012) can be found here:

    Clark & Whitehouse (Joint Administrators of Rangers Football Club Plc), Re Directions [2012] ScotCS CSOH_55 (23 March 2012)

    View Comment
  2. CE


    I’m tending to lurk more than post nowadays, but I have to say the blog has been on top form over the last few days and well done to all concerned.

    With regards to The Dog Whistler’s £500k sweetner, surely this ‘deal’ completely compromises his position as manager? Is he going to get a say on his own pay rates and job prospects?

    View Comment
  3. redetin


    When the CVA proposal was rejected, Sevco was required* to purchase the business and assets of the company, no mention of “history”. No mention at all of “history” anywhere in the CVA Proposal document of 29 May 2012.

    *”4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.”

    View Comment
  4. tic6709


    Blindsummit says:

    August 25, 2012 at 13:53

    The Invisible Line says:

    Can I ask a question here that may seem nonsensical at first but drives at the heart of this debate of oldco/newco.

    If I was a Rangers NIL and was very relieved that the football club had survived the demise of the hoding company (stop laughing and pay attention at the back!), my question is

    What company am I buying shares in?
    __________________________________________________

    Great point IL. I am really looking forward to seeing what name appears on the prospectus and share certificate for this share issue.

    I wonder if it might be The Rangers Football Club Ltd? I find it hard to believe they could get away with just putting Rangers, or Rangers Football Club as such an entity doesn’t legally exist.

    And yet they claim they are selling shares in the club. Which is a separate nebulous entity floating beneath whatever holding company exists at that time of day.

    And yet I would assume that as such entity doesn’t actually exist in law, but is merely a fiction, they would have to put the company name.

    Thereby in black and white acknowledging the reality that the club is the company and vice versa.
    And thereby acknowledging also that the previous “holding” entity Rangers Football Club PLC was also very much the club, despite their false and fraudulent statements denying this.

    Thereby, surely also providing definitive evidence to creditors and BDO (if they were so inclined) to challege the stitch up and unravel the Green deal as gratuitous alienation.

    I have no great confidence in the legal system, but the paradox above surely would not stand in even our courts.
    ==============================

    Brilliant summary.

    View Comment
  5. redetin


    redetin says:
    August 25, 2012 at 14:36

    So, rather naughty of D&P to write “business and assets” in the CVA Proposal, and “business, history and certain assets” in the Progress Report.*

    *”4.6 As part of a wider agreement with the Joint Administrators which was finalised prior to the CVA meetings, Newco was obliged to purchase the business, history and certain assets of the Company should the CVA fail.”

    View Comment
  6. goosy


    From Companies House.
    RFC 2012 P.L.C. (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc)
    Company number SC004276
    incorporated 27 May 1899
    Name changed 31 July 2012

    From Companies House
    The Rangers Football Club Plc (Formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd)
    Company No. SC425159
    incorporated 29 May 2012
    Name changed 31 July 2012
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Is this
    Two different clubs?
    Or
    The same club with two birthdays?

    Or is it just an annoying discrepancy dreamed up to annoy people?

    View Comment
  7. essexbeancounter


    miki67 says:
    August 25, 2012 at 11:57
    13 0 i Rate This

    I’m not an accountant and yet I can tell that there is something very wrong with the Duffers’ financial puff piece. It reads to me like a blueprint for legalised theft and fraud. Incredible stuff.
    Have you noticed the hourly charge for the most menial of chores? I ask you. It tempts me to appply for a job with them as a lowly office gofer. I’d be a wealthy comedian very quickly…

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

    Miki…you do not need any formal accountancy or economics qualifications to fathom that this whole charade is a (conflicted) rip-off.

    Whilst not excusing the exorbitant charge out rates which can be applied here, there are a goodly number of genuine anomalies in company law which allow this kind of nonsense to be perpetrated. The whole artificial scenario of Whyte posturing to have his favoured firm be appointed as administrators, just “nosing” out HMRC’s favoured firm(S), indicates that from the start, something stinks behind this whole scenario.

    I ask the question, which answers itself really: had this not been RFC going “belly up”, but a similar sized organisation in Scotland going “belly” up, surely the MSM would have engaged suitably qualified financial and business staff reporters to cover the news and raise the correct questions and probe where they knew any porkies were being blatantly fed back to the public?

    I ask the question again, does it suit the MSM to have “fitba’ churnalists” cover such a story, in the full knowledge that none will ask the relevant probing question(s)? Does this policy really emanate from the highest editorial level in Scotland?

    View Comment
  8. briggsbhoy


    Accies80 @ 10.23

    You’re surely not suggesting where our Willie is involved there is 50 shades of grey

    View Comment
  9. SouthernExile


    Was just catching up on Paul McC’s scotslaw site in the past few minutes, did a refresh and got a WordPress statement saying the account is suspended for violations of terms of service??

    Anybody got any info?? Paul?

    View Comment
  10. D C MacKenzie


    He has just tweeted that he is trying to find out what has happened. He is quite annoyed because he had just posted 7000 words on Lance Armstrong.

    View Comment
  11. Blindsummit


    I’m getting that too SouthernExile. Perhaps compaints and pressure from Sevco?

    View Comment
  12. Lord Wobbly


    SouthernExile says:
    August 25, 2012 at 15:30
    1 0 Rate This
    Was just catching up on Paul McC’s scotslaw site in the past few
    minutes, did a refresh and got a WordPress statement saying the account is suspended for violations of terms of service??
    Anybody got any info?? Paul?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Paul McConville @Paulmcc12 18m
    Posted a new blog, and immediately the full Scots Law
    Thoughts Blog disappeared! Polite emails sent to WordPress
    to find where it has gone

    View Comment
  13. Lord Wobbly


    Goosy says:
    August 25, 2012 at 14:57
    4 0 Rate This
    From Companies House.
    RFC 2012 P.L.C. (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc)
    Company number SC004276
    incorporated 27 May 1899
    Name changed 31 July 2012
    From Companies House
    The Rangers Football Club Plc (Formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd)
    Company No. SC425159
    incorporated 29 May 2012
    Name changed 31 July 2012
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Are you sure about that second one? Where are the shares available?

    Not that I want any you understand.

    View Comment
  14. SouthernExile


    Lord Wobbly says:
    August 25, 2012 at 16:15
     0 0 Rate This
    SouthernExile says:
    August 25, 2012 at 15:30
    1 0 Rate This
    Was just catching up on Paul McC’s scotslaw site in the past few
    minutes, did a refresh and got a WordPress statement saying the account is suspended for violations of terms of service??
    Anybody got any info?? Paul?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Paul McConville @Paulmcc12 18m
    Posted a new blog, and immediately the full Scots Law
    Thoughts Blog disappeared! Polite emails sent to WordPress
    to find where it has gone

    ————

    Thank you, Lord, I am not of the twitterati!

    Amazing how paranoid this whole business makes you.

    View Comment
  15. Lord Wobbly


    SouthernExile says:
    August 25, 2012 at 16:33
    0 0 Rate This
    ~~~~~~~~~~~
    I’m not a twittererer either. I Google the ones I want to read. I’m an internet voyeur I think 😯

    View Comment
  16. Lord Wobbly


    Paul McConville @Paulmcc12 32m
    Wordpress have done the business and Scots Law Thoughts is
    back up and running! Legalistic nit-picking back on track!

    Paul McConville @Paulmcc12 38m
    Latest on disapearance of Scots Law Thoughts Blog – if you
    have too many links in a WordPress post – WP thinks I am a
    robot spouting spam!

    View Comment
  17. AllyJambo

    AllyJambo


    Blindsummit says:

    August 25, 2012 at 14:19

    Thanks for your good wishes, BS. It’s something that gladdens my heart, the way supporters of all clubs, even one or two Rangers fans, have come together on sites like this and have thrown off their own allegiences for the sake of Scottish football. Which is another thing the MSM have managed to avoid mentioning.

    View Comment
  18. Paulsatim


    Just read on another forum that Jabba was reminded by a caller that he had tried to buy Airdrie’s old crest/badge and liquidators told him he could if he paid of their debt. Jabba then said that Rangers closed. Sevco should not be allowed to use Rangers name, badge etc unless they pay of all old Rangers debt.

    This was rule with Airdie as deemed by liquidater. Hence they had to change badge crest and change name to Airdrie United.

    If true that is a massive statement from the “voice of a football”!

    View Comment
  19. scottc

    scottc


    From Companies House.
    RFC 2012 P.L.C. (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc)
    Company number SC004276
    incorporated 27 May 1899
    Name changed 31 July 2012

    From Companies House
    The Rangers Football Club Plc (Formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd)
    Company No. SC425159
    incorporated 29 May 2012
    Name changed 31 July 2012

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#

    That’s a bit naughty Goosy. Sevco are listed as The Rangers Football Club Limited, a Private Limited Company, not a public one.

    It does stink though

    View Comment
  20. iceman63


    I think saintinasia’s single example here dissects the culture of the MSM precisely.

    They are not in any sense journalists – they are propogandists feeding a very specific audience. That audience is fans of the former RFC – and like all propogandists their first and only allegiance is to their designated audience – their utterances have no grain of truth within them – nor the desire to discover truth. Indeed those online and occasionally on phone lines who dare utter truth are ridculed and when that fails sidelined and ignored.

    Essentially they print lies – and nothing else. So SEVCO are Rangers, Ashley invested 10 million for ten percent, merchandising sales for Rangers products remain in-house in a joint venture.
    These are other simple lies – the writers of the stories know they are lies , the editors above them know they are lies , and, as in the past, they simply print lies to please their audience.

    They could learn, were they journalists seeking truth, but they are scribes printing lies and have no desire, nor any impulse from their organisations and publications to discover truth.

    They are the opposite of journalists. Journalists seek the truth; the MSM seek to hide the truth

    View Comment
  21. Lord Wobbly


    Paulsatim says:
    August 25, 2012 at 18:22
    2 0 Rate This
    Just read on another forum that Jabba was reminded by a caller that he had tried to buy Airdrie’s old crest/badge and liquidators told him he could if he paid of their debt. Jabba then said that Rangers closed. Sevco should not be allowed to use Rangers name, badge etc unless they pay of all old Rangers debt.
    This was rule with Airdie as deemed by liquidater. Hence they
    had to change badge crest and change name to Airdrie United.
    If true that is a massive statement from the “voice of a football”!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    He did indeed say all of that. One can only assume that someone from the Sevco/The Rangers fanbase will complain. But will the BBC apologise and then suspend James pending a full enquiry? And/or for his own safety?

    View Comment
  22. Senior

    Senior


    Lord Wobbly.

    ‘I’m not a twittererer either. I Google the ones I want to read. I’m an internet voyeur I think’
    ———- ——————–

    And a damn good one at that Lord Wobbly – I feel you should be elevated!

    View Comment
  23. Lord Wobbly


    Senior says:
    August 25, 2012 at 19:03
    0 0 Rate This
    Lord Wobbly.
    ‘I’m not a twittererer either. I Google the ones I want to read. I’m an internet voyeur I think’
    ———- ——————–
    And a damn good one at that Lord Wobbly – I feel you should be elevated!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Thank you for saying ‘elevated’ and not ‘lifted’!

    View Comment
  24. midcalderan


    Paulsatim says:
    August 25, 2012 at 18:22

    Just read on another forum that Jabba was reminded by a caller that he had tried to buy Airdrie’s old crest/badge and liquidators told him he could if he paid of their debt. Jabba then said that Rangers closed. Sevco should not be allowed to use Rangers name, badge etc unless they pay of all old Rangers debt.
    This was rule with Airdie as deemed by liquidater. Hence they had to change badge crest and change name to Airdrie United.
    ————————————————

    What goes around comes around. This is what pushed Airdrie into liquidation and now we all know to what kind of business DM was referring to in his statement!

    “Ibrox chairman David Murray applied for an interdict, on behalf of his company Carnegie, for a debt of around £30,000 owed by Airdrie.

    Mr Murray said: “I feel very sorry for Airdrie and their supporters but we’re running a business. We have given them repeated warnings and felt they were playing on our good nature.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/628268.stm

    View Comment
  25. HirsutePursuit


    http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/administratorsinformation/Rangers%20-%20Progress%20Report%20-%2024%20August%202012.PDF

    Under Section 1. Definitions

    Word or Phrase
    Rangers / the Company / the Club

    Definition
    RFC 2012 P.L.C. (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC004276);

    There we have it.

    The Rangers Football Club Plc (the football club founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1899) is “Rangers / the Company / the Club”.

    As I have said before, D&P sold the Rangers trademarks – this is why Sevco Scotland (the football club founded & incorporated in 2012) could change its name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd and play in the SFL as Rangers FC.

    This new club can call itself Rangers; but it is not Rangers.

    View Comment
  26. campsiejoe


    I had the misfortune to hear Radio Clyde this afternoon, when visiting my daughter
    The coverage that they are giving Sevco, a 3rd Division side, is disgusting, not just in its fawning sycophancy, but also the amount of air time devoted to them

    By comparison, Partick Thistle, who are unbeaten and leaders of the 1st Division barely rate a passing nod from the any of the Sevco cheerleaders

    The MSM cannot survive without Sevco, hence the continued pandering to them and their followers
    I really don’t know what they, or their predecessor have to do to be the subject of any criticism, or calls for justice and fair play

    Although they already know the answers, the MSM will never ask hard, detailed questions, as they do not want to hear the words actually spoken by their masters
    Hell will have frozen over before we get truthful, objective reporting from these charlatans

    View Comment
  27. Angus


    HirsutePursuit says:
    August 25, 2012 at 19:43

    Word or Phrase
    Rangers / the Company / the Club

    Definition
    RFC 2012 P.L.C. (Formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC004276);

    ——–

    As I’ve said before, the “definitions” section refers only to that document. In other words, where you see “Rangers / The Company / The Club” printed elsewhere in that document, that is what those words mean – “RFC 2012 PLC”.

    e.g. We don’t understand “Rangers” as meaning the club RFC 2012 PLC when we see it in current match reports anymore. More extremely, we don’t take a reference to “the Company” in an article about, say, Virgin, to mean RFC 2012 PLC.

    Mind you, your reasoning is OK by me. 🙂

    View Comment
  28. Itsagoal!


    Can someone with a good understanding of all the previous Duff & Phelps reports tell us if the latest report from yesterday gives any indication how many people are employed by Rangers(IA)?
    one of my fears is that Rangers(IA) are paying some of the salaries/costs that should be borne by Newco (can Newco charge things to Duff & Phelps? office space etc?). Is it really just all Duff & Phelps staff dealing with clearing out the pigsty of oldco?

    do Duff & Phelps staff get access to staff that tupe’d over – i.e. the former finance staff?

    p.s. the Scottish Parliament starts back next week after summer recess – I assume there will be a flurry of activity as the Finance, Audit & Sports Committees all set up inquiries into Scotland’s biggest sporting and financial scandal………………..

    I won’t hold my breath

    View Comment
  29. nickmcguinness


    I asked the other night if anyone had a copy of the presentation Charles Green made to potential investors before the CVA was rejected.
    Now it’s turned up on kerrydalestreet.co.uk – and you can log on to it here:

    http://freepdfhosting.com/764719bf8c.pdf

    The document shows that Zeus Capital hired Green on 10% commission to raise up to £30m for Sevco 5088.
    And investors were told that if they invested in Sevco, they could own up to 85% of RFC PLC’s shares, with the other 15% being owned by 26,000 “fan investors”.
    What does this mean?
    It means that Green had reached agreement with Duff & Phelps and WHYTE to sell the wee chancer’s shares for him.
    And if the CVA failed? There was a contingency plan to cover that too.
    Perhaps involving a later share issue?
    I keep saying it . . .
    Ticketus and Whyte are THE key players in this Sevco farce.

    Duff & Phelps, Green and Zeus (and Ticketus and Whyte) are desperate, really desperate, to get this shareholding stitched up and presented as a “fait au complet” before BDO get a chance to unravel this scandal.

    View Comment
  30. nickmcguinness


    In the last line I meant to say “share issue” not “shareholding”.

    View Comment
  31. bad capt madman


    A poster called Merciatic replied to one of Paul McConville’s blogs on CGs flotation plan.

    Merciatic put a link to CG’s presentation to investors (http://freepdfhosting.com/764719bf8c.pdf), which amongst other things mentions figures from the 2011 accounts.

    Now forgive me if i’m wrong but I don’t remember reading that these accounts had been provided to the SFA.

    Some of the figures include statements such as a £9,658,000 trading profit, an operating profit of £1,246,000, and an after tax profit of £76,000. How can there be profits if this is a new company? The timeframe was pre CVA, the oldco had huge debt, and the newco was about to be bought by CG by a £5.5m loan? Unbelievably it also states social responsibility as one of four “strategic levers”.

    The main question though, did either RFC, D&P, Sevco, or TRFC submit annual accounts which CG uses as part of his pitch?

    View Comment
  32. chancer67


    It would appear that the rational behind this blog and the RTC before it is beginning to pay dividends.The Rangers will never go into administration the MSM assured the loyal fans, what happens administration.

    The creditors will agree to a CVA or so we were told by financial whizz kids and again with the backing of the MSM,we all know what happens next ,the big L looms large over the myth that was Rangers FC.And so it goes on lie after lie and the fans believe what they are being spun by a compliant media who quite blatantly and openly admit they have a targeted customer base and as a business they will print or broadcast to ensure maximum capital return,Hugh Keevins told us this on Clyde this midweek.

    I cant speak for others on this site but I can detect a shift in attitudes ,not only in the media but on Rangers forums where the decent RFC fans are starting to get through to the rampaging hordes who dont understand the meaning of informed debate.

    Tonight I heard Traynor on BBC Scotland quite clearly state that the oldco is dead and that RFC are a new club/team its taken a while but i think he knows what is coming and he is preparing himself for the aftermath.

    Also after a visit to the dark side tonight (RM) at last they understand that they are not banned from European competition, but they dont qualify because they dont have 3 years audited accounts and that the SFA did not impose a ban as a punishment for the wrongdoings of Craig White.

    It may only be a slight change in attitudes but it is a change nontheless and it looks like the internet bampots are starting to influence and change the way this whole fiasco is moving to its conclusion.

    View Comment
  33. easyJambo


    Captain Haddock says: August 25, 2012 at 20:53

    The accounts for 2011 were published but in an “unaudited” form. There is no reason to doubt their authenticity as they only covered the first couple of months of Craig Whyte’s tenure.

    The trading profit was genuine and resulted from CL & EL funding in that year of approx £19M. It is that which brought the Lloyds debt down from approx £27M to £18M.

    What it did show, however, was that without CL money (as in 2011/12) RFC was losing around £10M a year, something that Whyte was able to repeat with ease. 🙂

    View Comment
  34. Lamp Post Sannies


    haha, that presentation can’t be genuine can it. Front cover says “Part 2 – Ranger FC”
    Surely they it’s a wind up

    View Comment
  35. tomtom


    Captain Haddock says:
    August 25, 2012 at 20:53
    ———————————–

    From the presentation doc;

    “Brought forward tax losses of £40m to remain in place subject to HMRC approval”

    He’s got to be having a laugh here surely 😀

    View Comment
  36. Danish Pastry


    Johnboy says:
    August 25, 2012 at 20:41
     0 0 Rate This
    I asked the other night if anyone had a copy of the presentation Charles Green made to potential investors before the CVA was rejected.
    Now it’s turned up on kerrydalestreet.co.uk – and you can log on to it here:

    http://freepdfhosting.com/764719bf8c.pdf
    ————-

    Thanks for that. This quote from the document is interesting:

    “- 13 May 2012: Charles Green agrees exclusivity
    -Rangers FC avoids liquidation via CVA subject to creditor’s approving £8.5m offer – Main benefits:
    – Players contracts remain in place
    – Other significant sanctions avoided, such as a 3 year ban from Europe
    – History and tradition of the club is maintained”

    Since the CVA was not approved I suppose it follows that:

    (i) the players contracts did not remain in place (so why the charade?)

    (ii) the 3-year Euro ban is in place because the club has ceased to be, or soon will, and what is being punted as ‘the same Rangers’ is an entirely new entity (perhaps other ‘significant sanctions’ could have been the complete expulsion of the newco club from Scottish football pending a successful application – were it not for some elaborate rule bending), and

    (iii) the history and tradition is therefore not maintained.

    It’s all been spelt out clearly rather early on. Funny how the spin machine has since tried to deny almost every consequence of the non-CVA outcome. It’s almost as though if you lie but call it PR spin, it’s not a lie anymore!

    View Comment
  37. Fifer


    campsiejoe says:
    August 25, 2012 at 19:53

    Maybe it’s because of the size of followers compared to Thistle!

    View Comment
  38. campsiejoe


    Fifer @ 21:25

    Ah, you have returned
    You know and I know, that is a very long way from the truth
    Goodnight

    View Comment
  39. Danish Pastry


    Fifer says:
    August 25, 2012 at 21:25
     0 0 Rate This
    campsiejoe says:
    August 25, 2012 at 19:53

    Maybe it’s because of the size of followers compared to Thistle!
    ———–

    So the fact that some Rangers fans appear to be XXXL, means that their team deserves more of a mention than the Thistle, whose fans may, on average, only be a size XL?

    It’s a novel thought 🙂

    View Comment
  40. Nowoldandgrumpy


    So it appears from his sales pitch, that Murray Park alone was worth 14 million.

    If he estimates that after getting rid of their best players and higherst earners and other cost cutting, they would have an operational profit of 2 million. Was this based on being in the SPL and European football? If so they are in deep trouble and their may be some unhappy investors.

    View Comment
  41. Fifer


    Only saying, size of followers = who the media will write about, seems normal to me in a business sense….

    View Comment
  42. Fifer


    While we are on about MSM so called journo’s that two faced Gonk Spence should go as well, ever read his blog on Dundee when they went bust and then compare it to Rangers, idiot of a man.

    View Comment
  43. smartie1947

    smartie1947


    Fifer says:

    August 25, 2012 at 21:47

    0

    3

    Rate This

    While we are on about MSM so called journo’s that two faced Gonk Spence should go as well, ever read his blog on Dundee when they went bust and then compare it to Rangers, idiot of a man.

    ===========================================================
    As a genuine born and bred citizen of the Kingdom, if your nom-de-plume is true, may I say you don’t half give the place a bad name.

    View Comment
  44. bicho malo nunca muere


    The MSM, along with CG as per his offer, wish to preserve the ‘The Old Firm’ as that narrative sells both brand loyalty, and the laziest and most hypocritical of copy. When the term starts to reappear it must be resisted by all fans of Scottish football (ad naseum), as killing this term is one way of ensuring recognition that Rangers expired, and that football can be sold on its merits, rather than its historical baggage.

    View Comment
  45. Stanblack


    nobody likes a smartie

    View Comment
  46. Fifer


    bicho malo nunca muere says:
    August 25, 2012 at 22:23

    Agree, we don’t want associated with them either.

    View Comment
  47. Stanblack


    relax frankie

    View Comment
  48. iceman63


    This is a long post relating specifically to Rangers’ history and why it matters.Allyjambo amongst others seems to feel that the History question is irrelevant and that Rangers fans will claim it whilst others will deny them it. I disagree – indeed I would argue that the History of Rangers is fundamental to understanding just what has occurred with the switch to SEVCO for Rangers, the whole edifice of the 5-way agreement, and its centrality to events.

    For SEVCO, obtaining the Rangers’ history appears from the outside to be a ludicrously high-risk means of obtaining league football in Scotland. When, in so doing, you appear to be accepting some of the debts of the old company, and some form of its footballing punishments it appears a highly dangerous strategy. The SPL investigation into illegal registrations has yet to take place and it seems inevitable that some further punishment for the decade long scam which allowed RFC to field a squad of players it could not afford bypassing proper registration procedures must follow. Given the serious nature of these allegations – they fundamentally amount to cheating the entire league for over a decade and have undermined the credibility of the whole game for that period – a lengthy suspension or massive fine ( potentially 50 million to recoup what has been lost to other clubs in the intervening periods which this fine could then repay) or both, such a decision to incorporate the history of Rangers appears to have the potential to destroy the entire organisation.

    It cannot therefore be merely a question of “pays your money and takes your choice” as regards history. For either SEVCO or, I suspect, elements within the SFA itself, and the SPL and the SFL deem the carrying on of that history to be so fundamental that they were prepared to threaten the whole venture to maintain it.

    The reason given, that of the need to transfer the share rather than apply for a new one is spurious. The actual process of this transfer from one legal entity to another is an ultra vires act and as such required a complete ignoring of the rule book to achieve. Given the willingness to adapt and twist the rules so blatantly, I would suggest that an application for a new licence – even though it required 3 years of audited accounts – could have been finessed much more easily that the process that allowed SEVCO entry into the league as Rangers. SEVCO could easily have bought a small junior or amateur club with 3 years of audited accounts, and upon receipt of the licence through a vote for the vacant place – one that would overwhelmingly have been passed by member clubs desperate to have Rangers in Scottish football – they could have been given blue livery and taken the place of the previous club as Rangers, calling themselves, Rangers. This course of action would have been fundamentally less risky financially and have had the benefit of being seen as being legitimate by the vast majority of all fans. The new club would have had no sanctions placed upon it nor the risk of further sanctions.

    The financial argument that a successful Rangers is essential to a successful Scottish league again does not and cannot explain the necessity to keep a club linked to the old one through history. Indeed financially a new club would be more stable in its finances, would have been able to employ entirely new players and staff at Ibrox and could have engaged in the essential cost-cutting which SEVCO has up to date ignored to place the new club on a more sustainable and viable footing – and the new entity could not be chased for OLDCO’s football debts nor face the risks of footballing sanctions against them.

    Hence in logistical practical term, and in financial terms the decision to encumber SEVCO with Rangers’ history makes no sense.

    Thus it can only make sense in what I would refer to as cultural terms- the mentality of the organisation that was RFC at its highest levels and its acolytes and placemen at the core of the Scottish game, as well as these individuals’ perceptions of the majority of Rangers’ fans.

    To these individuals Rangers football club is not merely a football club – a new club playing in blue and at Ibrox could have been set up with much less risk and much greater credibility than the present attempted continuity Rangers- it is about a philosophy and a vision of the world which has to be protected. Thus they need the history – and sadly I believe they needed all of it – not just the World record number of trophies, but the legacy of exclusion and sectarianism, the vision of a specifically protestant culture , the need to be the number one club in Scotland.

    What would have been lost without the history seems to most football fans of most clubs to be an important part of a club – its bragging rights, its place in the record books – but not an essential part of the club. For most fans the ability to have a team on the pitch that can be supported every week would be the key thing. You could always generate a new history and a new culture. But to those in the highest echelons of the Scottish game, such a situation for Rangers – even if it ensured that a club called Rangers survived and was secure in its formation, was simply anathema. It is open to question whether Rangers’ fans would have felt the same. Personally I doubt it. I think most Rangers’ fans would have welcomed being on the other side of “the chase” and would have set about making a better club with a new history. Sadly they were denied that opportunity by powerful individuals determined to keep the past – no matter how chequered – at whatever cost

    The history is the key here – it is what motivated the tearing up of the rule book, its preservation at all costs is what has taken the experience of a broken and collapsed club, and by refusing to accept that fact has transformed that into a complete destruction of all of the rules and fundamental processes governing the game. Without the “need” to preserve the history of Rangers we could have been in a similar position to where we are now with a footballing structure intact, and the fundamental principles of the game preserved.

    It is that history and the insistence on its survival that has brought Scottish football to the brink of existence – rather than the collapse of RFC itself which could have been managed in a much more open, honest and sustainable fashion. It is the maintenance of that history that ensures Scottish football will not be healed in the foreseeable future.

    View Comment
  49. Lord Wobbly


    Fifer says:
    August 25, 2012 at 22:14
    0 1 Rate This
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jimspence/2010/11/
    dundee_punishment_is_misguided.html

    Spence’s famous blog.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Ah yes, Dundee. A club that went into and out of Administration. They were then given a 25 point deduction as a consequence of entering Administration a second time.

    Rangers, on the other hand, didn’t manage to exit Administration. That’s why the club is being liquidated. That’s why Sevco had to buy Ibrox from Rangers. That’s why they haven’t been given a 25 point deduction for starting the new season in Administration. Because Rangers didn’t start a new season in Administration. Because Rangers didn’t start a new season. Rangers will never again start a new season.

    Good luck when the Pars meet The Rangers in a season or two (cup games not withstanding).

    View Comment
  50. CE


    Fifer,

    For a start Dundee did not ‘Go bust’. That dishonour, liquidation and extinction, has fallen to RFC alone.

    So please get your facts right before insulting one of the best sports journalists in Scotland.

    View Comment
  51. campsiejoe


    The Iceman @ 22:32

    Very eloquent sir
    The history that they so desperately want to keep alive has absolutely nothing to do with football
    It is about a culture, a philosophy, an ideology that is deemed superior to all others, and that is why in the eyes of so many within our game, it must be retained
    “We are the people” sums it up perfectly

    View Comment
  52. jean7brodie

    jean7brodie


    Stanblack says:
    August 25, 2012 at 22:32

    Rate This

    relax frankie

    Thanks Stan!! Good wee comment!
    I haven’t made many posts on here so far as I am in awe of all the erudite contributors so far. Keep up the good work.

    View Comment
  53. jean7brodie

    jean7brodie


    Poor delusional Fifer.

    View Comment
  54. rab


    Yip, rangers are history all right.

    View Comment
  55. bad capt madman


    The Iceman

    Great post, worthy of being a guest blog (hope TSFM agrees).

    First version in moderation, so I’ll use some abbreviations and symbols.

    This west coast shame of pro v cat has been consistently shocking me for nearly 40 years. I’m from the north east of Scotland, brought up when young as church of Scotland so obviously “pro”. Didn’t exactly see myself in those terms of course. A good education had informed me of some of the facts of historical religious and social intolerance, but I had assumed I lived in the modern world, believing economics, politics, morals and poverty were the main motivators in society.

    In my career in youth work, adult education and community development working in Glasgow I was regularly openly pestered by kids who needed to know if I was a p@@@@y or t@m! a non answer was not acceptable, i was pressed… What schools did you go to?, are you a p@@@@y or t@m don supporter?, or a p@@@@y or t@m athiest?, or if i got married in a p@@@@y or ti@m church…anything for them to get a handle on me. Without that label, they didn’t know how to interact with me according to their codes.

    Teenagers of course had group, territorial and / or gang affiliations, but they weren’t just Celtic v Rangers. Some adults weren’t interested in my upbringing but others were, most quite subtely, but the issue had sometimes to be pointed out to me by local colleagues when I didnt immediately grasp the nature of why some folk didnt get on with each other or couldn’t be persuaded to work together when it was obviously the best thing to do.

    If The Iceman is correct, there are still a lot of adults in positions of power with professional responsibilities who are unbelievably (to me anyway) not prepared to ditch the childish approach to making decisions and value judgements. They are still looking at issues in the way that first young kid (maybe 8 or 9) asked of me that july day in 1975 in the Blantyre playscheme (in the dog track)…hey mister are you a p@@@@y or a t@m? (i.e. I might come back to the playsheme or enjoy myself if you answer the right way or if you aren’t as bad as i think you might be if you answer wrong).

    View Comment
  56. nostarsandbarred


    Fifer says:
    August 25, 2012 at 23:39
    0 3 Rate This
    Rangers will always be Rangers, even when we are long gone……

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Correct…… you are gone…. in a few months, you will be “long gone”. Nice to see you admit that point….

    So now….. you are Sevco Scotland (est. 29/05/12, renamed on 31/07/12)… you are in Div 3 🙂

    View Comment
  57. Fifer


    Captain Haddock says:
    August 26, 2012 at 00:01

    Great post mate, totally agree with you, I’m glad to be in the East now away from it, but I know it still exists, I hear it quite often from my own brother/ sister who stay in the west and still bogotied

    View Comment
  58. Fifer


    5StarsorBehindBars says:
    August 26, 2012 at 00:05
     0 0 Rate This
    Fifer says:
    August 25, 2012 at 23:39
    0 3 Rate This
    Rangers will always be Rangers, even when we are long gone……

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Correct…… you are gone…. in a few months, you will be “long gone”. Nice to see you admit that point….

    So now….. you are Sevco Scotland (est. 29/05/12, renamed on 31/07/12)… you are in Div 3

    Mustn’t be terrible when you are obsessed by another team rather than support your own.

    View Comment
  59. Paulsatim


    new blog posted!

    View Comment
  60. Lord Wobbly


    Fifer says:
    August 25, 2012 at 23:39
    0 3 Rate This
    Rangers will always be Rangers, even when we are long gone……
    and with their history, and what eats you, is, you all know it.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I know that Rangers became RFC 2012.
    I know that RFC 2012 still exists and is to be liquidated.
    I know that Ibrix Stadium and Murray Park were sold to Sevco.
    I know that Sevco became The Rangers.
    I know that Rangers did not become Sevco or The Rangers.
    I know that RFC 2012 did not become Sevco or The Rangers.
    I know that Rangers are not The Rangers.
    And I know that you know this too.

    View Comment
  61. alan280170


    Fifer says:
    August 25, 2012 at 23:39
    0 0 Rate This
    Rangers will always be Rangers, even when we are long gone……and with their history, and what eats you, is, you all know it.

    ———————————————-

    I know Rangers (IL) have history, that is a fact. But, there will be no more trophies added to it as there is no rangers, just a new company that bought the assets.

    View Comment
  62. midcalderan


    Captain Haddock says:
    August 26, 2012 at 00:01

    Great post, worthy of being a guest blog (hope TSFM agrees).
    First version in moderation, so I’ll use some abbreviations and symbols.
    This west coast shame of pro v cat
    ——————————————————————–
    Captain. I came upon this type of inquisition in the mid 60’s when looking for my first job. I eventually secured a job with the Inland Revenue (now sadly -very sadly – HMRC) and at no time over a 40 year career, have I ever encountered a bias to towards anyone on grounds on religion, race etc.

    I can assure anyone who is lurking or contributing to this site that any HMRC actions will be based solely on facts and evidence and not because of loyalty to one side or the other,

    View Comment
  63. wellfiredtrolls


    Just a thought that popped into my pleb mind.
    Its called the Scottish “Football” Association, not the Scottish “Football Holding Companies” Association. Whatever entity runs the footballing part of this entertainment business, surely is recognised as the “club” in the eyes of the SFA? If so, then that would account for the fact that the entity which sends a representative to Hampden for meetings, player disciplinaries, etc; is deducted 10 points for going into administration.

    View Comment
  64. goosy


    A lateral thought looking back over the last 5 months

    Was there a private debate anywhere in the MSM or at Ibrox as to whether liquidation of Oldco was a watershed moment for N.I as well as Scotland?
    One that could to be siezed as an opportunity to disavow disgraceful NI elements of Rangers history ?
    If so
    Was a conscious decision taken to retain and promote these disgraceful elements for commercial reasons?

    Or put more starkly

    Did D&P and C Green decide that helping to promote the peace process in N.I was something they could not afford to do?

    And did the MSM deliberately give their support for the same reason?

    View Comment
  65. Bunion


    There once was a team called Rangers,
    Who paid not a heed to the dangers.
    On the paying of tax,
    At best they were lax,
    But many believed they were thieving!

    Now we have a team called ‘The Rangers’
    And still the fans can’t see the dangers.
    On the Whyte and the Green,
    They were ever so keen,
    ‘Cause the MSM claimed they were saviours!

    View Comment
  66. stevensanph

    stevensanph


    New blog post now up. A timeline of events that got us to where we are now…

    View Comment

Comments are closed.

SSL Certificates