The Real Battle Begins?

The increasing attacks on social media by the main stream press, fuelled in some respect by David Murray’s vague threats of litigation against bloggers, has brought into sharp focus the challenges facing the Blogosphere. It also brings into even sharper focus the prescience of Stuart Cosgrove’s assertion that this summer’s ‘epistemological break’  had begun to marginalize the Scottish sporting wing of the MSM.

The reality of that assertion is embedded in the misreporting of the FTT decision as a victory for RFC, falsely alleging that those who operated the EBT scheme had been exonerated, that RFC had ‘done nothing wrong’, and consequently accusing ‘vindictive anti-Rangers bloggers’ of playing a part in the downfall of that once great Scottish institution. It is also evident in Tom English’s rather bitter and one-dimensional anti-RTC polemic today in the Scotland on Sunday. Had it been entitled “Self Preservation”, it may have rung a few more truth bells.

I am not of the belief that the MSM is an instinctively pro-Rangers estate, but I do think that their reportage of the FTT is more geared towards discrediting the newly emergent forces in the social media area than it is towards rehabilitating the public image of RFC or David Murray.

However despite the contempt in which many people here hold the MSM and Murray, English does have a point that we would be foolish to ignore. No-one can deny that we do have a duty to ensure that we are responsible in how we present ourselves to the public. Now that our (and others’) success as a real and creative alternative has spurred the MSM into action, we are subject to greater scrutiny than at any time in the past. Our view is that we have to be pro-actively engaged in setting a standard for ourselves that is above those that the MSM have set for themselves.

We have on TSFM an audience exponentially greater than the number of posts. That presents us with a great opportunity to get our message across, but it also burdens us with an increased responsibility not to fall into the trap which has besought the Succulent Lamb Brigade.

We are a very different animal from RTC. RTC him or herself had information and insight to bring to the table that the administrators of this site do not. The founder and former admin of TSFM had the idea that the talent available from posters on the RTC – not just RTC himself – should continue to have a forum in a post-RTC world, and that those talents could be used to challenge the myths regularly represented as facts by lazy journalists in the MSM.

We have at our disposal on this blog forensic analysis of legal, media and corporate matters. We have an abundance of creative minds, all passionate about the game of football AS WELL AS a partisan love for their chosen club. With all that talent and expertise, we can make an impact on the agenda by challenging the misinformation and substandard journalism of the MSM, and our finest moments are when we do that. We lose authority and influence when the debate is impeded by bald accusation or innuendo backed up with little more than an historical view of our country.

Our biggest impact (and largest audience) is to be found when when our experts have collectively torn apart those myths presented as truths by the MSM, and when we have asked the questions that the MSM either can’t or won’t ask or answer. Those are the things that have driven the traffic to this site, and many of the emails we get congratulate us on that.

Our credibility plummets though when we go down the partisan path. We also get literally hundreds of emails from fans who ask that we cut down on the comments of those who are merely venting outrage at how they see the game being mismanaged (mainly so they can access the important stuff more quickly), and from fans who are just fed up with the constant name-calling – almost exclusively aimed at Ally McCoist and other Rangers figures.

If we claim to be an intellectual and journalistic rung or two above the likes of the Red Tops (not to mention to be decent and respectful of others), we need to refrain from the name calling and accusatory culture. We can ask questions, put items for debate on the public agenda, point out apparent irregularities and anomalies. In rushing to judgement of others from the comfort of the glow of our own laptop screens, we are guilty of the same lazy journalism we see in others. Name calling (all good fun of course on a fan site) is just a lazy thought process and as English says, comes across as “nasty”.

We never saw RTC as a fan-site. The original administrator of this blog never saw TSFM as one either, and nor do we. In order to succeed properly, we need sensible fans of ALL clubs to be comfortable and feel secure in our midst. Of course we are not breaking any laws, but can anyone honestly say that we have evolved into a welcoming place for Rangers fans?

TSFM is not about hounding any one club out of existence or into shame or infamy. In the Rangers saga we have sought to ensure that the football authorities play fair with everyone and stick to their own rules. One well kent RTC contributor, and no friend of Rangers, often said that if the FTT found in favour of Rangers we should move along and accept it. Well they did find in favour of Rangers in the majority of cases. That may not suit many of us, but we are the Scottish Football Monitor, not a Judicial Watchdog. We can say why we disagree with the decision, but criticism of the process through which the decision was arrived at is beyond our purview.

Since the accusation is often made in the MSM, we should state, unequivocally and unreservedly, that we are NOT anti-Rangers. Their fans face the same issues as the rest of us and they are welcome here. We are however, equally unequivocally against the gravy train journalism of the Scottish Football Wing of the MSM (with one or two honourable exceptions).

If the Anti-Blogateers in the press are correct, the popularity of the TSFM will recede as the Rangers Tax case reverts to the back pages before disappearing for good. However I do not believe that they are correct. I don’t believe that Scottish football fans are only motivated by either hatred – or even dislike – of one club. I believe we are more concerned with the game itself than the pot-stirrers in the MSM would have us believe, because we understand the interdependence of football clubs.

But we also understand that the people who run football clubs do not always run their clubs for the benefit of the fans. In the business world, that may not be out of the ordinary, since businesses are run for the benefit of shareholders.
However football reserves for itself a special place in the hearts of people in this country. If the people who run football clubs want to retain that favourable status, they have to be accountable to the fans.

The difficulty in holding them to account though, is that the cosy relationship cultivated between club directors, managers and players and the press renders the access to information a closed shop, and the information itself is heavily filtered and spun.

As long as we keep asking questions in response to the fruit of that cosy relationship, we will be providing people with an alternative angle and viewpoint, allowing them to come to their own conclusions, and not the one the MSM post-presser huddle delivers to us wrapped up in a bow.

For the SFM specifically, we believe that to have any influence, we need to enable the expertise at our disposal to flourish. It is also vital to our project that Rangers fans are included in our dialogue. We just can’t call ourselves the Scottish Football Monitor if they are largely excluded from participation because they feel they are being treated disrespectfully.

We can’t tolerate the accusations and name calling. We need to stick to what we have done best; factual analysis, conjecture based on known facts and on-line discourse leading to searching questions being asked.

One of the things we are looking at for the near future is to set up some kind of formal and transparent channel of communication between the SFM and the football authorities. Being truly representative of fans will make that easier to achieve.

The MSM will continue to attack the social media outlets. In one way you can understand it. Their jobs are at stake. The business model of the print media in particular has changed massively over the last five years, manifesting itself mainly in increasingly under-resourced newsrooms. Consequently it is besought by increasingly unreliable and under-researched journalism, even to the point where much of it is no longer journalism at all.

By comparison the Blogosphere has access to greater human and time resources, is able to react to unfolding events in real time, and crucially (because it has been eschewed instead of embraced by print media proprietors) has been occupied by ordinary folk with little or no vested interest.

We are still in position to provide a service in our small niche of the on-line world. We have rights to publish and speak freely about our passion, but we also have to live up to the attendant responsibilities, and thus the appeal for discretion on posting comments.

Where Tom English got it completely wrong (in the uniquely ironic way the MSM have about them), is that his industry has mistaken the rights others have earned for them as entitlement, and ignored almost completely the responsibility they had to act on behalf of those who pay their wages.

Advertisements

About SFM
The Scottish Football Monitor is following the lead of RangersTaxCase in an attempt to hold the Scottish mainstream media to account and to question. If they do not ask the difficult questions, we will.

3,054 Responses to The Real Battle Begins?

  1. wottpi says:

    easyJambo says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:45

    Many thanks.
    So as I thought the money may not be in the bank.
    I am sure that people will have shaken hands but there is still the possibility of pulling out, as business is business after all.

    If I were a fan I’m not sure how to view this multi-ownership model.
    Is it not normally the case that most clubs have a major shareholder or owner who tends to steer the ship?
    Could it be the case of too many cooks spoiling the broth?

  2. hangerhead says:

    HirsutePursuit says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:48

    __________________________________________

    3.8 Withdrawal of a Licence or an adjustment of the award
    A licence may be withdrawn or adjusted after it has been awarded by the Scottish FA if the …etc

    I think it is advisable to note that the may be does not mean that it will be.

  3. spanishcelt says:

    easyJambo says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:45

    Could it be the case of too many cooks spoiling the broth?
    ………………………………………………..
    More like too many CROOKS !!!

  4. jimlarkin says:

    HirsutePursuit says:

    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:48

    10

    0

    Rate This

    Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 01:50
    17 0 Rate This
    HirsutePursuit says:

    Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:55

    jimlarkin says:
    Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:40
    ========================================

    Just in case there is any doubt about the relationship between the “club” and “company”, here is the SFA’s view in relation to the National Club Licencing Criteria:

    http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartTwo-NationalClubLicensing/3.%20The%20Club%20and%20the%20Licence%20Award%20(2)b.pdf

    Part 2 – National Club Licensing
    Section 3 – The Club and the Licence Award
    3.1 Definition of the Club
    The club is a full member and/or an associate member of the Association and the expression “membership” shall be construed accordingly.

    3.8 Withdrawal of a Licence or an adjustment of the award
    A licence may be withdrawn or adjusted after it has been awarded by the Scottish FA if the licence applicant:
    • Is presented for its winding up or where the member club in question shall convene a meeting to pass a resolution for voluntary winding up or shall enter into any form of liquidation.;

    So, the club (as the Licence Applicant) will face sanctions if it is “presented for its winding up or where the member club in question shall convene a meeting to pass a resolution for voluntary winding up or shall enter into any form of liquidation.”

    Of course, as we all know, these are legal events that can only happen if the club is an incorporated legal entity. AKA a company.

    In relation to the UEFA Club Licensing (as implemented by the SFA), the definitions are even more explicit:

    http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20(2).pdf

    Part 3 – UEFA Club Licensing
    Section 3 – The Club as Licence Applicant and the UEFA Licence
    3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant
    3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria.

    …and just in case you think the SFA may have misunderstood or mis-quoted UEFA on this, here is what UEFA have to say:

    Article 1 – Definition of terms
    1
    For the purpose of these rules, the following definitions apply:
    a) Licence applicant: football club, i.e. legal entity fully and solely responsible for a football team participating in national club competitions, which has applied for a licence to enter UEFA club competitions.

    The fiction that The Rangers Football Club plc (founded in 1872/3 and incorporated in 1899) was not a football club is simply not evidenced by any article or rule that I can find.

    Of course, the same articles and rules are testament to the fact that Rangers International Football Club plc (founded & incorporated in 2012) is not a football club.

    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    great post.

    sevco did not play any “friendlies” over the summer, ’cause they were not allowed to.
    they were a new team and had no licence, until they were granted a licence status
    (“conditional”) – which is not in the sfa rules.

    sevco are a new club in the scottish leagues.

  5. Senior says:

    ‘……………for whom the bell tolls, another CVA on the way.
    Spokesperson cannot understand the shortfall between original commitment of over £20 million and the meagre amount, less than £1.5 million so far invested by the FF fans.

  6. neepheid says:

    ismellafix says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:39

    While there is no doubt that Green has purchased the vast majority of the business assets, (with a loan!) there is a serious doubt as to whether he can claim to have bought the goodwill. To do that he needed to buy the whole business, all assets, liabilities included.
    ======
    Sorry, I really don’t get it. Why would Green have to acquire the liabilities to acquire the goodwill?

    Let’s say that a local business, say a bookshop, becomes insolvent for whatever reason (feckless owner?) and goes into administration. I approach the administrators and make an offer for all the assets, which is accepted. Of course I don’t acquire any liabilities, the administrators use the money they get from me to pay the creditors 10p in the pound or whatever. The shop has traded throughout. The same regulars come in to browse or buy, most of them neither know nor care who owns the business. Surely I’ve acquired the goodwill along with the stock, fittings, etc? Or is there something really obvious that I’m missing here?

  7. luoanlai says:

    Question for those versed in these matters.

    I assume that the result of the AIM listing will be full disclosure of the amount raised and the source of funds?

    Does anyone know the timing?

  8. redetin says:

    smartbhoy says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:36

    I still can’t get my head round the institutional investors, surely these men/companies, whoever they are, are experienced investors and would not touch this with a barge pole. Unless there’s been nothing near to £17m invested and there’s no way they’ve paid over 35p a share.

    __________________________________________

    Because…Capital losses can help cut your tax bill!

    There’s nothing wrong with losing money on some of your shares. You just set it against gains you make on other deals. If you sell at a loss at the right time you can get quite a reduction in your tax bill.

    (David Low hinted at this on Radio Scotland this morning in relation to the RIFC offering).

  9. twopanda says:

    luoanlai says: at 11:20

    • Issue of VCT Placing Shares 8.00 a.m. on 18 December 2012
    • Latest time and date for applications under the Offer 1.00 p.m. on 18 December 2012
    • Results of Offer to be announced through a Regulatory Information Service 18 December 2012
    • Admission of Offer Shares and Placing Shares to AIM 8.00 a.m. on 19 December 2012

    http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/new-and-recent-issues/new-recent-issue-details.html?issueId=8816

  10. hangerhead says:

    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:00

    HirsutePursuit says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:48

    __________________________________________

    3.8 Withdrawal of a Licence or an adjustment of the award
    A licence may be withdrawn or adjusted after it has been awarded by the Scottish FA if the …etc

    I think it is advisable to note that the may be does not mean that it will be.
    ——————————
    Yup which is why in my posts I made the point that National Club Licencing was less prescriptive than UEFA’s in process and consequence terms and so afforded the SFA more wriggle room.

    Had the scenario been Rangers in the SPL UEFA rules would have applied and the SFA would have to have gone the exception route under UEFA rules. Chances of UEFA approval would imo been nil with serious social tax avoidance being investigated and valid unpaid tax (the wee tax bill) not settled not to mention the risk at the time that Rangers would not survive as a UEFA recognised football entity (as duly happened).

  11. paulsatim says:

    Now who does this remind you of?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9752148/Government-launches-probe-into-Comet-collapse.html

    Government launches probe into Comet collapse
    Vince Cable’s department has launched an investigation into the demise of Comet as it emerged that OpCapita and its backers charged Comet millions for fees despite the chain racking up losses.

    Comet collapsed into administration last month in the most high-profile retail failure since Woolworths in 2008. Photo: ALAMY
    By Rachel Cooper, and Graham Ruddick8:57AM GMT 18 Dec 201230 Comments
    The probe will be conducted through the Companies Investigations Branch at the Insolvency Service, which is part of Mr Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
    Sources indicated that an investigation into the collapsed electricals chain launched a few days ago.
    It is understood that the investigation will look at the circumstances around the acquisition of Comet and its administration.
    Comet collapsed into administration last month in the most high-profile retail failure since Woolworths in 2008. The final 49 shops are expected to close on Tuesday, ending the company’s 79 years of trading.
    Robert Halfon, MP for Harlow, tweeted on Tuesday morning: “Good news, after meeting with Vince Cable and my questions in Parliament glad he initiates inquiry into Comet closure.”
    Related Articles
    Could Comet collapse be followed by worse in 2013? 17 Dec 2012
    Comet cuts another 735 jobs 19 Nov 2012
    Comet administrators cut another 735 jobs 19 Nov 2012
    More than one in 10 shops standing empty 19 Nov 2012
    Comet administrators confirm closure of 41 stores 17 Nov 2012
    Comet administrators work to save 50 stores 17 Nov 2012
    News of the probe comes after it emerged that OpCapita and its backers charged Comet £12.8m in just nine months for financing and “monitoring” fees, despite the electrical retailer racking up losses.
    The administrators report for Comet shows that Hailey Acquistions Limited (HAL), the vehicle OpCapita used to buy the retailer, received £11.5m in interest and arrangement payments while OpCapita and another Hailey vehicle collected £1.3m for “quarterly monitoring fees”.
    There is anger among the retailer’s employees at OpCapita and its founder Henry Jackson for allowing the business to fail just months after the private investment firm bought Comet for £2 and received a £50m dowry from previous owner Kesa.
    Deloitte’s report shows that the secured creditors – led by HAL – will receive payments of £49.7m from money raised by the sale of Comet’s remaining stock and assets. Deloitte and lawyers associated with the administration will share £10.4m.
    HAL, funded by a group of US and British investors brought together by Greybull Capital, was a secured creditor to Comet because it lent the company money. It then charged Comet interest on the loaned money.
    According to the report, HAL was owed £110m at the time of Comet’s collapse on November 2. This means that HAL faces a shortfall of at least £60.3m on the funds its provided.
    However, it is unclear from Deloitte’s report whether OpCapita and its backers will lose money because the source of the £145m is not brokend down. For example, it is thought to include the £50m dowry from Kesa and a £30m asset-backed loan from a bank.
    HAL and OpCapita declined to comment on Deloitte’s report.

    Wonder if D & D will face similar enquiry?

  12. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    luoanlai says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:20

    Does anyone know the timing?

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

    i believe folk who signed up to the IPO will get confirmation of the number of shares they were successful in buying in early January (just over 2 weeks)

    Obviously, the fans will get all they bought – 14 shares – and the institutional investors who wanted more than they were allocated will be invited to take up the slack

    we’ll hear nothing but how successful it was – numbers will be sketchy/unreliable/changeable – until audited (haha, stop laughing at the back there) accounts are published – November 2013 i reckon.

    I reckon those accounts will show that there has been a sale and lease back of at least Ibrox.

  13. justshatered says:

    I emailed the ECA last night asking why RFC were on their website as Associate members when they are in the process of liquidation.
    Unfortunately you are limited to 1000 characters in your email so I could only give rough details of administration and liquidation.
    I’m awaiting a response.
    I’m dissapointed by Montrose appology as this is now the situation we have all been led into by a useless, impotent, corrupt governing body.
    The truth is the enemy of these people but the cannot be allowed to win.
    When confronted by ‘The Rangers’ fans claiming to be the same club here are a couple of questions to ask them:
    Why were you not allowed to play any friendlies during the summer?
    Why did ‘The Rangers’ need a licence to play football if they were the same club?
    Why did so many of your players leave for nothing when they were not out of contract?
    If you are the same club what happened to all the debt?
    What was the name of the holding company that went bust that I’m always hearing about?

    Please feel free to add your own.

  14. ohhappydayz says:

    john clarke says:
    Monday, December 17, 2012 at 23:18
    26 2 Rate This
    StevieBC says:
    Monday, December 17, 2012 at 22:44
    ‘Dear Santa,
    for Christmas could you please bring me a new blog post for the ‘TSFM’ website…’
    ——-
    “Santa, to write it, could you find an Italian football journalist with a particular knowledge of the Scottish Press scene and of SFA , SPL articles, rules, constitutions etc AS WELL as a pride in his dislike of succulent lamb matched only by his contempt for fellow ‘professionals’ whose chins are aye dripping with mint sauce?

    ————————————————————————————————————

    Dear Santa
    Can you bring me a new MSM and not a make believe one.
    Also can I have an SFA with real men in it and not puppets.

    Ho Ho Ho

  15. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    looks like my comments on IPO confirmation can be ignored. I thought there would be no details for a couple of weeks. Seems i’m well off the mark and i can expect some teatime chuckles tonight!

  16. paulmac2 says:

    smartbhoy says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:36
    —————————————————-

    Charles on STV last week stated the SFA had done a fit and proper test on all the institutional investors….

    Now I would be amased if they had for 2 reasons…

    1. They never carried it out for Craig Whyte and they allowed Dave King to continue as a Director without sanction.

    2. They would be unable to know who the individual investors are within such Companies as the shell company in Lichtenstein.

    So one can assume that either Charlie has taken a flier with a phrase he knows provides credibility…a fit and proper test or the SFA have confirmed to him they have completed the fit and proper test…which would be highly unusual as the person or people behind the shell Companies do so for the anonymity it provides and have no legal requirement to release that info to the SFA?

    My conclusion…there has been no fit and proper test…my guess is Charlie has provided the list of Insitutional investors and ASSUMED the SFA would carry out such a task and on that basis he is stating it has been.

  17. arabest1 says:

    Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:24

    10

    0

    Rate This

    http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/38217386272/administration-part-deux

    On why fans failing to plough their money in completely changes the game for Charles Green.
    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    A good read Richard, it raises some questions for me.

    Are the ‘institutional investors’ vulture capitalists who CG convinced to pick clean the bones of RFC? Will, as this article alludes, they now be off for richer pickings elsewhere?

    on the other hand as many on here have claimed,

    are the ‘institutional investors’ actually an amalgam of Blue Knight types who intend remaining for the long haul to rebuild the brand, after all now that they have jettisoned the debt RFC is eminently more viable than most football clubs?

  18. angus1983 says:

    Kilgore Trout says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:29

    Is there any evidence that he made this ‘promise’?
    ——
    Mr Green (6 June 2012):
    “We will be taking Rangers forward to better days and one idea I put forward today is my plan to rename Murray Park.

    ‘Following discussions with the supporters, we will be asking season-ticket holders to vote on whether to rename Murray Park either the Moses McNeil Academy or the Davie Cooper Academy. We will be asking supporters to vote when they renew their season tickets.”

    ——

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:28

    angus1983 says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 09:50

    I thoroughly believe that Mr Green timed this share issue very deliberately. As said before, he’s far from being a stupid man business-wise.
    ———
    based on what? his string of highly successful, international businesses that touch our lives daily?

    No.

    or a string of insolvencies, liquidations and asset stripping operations?

    Yes.

    He may be smart, but who benefits from his smarts? the employees, small shareholders and customers of Sevco?

    None of the above.

    I cannot believe that Mr Green felt morally compelled to organise the share sale for the week before Xmas simply because he promised it’d be before the end of the year.

    When he actually “promised” this, I’m not sure. In August, he said in the Herald: “We are hoping to announce our plans in the next couple of weeks, which are on track for it being done before the end of this year.” Mr Green voiced his flotation hopes as he unveiled a major merchandising joint venture with billionaire Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct retail chain.

    Meanwhile, Rangers Megastore appear to be selling replica kit at half price across the board. I wonder why only the Away and 3rd kits have the five stars on them?

  19. smugas says:

    paulsatim says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:31

    As I read it…No, because Opcapita were the Charles Green of their scenario whereas Deloite were the D&P. Deloitte’s report with no background, I understand, of any assertion of conflicted interest has commented, presumably fairly without fear or favour etc etc that it does seem a little off how the new Comet (sevco) could have paid significant fees to the new owners whilst operating at considerable, and fatal, loss. Vince Cable appears to have picked up on Deloitte’s report, agreed, and ordered an enquiry.

    Should there be any similarities in the treatment of Deloitte and D&P in this regard. Hell no.

  20. http://www.valuadder.com/glossary/business-goodwill.html

    Because Mr green claims he bought the goodwill and therefore it’s the same club doesn’t make it true. Goodwill, can’t see any applying to SEVCO

  21. paulmac2 says:

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:34
    —————————————

    Does AIM not have to declare how many shares have been issued. the only issue will be what was actually paid for each share by the Institutions?

  22. angus1983 says:

    From RM … how to quickly double the money you extract from simple bears:

    “No biggie . . . but i went through the online payment there to make a £500 payment, when i got to the end it said ‘payment was unsuccessful, please return to Rangers website’ (or thereabouts)

    so i did it again, this time it took me to the final page and payment was accepted, all good.

    just checked my bank there and it looks like it took £1000 (fly bassa Charlie) but my email confirmation is just for £500 (confused), don’t mind if it ends up being £1000 but i’d like some sort of confirmation.”

  23. Brenda says:

    Chuckie’s blaming HMRC for the share issue nose-diving lol lol and lol again……….. He’s not sounding quite as confident any more ………. Why doesn’t he give the shares to the fans for free like he’s doing with the match tickets 🙂

  24. Brenda says:

    angus1983
    LOL 🙂 😉

  25. areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:

    smartbhoy says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:36

    The best bit is that the ‘between 3 and 5 million’ is actually a quote from Green himself, saying that ‘INDICATIONS are that between 3 and 5 million’ WILL BE raised. So they haven’t actually collected the money, and yet the DR are claiming as fact that it’s raised this amount.

    To be honest, I’ll be very surprised if we ever find out what the true amount raised was.

  26. ordinaryfan says:

    neepheid says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:11
    5 1 Rate This
    ismellafix says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:39

    While there is no doubt that Green has purchased the vast majority of the business assets, (with a loan!) there is a serious doubt as to whether he can claim to have bought the goodwill. To do that he needed to buy the whole business, all assets, liabilities included.
    ======
    Sorry, I really don’t get it. Why would Green have to acquire the liabilities to acquire the goodwill?

    Let’s say that a local business, say a bookshop, becomes insolvent for whatever reason (feckless owner?) and goes into administration. I approach the administrators and make an offer for all the assets, which is accepted. Of course I don’t acquire any liabilities, the administrators use the money they get from me to pay the creditors 10p in the pound or whatever. The shop has traded throughout. The same regulars come in to browse or buy, most of them neither know nor care who owns the business. Surely I’ve acquired the goodwill along with the stock, fittings, etc? Or is there something really obvious that I’m missing here?

    ……………

    You can buy all the assets, but unless you are buying the business, company or “entity” as a whole, you cannot purchase the goodwill.

    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/svd/practice-note.pdf

  27. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    doo do, doo do, duppity doo do (countdown theme tune!)

    shops shut, lets count the takings

    £2.1M (200k from RST) is my guess

  28. layman00 says:

    Regarding Greens comments in the record, I find his justification for the timing of the share issue hard to believe. In my opinion they either wanted it to bomb for whatever reason or they are desperate for cash. Happy to indulge in whitabooutery, maybe some other individual or institution was promised money by this years end rather than his excuse that he didnt want to break his promises to the supporters.

  29. paulmac2 says:

    Charles blaming HMRC and the printers for a lack of committment from the bears is quite simply bo**ocks..

    Minty managed to squeeze £1 million from the SEVCO fans on the last attempt at a share float….and that was when times were good…no recession…no Christmas on the horizon…not a 1 week shotgun style offer…

    He has with all his might tried to sell this share issue and get as much cah he can with as many persuasive comfort blankets as possible…

    Operation cash for nowt..

    Present as many big investors as possible…(forgetting to mention they all have links in one way or another to Octopus)

    Not convinced..

    Roll in the cardigan…(tell everyone he is now a director…although legally he isn’t and knew he wasn’t)…he’s one of you guys…big smilie Yorkshire face…

    Still not with it…

    Arrange an STV interview with staged questions from social media…provide any old cobblers in response to the questions…said cobblers goes unchallenged and left as fact by STV interviewer..

    Shares still not shifting…

    From way out in left field…a statement suddenly appears from a private members club called ECA…that states despite the legal facts they will still believe its the same club but under Swiss law you need to apply for a new membership? (who else thinks the original was massaged with prefered wording by the time it arrived at the STV?)

    Why are these shares not shifting?

    Right Traynor get Jangles on the case….cue cover story but try and imply a thought process that calls into question their supremacist beliefs with how only £1.5 million worth of shares sold…and look at Celtic their fans bought £10 million…and if you can add a bit of spice about certain dishonest applications all the better…

    In short if only 1200 fans care enough to cough £500 from a worldwide fan base of 500 million why bother?

  30. readcelt says:

    By appealing to the baser element has Charles shot himself in the foot?

    A societies underclass do not hold its purse strings. They may make a lot of noise about traditions, culture and conspiracies but are financially neutered.

    Have the better educated and more moneyed bears simply given this a giant swerve?

    If you are planning for £10M but take in 2 or 3, that’s a giant hole in the budget.

    It will be very interesting what the final figure is and how it breaks down by fans v institutional(ised) investors.

  31. iceman63 says:

    The SFA does not carry out fit and proper persons tests. SR confirmed this.

    Such tests are now explicitly the responsibility of those selling the club. Green’s was carried out by D and P (standing in for Whyte) so the fit and proper tests by the SFA has been delegated by them for the purposes of this share issue to Green himself. So when he says the SFA fit and proper persons’ test has neen carried out, he is technically correct – for the purposes of the SFA the person conducting thosde tests is CG himself.

    Now that’s what I call governance!

  32. briggsbhoy says:

    angus1983 says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 12:32

    Unreal, how thick can you get

  33. ianagain says:

    Current position.
    http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/new-and-recent-issues/new-recent-issue-details.html?issueId=8816

  34. paulmac2 says:

    angus1983 says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 12:32
    7 0 i
    Rate This

    From RM … how to quickly double the money you extract from simple bears:

    “No biggie . . . but i went through the online payment there to make a £500 payment, when i got to the end it said ‘payment was unsuccessful, please return to Rangers website’ (or thereabouts)

    so i did it again, this time it took me to the final page and payment was accepted, all good.

    just checked my bank there and it looks like it took £1000 (fly bassa Charlie) but my email confirmation is just for £500 (confused), don’t mind if it ends up being £1000 but i’d like some sort of confirmation.”

    ——————————————————————

    Maybe explains why Green is uncertain as to the final take…

    It’s been unsuccesful try again…
    It’s been unsuccesful try again…
    It’s been unsuccesful try again…

    £2k later…thanks

    How many will ask for their cash back?

  35. jimmyshand says:

    Now that the deadline has passed
    Shirley we must hear from MBB ???…………been awfy quiet recently

  36. Oh no, just noticed the time. Looks like I’ve missed the boat on the investment opportunity of the year. Better transfer that £8m back to my bank in Zurich.

  37. paulmac2 says:

    ianagain says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 13:10
    ————————————

    The London stock exchange appear to have the wrong nake for the football club listed?

  38. paulmac2 says:

    Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 13:22

    Oh no, just noticed the time. Looks like I’ve missed the boat on the investment opportunity of the year. Better transfer that £8m back to my bank in Zurich.

    ——————————-

    Don’t worry yoursell….there are some institutional investors that will happily punt you a few at a reasonable cost…hing oan i’ll get Charlie’s number fur you!

  39. ianagain says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 13:10
    0 0 i
    Rate This

    Current position.
    http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/new-and-recent-issues/new-recent-issue-details.html?issueId=8816

    ———————————————————-

    London Stock Exchange allowing Chuck to fly his fairy story kite about “world’s most successful club, 54 league titles, 1972 ECWC blah blah” under “Description of Business”

  40. ordinaryfan says:

    Neepheid says: “Definition of goodwill

    2 the established REPUTATION OF A BUSINESS regarded as a quantifiable asset and calculated as part of ITS VALUE WHEN IT IS SOLD.”

    That is exactly what I remember being taught 40+ years ago (which is a relief!). JUST AS GREEN ACQUIRED THE FIXED ASSETS (property) AT A HUGE DISCOUNT, he also acquired the intangible assets (intellectual property and goodwill) AT A HUGE DISCOUNT.
    ……………..

    Green did not purchase a business.
    Goodwill can also be the INFLATED difference of a purchase price. Green certainly didn’t pay out an inflated price. So it CANNOT be classed as goodwill if it is purchased at a discount. If Duff and Bluff had asked for a tangible inflated price for the goodwill, Chuckles could claim to have purchased it, as it cost £1, whatever Chuckles thinks he bought, it was not and could not in any way be described as goodwill.

  41. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 13:22
    0 0 Rate This
    Oh no, just noticed the time. Looks like I’ve missed the boat on the investment opportunity of the year. Better transfer that £8m back to my bank in Zurich.

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

    you could always give it to the RST, for your £8M you will get 1 vote (along with all the bears who put in £125) to say how it should be run.

    They will then buy £8m worth of shares in the open market – which by lunchtime tomorrow should be all the share capital and £7m in change as the price hits the floor

    then, with the RST owning the club, mark Dingwall will get to be chairman and mouthpiece for The Rangers…..and that’ll be funny as feck!!

  42. TSFM says:

    New blog up

  43. smartbhoy says:

    redetin says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:30
    11 0 Rate This
    smartbhoy says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:36

    I still can’t get my head round the institutional investors, surely these men/companies, whoever they are, are experienced investors and would not touch this with a barge pole. Unless there’s been nothing near to £17m invested and there’s no way they’ve paid over 35p a share.

    __________________________________________

    Because…Capital losses can help cut your tax bill!

    There’s nothing wrong with losing money on some of your shares. You just set it against gains you make on other deals. If you sell at a loss at the right time you can get quite a reduction in your tax bill.

    (David Low hinted at this on Radio Scotland this morning in relation to the RIFC offering).
    _______________________________________________________________________

    If that was the case and I’m not saying it isn’t, then everyone would intentionally buy shares they know are going to go down in value because they’re going to get quite a reduction in their tax bill.

    It must mean that the money they lose investing in a failed share issue is less than the money they save on their tax bill? That means basically you can never lose when investing then, it’s a win win situation in my eyes. You have your gains and the reduction you get on your tax bill from your Capital losses is more than your losses.

    Doesn’t make sense.

    There’s something seriously fishy going on and there’s a lot of smart gentlemen on here who’ll eventually find out……….

  44. dedeideoprofundis says:

    It must mean that the money they lose investing in a failed share issue is less than the money they save on their tax bill? That means basically you can never lose when investing then, it’s a win win situation in my eyes. You have your gains and the reduction you get on your tax bill from your Capital losses is more than your losses.

    Doesn’t make sense.
    —————————————
    This has been put forward as an excuse before, and like you I can’t make any sense out of it.
    Perhaps we are back to the wishful thinking, no?

%d bloggers like this: