Is it time for the Sin Bin?

2363
98279

A guest blog by former Celtic & Scotland defender, Jim Craig

 

What time is this to come back?”

Dolores McCann (her Mother had been a great fan of foreign films) stood in that classic pose of the wounded woman – up to her full height and chin forward – as she glared at her husband who had just come in the front door. Before he could say a word, she gave him another volley;

 “you left the house at half-past-two for a three o’clock kick-off, it only takes you 20 minutes to get to the ground, a match lasts only one-and-a-half hours plus ten minutes for the break and you’ve just walked back in the door at half-past-seven! So where the hell were you?”.

Wayne McCann (his father liked Westerns) tried to calm her down.

“Dolores, you don’t know what it’s like at football matches nowadays ; it has changed out of all recognition; a match goes on for much longer”.

“In what way?” Dolores asked.

“Well, for a start, the players and even the managers can complain about any decision that is given against them. If that happens, the referee then goes and has a word with firstly, the two assistant referees, then the fourth official and gets their comments before he reflects on the situation. If he is still in any doubt that he made the wrong decision then he can ask the guy upstairs sitting in front of a television screen what he thinks. And, of course, all through this, the managers and players of both teams can chip in with their comments. That all adds a fair bit of time to the match”.

“Aye…but turning up at half-past-seven is still a bit over the top…is it no’?”

“Well, no’ really……you see, nowadays you are not allowed to have a drawn game, so if the match is level at the full-time whistle, there is extra time, which takes a minimum of half-an-hour”.

“The time is still no’ matching up!”

“Aye, mibbe so, if that was the end of the match. But if the match is still level at the end of extra-time, then it goes to a penalty shoot-out. I told you…you are not allowed a drawn game”.

“ A penalty shoot-out disnae take long”.

“That might have been the case at one time but because so many keepers were being accused of moving before the ball was kicked, nowadays they are strapped in to a harness which anchors them in the middle of the goal. They can only move when the foot of the guy who is taking the penalty actually touches the ball. So, after each kick, the keeper has to be put back into the harness and it all starts again. And, of course, you get the complaints from the managers and players that the harness wasnae working properly or that the officials who put the harness on didnae put it on right. That all adds up to the time factor”.

“Did you go to the pub?”

“As God is my judge, Dolores, after the match finished, I came straight here”.

“Who won anyway?”

“That’s a difficult question… there was so much noise and kerfuffle both on the pitch and in the stands, nobody was quite sure what the final score was. And the guy who usually does the announcing had gone home. Somebody said that he had a date. Anyway, if you let me turn on the radio, I’ll hear the score there. And Dolores?”

“Yes”

Wayne walked over to the drinks cabinet and took out a couple of glasses. “I don’t suppose you would fancy a wee drink”


We will leave the smooth-talking Wayne to his attempts to mollify Dolores and reflect on the situation. What you have just read is probably the ultimate scenario for those who wish to tamper with the current rules of football. Do I think that the game needs radical changes like that? No but I do think that some change is necessary and in one specific circumstance.

Now, I was a professional footballer for 9 years and in all that time, I can put my hand on my heart and state with complete conviction that I never pulled any other player’s jersey. Did I try to half him in two with a tackle, yes! But no jersey-pulling. And, of course, I was penalised for the challenge.

Today, though, I feel that there is a lot of body-checking and jersey-pulling going on in every match. Very often the referee lets it go and then you get the ridiculous scenario at a corner kick when all those waiting for the ball to come in are pulling and pushing, with the referee watching it and ignoring it. It is a foul, ref!

When the referee decides that an offence has been committed, then the player will be spoken to first. If he does it again, he will be given a yellow-card. The problem is, though, that the offence might possibly have affected the play in the match, whereas the yellow card does not affect the player’s participation.

If the player is daft enough to do it again, then of course he gets another yellow and will be off. Most, however, are sensible and keep the head, so they go unpunished as far as the current match is concerned. What we have to find is a punishment that affects the match in which the transgression occurred. Which means that we have to consider the sin bin.

This works very well in rugby and gives the referee a means to punish an offence a little more harshly – yet more efficiently – than a yellow card but without having to go for the ultimate, drastic – and for many unpalatable  – option of the red card. I hope it comes in soon.

2363 COMMENTS


  1. EASYJAMBOMARCH 30, 2018 at 22:10
    39
    0 Rate This
    Christyboy March 30, 2018 at 22:01Just a couple of points. So even with the £3 million from Close, they still posted a loss? Is that right? Also, with Laird being in South Africa would that not cause problems for DK moving money from there? ======================The Close deal only happened in February, so hasn’t hit the accounts as yet.
    ———————–
    Just what will the
    RANGERS International Football Club PLC unaudited trading results for the next six months be like?

    View Comment

  2. FINNMCCOOL
    MARCH 30, 2018 at 23:13
    ===================================

    Excellent point.

    King even said it himself in his own proclamation.

    “I confirm that It will be announced today that one of my trust companies will now proceed and shall within a short period make a fully funded offer in compliance with the normal requirements of the Takeover Panel.”

    He has not complied, he has simply said that he is going to.

    So vaping partners, dreadful interim figure and a disingenuous announcement. All being put out on the same day and being spun as good news. It really is a kind of twisted genius. 

    View Comment

  3. Hello.

    Its Holy Saturday.   We all know what happened on Holy Thursday, good Friday and Our Blessed Lords magnificent Resurresction on Sunday.  But what happened on Saturday?

    Well, rumour has it,  that he was busy visiting and rescuing the lost souls from wherever they were.  Bringing them to Heaven.

    I hate to bring football into this but who were The Lost Souls?

    Well in my world they were Jambos, Bears, Hibbees, Sheep John James.  Etc.

    Our Lord wearing his Celtic Top – imagine it, its easy if you try – shows them the error of their ways.  (Jesus would be a winger)

    Peace and Love brothers and sister.  Happy Easter.

    View Comment

  4. To add my own thoughts to those made earlier by other valued contributors :
    The RIFC unaudited accounts are now with us and the spin in the accompanying statement itself is classic and will of course be swallowed whole by the SMSM. I’ve added my own comments to what has been published.
    1. “The results for the six months to 31 December 2017 represent an encouraging financial performance, allowing for having two fewer home cup games compared to the same period last year.”
    Comment : Really? Increased losses and debt, including a major loan required post-unaudited accounts?
    2. “Revenue for the period was £19.4m, an overall increase of £3.1m over the comparative period….Operating expenses excluding amortisation of players’ registrations increased by £3.5m compared to the comparative period.” 
    Comment : still spending more than receiving – Mr Micawber’s famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and six pence, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds  and six pence, result misery.”
    3. “The net impact of these factors is that the operating result reduced, from a profit of £0.3m in the comparative period, to a loss of £1.1m.”
    Comment – the overall result of the above is an increased half-year loss but “the Board is comfortable with this planned level of loss reported, and are satisfied that the results for the full year will continue to have the Club on a sure financial footing.” Hopefully Campbell Dallas share this confidence.
    4. “During the period the Club posted a gain on the sale of player registrations amounting to £1.2m.”
    Comment : Unfortunately, and not mentioned in the press release, was that “Amortisation and impairment of players’ registrations” rose to £1.83m from £797K – an increase that pretty much wipes out the nice headline figure.
    5. “At the period end, a total of £17.7m of investor loans have been provided interest-free to the Group……Subsequent to the period end, new short-term external funding has been secured providing the Club with greater financial flexibility.”
    Comment : so there is now over £20m of loans that we know about with major assets now encumbered. I’m at a loss as to how the company can claim “greater financial flexibility” and how  in this position trades out of the situation they find themselves in. Hence the talk of debt for equity swaps – basically the parties concerned making a gift to RIFC.
    6. “As a result of the above, the Club posted an overall loss for the period of £0.9m.”
    Comment : Well it was actually £926k as against £238k last year. An increase of 289% in their loss. Not world record time but a good try.
    Final notes :
    With regard to the “Advertisement” of a coming share offer I was amused to see that the £0.20 offer would be reduced by any dividend payment made by RIFC. No, on second thoughts it wasn’t amusement, I laughed out loud. (But perhaps the Laird does hope to kick this can down the road until 2050!)
    I’ve not investigated further but I’m intrigued as to whether the disenfranchised shareholders are able to take advantage of Laird King’s offer. If they are then that could be costly.  I’m not quite sure of the current state of play but I recollect that they comprised circa 10.4% of RIFC’s total issues share capital.
    ·  Blue Pitch Holdings (4,000,000)
    ·  Putney Holdings Limited (700,000),
    ·   ATP Investments Limited (2,600,000); and
    ·   Norne Anstalt (1,200,000).
    Would these parties wish to crystallise and release a total of £1.7m invested/value in RIFC? I think I would in the financial circumstances the company finds itself. Especially when it is believed that they paid very little for the shares. Wasn’t it £0.01/share?
    Added those stakes to the Concert Party shareholding of 34.05% and that would give a total that is not very far at all from the 50% threshold mention in the Laird’s advertisement.
    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

    View Comment

  5. Re the share offer /non offer 
    I think it’s safe to assume DK never wanted to buy these shares ,in fact he/( club)  went to great expense to avoid doing just that .
    If as DK and his peepil keep telling the world these shares are worth 27p ,why would he not have just bought them at the start and avoided the court costs .
    So I think we can be confident in stating that he does not want to buy .

    So if he doesn’t want them then who’s money is behind the offer /non offer .

    Who or whom are behind Lairds trust fund and where is the funds coming from 

    To this day I still can’t believe that ticketus did that deal with CW with all the information that was public at that time .

    This to me is beginning to look the same , peepil handing over money to a business showing every sign of being a basket case and an extremely  poor investment .Yet since sevco 2012s inception that is what has happened to this day .

    Rumour was AJ stepped in when wages were due with £1.5m ,now I have know knowledge of AJ wealth but I wondered why would AJ pay the salaries of overpaid football players .

    Has this sevco 2012 project become more than just a football team kicking a ball around every week .

    Is sevco 2012 seen BY some peepil as something more ,maybe a 
    religion
    a political ideal 
    a historical birthright
    we may all protestTANT but whOO knows  what may be estabishedMENT  at the end of all this

    View Comment

  6. Forgot to mention.  Lets say Saint Peter gets a couple of days off.  Deciding who gets into Heaven.  Auldheid is His relief.  Imagine the questionnaire!   I’d pass.

    View Comment

  7. Redlichtie,  great post as usual.  

    I’m missing Cmon the Killie guy.  Get back on pal.

    Your having the season of your life – you must have plenty to say.

    View Comment

  8. Best line in today’s media simply has to go to the Daily Mail report on Rangers accounts.

    ‘Rangers last night slipped back into the red’.

    Incredible!

    View Comment

  9. Also certain peepil that were not DUPed came into a wee windfall recently 
    would the be interested in keeping the sevco project running 

    View Comment

  10. There really is something very shady about King (stating the obvious). How many times does he create companies that have near-identical (or actually identical) names as other companies that are presumably legit?  Laird Investments (Pty) Limited is also the name of an Australian company. As far as I recall there was similar situation with at least one of the companies with which he appeared to be associated in HK or Singapore and also in SA. 

    View Comment

  11. jimbo March 31, 2018 at 11:08
    Hello.
    Its Holy Saturday.   We all know what happened on Holy Thursday, good Friday and Our Blessed Lords magnificent Resurresction on Sunday.  But what happened on Saturday? Well, rumour has it,  that he was busy visiting and rescuing the lost souls from wherever they were.  Bringing them to Heaven.
    I hate to bring football into this but who were The Lost Souls? Well in my world they were Jambos, Bears, Hibbees, Sheep John James.  Etc.
    Our Lord wearing his Celtic Top – imagine it, its easy if you try – shows them the error of their ways.  (Jesus would be a winger) Peace and Love brothers and sister.  Happy Easter.
    ——————————————————–
    Wrong ad, Howard!

    View Comment

  12. There is an argument that RIFC’s ‘investment’ in the playing side will have a long term benefit.

    “Operating expenses excluding amortisation of players’ registrations increased by £3.5m compared tothe comparative period. The main driver of this was the investment made by the Club in the playingsquad and football department, encompassing scouting, recruitment and performance analysis.”

    The problem is that this is outlay with a completely uncertain ROI. The model apes what Celtic and others are doing but even there the process is lumpy at best in cashflow terms.

    Any conventional company I am aware of does not ‘double down’ like this in trying financial times but seeks to reduce or at least constrain costs. If that had been the case with RIFC then the fact that they had increased turnover by around £3.1m would have been good news and possibly allowed some paydown of outstanding debt or meant the Close facility would not have been needed. 

    They do after all have a declared financial underpinning by Laird King who can clearly conjure up substantial funds from his various interests. Stakeholders should thus have no need to worry about claims of “impecuniosity”.

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

    View Comment

  13. Friday, 30 March 2018, 20:25by Rangers Football Club
    DAVE KING has released the following statement:
    Supporters will be aware of the Takeover Panel’s ruling last year that I must make an offer to the non- concert party minority shareholders of the Rangers International Football Club PLC. I have defended this ruling on the basis that any offer should not come from me but should be made by one of my trust companies.
    The Takeover Panel has relented to my request for which I am grateful. I confirm that It will be announced today that one of my trust companies will now proceed and shall within a short period make a fully funded offer in compliance with the normal requirements of the Takeover Panel.
    —————————————
    Was the original ruling not that it was King who had to make the offer, but that they would extend that to allow NOAL [specifically] to offer? Or did they say it could be any company King wanted it to be? Or have the Takeover Panel ‘relented’ since then in other correspondence?

    View Comment

  14. It will be interesting to see how long the Takeover Panel will be willing to wait before they return to the Court of Session to point out that King / NOAL have failed to comply with the Court’s order that he / it makes the 20p offer.

    Surely they won’t just let this drag on … again. 

    Or, given that it relates to the Court order will the CoS just act and find him in contempt. 

    View Comment

  15. NickMarch 31, 2018 at 09:11
    ‘….an we just play this scenario you are considering through so I can clarify it in my mind.Is your suggestion that Imran Ahmad…’
    _______________________
    That I should be so gifted as to be able to construct a ‘scenario’!

    No, I’m a mere recorder of little facts, with little in the way of imagination.

    Imran Ahmad was a director of TRFC Ltd.

    TRFC Ltd has signed a commercial arrangement with a company that deals in ‘vaping’-related products.
    There is a Scottish-based company which deals in such products.

    A Director of that company is Amar Ahmed.

    There is no standardised orthography in relation to the transcription into English of non-European names.

    I doubt if Shakespoke himself could  construct a scenario from those facts.

    If you have one, I’d like to hear it.

    View Comment

  16. Just on the Vaporized link up.

    I don’t think they are going to be providing huge amounts of funding to their new vaping partners. 

    This is extracted from their accounts, and they were close to being struck off until Mr Ahmad came in earlier this year. 

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the deal is little more than them opening a kiosk in the concourse. 

    View Comment

  17. IRC King said T”Rangers need £30m to £50m to catch Celtic.
    He has put some money in but not to the level he said.
    We know NOAL has some funds and now we find Laird has funds but still the Close Bros loan was required.
    When are the Bears going to question King on why his investment seems to have dried up and why a good deal of the money he has put up has just gone to others such as Ashley, anyone taking up the 20p offer and interest to Close Bros.? 
    As for the accounts the next six months and into next season  have to take account of the January spend, the extending and upping of player contracts fot Morelos etc, the cost of a new manager, paying back Close Bros.
    Can only see a stand still situation next year.
    No wonder they couldn’t fork out the million plus Brighton was asking for Murphy.

    View Comment

  18. saskya1888March 31, 2018 at 07:45
    FINNMCCOOLMARCH 30, 2018 at 23:1
    ________________
    I think the ToP requirements are that King must first announce that an offer is to be made, and then subsequently follow through. 

    That is, the announcement is not the actual offer.

    So King has thus far complied. 

    As you say though , he is not yet in full compliance.

    I note that King boasts that he prevailed upon the ToP to allow a trust to make the offer.

    As I recollect the proceedings before Lord Bannatyne, the possibility of this was raised almost as the last  few hurried words uttered by King’s QC: certainly the QC for ToP seemed to me to be caught somewhat off guard

    He  agreed rather flusteredly and quickly to the proposition when the judge asked him almost in parenthesis if that was ok with him?

    The ToP’s order was that King should make the offer. I don’t know whether Lord Bannatyne , having granted the ToP’s request to enforce the order, may have revised the order  to allow expressly that King could comply by allowing  a Trust to make the offer on his behalf. 

    The assumption has to be that he must have done, and ToP is happy that ( if King does indeed follow through!) a proper formal prospectus will issue in due course. 

    How long will be given? Who knows? 30  days?

    View Comment

  19. HomunculusMarch 31, 2018 at 13:28 
    It will be interesting to see how long the Takeover Panel will be willing to wait before they return to the Court of Session to point out that King / NOAL have failed to comply with the Court’s order that he / it makes the 20p offer.Surely they won’t just let this drag on … again. Or, given that it relates to the Court order will the CoS just act and find him in contempt.
    ___________________

    I suppose it depends on the appeal determination wording for us to know if he has definitely failed to comply. If, as I suspect, it categorically said he must make the offer by the 31st March 2018, then he has failed to do so, for telling the public/shareholders that he intends to make the offer is nowhere near actually making the offer.

    The thing is, though, the TOP might be satisfied if, in the end, he makes the offer, albeit belatedly, as they will still have given the Kings of this world much more than a shot across their bows. Besides, if they do take action before he’s had the opportunity to go through with his avowed offer, they may well encourage him to renege and leave RIFC/TRFC in a mess that disadvantages the ordinary shareholders to a greater extent than they would have been had the TOP not intervened in the first place.

    It’s something we have to remember in this matter, it’s not the TOP’s role to catch and punish the bad guy, it’s their role to stop the bad guy from disadvantaging the hundreds/thousands of small shareholders of the company involved.

    On the other hand, the TOP may well feel, like us, that King has no intention of fulfilling his advertised offer, and are heartily sick fed up with his unscrupulous actions, and so act without delay. Only time will tell, and the bank holiday weekend has given King a wee bit extra time.

    View Comment

  20. Hampden: Queen’s Park agree deal in principle to sell ground to Scottish FA

    The national stadium is in need of major redevelopment and it is understood the governing body would have made the switch to Murrayfield, the home of Scottish Rugby, if Scottish League One club Queen’s Park had refused to sell…”
    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43604938
    ================================

    A failing organisation, continually missing income opportunities, (Euro’s, WC’s), apparently now wants to buy an obsolete building which both sports and concert fans dislike intensely.

    Am I missing something here?
    Confused.com

    View Comment

  21. JOHN CLARKMARCH 31, 2018 at 14:50
    Thank You for that. I was under the impression that the offer had to be made by the 30th. Must improve my reading 😝, although without yourself there was not much to read at the time. I still am appalled that the media are casting this as an offer having been made  when it clearly is not!

    View Comment

  22. “Mr King is a director of Laird and a beneficiary (along with his wife and children) of the trust that is the ultimate owner of Laird.”

    “6. Financing of the Offer

    It is estimated that full acceptance of the Offer by RIFC Shareholders will result in a maximum cash consideration payable by Laird of £10,746,836. The cash consideration payable under the Offer will be funded using the receipt of dividends to be declared on 4 April 2018 totaling Rand 217,904,049. This amount would convert to £13,074,842.90 at the exchange rates prevailing on the date of this announcement. The dividends will be ring fenced for the purposes of the Offer.”

    So a sum of £13,074,842.90 is under the “ring fenced” control of Laird King with a maximum of £10,746,836 payable if everyone eligible takes up the offer. That leaves just over £2m presumably burning a hole in King’s pocket. 

    Not sure what the costs of the offer will be but hopefully not £2M. (Well, maybe I do…)

    Let’s assume that that there is something left after costs and that not everyone takes up the offer.

    What to do with all that spare cash?

    What a fantastic opportunity for King to over-invest in RIFC and at the same time pay off the Close loan, freeing assets to allow even “greater financial flexibility”.

    Should we expect an announcement to this effect? Surely this would discourage wavering shareholders from walking away and allow King to pump even more into this money pit, sorry, clumpany?

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

    View Comment

  23. Hello to all you wonderful people. Every day is an education. Thanks for all the erudite input on here. I wish you all a very peaceful Easter.

    View Comment

  24. Hello Jean.  Happy Easter.  I’m listening to Take The Floor on R Scotland. I love it.  Then theres a Piping programme on at 9 pm.  Celtic won 3-0 today.  04020306   Sorry this is a multy club board I shoudt have mentioned that.  But since when I have ever behaved?

    View Comment

  25. Jean,  I missed my Piping show at 9pm on R Scotland. What happened was I rememberd that the Easter Vigil would be on from Vatican TV.  So I watched that.  I cant begin to tell how beautiful and dignified it was.  If I was an atheist I would have turned Christian tonight. 

    so, to get back to football.   Do you not think Paddy Roberts looks like Jesus?

    View Comment

  26. What are tthey like?

    I’ve just seen an 18-hour-old piece in the  ‘Herald’, in which I read this: “Despite a long fight, Mr King has now relented to make an offer for 70 per cent of the club’s shares at 20p a share”

    Good God Almighty! “Mr King has relented”!!

    What kind of creature is the journalist who, in the light of all that King has done and not done, and in  light of a Court judgment which, if not complied with, could see King being imprisoned, still thinks it possible to think and say that King has ‘relented’? Instead of reporting that King has no choice but to comply, or face the possibility of a jail sentence?

    There is a very useful, non-drawing-room, term for a man who defends his hero regardless of truth: ar.e licker. 

    I see a very clear picture in my mind’s eye of a so-called journalist which reminds me of the picture of one of my wee granddaughters on Skype earlier tonight: her mouth is rimmed with chocolate from Easter eggs.

    But in the case of the journalist in question……forget chocolate.

    Guys like him soil further the already rotten soul of the SMSM.

    View Comment

  27. JOHN CLARKAPRIL 1, 2018 at 00:24

    I’ve just seen an 18-hour-old piece in the  ‘Herald’, in which I read this: “Despite a long fight, Mr King has now relented to make an offer for 70 per cent of the club’s shares at 20p a share”
    Good God Almighty! “Mr King has relented”!!

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

    Let’s not forget that to the media the boardroom at Ibrox holds a higher status than a court, and Rangers Directors are held in higher social esteem than a Judge.  The media reckoned Rangers paying tax was optional so I doubt they think a Rangers Director should have to comply with a court ruling unless he chooses to do so! 

    View Comment

  28. EX LUDOAPRIL 1, 2018 at 09:10
    1
    0 Rate This
    http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/172458021141/are-rangers-really-in-danger-of-not-receiving-aA fair and balanced summary of that troublesome license issue.
    ————–
    Which means the next query must, of course, be the timescale. The SFA’s guide for this is viewable athttps://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/2881/scottish-fa-club-licensing-manual-2018.pdf and, specifically, we’ll look at page 78. Rangers must provide everything by 6th April. Licence Applications are then discussed and given the yay or nay before the end of the month so the SFA have until the 30th April to make a decision. For them to make a decision, Rangers must have any supplemental details to them by the 23rd. Any appeal against a decision would be between 5th and 25th May before UEFA receive the final list of decisions on 31st May.
    ——————-
    Would this timescale be effected in anyway as the SFA have not yet appointed a chief executive?

    View Comment

  29. JOHN CLARK
    APRIL 1, 2018 at 00:24
    ==========================================

    He appears to genuinely believe that the law does not apply to him, anywhere in the World. Remember this is the man who told the Court of Session that he couldn’t make the offer because he didn’t have the money.

    After having pledged a further £7.2m to Rangers, and is now saying that he will just use £13m which he is due to receive in April.

    There no need to go through this man’s tawdry history of lying, it is well reported, one is simply forced to wonder why anyone would believe a word he says. 

    View Comment

  30. CLUSTER ONE
    APRIL 1, 2018 at 09:53
     Would this timescale be effected in anyway as the SFA have not yet appointed a chief executive? ————————————————————————————————
    This should not be a factor. The SFA as a body have a responsibility under the regulations and must carry it out as required.
    The question of whether audited interims are needed and can be provided in the timescale required is another matter. I suspect that the SFA will be well aware that the involvement of Campbell Dallas in formally producing this could open up a whole new can of worms. The financial situation if anything seems to have worsened from when they set out an “Emphasis of Matter – Going Concern” in the last audited accounts :
    “EMPHASIS OF MATTER – GOING CONCERN We draw attention to note 1 to the financial statements concerning the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern. In order to continue operations for the next 12 months the Group is dependent upon raising additional finance to cover the projected cash shortfall of £4m in season 2017/18 and a further £3.2m in season 2018/19. Failure to secure additional funding would result in the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt as to the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the Group was unable to continue as a going concern. Our opinion is not modified in respect of this matter.”
    The unaudited accounts for the last half year showing an increased loss of £926K (£238K in the  previous year) and the ToP judgement/’Concert Party’ share offer adds further uncertainty.
    I suspect that if they don’t already have them, CD will be looking for cast iron guarantees from the various stakeholders that they will provide whatever support for the company is needed.
    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

    View Comment

  31. Morning all & Happy Easter.
    Just thinking ahead & thinking of possible scenarios for Park,Taylor etc.Could they demand repayment of loans but maybe renegotiate to leave them but as secured against Ibrox & the Training ground.If they decided to act “in concert” they could surely make things very difficult for King.Could they garner enough support amongst shareholders to call an EGM and remove any hope of King diluting their shareholdings.They still wield a big stick as they’re owed a lot of money.How would any action impact on Close?.
    Anyone got any other scenarios which could come into play,especially if King gains control.

    View Comment

  32. Cluster OneApril 1, 2018 at 09:53
    ‘..Would this timescale be effected in anyway as the SFA have not yet appointed a chief executive?’
    _________________Come, come, C! The Licensing Committee is ( damn this cough of mine) independent, C1! The fiat of a CEO should not be required.
    There is no reason to suppose that Mr Cowan and his committee members will depart from the sublimely high standards of integrity exhibited by their predecessors in 2011.19
    What’s that you say? 

    View Comment

  33. torrejohnbhoyApril 1, 2018 at 10:47 
    Morning all & Happy Easter.Just thinking ahead & thinking of possible scenarios for Park,Taylor etc.Could they demand repayment of loans but maybe renegotiate to leave them but as secured against Ibrox & the Training ground.If they decided to act “in concert” they could surely make things very difficult for King.Could they garner enough support amongst shareholders to call an EGM and remove any hope of King diluting their shareholdings.They still wield a big stick as they’re owed a lot of money.How would any action impact on Close?.Anyone got any other scenarios which could come into play,especially if King gains control.
    _____________________

    I would imagine that if there is a rift within the board along the lines of King v The 3Bears, then it would result in some sort of Mexican stand-off, with both sides having the power, through their loans, to bring the club to it’s knees. With that in mind, the only way for one side to take genuine control would be to fund the repayment of the other’s loans, which would possibly/probably mean the 3Bears position is weakened by any debt for equity swop. 

    View Comment

  34. It’s looking as if King’s funding of the share offer will come from the disposal, by Micromega, of the NOSA part of the business for a reported ZAR 750m.  The sale was first announced in October 2017 but wasn’t expected to complete until the Spring of 2018.

    https://www.carlyle.com/media-room/news-release-archive/carlyle-group-acquire-nosa-group-south-african-provider

    An announcement from Micromega, today.
    http://www.inceconnect.co.za/sens-view/3823

    View Comment

  35. Ex LudoApril 1, 2018 at 09:10
    http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/172458021141/are-rangers-really-in-danger-of-not-receiving-a A fair and balanced summary of that troublesome license issue.
    ========================
    It certainly is and good to see that the awareness of  the importance of club licensing in terms of financial fair play is growing.
    The scale of £5M debt in break even terms rising to £30m is not imo adequate for the domestic stage in Scotland. It leaves too much wriggle room to be exploited by the glib and shameless. However the rules are what they are for now and the article at the link is very good at setting them out.
    An addition, which might well be what does happen was posited in an article last year on STV which can be read here:  
    https://stv.tv/sport/football/1374309-explained-will-rangers-need-approval-to-play-in-europe/
    Remember this was before the vote at last AGM allowed for a share issue or TOP at its current stage.
    This bit in italics is relevant to the accounts if they cause Future Financial Forecasts to be demanded (and if I may digress this was something that was swerved in autumn 2011 by SFA/UEFA  five months before RFC went into administration, but that should come out in the Comp Off investigation and a tale it will tell)
    Back to last and this year and the STV Article says:
    If Rangers fail to meet the criteria, will they be banned from playing in Europe?No. Not in season 2017/18.
    UEFA begins to monitor under the “break-even requirement” at the point a licence is applied for but no club has ever been banned prior to competition for failing to meet the criteria.
    What Rangers will be asked to do is submit future financial information to prove they stand a chance of meeting the break-even calculation in the near future.
    Even if they do this, UEFA can look to impose sanctions going forward without banning the club from playing in Europe next season.
    The matter would be referred to UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body. That group would then study the club’s finances and consider the severity of the breach and other factors, such as the overall trend of the club’s books.
    At that point disciplinary measures may be taken ranging from a warning, censure and fine through to withholding revenue from European competition, or placing restrictions on registering players or the squad size for Europa League and Champions League.
    Disqualification from competitions in progress or exclusion from future competitions is a sanction available to UEFA. In historic cases, the governing body also has the right to strip titles.
    Settlement agreements can also be reached between UEFA and clubs, marking out what the club has to do to rectify their situation within a certain period of time. 
    This can happen alongside disciplinary action or have penalties added if the terms aren’t met.
    One major settlement agreement would be to start living on a sustainable basis without UEFA money after this coming season combined with a reduction in anything awarded this coming season.
    UEFA do not want to put clubs out of business so there might be room to award on conditions.
    HOWEVER they would also have to look at how the club next in line have and are planning to conducting their financial affairs both in the recent past and over the same future forecasting period to ensure that in being “fair” to TRFC they are being fair to the other SPFL clubs. 
    A concept that does not appear to have had any standing in 2011.
    It all points to a much trickier grant of a licence (what happened in 2011 not withstanding) that UEFA will have to get involved in as it is their system that is being tested, but as long as it is done in a manner transparently fair to all clubs, trust in the process will be restored.
    As events have shown, it is a lot easier to break trust than restore it.  

    View Comment

  36. Reading AULDHEID post atAPRIL 1, 2018 at 12:22.
    One major settlement agreement would be to start living on a sustainable basis without UEFA money after this coming season combined with a reduction in anything awarded this coming season.
    Some other parts i wanted to add but i’m trying to keep post short. The main thrust of my point being that i believe that this ibrox squad they have assembled now is the Best it is going to be for a long time.This season was an all in.Next season i can’t see them even getting the calibre of player on loan unless the parent club is willing to pay most of the cost.With some of next ST money that should be used to improve the squad already spentthey don’t have the money to improve
    I am still going with JN as manager(we will have to just put up with all the real rangers man stuff and his contacts and can unearth some gems)But so will the ibrox paying ST holders.But will they stump up for it all again ?
    There are only so many times you can flog a dead horse

    View Comment

  37. “a lot easier to break trust than restore it” per Auldheid.
    Ironically enough there is the possibility that the restoration of trust and goodwill might be through a fair application of the licensing rules to one particular club this year. I write this with no certainty but in the spirit of an Easter Sunday morning.

    View Comment

  38. AuldheidApril 1, 2018 at 12:22
    ‘..UEFA do not want to put clubs out of business ‘
    __________
    Aw, hey, Auldheid! 
    You’ll be saying next that it was HMRC that put RFC(IL) out of the game, whereas, of course, it was cheating and lying wot dunnit.19

    View Comment

  39. The writer of the article on the European licence to Rangers makes an assumption the SFA will follow the rules to the letter. That is a huge assumption to make given everything we know since 2012 where rules were bent, broken, or simply made up to fit a desired scenario. I imagine Rangers will already have made it clear to the SFA European cash is vital, just like they did in 2011. The SFA will be under extreme pressure on this I’m sure. 

    Like the writer of the article I believe Rangers will be awarded a licence for next season. Where I disagree is that they will have to jump through any hoops to get it. The media won’t ask any questions and unfortunately unless the mainstream get involved they will have a clear run. I am also certain that any report on the 2011 licence will be kept under wraps until next season’s licence is irrevocable. 

    Rangers fans have a habit of saying ‘it’s all about the Rangers’. As far as the SFA are concerned, they appear to be right. 

    View Comment

  40. For those in any doubt how the smsm love to up the persona of an ibrox based player.This article is a must read a work of art even.I have called it “IF” as in If only.
    on how to connect an ibrox based player with everything that has no relevance to them,but at the same time If they are mentioning these big things they must be big themselves,they must be categorized along with these things.
    England set-up
    Champions League.
    International duty
    Highest Level.
    Ballon d’Or
    ——————
    Looks like Wes is the next hyped player to be put up for a bidding war(when does the transfer window in china open up again?)
    No they would never go with that one again.
    ———-
    This part i loved, 
    It’s completely appropriate that strikers go for loads of money but the guys who are tasked with keeping them out should be equally expensive.
    ———-
    Reads to me as..If we are selling he is up there with the cost of a good strike so no tyre kickers

    View Comment

Comments are closed.