Is it time for the Sin Bin?

2363
98272

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. It’s nice to see the arch plagiarist used the snip I made of the Vaporized Limited accounts when he was carrying out his “forensic* analysis”.  Well making the same point really, that they were unlikely to be a source of substantial funds.

    I suppose it’s possible when he did it himself he decided to call it the same thing, and in a staggering coincidence his was also 48,368 bytes. Stranger things must have happened I suppose.

    *Do you think he actually knows that “forensic” relates to investigating crime and not just examining things in detail. 

    View Comment

  2. I saw that earlier Homunculus 21  He then went on one is his usual rants at Phil then went on the war path with some unsuspecting person who commented on a post. As much as he gives everyone a great laugh with his wacky stories and daily begging and threats, in all seriousness he is a very troubled person who clearly needs help. 

    View Comment

  3. redlichtieMarch 31, 2018 at 17:22
    “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.”
    ____________________________
    As everyone probably knows, MICROmega Holdings Ltd was founded by our Dave in 1998.

    He is not a director, however. [A Tracey King and a Craig A. King are directors].

    The largest percentage shareholder ( at 63.2%) is Friedshelf 1382.[ as far as I can see, ‘Friedshelf’ is the equivalent of ‘Sevco’ , just a way of describing an off-the-shelf company]

    The next highest shareholding is only 10.4%. [ and that’s the Greg Morris  family trust: there is a director named Ian Morris who is the CEO of MICROmega]  ]

    and the next highest is down at 3.19%.

    The MICROmega statement ( the link to which eJ provided earlier] includes the information that Laird Investments (pty) Ltd holds 63.21% of MICROmega shares. 

    Now, if Friedshelf has 63.2%,and Laird has 63.2%, then Friedshelf must be Laird. 

    So, the decision to sell the subsidiary NOSA must have been King’s.
    That is, he is not simply benefiting from an ordinary shareholder entitlement to dividends, but may have engineered the sale of NOSA, once he knew that he was landed with having to make the share purchase offer. 

    And all the buggering about with review, and appeal, and appeal to the Courts was to buy time for the sale of NOSA ( negotiated in October 2017) to go ahead so that he would have the feckin pennies to enable him to comply.

    No way was he going to risk going to the pokey!19

    View Comment

  4. DarkbeforedawnApril 1, 2018 at 23:22
    ‘….went on the war path ..’
    ______________________
    Dbd, I was instantly translated back to about 1950, and the Saturday afternoons at the ‘Black Cat’ cinema on Springfield Road, Glasgow, and Tom Mix and Gene Autry and ‘head them off at the pass’ movies, by that reference to ‘the war path’! 

    Oh, happy days of innocent childhood, when, left arm up across our chins we would whack our backsides and gallop up the road home when Celtic were playing  away , and there was not the  huge line of buses along Glamis Road and surrounding streets to play in.

    And we had a very clear understanding of the concept of cheating. 

    An understanding which a greedy, unscrupulous knight of the realm of a generation younger than mine was morally incapable of.

    Worse, the SMSM has shown itself to be the champion of cheating by endorsing the chicanery behind the Big Lie.

    bad, and very bad, cess to them.

    View Comment

  5. An Easter Monday message to the SMSM19

    In the same way that he didn’t reach a ‘settlement’ with the SA Treasury, Dave King hasn’t ‘relented’, nor has he decided, or taken any other action that might suggest he had a choice. In both these cases he has been forced to comply with an order to perform his legal duty, and in both cases, he has only been prepared to do it under the very real threat of jail time.

    If Dave King had the merest modicum of decency, he would have carried out his legal requirement to offer to purchase the shares as soon as he was advised by the panel that he had to. Before they do any puff pieces praising King for doing the right thing (ha), they, the SMSM, should bear that in mind.

    And remember, too, King has proven, beyond doubt, that without this court order, there is no way he would ever want to buy anymore shares in this basket of Rangers’ assets!

    View Comment

  6. From the Oxford English dictionary

    INVEST – Put (money) into financial schemes, shares, property, or a commercial venture with the expectation of achieving a profit.

    INVESTMENT – The action or process of investing money for profit.

    I really wish the media and Ranger fans would ditch the use of both these words, which we seem to hear and read on a daily basis. Neither of them apply to Rangers. The expectation that someone, anyone, will simply throw their money into the black hole that is Rangers obviously comes from the days David Murray and a then Scottish owned bank colluded to buy Rangers many trophies. Those days are not coming back. 

    View Comment

  7. JOHN CLARKAPRIL 2, 2018 at 00:55
    ‘Black Cat’ cinema on Springfield Road, Glasgow,
    —————
    I believe it now gone and is now the obligatory row of houses.Sorry for the OT but i walked past a building on Springfield Road that had Black cat signage on it for years but never knew it use to be a cinema.
    ——-
    Now, if Friedshelf has 63.2%,and Laird has 63.2%, then Friedshelf must be Laird.
    was there not something a while ago about needing to know who was behind owning shares?
    Can’t remember if the ibrox fans wanted it or was it the SFA or it may have been a king ploy during the takeover

    View Comment

  8. A RANGERS shareholder with decades of experience in fund management has begun high-powered moves to reveal the identities of the people behind the secretive Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Funds.
    The investment professional, who asked not to be named, is a long-standing season ticket holder at Ibrox, said he has consulted a “mainstream” law firm in London to investigate the options available.
    He intends to take the matter further down the legal route if the board at Rangers International Football Club (RIFC) are unable to provide answers.
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13136145.Rangers_investor_aims_to_crack_Blue_Pitch_and_Margarita_mystery/
    —————
    It was the shareholders19

    View Comment

  9. A RANGERS shareholder… has begun high-powered moves to reveal the identities of the people behind the secretive Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Funds.The investment professional, who asked not to be named…”

    where’s that irony smiley?

    View Comment

  10. CO @ 10:02.

    My Cynicism Detector is flashing a yellow alert for this ‘We’re coming to get you’ story.

    Why would one leak this morsel to one’s media pals, rather than waiting till one’s ‘”mainstream” law firm’ had concluded its search?

    View Comment

  11. Re : Blue Pitch , Margarita Holdings etc

    Good luck to the gentleman in his search – from memory , were we not made aware of the ultimate ownership of these outfits in the dim/distant past – names from Lebanon & Malaysia were known at the time from my recollections – no doubt , someone has the details on file somewhere . I think one of Interpol’s most – wanted featured at some stage (Mr Rizfat ? or something like that) .

    View Comment

  12. JOHN CLARK
    APRIL 1, 2018 at 23:56
    As everyone probably knows, MICROmega Holdings Ltd was founded by our Dave in 1998.
    He is not a director, however. [A Tracey King and a Craig A. King are directors].
    The largest percentage shareholder ( at 63.2%) is Friedshelf 1382.[ as far as I can see, ‘Friedshelf’ is the equivalent of ‘Sevco’ , just a way of describing an off-the-shelf company]
    The next highest shareholding is only 10.4%. [ and that’s the Greg Morris family trust: there is a director named Ian Morris who is the CEO of MICROmega] ]
    and the next highest is down at 3.19%.
    The MICROmega statement ( the link to which eJ provided earlier] includes the information that Laird Investments (pty) Ltd holds 63.21% of MICROmega shares.
    Now, if Friedshelf has 63.2%,and Laird has 63.2%, then Friedshelf must be Laird.
    So, the decision to sell the subsidiary NOSA must have been King’s.That is, he is not simply benefiting from an ordinary shareholder entitlement to dividends, but may have engineered the sale of NOSA, once he knew that he was landed with having to make the share purchase offer.
    And all the buggering about with review, and appeal, and appeal to the Courts was to buy time for the sale of NOSA ( negotiated in October 2017) to go ahead so that he would have the feckin pennies to enable him to comply.
    No way was he going to risk going to the pokey!

    Hmmm. If we are to assume JJ has this right (and I don’t see any reason to doubt him), Friedshelf is Tracy W Hamill. 

    Laird’s board is comprised of:● Director – David Cunningham King● Director – Tracey Wardle HamillLaird holds no RIFC Shares. but both Mr King and Mrs. Hamill (who is Mr King’s daughter)

     
    So, yes, I would say Friedshelf and Laird are synonomous. Knowing King, Friedshelf will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Laird

    http://www.4-traders.com/MICROMEGA-HOLDINGS-LIMITE-6582729/company/

    View Comment

  13. NAEGREETIN
    APRIL 2, 2018 at 12:07

    Re : Blue Pitch , Margarita Holdings etc
    Good luck to the gentleman in his search – from memory , were we not made aware of the ultimate ownership of these outfits in the dim/distant past – names from Lebanon & Malaysia were known at the time from my recollections – no doubt , someone has the details on file somewhere . I think one of Interpol’s most – wanted featured at some stage (Mr Rizfat ? or something like that) .

    The story is from over four years ago so the high-powered investor has, presumably, finished their investigation by now

    View Comment

  14. Meanwhile on the most popular Rangers Forum the priorities of the club are under scrutiny. An advert for green puma football boots has appeared on the club twitter feed and a lot of them are not happy. I suppose when everything else at the club is running so smoothly it gives them too much time to focus on minor issues. 

    View Comment

  15. naegreetin April 2, 2018 at 12:39
    JC @ 12.27 – that’s the guy
    ScottC @ 12.35 – I must pay more attention !
    ===============================
    The attached document suggests that James Easdale and Christopher Morgan were directors of BPH along with Mazen Nabil Houssami.

    Houssami was reportedly Rafat Rizvi’s lawyer. Morgan also had links to BC Abela who reportedly held interests in Margarita and Norne Ansalt.

    View Comment

  16. EJ @ 18.19 2 April

    Thanks for that aide-memoire – presume BPH & Margarita will be joining the Easdales in accepting King’s (Laird’s) kind offer of £0.20p a share when it materialises .

    View Comment

  17. I sat in a Courtroom quite recently.

    I heard a QC tell the judge that his client was ‘impecunious’, had no means, subsisted on funds from a family trust that was not in his control.

    I learn subsequently that that client is one of only two directors of a company, LAIRD investments (pty) Ltd, which owns a majority share[63%] in MICROmega (pty)Ltd,[which ,incidentally, he founded in 1998.]

    Curiously, another company, Friedshelf 1382 (pty) Ltd  also owns 63% of the shares of MICRmega!

    Now, I’m no great shakes at arithmetic, but I know that two entities cannot separately and simultaneously own 63% of any God’s number of shares. 

    So, I conclude that Friedshelf 1382 is LAIRD by another name.( as mentioned in my previous post on the subject)

    If that conclusion is correct, it follows that the majority shareholder of MICROmega who instructed, authorised or otherwise brought about the sale of one of MICROmega’s subsidiary companies (NOSA)was LAIRD Investments. 

    It follows therefore, that the directors of Laird Investments had control  over the board of MICROmega.

    Since the shareholders of MICROmega are in for a dividend of not less than 4 Rand per share (1 rand =6p), it seems likely that, by the number of shares they might own, the two directors of LAIRD Investments , will receive substantial amounts of cash.

    One of these directors is that very client who was described by  his QC as being impecunious and not in control of any trust, family or otherwise and completely without the means to comply with an order from the Takeover Panel Appeal Board.

    Question: is there a mechanism by means of which I, a citizen of this democratic monarchy ( forgive the oxymoron) can ask for an investigation into the possibility that
    a) one of Her Majesty’s counsel learned in the law was fed a lot mince by his client and

    b) in the utmost good faith, of course, fed a lot of mince to a judge of the Court of Session?

    I take some comfort from the fact that Lord Hodge must have had some out-of-court-room knowledge or information that gave him grounds  to have D&P questioned.

    One might hope that Lord Bannatyne might similarly be aware that there might be reason to question what was presented to him as fact.

    Who knows, he might realise that he may, with  a change of vowel, have been fact, by what a fellow judge in another jurisdiction called  ( altogether now!) a G and S liar!

    View Comment

  18. paddy malarkeyApril 3, 2018 at 00:04
    ‘Meanwhile , in a galaxy (not too ) far away …’
    ________________
    Geez! What would a decade or more of undeclared payments of huge sums to players have resulted in!19

    Here in Scotland? Next to nothing!

    No stripping of knighthood,

    no stripping of titles or ‘honours,

    no vilification of a rotten governance,

    no calls for a serious investigation into just how rotten the heart of Scottish Football is…..

    And just what the feck is holding up the CO’s investigation?

    Well, one could speculate that it is that very rottenness at the heart of Scottish Football. 

    And one would need a helluva lot of proof that one might be wrong in that speculation.

    View Comment

  19. John Clark
    Re the impecunious plea.
    My take on it is, that King is pulling another rabbit out of the hat.
    He WAS impecunious at the time. However one of his businesses will now be able to give out a dividend which will benefit another one of his businesses to the the tune of £13m or so allowing him to “advertise” the possibility of an offer to buy shares some time in the future.
    In the words of Mr. Dylan: “I can’t help it if I’m lucky”.
    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, he has not made an offer and he has no money to make an offer.
    What we have is Schrodinger’s Scratch Card. He won’t know if he can make the offer until he scratches the silver foil off the card. But, of course, he will have to ask someone to give him a penny to do the scratching. Because he is impecunious.
    Has he complied with the TOAP and the High Court of Session decision?
    No. Because he has not made an offer within the time frame specified.
    What will happen next? Like any good horror film, the monster keeps coming back. 

    View Comment

  20. If DK has sold part of his business to lairds advantage , any ideas as to who bought his shares .

    IMO TGSL bemoans the fact he lost out on his £20m donation back in the murky days ,so there is no way on earth he will be sinking £10m into the sevco shambles .

    Now there are of course doubts about whether he got his money back but IMO the point still stands .
    Can anyone see DK handing over up to £10m of his own money just to save a tribute act when he of course publicly stated he would vote against a CVA for the original ragers 1872 .

    For me the answer is NO so if the offer is made then who or whom are the peepil supplying the readies 

    View Comment

  21. UPTHEHOOPS
    just seen this 
    Richard Wilson @timomouse5m
    Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, in the column “last Licence review” every Premiership club shows a date in 2017. It’s updating some lower league clubs who were reviewed on facilities in Feb.

    View Comment

  22. Tony

    Yes.
    Its based on last review in April 2017. Next review is 2018 date not specified. The question is IF UEFA were not happy with accounts submitted last year (as rumoured) on what basis was a Silver awarded under finance? We need transparency here.
    The worrying aspect is that Club Licensing appears to be as useful as a chocolate fireguard as responsibilities currently lie.
    Should the SFA who have lost all trust be the Licensor & are all clubs assessed to same criteria? Do the clubs know that the process is even handed?
    How?

    View Comment

  23. Anyone on Twitter fancy wasting their time pulling Chris McLaughlin up on his comment in this BBC Online article? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43617936
    His opening paragraph reads “It’s a reporter’s job to mine truth and honesty from the most delicate and awkward of situations. Even in the entertainment business, it’s a rule that stands.”
    I know the argument is that they are in fact the furthest thing from ‘reporters’, but how can they even write stuff like this knowing what they are ignoring? 

    View Comment

  24. Nawlite,
    I would have more respect for Robinson’s sanguine reaction to the “penalty” decision if it hadn’t come on the back of his reaction to the Cifre kick.
    He didn’t respond with the old,”the player gave the ref a decision to make” in that situation.
    Messrs. Beckham and Brown gave Refs a decision to make, which they did.
    Referees work to a game management agenda, where they make decisions not always based on the rules, but on what makes the game more “interesting”.
    This extrapolates into decisions that make league competition more “interesting”.

    View Comment

  25. THOMTHETHIM

    APRIL 3, 2018 at 15:15

    …Referees work to a game management agenda, where they make decisions not always based on the rules, but on what makes the game more “interesting”…
    —————————————————————-

    I understand the principle of what you’ve written, but not the practice.

    Referees & their assistants aren’t there to elevate the entertainment value: they’re there to apply the Laws equitably to both teams.

    As soon as ‘game management’ is involved, neutrality is brought into question, as decisions move from being made on an objective basis (Foul? Yes — whistle/play advantage if possible) to a subjective basis (Foul? Yes — whistle/play advantage if possible/ignore) to make the game ‘more interesting’.

    I also think it’s beyond the ability of most referees to balance out their subjectivity over ninety minutes so that both teams are treated the same (or that one team is not treated detrimentally).

    Off to don my flame-retardant coveralls… 

    View Comment

  26. JINGSO.JIMSIEAPRIL 3, 2018 at 16:26

    I believe that is exactly how it turns out and it poses questions on a refs objectivity.
    This is without questioning his neutrality, which is not always a given.
    Anyone who watches football regularly will have noticed, what shall we say, inconsistencies within a game.
    One of the obvious examples of game management is the accepted norm of not booking a player in the opening minutes.
    This is generally described as, “the ref keeping his cards in his pocket”.
    I believe the standard of refereeing, which tolerates over robust tackling, because the fans “love it”, is a main reason why Scottish teams generally struggle when they leave home shores.
     Foreign refs don’t tolerate it and as a result, players are more skillful, dafe in the knowledge that they are not going to get clattered.

    View Comment

  27. John Clark
    Hi John.
    Re the “offer” from King.
    You are right about the notification to make an offer.
    This perhaps clears it up and gives a timescale.
    “As has been made clear, the Panel review process has been exhausted and the TABhas ruled that you must announce an offer in compliance with Rule 9 of the Code by12 April 2017, being the deadline which the TAB has set (and, therefore, inaccordance with the Code, publish an offer document and formally make the offernot more than 28 days after that announcement) …”
    That was lifted from Lord Bannatyne’s written decision.
    It appears we are back at the movies – 28 days Later
    Coincidentally, a film about a zombie apocalypse

    View Comment

  28. FINNMCCOOLAPRIL 3, 2018 at 18:07
    John ClarkHi John.Re the “offer” from King.
    —————
    For such a case to go all the way i have been having a look at Court of Session Opinions.
    https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session
    There is still nothing published.Although it does state 
    Not all opinions are published. Generally, only decisions which involve a matter of principle, a particular point of general public importance or are delivered after a substantial hearing of evidence, will be contained in a written Opinion. The reasoning for procedural and routine decisions, or those involving the sentencing of convicted persons, is usually only announced orally. Where a decision is in the form of a written Opinion, it will be published on this website unless, in the view of the judge, there are exceptional circumstances requiring such publication to be restricted.
    Although i did think the king case would be of general public importance 

    View Comment

  29. finnmccoolApril 3, 2018 at 18:07 
    John ClarkHi John.Re the “offer” from King.You are right about the notification to make an offer.This perhaps clears it up and gives a timescale.“As has been made clear, the Panel review process has been exhausted and the TABhas ruled that you must announce an offer in compliance with Rule 9 of the Code by12 April 2017, being the deadline which the TAB has set (and, therefore, inaccordance with the Code, publish an offer document and formally make the offernot more than 28 days after that announcement) …”That was lifted from Lord Bannatyne’s written decision.It appears we are back at the movies – 28 days LaterCoincidentally, a film about a zombie apocalypse
    _____________________________
    I bet even the RIFC board can’t be certain that King will formally make the offer by the time the 28 days are up, though they will be as sure as we are that he will use every one of the 28 days before any offer is made.

    Looking at PMGB’s piece today, I have to admit I was somewhat bemused by the detailed description given in the announcement of how King intends to fund his offer. I cannot imagine it is the norm to include such detail of how you would be funding such an offer, as all the shareholders (and it’s to them that he is issuing this advert) and TOP/FSA would normally only be concerned to ensure the funds are lodged in an appropriate escrow account (although the authorities may seek clarification of the source of the funds, but not so publicly). Whether the offeror has to sell shares, his house or Aunt Agatha’s jewellery, to fund it, or if he has it all lying in an account at Bank of Scotland, it makes no difference (that I can see). So  why give out so much information on something, I am sure, he would normally prefer to keep out of the public gaze? Why make it clear to the SA Treasury that you intend taking some £11m out of South Africa? This is, after all, a man who usually does such things completely under the radar.

    It’s almost as though he’s setting up a situation, a plan to fail, while hoping he can convince some, if not all, of the bears that his intentions were real, but those ‘haters’ got in the way…again!

    View Comment

  30. “It’s almost as though he’s setting up a situation, a plan to fail, …”
    My thoughts exactly AJ. My niggle, as ever, is – what is his end game? I cannot believe he is still in the game unless he is raking money out somewhere! Or unless he believes there is a big payday around the corners. It all looks pretty grim but what are we not seeing?

    View Comment

  31. ARMCHAIRSUPPORTER
    I wrote a response to “Nick’s” tribute to the financial acumen of Dave King and other members of the Blue Room (which would have been a glowing report from DBD but from a Hibs fan, it was remarkable), but it ended up in moderation and then the moment passed. The thrust of it still seems relevant today though.

    He cited King’s “undeniable” input of money into The Rangers and “there is no evidence of him ever taking money out.” He went on to say “This puts him in a different bracket to Green and co when it comes to a football club” but I would say it puts him squarely in the same bracket as David Murray – who claimed for years he was putting his own money in and not taking money out, but his various subsidiaries had well-paid contracts and he himself was the recipient of a “loan”.

    Murray reminded me of Thenardier from Les Mis…

    Master of the house, keeper of the zoo
    Ready to relieve ’em of a sou or two
    Watering the wine, making up the weight
    Pickin’ up their knick-knacks when they can’t see straight
    Everybody loves a landlord
    Everybody’s bosom friend
    I do whatever pleases
    Jesus! Won’t I bleed ’em in the end!

    King has of course put £20m into the previous incarnation of Rangers – but so far this time he’s only bought shares (happy to be corrected), which doesn’t help the club per se, and is being forced to buy more (again his money not directly helping “the club”).

    King doesn’t strike me as sentimental but I think he does hold a grudge – I had a business disagreement with a half South African/ half Scot 15-odd years ago, and I can promise you no-one holds a grudge longer than that combo – my view, based on no hard facts is that King’s end game ends up with him “in the black and out of the red, he doesn’t really care that the club is dead” as Jim Bowen might have said.

    What’s the only thing that would recoup King’s outlay? Either taking over then selling the whole thing as a going concern (which needs either major and ongoing investment or huge belt tightening and giving up the expectation of silverware) or it all going belly-up and him somehow left with “ra deeds” when the music stops.

    It’s a cliffhanger and we’re in the front row with popcorn…

    View Comment

  32. JOCKYBHOYAPRIL 4, 2018 at 09:07
    Thanks Jockybhoy – outstanding response. You even managed to get my favourite musical and my favourite TV show in there!
    19

    View Comment

  33. armchairsupporterApril 4, 2018 at 01:06 
    “It’s almost as though he’s setting up a situation, a plan to fail, …”My thoughts exactly AJ. My niggle, as ever, is – what is his end game? I cannot believe he is still in the game unless he is raking money out somewhere! Or unless he believes there is a big payday around the corners. It all looks pretty grim but what are we not seeing?
    ___________________________

    I’m not so sure his ‘endgame’ is to make money, not now, at least.

    While I am sure he originally saw it as a great opportunity to make a killing, or as a conduit, at least, for some of the wealth SARS is watching for, I think things have gone so pear shaped that he’d now just be glad to get out with some of his ‘investment’ and ‘reputation’ intact. He stands to lose over £3m if enough shareholders accept this forced upon him offer, that’s £3m gone and no advantage gained, in fact, it’ll mean he’ll have a greater share of a mouldy pie! Furthermore, it will make him the out and out power within the Blue Room, and surely not all there will welcome that – as anything other than an excuse to say, ‘there you go, Dave, it’s all yours!’

    I am sure, too, that many bears, including some of those in the SMSM, will believe that this £11m dividend is coming to ‘Rangers’, regardless of how the offer pans out, meaning, in the worst case scenario, around £7m will coming into the club’s coffers, but even if it did, and it would most likely come in the shape of more loans, that would only fund this coming season, and be nowhere near enough to bring a meaningful challenge to Celtic, so next season they would need a similar amount, then the next…and is he going to throw even more money after bad?

    I’d suggest this, though; if King really does intend to cough up, then he really is a bluenosed philanthropist – or the Takeover Panel has genuine teeth, wants to use them, and has got him running scared!

    View Comment

  34. He truly twists and turns like a twisty turny thing, AJ. And perhaps you’re right, he’s making this up as he goes along to try and get the least worst outcome. I never really saw him as a chess master, 3 moves ahead of everyone else. But I do still think he would have walked away much earlier if there was no income in it for him. Maybe it’s always been about laundering money through a ‘legitimate’ business outside South Africa.

    View Comment

  35. A wee scenario, of a totally imaginary kind.

    A man has a large wad of money that he needs/desires to get out of a country with strict exchange control laws. He’s previously had no bother slipping cash out ‘under the radar’, but is now very much on the radar and this money is known, by all, to be coming to him sometime soon.

    At the same time, in another country, the very one he wants that money to arrive in, he has a court order enforcing him to carry out a rather large financial transaction. He hatches a plan to create a situation where the two countries’ authorities put their heads together and allow him to transfer this very large amount of money to enable him to fulfil his legal duty in the target country for his money.

    The two countries involved may, or may not, play ball, but it is worth a try in his world, and might even give him a sense of satisfaction in using the authorities in this way.

    As is very often the case when people need to move money they shouldn’t be moving, they are quite prepared to take a rather large hit on how much they will end up with, but a plan that could end up with no hit, only expenses, now there’s a good one.

    View Comment

  36. I know we berate the SMSM for various inaccuracies and click bait stuff to entertain the Bears but today’s ‘Rumours’ section in the Scotsman has to take the biscuit for encouraging our Celtic minded friends to open the article.

    “Wolves eye Celtic Star”

    When did Dundee player Scott Bain who has only played 3 games for the Hoops on loan become a Celtic Star?

    View Comment

  37. wottpiApril 4, 2018 at 10:33 
    I know we berate the SMSM for various inaccuracies and click bait stuff to entertain the Bears but today’s ‘Rumours’ section in the Scotsman has to take the biscuit for encouraging our Celtic minded friends to open the article.“Wolves eye Celtic Star”When did Dundee player Scott Bain who has only played 3 games for the Hoops on loan become a Celtic Star?
    ________________________

    Very good point, WOTTPI. Write a headline of ‘Wolves eye on loan Dundee player’ and most Dundee supporters who see the headline, and one or two Celtic supporters (aware it’s probably Bain), will click on the bait. On the other hand, publish a headline that suggests a Celtic player is interesting the club at the top of the English Championship – there’s any number of their players that a club like Wolves would be interested in that might cause consternation amongst the Celtic support – and get a barrage of clicks. 

    Clever PR, which sits well with the MSM of today, and* dishonest even if not an out and out lie (but it could be classed as such when taken in the context it is written – he may be a Celtic ‘star’ when playing a game for them, but he is definitely not a Celtic player, or star, when it comes to his transferability, or any article about any interest a club might show in him).

    A small point in the decent of our media, but a fine example of the loss of News outlets in our country.

    * I’ve written ‘and’ not ‘but’ because PR and dishonest sit together so well.

    View Comment

  38. easyJamboApril 4, 2018 at 11:18 
    It looks like King isn’t scheduled to receive his dividend until 23rd April.http://www.sharenet.co.za/free/sens/disp_news.phtml?tdate=20180403163900&seq=68&scheme=default
    ______________________

    That is actually quite well timed for King. I doubt many people (other than peepul) would expect he is going to make his offer before (or much before) his 28 days are up, and this actually gives him an excuse for his own tardiness, one he will no doubt use when explaining himself to the TOP.

    I’m assuming King does have that 28 days to irrevocably make the offer, and if this is correct, isn’t it amazing how this has been timed, almost to perfection, by King – or is it just another example of last minute luck that seems to keep TRFC afloat?

    View Comment

Comments are closed.