End of the Road for King?

Since Dave King & Co took over TRFC a year and a few months ago, there have been, almost daily, reports of the imminent demise of the club, or King, or both. At the same time, again on a daily basis, there have been those who proclaimed the imminent ascendancy of the club to the top of the pile.

Up to now I have subscribed to neither theory on the basis that the former was wishful thinking based on very little evidence, and that the latter was something that Santa had passed on just before he disappeared up the chimney.

Not that I am the oracle on these matters. I confidently predicted that a reasonably healthy Rangers would see out the season clinging on to a top six place, and not for a moment did I imagine they would be sitting on the second top rung of the league ladder with half the season behind us.

Of course the notion that the newly promoted Rangers would provide serious competition for Celtic was always fanciful given their resources, and few of us on here would have raised little more than a titter at the very idea that they would; but that imminent demise theory has always had traction – a traction which until now never took hold in my mind.

The reason for that is simple. King & Co had a plan. The plan involved gaining proper control of the company via dis-application of preëmption rights and doing a soft-loan for equity swap (the company already has control of the club), building a consensus among the major shareholders, divesting itself of the onerous contracts, and enlisting as much financial support from the fans as possible before challenging an admittedly financially superior but somewhat mediocre Celtic for the league title.

The latter theory was probably based on the not unreasonable idea that a good manager with mediocre players can realistically overcome superior players with a mediocre manager.

King & Co had a plan.

In the meantime, King & Co would keep TRFC afloat with soft loans which gave them, as creditors, more and more clout come the day that the PLC (RIFC) needed to be ditched along with its shareholders, who had been expertly kept in line via some very good PR control of the MSM.

Three things have gone wrong with that plan;

  1. King & Co seriously underestimated Mike Ashley’s ego and his capacity for resentment. Consequently, the onerous contracts are here to stay, income streams for the team and manager throttled, and that consensus remains elusive. In its absence, they board can do very little other than posture for fear that Big Mike will drag them into court yet again.
  2. Compounding the problems caused by the short-fall in income, Celtic became and raised the stakes in the game by hiring a manager of some pedigree – a manager who against the odds, delivered an extra £30m into their kitty by qualifying for the Champions League.
  3. The tight control of the media appears to be slackening.

In short, I think the board have been guilty of believing their own hype, and underestimating the enormity of the task before them. But doubts are most assuredly creeping into their thoughts. They are running out of time and money.

The stark reality for those on the board who are providing the soft loans at Ibrox is this; they will have to keep providing those loans just to stand still in playing terms. That is a situation that some on the board now see as unsustainable, and they may turn the soft-loan tap off.

How likely is that to happen?

The club (TRFC) owes its parent company (RIFC) something in the region of £26m. The parent company is running a £4.5m structural deficit and owes King & Co around £15m.

the board have been guilty of believing their own hype, and underestimating the enormity of the task before them

I would suggest that the overall position is far worse than it was five years ago and if no major new investor was willing to come forward then, it seems difficult to see why they would do so now.

I will forgive Rangers fans if they say I am painting a bleaker picture than the reality suggests, but even if I am, one thing is clear, the current situation is unsustainable. Even if the soft lenders were to revisit their cash reserves ad infinitum, the club would fall foul of, and be sanctioned by the FIFA Fair Play directives. Something desperately has to change.

Firstly, that consensus. Ashley needs to be coaxed out of the ‘enemy’ camp. He could still be an ally of course, but that will mean King has to go. If King is still there by the end of the season I believe that the current alliance on the board will crumble, the soft loans will dry up, and of course unless a high net worth individual comes along to bail everyone out, the PLC could easily go into administration.

A few months ago, I would have thought that impossible, but maybe not so much now. I doubt there are many Rangers fans who don’t realise that King is the single biggest obstacle to any accord with Ashley, but perhaps more importantly, there are also, finally, some rumblings among the fans and in the media that King’s unequivocal promises of £30m for the team have simply not been honoured.

Douglas Park and others would like to see King gone – and Ashley needs to be coaxed out of the ‘enemy’ camp.

It is rumoured, although we cannot corroborate, that he is unable to get funds out of South Africa (this being part of his plea agreement with his SARS business). It would explain the failure to deliver on the cash promises, but his personal dispute with Ashley makes it unlikely that a solution can be found that involves both, and Park and others are aware of that. If King was as big a Rangers man as he has led us to believe, one would expect that he would be happy to step aside for the good of the club.

My belief is that Douglas Park and others would like to see King gone, and recent press coverage (not Gordon Waddell’s piece in the Sunday Mail but the recent Daily Record piece sniping at King) reinforces my belief that the unity of the current board is falling apart.

But even with King out of the picture, even with a new found boardroom unity including Ashley, the club is still a bucket with a £4.5m per annum hole in it, owing £26m in loans to RIFC. It also has a refurbishment bill for the stadium conservatively estimated at £15m, and a significantly inferior (to Celtic) playing squad and manager.

All this whilst the life is still being choked out of merchandising, the reality that football clubs in the 21st century don’t have lines of credit at the bank, and ST sales are maxed.

The income ceiling has been reached, and that £4.5m annual shortfall can only increase – especially if better players are sourced.

That is the very definition of unsustainable.

In order to meet the expectations of the fans, potential investors in the club won’t get change out of £50m, and of course those investors would be unlikely to see a return on that investment for a considerable period.

So aside from the personality clashes which are hampering the smooth running of the business, the traditional aspirations of Rangers, the size of the fan-base, and the costs of an infrastructure commensurate with that are a problem. These aspirations, in the short-term at least, are also unsustainable. They are the aspirations that saw RFC fail catastrophically, and they will, if nothing changes, do the same for TRFC.

If Dave King jumps or is pushed, the first task for a new board, if it is to succeed will be to build a consensus around survival, not immediate on-field success. PR goals need to be set to manage expectations.

I think the end of the season will see significant changes at Ibrox. The permutations of what happens next at Ibrox are too many to mention, but all of them, other than the sugar daddy or a healthy dose of realism lead us back to 2012. Of that I have no doubt.

That realism needs to include a willingness to dispense with a preoccupation over the possibility that Celtic will have a record-breaking run of league victories. It also needs to recognise that the old traditions of Rangers, where they were expected to be the top dogs in the league, are gone – perhaps forever.

And a sugar-daddy? Yes, there admirable individuals in boardrooms all over the country who constantly go into their own pockets to pay bills and keep the doors open and the lights on at their clubs.

However, the amounts required to make Rangers a top team are way in excess of what anyone outside of Stamford Bridge or the Etihad can manage. Stewart Milne doesn’t do it at Aberdeen. Dermot Desmond doesn’t do it at Celtic. And why should they?

What Rangers fans should be asking is, “Why would anyone?”

I earnestly hope that the current Rangers survive. Scottish football needs them as much as it need any other club. We all regret the demise of Third Lanark and Gretna. We feared for Hearts and Dunfermline before they emerged successfully from administration. All of our clubs add colour and sparkle to the game, so the loss of any of them is sad. And whatever side you are on in the OCNC argument, no one can deny that tens of thousands of fans are emotionally invested in Rangers’ future, and that they are well placed – financially in the long-term – to compete at the top.

 

 

ot

Trisidium

Trisidium

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

357 Comments
  1. Kilgore Trout


    Jimbo/John Clark

    I think it would be fair to say that Mr Herron is au fait with all things Ibrox as it was he who conducted the in-house ‘Who Are These People?’ interview with Ally McCoist which resulted, no doubt completely unintentionally, in the harassment and exposure to real physical danger of those who were the (not remotely to either of them) unknown subjects of that shameful stunt.  

    View Comment
  2. shug

    shug


    Hi there anyone know if the deal to take t’rangers to hampden has already been done.

    View Comment
  3. jimbo

    jimbo


    Kilgore Trout,  That was one of Ally McCoist’s worst moments. Any semblance of sympathy I had for him went out the door that day and never came back.  Pure rabble rousing.

    View Comment
  4. Kilgore Trout


    Jimbo.

    Ditto.

    View Comment
  5. shug

    shug


    So no one has heard if this deal for next season has already been done then.

    View Comment
  6. John Clark


    jimboJanuary 22, 2017 at 12:01
    Kilgore TroutJanuary 22, 2017 at 12:36
    _________
    As I say,Herron is your basic-as-basic -can -get Myth peddler, an unreconstructed propagandist partisan of the old RFC, and emotionally unable to act in any kind of journalistic objective way when speaking/writing about the ‘saga’.

    He seems to suffer from severe ‘cognitive dissonance’ which permits his brain to hold two mutually contradictory positions simultaneously.

    He knows, as any ordinary football fan does, that RFC was not ‘rescued’ out of Administration. He knows TRFC is a new club, etc etc etc and bloody etcetera…

    His infantile emotionalism can, however, lead him to denial of that fact, and to write about TRFC as if it were the RFC of his dad’s days, and  of his dad’s partisan football reports.

    (And I agree that McCoist betrayed a vicious streak of vindictiveness  etc etc etc….(and showed us all that he was not at all the   endearing ‘cheerful chappie’ he presented himself as))

    But I don’t think Herron  doesn’t know the difference between Albion Rovers and Raith Rovers!
    That would be too much altogether!19

    But , for the sake of completeness, I’ll ask him in a minute or two.

    View Comment
  7. jimbo

    jimbo


    JC, I don’t know the workings of newspapers but after you posted it rang a bell that headlines are composed by someone other than the article writer.  That job, I believe, is to pull readers in.  It explains why we often see sensational headlines only to discover the actual piece is much tamer.  So you are probably correct, the headline was written by someone other than Lindsay Herron and who is not familiar with football north of the border.  (Maybe on loan from the Births, Deaths and Marriages dept.)

    View Comment
  8. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    The Police are still tracing some of the hooligans in relation to the violence after the cup final.

    Some of these images are pretty clear and hopefully people will be both able and willing to identify them.

    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15039795.Police_release_images_of_Scottish_Cup_final_suspects/?ref=mr&lp=6

    130 arrested so far, with a further 16 potentially identified in the latest batch.

    View Comment
  9. jimbo

    jimbo


    If Celtic get another away draw and The Rangers a home tie from Rod Stewart and Alan Stubbs then I give up!

    View Comment
  10. paddy malarkey

    paddy malarkey


    Is it not about time the SFA invested in a Lottery-style machine for cup draws ? Would take accusations of jiggery-pokery out of  .

    View Comment
  11. Big Pink


    ALERT!!! TOMBOLA FUNCTIONING NORMALLY !!!

    DANGER OVER WILL ROBINSON!

    DANGER OVER!!!!!

    View Comment
  12. shug

    shug


    Another home tie for t’rangers then.

    View Comment
  13. paddy malarkey

    paddy malarkey


    Wee Mr McRae almost gave it away -nearly saying 1917 instead of 2017 . Still living in the past .

    View Comment
  14. jimbo

    jimbo


    I’m still not happy.  Rod Stewart looked like he had been in the hospitality too long and didn’t know what he was doing.  Alan Stubbs got his sixes and nines mixed up.

    However we got a home draw, but against who?  Only our bogey cup team and the only domestic team to take points from us this season.

    Something smells fishy.07

    View Comment
  15. upthehoops


    Well well well. Yet another home draw for TRFC in the cup. I doubt very much if Celtic fan Rod Stewart would be in on any shenanigans, and neither would Alan Stubbs. However, a run of home draws like this is truly remarkable. Would a coin land on heads ten times in a row? Possible, but very unlikely. The bottom line is these home draws are providing a financial lifeline to a club that needs further loans just to keep the lights on. 

    View Comment
  16. easyJambo


    Rangers’ last 10 cup draws
     
    11/02/2017    SC r5    Morton     (H)
    21/01/2017    SC r4    Motherwell    (H)
    20/09/2017    LC q/f    Queen of the South    (H)
    09/08/2017    LC r2    Peterhead    (H)
    05/03/2016    SC q/f    Dundee    (H)
    06/02/2016    SC r5    Kilmarnock    (H)
    10/01/2016    SC r4    Cowdenbeath     (H)
    28/11/2015    CC s/f    St Mirren    (H)
    20/10/2015    CC q/f    Livingston    (H)
    22/09/2015    LC r3    St Johnstone    (H)
     
    They have played some away games in that time but only in the group stages of this season’s League Cup and a replay against Killie in the Scottish Cup.  They have also played “drawn” semi finals at Hampden in the League Cup and Scottish Cup.
     
    The odds on 10 straight home draws in all competitions is 1023/1  (one chance in 1024)

    View Comment
  17. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    easyJamboJanuary 22, 2017 at 17:58

    …The odds on 10 straight home draws in all competitions is 1023/1  (one chance in 1024)
    _______________

    Which is something I’m sure we’ll all be reading about in the SMSM tomorrow; though I’m sure Keith Jackson will make the odds closer to 6million to one!

    Keith Jackson and figures, what’s he like?21

    View Comment
  18. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    I had a listen to an interview with Alex Thomson (Channel 4 News) and Mark Daly (BBC Scotland) discuss the origins of the problems Rangers faced .
    Phil had it on his twitter page.
    https://edinburghnapiernews.com/2013/01/22/media-mondays-the-rangers-story/
    it is from jan 22 2013 about a week before from the LNS enquiry.
    It was a very good Q&A The part that got me to listen back was at 01:30
    Mark Daly was asking a question. what have they actually got,what information they have got to do that investigation? did they get the info from the tax man? did they get it from rangers? what are they basing the investigation on.
    Back then MD was asking who was giving the LNS enquiry the information to act on

    View Comment
  19. jean7brodie

    jean7brodie


    Cluster OneJanuary 22, 2017 at 19:29
    ________________________________
    Listened to the exact same thing again for about the third time, and was very impressed with both Mark Daly and Alex Thomson. Very interesting to hear the questioner about 30? mins in asking about Downfall!!!!! Turns out to be a dubious character!!

    View Comment
  20. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    JEAN7BRODIEJANUARY 22, 2017 at 19:37
    ———
    looks like back then even before the enquiry MD had an inkling something was not right

    View Comment
  21. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Further thoughts on the home draw saga.

    Until the advent of TRFC, we all, I’m sure, only gave thought to the advantage of home cup draws in terms of the better chance it gave in progressing in the competition. As the monetary benefits would only have made a difference to clubs with big grounds that they would expect to fill, basically Rangers and Celtic, the two clubs least viewed as needing more money, the financial aspect, other than the cup minnows welcoming an away draw at a ‘big’ club, was never an issue worthy of public airing.

    Many will have seen the chart listing the last 22 Scottish Cup draws involving Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts and Rangers/TRFC. I have chosen to look at the figures in a slightly different way, looking at them only from the time of the inception of TRFC and have come up with the following, totally unscientific findings, and quite probably indicators of nothing very much, but I thought I’d share them anyway.

    Since their inception, TRFC have been involved in 16 Scottish Cup ties, not counting semis and finals, they have been drawn away 4 times, but, since their financial plight became more widely known (particularly by those at Hampden), and, in particular, since King took control, they have had no away ties in the Scottish Cup.

    In that same post TRFC birth period, Hearts, who have been lucky with home draws, if not the opposition, have been involved in 7 draws, getting only 2 away ties. Within those seven ties, they have now been drawn 3 times against Hibs (though haven’t qualified for the seventh tie yet), yet TRFC have avoided Celtic in all of 16 ties (though not the semis, where revenue is maximised), and, indeed, have also managed to avoid Aberdeen and Hearts (though Hearts cup record has been very poor in this period, with Aberdeen’s not much better).

    It could also be said that the only tie, as viewed by the ‘experts’ in the media, to have been seen beforehand as having the potential for defeat, was the away tie at Dundee United, so, as well as a ‘lucky’ run of home draws, they’ve had a very ‘lucky’ run of not too difficult fixtures, particularly as all but one match against top tier opposition, have been drawn at home.

    I am sure there is no cheating going on in the cup draws, or, at least, I’ve not seen any explanation of how it could happen, but I am pretty certain that, without all those home draws, and relatively easy matches, particularly in the away ties, TRFC would have seen administration by now! I’m sure the people who run Scottish football would never dream of assisting an Ibrox club through financial hardship by any underhand means, it’s not as though they have allowed a Rangers to gain an unmerited entry into, say, European competition to try to help them survive in the past, now have they?

    Seriously, though, while it is difficult to work out just how any cheating could be carried out in a televised draw, made by people with no interest in ‘saving’ TRFC, this never ending list of favours, available to no other club, married to this continuous ‘good luck’, gives me cause to believe anything is possible in this saga of cheating and cover ups!

    I am not sure whether or not this link will lead to the chart I referred to, but I am sure many will have seen it.
     https://t.co/N8vUJ0X2ic

    View Comment
  22. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 22, 2017 at 20:57
    I have chosen to look at the figures in a slightly different way, looking at them only from the time of the inception of TRFC
    Since their inception, TRFC have been involved in 16 Scottish Cup ties, not counting semis and finals, they have been drawn away 4 times, but, since their financial plight became more widely known (particularly by those at Hampden), and, in particular, since King took control, they have had no away ties in the Scottish Cup.
    ————
    Do you know how many of these ties have been televised? and is it about the same% as any other club that has home ties?
    ——————–
    they’ve had a very ‘lucky’ run of not too difficult fixtures, particularly as all but one match against top tier opposition, have been drawn at home.
    —————-
    Was there better draws that could have been shown on tv as to A home draw for an ibrox club against  not top tier opposition

    View Comment
  23. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Cluster OneJanuary 22, 2017 at 21:12

    There seems an awful lot of luck for a club that is in desperate need of a lot of luck, and an awful lot of quick decisions to cover their matches on TV. I suppose, though, that other, bigger matches, ie Hearts/Raith v Hibs, will be covered by Sky, but everything seems to be being done to divert money towards Ibrox.

    View Comment
  24. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 22, 2017 at 21:36
    just wondered if there was more glamour ties that could have been shown as apposed to an ibrox club home game against lesser opposition. and why if any was the ibrox home game shown instead

    View Comment
  25. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Has anyone been able to work out why McKenzie spoke of ‘club with a capital C’ in the Corals v Kinloch trial? I’m sure he wasn’t asked how to spell Club, or even club, so why did he add that to his evidence? I mean, I know why it was said, to either feed the media something, or to appease the bears, to let them know he was on their side, sort of thing, but it just seemed so very odd. In fact, it was so unnecessary, it was just like that ‘1872’ that TRFC had stuck on the collar of their strip a couple of seasons ago! Only there to feed the lie, to give the bears something to cling to, but meaningless to everyone else who knew the truth, and of absolutely no interest to everyone else! 

    View Comment
  26. jimbo

    jimbo


    Combustible.   Although that wasn’t my first thought but it would never got past moderation.  0212

    (Rhymes with wrap)

    View Comment
  27. occam


    BBC News ‘The Papers’ – “Journalists need to teach people to think critically – being forensic, dogged in the search for truth…”
    Well that excludes a few stenographers then! 

    View Comment
  28. Big Pink


    Occam

    I would add to that quote, these two;

    Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations.

    – George Orwell

    and perhaps more omnously

    Obvious lies serve a purpose for an administration. They watch who challenges them and who loyally repeats them. The people must watch, too.

    – Gary Kasparov

    View Comment
  29. Gabby

    Gabby


    Jimbo,
    Sub Editors write the headlines. They also determine where in the newspaper the article will appear and the length of the article.
    The problem is, some organisations are outsourcing this work.

    View Comment
  30. Mark C


    I have noticed there are quite a few suggestions of dodgy draws on this site and here is something i posted elsewhere back at end of August so some of the percentages below, will slightly be out now:

    I was quite surprised to read the stats on Rangers consecutive home ties and the allegations of bias, especially considering as a few people have pointed out that so many Celtic/Hearts/Aberdeen/Hibs players, managers and legends have been involved in the draws over the years, its really difficult to imagine them being complicit in any cheating.

    However to the stats and a number of comments regarding Rangers having a home tie in the last 8 draws. It appears its not that strange.

    Hibs managed to get 10 home draws in a row between 2007 and 2010 in the Scottish and League Cup.

    26th September 2007 – Hibs 2 v Motherwell 4
    12th January 2008 – Hibs 3 v Inverness 0
    3rd February 2008 – Hibs 0 v Rangers 0
    26th August 2008 – Hibs 3 v Morton 4
    11th January 2009 – Hibs 0 v Hearts 2
    26th August 2009 – Hibs 3 v Brechin 0
    22nd September 2009 – Hibs 1 v St Johnstone 3
    9th January 2010 – Hibs 3 v Irvine Meadow 0
    6th February 2010 – Hibs 5 v Montrose 1
    13th March 2010 – Hibs 2 v Ross County 2

    Also, and for those interested in more stats around home draws in the top 2 cups in Scotland, according to Soccerbase, which seems to be very up to date and independent, over the last 10 seasons since 2006/07 season, Ross County lead the way with 71% of all Cup Ties played at home (not including any replays) Hibs are second with 70% drawn out of the hat at home. Rangers (and if you leave the same club argument to 1 side for now) are at 56% with Celtic on the opposite side at 44%.

    None of the above come anywhere near Edinburgh Citys bias in the draw though. 16 of their 18 ties over the last 10 seasons have been drawn at their home ground. A massive 89%.

    So, do the SFA, SPFL and all the past players have a bias towards Edinburgh City, or Ross County, or Hibs, or is the argument that its just teams that play out of Ibrox ?

    ADDENDUM

    Frank McGarvey, Chris Sutton, Andy Walker, Davie Provan, Gordon Strachan, Rod Stewart and Alan Stubbs have all been involved in draws over the last 2/3 seasons.  For there to be a bias towards Rangers home and/or Celtic away, then some, if not all of these would need to be involved and know whats what.  As bad as an organisation that the SFA is, and i include the SPFL in this as well, there is not a cats chance in hell, they would risk there status in UEFA by rigging draws that are always carried out by ex players and managers.

    Somebody would have blown the whistle by now.  Its just far too many draws and far too many different people involved.

    Its the luck of the draw and thats that.

    View Comment
  31. Smugas


    AllyjamboJanuary 22, 2017 at 21:46  Has anyone been able to work out why McKenzie spoke of ‘club with a capital C’ in the Corals v Kinloch trial? I’m sure he wasn’t asked how to spell Club, or even club, so why did he add that to his evidence? I mean, I know why it was said, to either feed the media something, or to appease the bears, to let them know he was on their side, sort of thing, but it just seemed so very odd. In fact, it was so unnecessary, it was just like that ‘1872’ that TRFC had stuck on the collar of their strip a couple of seasons ago! Only there to feed the lie, to give the bears something to cling to, but meaningless to everyone else who knew the truth, and of absolutely no interest to everyone else! 

    Ally,

    I found the clearest distinction to be in the draft 5WA which denotes TRFC the company (being effectively what Mackenzie refers to as the club, distinguished in the 5WA as “RFC”) and this mythical ethereal willo-the-wispy thingmy which the 5WA refers to as “Rangers FC” or, in Mackenzie language, the Club. 
    As HP laid out previously Mackenzie’s evidence was essentially to say that the club was liquidated (which is why the club was never mentioned) whereas the Club was talked about at length albeit he wouldn’t be drawn on specifically what “Relegation” would have meant to the Club.  Which is just as well given the infamous “as if” comment* that I referred to before.

    * I paraphrase because I can’t check back on my phone, the draft 5WA says something like “the players that Rangers FC (so the Club then) brought to the SFL would be treated AS IF Rangers FC (the Club) had been relegated from the SPL.”  Its funny that you would write something like that, something so absurdly relevant and relative to the specific argument taking place in court to which you are witness and then refuse to mention it to the judge!

    Or maybe not so funny. 

    View Comment
  32. John Clark


    Mark CJanuary 23, 2017 at 09:42
    ‘…… As bad as an organisation that the SFA is, and I include the SPFL in this as well, there is not a cats chance in hell, they would risk there status in UEFA by rigging draws that are always carried out by ex players and managers..’
    ___________
    Allegedly they were so very, very  bad as to have lied to UEFA to try to get a few million quid into SDM’s ‘social- taxes -unpaid -by- the -critical date for an award of a ‘European competition ‘ licence.

    And they were (and are)so very ,very much worse as to create and maintain the Big Lie that SDM’s/Craig Whyte’s RFC did not die the ignominious death of Liquidation, and consequently lost its entitlement to be in Scottish professional Football.

    The really curious thing is that they have NOT been able to show, and haven’t even tried to show, that these allegations are false!

    My point being,Mark C, that where badness on that scale is present ( and including the kind of farcical nonsense we have just seen taking place in the Court of session, where the plain, simple truth that ‘Rangers’ were not, and never have been ‘relegated’ has been scrupulously ( or rather, unscrupulously!) avoided by all kinds of ‘clever’ men and women), there is every justification for suspicionand distrust of our Football Governance bodies.

    Basically, if corrupt men think they can, could, or might get away with a dirty ploy, they will adopt the dirty ploy if it’s to their advantage so to do.

    There are serious grounds for believing that our Football governance people have serially lied to us all, just as SDM lied to the SFA ( unchallenged!) and to his fellow SPL club chairmen. (And, possibly, to the taxman)

    Anything and everything they now say or do has therefore to be treated with forensic suspicion and distrust.

    And, of course, what do bad baddies do? They get genuinely honest men to front for them, innocently!

    I am not necessarily saying that I dispute ‘the luck of the draw’ concept in principle.

    Just that, having been so cruelly lied to ( as I believe) by our Football authorities not just once but twice and in  really serious matters , I am not inclined to allow them any benefit of the doubt.

    They have had ample time to explain away their ‘lies’ in respect of both the ‘saga’ and the european licence matter.

    The fact that they have not thought it possible to give an honest explanation serves merely to convict them.

    View Comment
  33. Mark C


    John, i think its important to note that lie around relegation, as things stand, is just an opinion.  Whether we like it or not, the various cases going through the courts and other independent bodies have not supported your opinion on it, not that im disagreeing with your opinion or assertion, just that others clearly do.

    But leaving all of that aside, can anyone reasonably think of a way this could possibly be done without the SFA asking all the ex players and managers of Celtic, Aberdeen and Hearts who have done the draws to pick a specific ball out at a specific time of the draw.  Rod yesterday never even shuffled the balls around. He stuck his hand in every time and brought a ball straight out.  

    If this had been going on for years, do you not think someone would have said “NO” to them and came out in the press ?

    As far as im aware, and i usually watch them, Rangers are never the first team out of the draw, so you would need both people taking part in the draw in on it.

    Its just not possible im afraid.

    View Comment
  34. John Clark


    Mark CJanuary 23, 2017 at 14:23
    ‘…If this had been going on for years, do you not think someone would have said “NO” to them and came out in the press ?’
    ______
    Would the ‘press’ have reported it any more truthfully than they report on the fact of liquidation and what liquidation means?

    I still tend to use the word ‘allegedly’ of the allegations made against the Football authorities.
    I do not extend that ‘courtesy’ to the SMSM hacks ( with some individual honourable exceptions-who paid some kind of a price for not being ‘on message’) who so seriously misreported and continue to misreport the actual facts.

    And as a matter of actual fact, RFC of 1872 is in Liquidation.It does not exist as a shareholding member of the SPFL or SFA.It was not relegated.There is absolutely no possibility that ‘relegation’ happened.

    And the poncing about in the court of session , which in effect, treated TRFC as being RFC(IL) , was just a farce, deliberately structured to avoid bringing into the light of the Law the fact that TRFC is NOT RFC(IL).

    I think that history [ the kind of thing that TRFC is very short of] will view the Kinloch case proceedings as being an extreme example of the legal system at its institutional worst, ranking alongside the contemptible FTTT judgment.

    View Comment
  35. normanbatesmumfc

    normanbatesmumfc


    1.     Smugas
    January 23, 2017 at 12:52 
    I found the clearest distinction to be in the draft 5WA which denotes TRFC the company (being effectively what Mackenzie refers to as the club, distinguished in the 5WA as “RFC”) and this mythical ethereal willo-the-wispy thingmy which the 5WA refers to as “Rangers FC” or, in Mackenzie language, the Club.  As HP laid out previously Mackenzie’s evidence was essentially to say that the club was liquidated (which is why the club was never mentioned) whereas the Club was talked about at length albeit he wouldn’t be drawn on specifically what “Relegation” would have meant to the Club.  Which is just as well given the infamous “as if” comment* that I referred to before.
    * I paraphrase because I can’t check back on my phone, the draft 5WA says something like “the players that Rangers FC (so the Club then) brought to the SFL would be treated AS IF Rangers FC (the Club) had been relegated from the SPL.”  Its funny that you would write something like that, something so absurdly relevant and relative to the specific argument taking place in court to which you are witness and then refuse to mention it to the judge!
    Or maybe not so funny. 
    ………………………………………………………………………………………..
    Yes we’re expected to believe all this tosh and move on. My question to Mr MacKenzie would be:
    Assume Charles Green had never been involved and “substitute” him with a consortium of Dublin businessmen. Their off-the-shelf company was called Sevco1888 and they paid exactly the same for the same assets.
     
    The exact same players agreed to transfer their registrations to the new team, thereafter, the company/club changed its name to The Govan Shamrocks. Would this still be the same Club or club as RFC PLC????
     
    As we know, absolute nonsense.  

    View Comment
  36. Mark C


    John C.  I am in agreement with you that Rangers were not relegated.  Albert Kinloch is clearly chancing his arm in my opinion.  Where I am not fully in agreement with you, or i just dont believe its clear enough to say that your judgement on the matter is the letter of the law is on how liquidation of the company is treated in respect of the club.

    I have read all the arguments on here ad infinitum, all of which are reasonable and sensible but when push comes to shove, the evidence in the courts, on football body websites and in general doesnt support the general consensus of us all on here.

    For a QC in this situation to not use what you would believe to be the easy option of going down the liquidation route means he had to know or have reasonable doubt, it would hurt his case.  The SPFL position has been stated as same club so he couldnt use them as evidence.  The SFA have previously said the membership was transferred from oldco to newco and through their website still recognise Rangers as the same club(or they did in the run up to the Scottish Cup Final when listing previous finals)  They also in a submission to the Advertising Standards Agency, said the same thing.  

    Im guessing if he chose to go down this route then QC Poole would have lined the SFA and SPFL up and shot him down. Even his own witness, ended up saying it without making it blatantly obvious when cross examined.

    I have read that Coral deliberately didnt use liquidation for fear of losing the blue pound however they already risked that with a funny tweet about Kenny Miller(only player to score in 3 Old Firm games) and you could argue they risked losing the rest of Scottish footy pounds by not going down the liquidation route so I doubt very much they were bothered, or probably even aware of the impact.

    Again, i go back to my original point that what you are saying is just an opinion and is not a documented fact, as much as we would like it to be.

    View Comment
  37. Mark C


    PS -moved off topic, but still wondering if anyone can give a valid operating model for fixing a live televised draw 10 times with 20 different people drawing out the balls and Rangers or Hibs or Celtic coming out at various points throughout the 10 draws.

    I seriously cant think of how it could be done.  Especially not when you consider how bumbling the SFA actually is.

    View Comment
  38. Portbhoy


    A wee break from topic, ..
    A  moving piece  from a very brave and great singerChristy Digman, and the equally good Finbar Furey.. this was shown on Friday evening on RTE’s late show. 

    https://youtu.be/ofhao4SHXGo

    View Comment
  39. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Mark CJanuary 23, 2017 at 15:35 
    John C.  I am in agreement with you that Rangers were not relegated.  Albert Kinloch is clearly chancing his arm in my opinion.  Where I am not fully in agreement with you, or i just dont believe its clear enough to say that your judgement on the matter is the letter of the law is on how liquidation of the company is treated in respect of the club.
    I have read all the arguments on here ad infinitum, all of which are reasonable and sensible but when push comes to shove, the evidence in the courts, on football body websites and in general doesnt support the general consensus of us all on here.
    For a QC in this situation to not use what you would believe to be the easy option of going down the liquidation route means he had to know or have reasonable doubt, it would hurt his case.  The SPFL position has been stated as same club so he couldnt use them as evidence.  The SFA have previously said the membership was transferred from oldco to newco and through their website still recognise Rangers as the same club(or they did in the run up to the Scottish Cup Final when listing previous finals)  They also in a submission to the Advertising Standards Agency, said the same thing.  
    Im guessing if he chose to go down this route then QC Poole would have lined the SFA and SPFL up and shot him down. Even his own witness, ended up saying it without making it blatantly obvious when cross examined.
    I have read that Coral deliberately didnt use liquidation for fear of losing the blue pound however they already risked that with a funny tweet about Kenny Miller(only player to score in 3 Old Firm games) and you could argue they risked losing the rest of Scottish footy pounds by not going down the liquidation route so I doubt very much they were bothered, or probably even aware of the impact.
    Again, i go back to my original point that what you are saying is just an opinion and is not a documented fact, as much as we would like it to be.
    _________________________________

    Mark, you said,

    ‘For a QC in this situation to not use what you would believe to be the easy option of going down the liquidation route means he had to know or have reasonable doubt, it would hurt his case.’

    A QC acts on his clients instructions, he doesn’t have a choice in the matter. Even if the QC has a slam dunk win at his finger tips, he cannot use it if his client says not to. A court of law, particularly in a civil case, is not about ‘the truth’ coming out, (and, indeed, this case is not about ‘who told the truth?’, it is just about the meaning of ‘relegation’ when used in a bet). It is about winning or losing, and it won’t be the first time that someone has defended a case in which they’d rather lose than reveal something that could cost them more than they stand to lose in court. They will have gone to court on the basis that they believe they have a winnable case without using this slam dunk. I am of the opinion that Mr Kinloch has taken this case to court because his inside knowledge of the gambling industry in Scotland made him aware that Corals might well be be hamstrung by their unwillingness to use the ‘Rangers died’ defence.

    What’s more, even if we were wrong about Rangers liquidation, there is no way that raising it in court could harm his client’s case, as it would not change the fact that TRFC were voted in to the Scottish League, and not relegated. Quite simply, if Coral’s counsel used the liquidation argument, it would be up to Kinloch’s counsel to prove RFC and TRFC were one and the same club, and that would be in addition to proving they were relegated.

    As far as Corals are concerned, they can be pretty certain that if they had it stated in court that TRFC are a new club, and the other side failed to adequately counter this, they would be seen to be the people who ‘killed Rangers’, and the best they could hope for is a bears’ boycott, but they probably fear, with justification, a much worse response. On the other hand, by not using it, they might alienate a small proportion of non-bears, but it would be but a drop in the ocean by comparison. It has also been pointed out that Corals might be afraid of proving TRFC are not Rangers and facing a backlash from punters who placed bets with them because they advertised them in a way that said they were!

    Whatever Corals’ reason for not using this ‘slam dunk’ defence, it doesn’t alter the fact that Rangers were liquidated, and automatically lost the right to be a member of the SPL or the SFL. In my opinion, though, neither side has provided enough evidence to win their case (from what I have read), leaving the judge with a very hard decision to make. I think it will swing on whether or not he thinks it reasonable for a punter to believe ‘relegation’ means not playing in the same division as in the previous season, and whether or not Corals have demonstrated, since, that they accepted the bet believing it means only in the event of finishing bottom! Their advertising of Old Firm matches proclaiming the return of Rangers after relegation, wouldn’t seem to lend strength to their argument! 

    The OC/NC debate will not be affected by a decision, in this case, should the judge find in favour of Mr Kinloch, as it will only be a decision on what the word ‘relegation’ means in the instance of placing a bet, and possibly only in this particular case.

    View Comment
  40. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    Don’t know about a ‘slam dunk’ defence…

    I thought the Coral’s QC was going for the legendary ‘Chewbacca defence’. 

    11

    (And what are the odds of a ‘new club’ entering the SPFL during 2017/18 ? )

    View Comment
  41. Jimmy Bones


    Re.  MARK CJANUARY 23, 2017 at 15:49

    Piece of cake Mark. 
    The celebrities draw the numbers, the SFA guy reads off the teams !  They are not to be trusted.  Only the most gullible would believe that TRFC have not had significant financial assistance from their “friends” wherever possible, eg in Cup draws.

    View Comment
  42. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Jimmy BonesJanuary 23, 2017 at 18:16 
    Re.  MARK CJANUARY 23, 2017 at 15:49
    Piece of cake Mark.  The celebrities draw the numbers, the SFA guy reads off the teams !  They are not to be trusted.  Only the most gullible would believe that TRFC have not had significant financial assistance from their “friends” wherever possible, eg in Cup draws.
    _______________________

    I never bother with watching cup draws, it’s a bit like the Lottery, you win or lose, or get a good or bad draw, whether you watch it or not 08, as far as I’m concerned.

    But, if you are correct, and the numbers representing the clubs aren’t given out to public gaze before the draw, then that’s incredible. I have to say though, without wishing to doubt you, I find it hard to believe!

    View Comment
  43. Mark C


    The numbers are displayed before the start of the draw.  Rod Stewart knew he had drawn out Number 3 Celtic.  It was announced in advance.  Always is.It used to be the teams were contained in a ball container, then they even managed to mess that draw up.Bumbling idiots.  YESDraw cheats. CANT SEE IT

    View Comment
  44. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    A few years ago, my wife and I were flying home from Egypt and got into a conversation with the passenger next to us. He was a casino croupier and had travelled the world plying his trade. Much of the conversation was about his experiences in some of the worlds gambling capitals and he said something that piqued both our interest. He told us that it’s generally accepted/known amongst those operating casinos that a winning/lucky streak only lasts a maximum of seven turns. That’s seven spins of the roulette wheel, seven hands of cards, seven spins of the bandit reels…and so on. TRFC have now had seven consecutive home draws in the Scottish Cup. So, according to this man’s knowledge of the gaming industry and his ability to recognise a system (the bane of the casino owners life) as opposed to a lucky streak, TRFC’s lucky streak should now be over.

    View Comment
  45. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    MARK CJANUARY 23, 2017 at 15:35 The SPFL position has been stated as same club so he couldnt use them as evidence. The SFA have previously said the membership was transferred from oldco to newco and through their website still recognise Rangers as the same club(or they did in the run up to the Scottish Cup Final when listing previous finals) They also in a submission to the Advertising Standards Agency, said the same thing.
    —————-
    The SPFL can state any position it wants out of self interest we know it’s all lies the same goes for the SFA

    View Comment
  46. Mark C


    Allyjambo – your man was suffering from what is known as the Monte Carlo Fallacy.  

    If someone gets 7 reds in a row, amateur gamblers around the table will put their money on black.  Professional gamblers will not change their normal pattern.  The fact of the matter is that as soon as the wheel starts spinning again, the odds are the EXACT same as the previous spin which is slightly less than 50% in roulette, due to the 0 or 00 but its 50% in a football draw, hence why you get patterns like Hibs and Rangers 10 in a row and Edinburgh City with now 17 out of 20 home draws which is equally amazing.

    The longest roulette run recorded is 32 reds in a row.

    https://www.caesars.com/casino-gaming-blog/latest-posts/table-games/roulette/gambling-myth-monte-carlo-fallacy

    View Comment
  47. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    Of course a lucky streak can happen in any activity, randomly.  We know over the long term the probability is correct e.g. at 50/50 for 2 outcomes.

    However, the further curiosity is the timing.
    This run of home games has apparently occurred at EXACTLY the most fortuitous time for TRFC.

    What are the odds of that?  09

    View Comment
  48. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    ALLYJAMBO
    JANUARY 23, 2017 at 18:54

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

    I’m sorry AJ but statistics would suggest that the person you spoke to was talking nonsense.

    In theory if a coin is flipped 99 times and it lands a head every time on the 100th flip it is still 50/50 how it will land. In fact you could actually argue that it’s more likely to land heads again as there may be some sort of bias in the coin, however that is more geometry than statistics. 

    These thing happen, people just notice them because they seem out of the ordinary and counter intuitive. The fabled “law of averages”. However 10 homes in a row is no more or less likely than home, home, away, home, home, away, home, home, away, home. It just draws the attention more, particularly when observers are pre-disposed to suspect nefarious activities. 

    View Comment
  49. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Mark CJanuary 23, 2017 at 19:07 
    Allyjambo – your man was suffering from what is known as the Monte Carlo Fallacy.  
    If someone gets 7 reds in a row, amateur gamblers around the table will put their money on black.  Professional gamblers will not change their normal pattern.  The fact of the matter is that as soon as the wheel starts spinning again, the odds are the EXACT same as the previous spin which is slightly less than 50% in roulette, due to the 0 or 00 but its 50% in a football draw, hence why you get patterns like Hibs and Rangers 10 in a row and Edinburgh City with now 17 out of 20 home draws which is equally amazing.
    The longest roulette run recorded is 32 reds in a row.
    https://www.caesars.com/casino-gaming-blog/latest-posts/table-games/roulette/gambling-myth-monte-carlo-fallacy
    _____________________________________

    Not quite the same thing. The writer is talking about the chances of red/black coming up after 6 or 7 wins, not the chances of getting 7 wins on the trot, and he clearly means the ‘Monte Carlo Fallacy’ is to bet on black after a run of reds, assuming it has to change, so this doesn’t equate to what this stranger on a plane said, which was that a winning streak isn’t expected to last longer than seven, at which time, I suspect, the house start to get nervous, or suspicious. I would imagine the roulette wheel was taken apart after that 32 reds in a row, and the punter asked never to return. I hope the croupier got a good tip, too, as he was almost certainly shown the door afterwards with little chance of a job in the industry again.

    Regardless, I am not convinced there is any cheating going on with the draws, and it could just be a case of lady fortune shining on a club that needs money more desperately than any other, but what I am convinced of is, if there was a way to do it, the SFA would be prepared to do it to save their favoured club.

    Basically, I think there are three things required to carry it off, a compliant SFA, a failsafe method, and a media that won’t ask the question! Two out of three, they say, aint bad, but in this case, I don’t believe it’s enough to carry it off!

    View Comment
  50. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    Back to yesterdays draw. As i watched the three guys stand there the only thing missing was a conveyor belt with a cuddly toy on it.
    Ps i did laugh,but don’t tell anyone21

    View Comment
  51. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    HomunculusJanuary 23, 2017 at 19:51 
    ALLYJAMBO JANUARY 23, 2017 at 18:54
    =====================================
    I’m sorry AJ but statistics would suggest that the person you spoke to was talking nonsense.
    In theory if a coin is flipped 99 times and it lands a head every time on the 100th flip it is still 50/50 how it will land. In fact you could actually argue that it’s more likely to land heads again as there may be some sort of bias in the coin, however that is more geometry than statistics. 
    These thing happen, people just notice them because they seem out of the ordinary and counter intuitive. The fabled “law of averages”. However 10 homes in a row is no more or less likely than home, home, away, home, home, away, home, home, away, home. It just draws the attention more, particularly when observers are pre-disposed to suspect nefarious activities. 
    _________________________

    I agree with what you say, but as in the case of the ‘Monte Carlo fallacy, it’s not what he was saying. He wasn’t talking about the odds of the eighth toss being heads again, he was talking of the odds of seven heads in a row, in fact he wasn’t talking of the odds at all, just that from his knowledge as a croupier, it was considered unusual/suspicious should it go past that seventh win. He didn’t elaborate, and I don’t think he would have if I’d asked, but I got the impression that after seven wins in a row he’d let the management know – by whatever means they use to let the management know.

    While I’m sure that that 32 red winning streak was used to the casino’s advantage as the best form of advertising, I’d be very surprised if, after a set amount of wins, the casino’s surveillance wasn’t turned in it’s entirety onto that roulette table, and every effort made to catch the punter out as a cheat.

    View Comment
  52. Mark C


    Im a regular in Atlantic City and can assure you that walking around the casinos streaks of 9,10,11 reds or blacks are common as are streaks of 9,10,11 odds or evens(more noticeable last 2 years due to the new machines showing stats).  Back in the day, I used to take my $10 out and bet against a long streak before trying $20 against it again if i lost until 1 day a chap i eventually got to know well said to me that it was actually a mugs bet.

    He explained the math funnily enough pretty much exactly as Homonculus(sp??) did above and said that at the start of a sequence the odds of spinning RRRRRRR are the exact same as spinning RBRBRBR or RRRBBBR and that the odds of spinning RRRRRR then black as a final spin are the same as spinning RRRRRR then red as a final spin if you only join the table at the end.

    If the operator of a roulette table was unscrupulous enough, they could rig it without a single person around that table knowing.

    If the SFA were unscrupulous enough, they would still need the help of Lubo, Rod, Sutton, Stubbsy, WGS, Frank McGarvey, Willie Miller, Robbo and ex Rangers players and managers and trust that nobody would grass them.

    Come on guys.  Its a complete non starter !

    View Comment
  53. Smugas


    AJ @ 20.05

    Best demonstrated by the Rab C Nesbit character buying a lucky dip in the first ever lottery (random numbers 1-50) and he got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. On waking/sobering up he finds out the winning numbers were 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

    View Comment
  54. upthehoops


    Re all the talk of cup draws possibly being fixed. I think it would be too difficult, and would require an incredible amount of co-operation and silence from an awful lot of people. 

    Having said that what the SFA did in 2012 was as bad as fixing a cup draw in my view.  Rangers in 2012 were an incorporated club and company, which ceased to exist due to liquidation. So beholden were the SFA to this club they created a myth in order to not offend its supporters, and to allow those supporters to claim the entirely new club which joined the league, is the most successful in the world. Bias, commercial desperation, whatever the reason the SFA cheated every other football club in Scotland and their supporters. In one fell swoop they officially announced that the concept of ‘Rangers’ and those who support it, matters more to them than any other club or group of supporters. This cheating has left a festering sore which will never be healed. What’s more it is as clear as night follows day that no matter how damning a verdict the Supreme Court may cast over the big tax case, there will be no title stripping.  The recent utterings in court are surely an indication of the verbal gymnastics they will employ to say there was no sporting advantage.

    View Comment
  55. Charlie_Kelly


    With any conspiracy theory I always follow the general rule of thumb that the odds of it being true decrease in relation to the number of people who would need to be involved in order to pull it off in the first place. If it requires only a handful of people then who knows, it may be possible but if it requires dozens, hundreds, thousands… of people to be involved then its probably a load of nonsense.
    So the claim is that the SFA has rigged the Scottish cup draw to ensure rangers get as many home ties as possible. Well in this case we would need at least 20-30 people involved in this given that its always different people who do the draw. So i’m just not buying this. There’s too many people and many of them (Rod Stewart, Chris Sutton, Lubo Moravcik etc…) have zero motivation to help out rangers. 
    Re the Casino example: I once witnessed a roulette wheel come up red 16 times in a row! 

    View Comment
  56. jimbo

    jimbo


    What a lot of people don’t realise is that part of the WikiLeaks report was the manipulation of American lotteries.  The CIA have the technology to change the numbers at will on balls drawn for the draw.  A man behind a curtain with a keyboard is all it needs.  Seems like our football authorities have paid good money out for said technology.

    View Comment
  57. Big Pink


    New guest blog by Shyster & Shyster Up

    View Comment

Comments are closed.

SSL Certificates