Comment on One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All by StevieBC.

    Curious day yesterday.

    We had Keef declaring an "EXCLUSIVE!" in the early hours that McLeish was getting fired during the day.

    He even had a "LIVE" article with a timeline with frequent updates – presumably as the preamble to announcing the decision.

    There was a "deeply troubling" incident involving McLeish prior to the San Marino game which made the departure inevitable.

    Of course, it didn't happen.

    Keef backtracked, and McLeish's departure is apparently now "in discussion" into next week.


    So, what happened? Without any inside contacts I'll make a guess.


    The relatively new SFA CEO Maxwell has totally cocked up, and probably as a result of his lack of a professional background / relevant qualifications for the job.


    It was widely reported that Maxwell had a pre-planned phone call scheduled with McLeish yesterday as the team manager had remained at his London home.

    There was no planned or extraordinary meeting planned at Hampden re: McLeish's future.


    Apparently, the call was made (?), and the day ended with McLeish still in situ.

    We have since learned that the head of the League Managers Association had spoken to McLeish yesterday – and also a 'senior SFA executive'.


    I think Maxwell may have made a rookie mistake, and a highly unethical / insensitive mistake which could cost the SFA dearly.

    Keef had reported / implied that Maxwell was most concerned about McLeish's behaviour.


    I would speculate that McLeish got home to London, spoke to his family, then his lawyer and then the LMA.

    Perhaps it was even the LMA chief Richard Bevan who spoke to Maxwell yesterday, alongside McLeish?


    Prima facie, the SFA is seeking to exploit a staff member's -alleged – illness to remove him from his job.

    Just like the recruitment of McLeish, the planned removal of McLeish is amateurish, shambolic – and shows the SFA in an even poorer light with regards to the treatment of staff.


    It may be that during yesterday's call, Maxwell was informed that McLeish was going on long term sick?

    Maxwell couldn't sack an ill employee.

    Maybe it's now in the hands of lawyers to agree a settlement.

    If McLeish walks, he will be screwing the SFA for every last penny.


    Doesn't matter that McLeish is/was a crap manager.

    Or that as an EBT recipient, he shouldn't have been manager.

    Or that it seemed to be an open secret that McLeish had health concerns before he got the job, (even I heard the rumours a year ago.)


    This is the SFA doing what it does best: incompetence, ineptitude, poor decision-making…which is going to cost a lot of money.


    And what the hell is HR doing?!


    As much as I dislike McLeish, in this instance I do support any action he takes against the SFA.


    StevieBC Also Commented

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Bill1903 3rd April 2019 at 06:32


    Push or punch??


    Well, that's the clearest view so far of the incident.

    And regardless of whether it's a push or a punch, whether Kent was provoked or not…

    TRFC is missing a hugely significant point here.


    After Kent's contact with Brown's face, Brown could have copied Morelos' antics by rolling along the deck holding his face – as though taken out by a sniper.

    That would have guaranteed an ever bigger melee.

    Brown got up quickly and rightly protested about this punch.


    If TRFC has the audacity to appeal Kent's red card, it tells any neutral everything you need to know about that club's attitude to rules and civilised, acceptable behaviour – both on and off the pitch!

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    IMO, the Ryan Kent swing was the most shocking incident on Sunday.

    Morelos got a red for a sneaky, off the ball elbow.


    In stark contrast, Brown had actually been holding the ball just before Kent took a swing at him.

    Nothing sneaky or accidental.  Just a clear as day, clenched fist, left hook towards Brown's face.

    Intent seemed rather blatant.


    In any 'normal' televised game that punch would be the most talked about action.  It's just got minimised in all the other stuff going on in the game, and after the final whistle.


    Ryan Kent should have the book thrown at him – as any reasonable football supporter would expect.


    And the other point which has been lost in the noise: Brown had the ball in his hands. 

    …so how did the ref, 2 linesmen and the 4th official ALL miss the punch at the time ?


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    The DR is definitely getting even worse.

    Today's efforts include 2 standouts;

    1) "Celtic skipper Scott Brown set to go under SFA microscope for Rangers celebrations"

    Good headline to pacify the bears and to deflect. 

    But an absolute nonsense, lazy, off the cuff article, which didn't even bother to include any 'unnamed source' quotes.

    It's credited to Michael Gannon, who presumably doesn't even bother to read the p!sh he is given by Traynor ?

    2) "Michael Stewart questions how Rangers can keep financing 'desperate' bid to stop Celtic."

    On the face of it, a critical piece about TRFC's finances based on truthful quotes from Stewart.  Interesting that nobody at the DR wants to put their name to it though, as it's credited to "Record Sport Online".

    But the best bit is this from the DR itself;

    "…Rangers posted losses of over £14million in November 2018 after investing heavily to bring Gerrard to the club and fund his subsequent squad rebuild…"

    Theses accounts were up to 30th June, 2018.

    Gerrard's first day as TRFC manager was 1st June, 2018.

    Materially, the £14M loss had bugger all to do with Gerrard.

    But the DR blames him anyway!

    However, the impact of Gerrard's recruitment and squad rebuilding will – absolutely – be reflected in the accounts to 30th June this year.

    Another poor / lazy effort from Traynor – to try and pin all TRFC's financial woes on Gerrard.

    Recent Comments by StevieBC

    In Whose Interests
    Bogs Dollox, I suppose time will tell just how far reaching the Cold Shoulder effects will be in practice.


    But the salient point, IMO, is that every FCA regulated organisation has to recognise the decision on King's trustworthiness – and WRT to any potential, new dealings with King, they would have to take into consideration the TOP decision.

    In Whose Interests
    Despite the SMSM's disinterest, I'll make a stab at the practical implications of King's 'Cold Shoulder'.

    [Disclaimer: I last worked in Financial Services about 9 years ago, so anyone with current input please feel free to correct / add.]


    1) Impact on King.

    Whilst being an SA resident, King jets into the UK frequently, so I'm assuming that King will 'probably' retain some personal and/or business bank accounts in the UK.  He may have e.g. UK credit cards, insurances, property, and he may have an accountancy or legal practice he uses for his personal and business needs in the UK.


    All those current UK services he receives as a customer of an FCA registered organisation are now obligated to take note of the Cold Shoulder decision – and take any appropriate action.


    In stark contrast to the SMSM: the Cold Shoulder is indeed a biggie for any/all FCA registered businesses.  They cannot ignore it as that would mean they are not compliant with regulations and that their internal controls are deficient – and that would probably result in a painful and costly FCA investigation and hefty fine.


    As King is only the 4th recipient in 50 years, FCA companies won't have a dedicated reporting system for 'Cold Shouldering'.  I would expect that King could be flagged up on the IT systems of ALL his current FCA regulated, UK service providers as a Politically Exposed Person, [PEP].


    To manage Anti Money Laundering, [AML], legislation, PEP's are identified typically as someone who maybe holds a senior government position in an overseas country – and could be the recipient of monies from dubious sources for dubious reasons.  A PEP is potentially high risk, and is monitored.


    So, for example, if King has a personal RBS account and he walked into a branch in the near future, to ask for a new service like a mortgage, loan, credit card limit increase, etc., I expect he will be declined, as "the computer says no".  His account at the bank will already be red flagged to deny any new business.

    Separately, RBS and ALL his FCA regulated service providers will have to make a decision: to maintain or close his accounts.

    It would seem though that the Cold Shoulder detail is fairly explicit: they have to reject his business.  Practically, I would guess he would be given a reasonable notice period to take his business elsewhere.


    When King then walks into e.g. a Barclays bank branch to open a new bank account to receive his rejected RBS business, the bank is obliged to complete their due diligence, [Know Your Customer, KYC], to comply with AML legislation.  King will be later informed by Barclays that "the computer says no" – and his application to open an account was denied.


    This process will be repeated with any bank, insurance company, and probably with his preferred accountants or lawyers.

    He could have difficulties if he wanted to buy or sell a UK residential property, UK listed shares, etc.

    For the next 4 years he will have a major problem operating in the UK.  And after his 4 years are up? Why would any FCA business take the risk of accepting King as a new customer?


    Effectively for King, the 4 years ban could become a lifetime ban in the UK, IMO.


    2) Impact on RIFC/TRFC.


    I believe Metro Bank is the only bank RIFC/TRFC has business with.  I'm assuming that as King lives in SA he is not a regular bank signatory for signing off cheques, payment runs, bank instructions, etc.  However, as he operates at Ibrox effectively as an Executive  Chairman he might be registered as a signatory with Metro Bank.  At the least, Metro will have some initial documentation with King acting as 'Authoriser' on behalf of RIFC / TRFC.

    So, Metro Bank would also be obliged to record on their IT system / Risk controls that their Ibrox business customer is controlled – and Chaired – by a high risk, 'PEP-type' individual.

    Again, Metro Bank would have to make a decision.  Again, I would expect the Bank to notify RIFC that banking facilities could be withdrawn, e.g. within X months.

    The wiggle room could be that IF King steps down as Chairman AND sells down his controlling stake, Metro might retain the account.  But this seems unlikely, IMO, as King would be expected to do this within a very short timeframe – and in good faith.


    If King hangs about Ibrox like a bad smell…

    He 'may' eventually step down as Chairman in the short-term but he'll probably still hold his controlling share stake for longer.

    I would suggest that if King remains the largest shareholder, Metro would have no choice but to close RIFC/TRFC accounts.

    Subsequently, RIFC/TRFC could have exactly the same problems King would encounter when trying to open a new bank account with ANY other UK bank.  A lack of banking facilities could be an insurmountable risk to RIFC/TRFC.


    …and perhaps that could be King's leverage, and his own nuclear option: pay me off or I'll take you all down with me?


    Whatever is really going on behind the scenes at Ibrox, time is of the essence.

    …and they STILL have the 2018/19 accounts to publish!

    In Whose Interests
    Well, I don't know what all the fuss was about on SFM recently.


    If you got all your news from the SMSM, it would appear that King's extraordinary 'Cold Shoulder' was simply a source of mild embarrassment at Ibrox on Friday.

    So far today, there's not a peep online about it: it's history.


    Whereas the Internet Bampots have 1,001 follow up questions about the immediate and longer-term repercussions for;


    – King himself, his Chairmanship and his ability to provide future finance to TRFC


    – RIFC going concerns and the risks to the 'Rangers' brand and business partnering opportunities in future


    – the SFA and the responsibilities of its relatively new senior post holders Maxwell and Petrie WRT governance


    – the Scottish game as a whole, and the negativity this City decision has brought with regards to 'bringing the game into disrepute'.



    Even if King is only the 4th person in the last 50 years – from across the whole of UK business – to receive the 'Cold Shoulder'…it's no biggie for the obedient SMSM!


    In Whose Interests
    Now that the spotlight is focused squarely on King,


    it's interesting to see stories in the SMSM today 'linking' Gerrard to Beskitas.

    And just last week it was also 'revealed' he was / is being considered for the Leeds job.



    In Whose Interests
    As a sporting nation…  


    are we still good at the ice curling…? wink


    I'll get my brush.