aofjays Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Oi you'll be giving us a bad name. If somehow a post from Jacksgranda could in some way besmirch the sterling, nay, gold standard reputation of the sevco loyal, that would be impressive. I'm sure your reputation has nothing to fear. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 A rangers share to the ber who proves he knows what besmirch means. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 A rangers share to the ber who proves he knows what besmirch means. Christ dave. That's a piss poor prize! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHogg Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Don't panic bears ... Jack Irvine has tweeted to say it not true. Everything is okay then. It's all lies from Phil just like 3 years ago.. http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/rangers-board-desperate-to-settle-tax-case/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Jack Irvine is a poisonous c**t. Shocking that they are still funding his retirement package. Do any other clubs spend anything like what they do on PR? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Jack Irvine is a poisonous c**t. Shocking that they are still funding his retirement package. Do any other clubs spend anything like what they do on PR? Especially the quality of the PR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Especially the quality of the PR what PR. Phil madeupaname keeps posting stuff about them and no come back from the club/company 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Its starting again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Its starting again Shit, I really hate how moreish popcorn can be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHogg Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Phil MacGiollaBhain @Pmacgiollabhain For the avoidance of doubt: There was meeting today in Glasgow; Graham Wallace,Nash,Somers and an Easdale brother. Another meeting tonight Poor orcs need to watch phil to see what's going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 No that was the appeal was it not .. they lost the appeal and is now being heard in the UTTT. I think that is the current position. Bears will know more and be along to correct us. Think it was the preliminary hearing last year actually where Judge Bishopp helpfully reminded us; “Although the professional football team known as Rangers had played in the Scottish Premier League until 2012, the collapse led to the ejection of the team from that league, and a team known as Rangers now plays in the Scottish Third Division.” “… a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders.” The UTTT is the appeal by HMRC as far as I'm aware. Timing sounds right for the full hearing starting soon actually. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Why did nobody tell them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 When it happens again, I pray our MSM take a leaf outa our Aussie cuz's and print the reality as they did with PSH... ''Kids grieve for dead bigoted club'' would be a nice strapline 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Phil MacGiollaBhain @Pmacgiollabhain · 8 mins For the avoidance of doubt: There was meeting today in Glasgow; Graham Wallace,Nash,Somers and an Easdale brother. Another meeting tonight 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Anyone know how the meeting went tonight, did Wallace manage to get his wage renegotiated to ensure he didn't walk away? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Great article I can't find fault with. Let's be honest, why would rangers fans give up the "we never deid" chant... The SFA did everything in their power to give them that voice. We talk about rangers being corrupt to the core, and by f**k they are. But why would they be any different when the association that governs them, turned a blind eye to their every cheating way. The fact the rule book was changed to help rangers charade, the fact they thought no one would notice. Says it all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomogganners Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 CA131/13 Imran Ahmad v The Rangers Football Club Ltd has a procedural hearing this Thursday. Wonder how BDO getting on with rest of their investigation, they have a case management conference for 14th Feb ref BDO/RFCIL v Collyer Bristow and full trial set for Jan 2015. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 And this ... You mistake the holding company for the trading company, Deloitte has only signed off the holding company accounts and because of its assets, they had no issue with going concern. No accounts have yet been filed for the trading company – The Rangers Football Club Ltd – though they are due to be filed on 28 February. That is the whole point, if what is being reported is true, Deloitte will not sign off those accounts since there is a going concern issue. I think this guy could do with some accountancy classes. If he realised that the 'holding company' accounts are actually 'Group' accounts and ergo are the 'trading company' accounts then he could have saved a whole lot of time and effort. Deloitte would not be signing off Group Accounts if there was a Going Concern issue within the part of the business where 95% of the transactions go on. He keeps going on about 'filing' accounts. I'm interested to know what he is talking about. Does he mean with the AIM or with Companies House? I find it quite amusing how he has seperated the 'club' (TRFC) and the 'company' (RIPLC) in order to arrive at his conclusion. [*RIPLC* If that is a new one I am taking full credit.] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Good article but a few days old ... the comments over some insight and speculation as to the current debacle unfolding. It is good. Should really be brought to attention of UEFA, maybe encourage some direct and precise questions towards the SFA that require a clear and concise answer. Posting these things on here as a link rather than an open doc, allows the bears to adopt their ''didn't read'' in denial stance though and they will simply refuse to discuss. As an open doc we'll all know they read it and got it, whatever they say and I'm sure 1 or 2 may be drawn into at least some sort of debate on the merit of content. Just an idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It is good. Should really be brought to attention of UEFA, maybe encourage some direct and precise questions towards the SFA that require a clear and concise answer. Posting these things on here as a link rather than an open doc, allows the bears to adopt their ''didn't read'' in denial stance though and they will simply refuse to discuss. As an open doc we'll all know they read it and got it, whatever they say and I'm sure 1 or 2 may be drawn into at least some sort of debate on the merit of content. Just an idea. THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT, A CAUTIONARY TALE JANUARY 30, 2014 BY TSFM 985 COMMENTS A Guest Blog for TSFM by beatipacificiscotia As a child I read a poem by John Godfrey Saxe, “The Blind Men and the Elephant”, and stumbled upon it again recently. It is a simple tale of how six blind men encounter an Elephant and attempt to describe the animal: It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: “God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a WALL!” You get the idea. The other blind men did little better. The second grabbed the tusk and thought the elephant like a spear. Others thought the elephant like a snake (the trunk), a tree (the leg), a fan (the ear), and finally a rope (the tail). What does this have to do with this blog? Let me explain. There is a danger of all of us, whether consciously or unconsciously, making the same mistake as these blind gentleman. It is too easy to use the parts of the argument that fit our values and belief system, at the expense of the whole truth. The 13th century Jaina scholar, Mallisena, described a much earlier version of the same tale as a parable to argue that people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don’t understand. He said: “Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant.” I am incapable of putting it any better than that, though I would go further. I argue that people are deluded by the aspects that they choose to understand, and deny the aspects that they refuse to understand. Which leads me to my tale ….. I have recently read a news report about a decision taken by the Advertising Standards Authority on advertising activities of The Rangers Football Club Ltd and their claims to history and honours. It includes the following quote referring to advice from the SFA: “We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football ‘club’ varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner.” I was most unhappy to read this part of the statement. I am yet to see the definition or statement of when you could “sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner”. This is a contradiction to the definition of a football club given by FIFA; a definition which is handed down to the Confederations, and from Confederations to Associations. You may or may not be aware, the application of good governance in football is administered through club licensing. This annual process ensures that minimum standards are maintained, to promote growth and development, and ultimately protects all of football – every club, every player and staff member, the integrity of every competition, suppliers of goods and services, the reputation of sponsors, and most of all the fans. FIFA Club Licensing Regulations state that a license applicant must be a football club, defined as: “Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions that applies for a licence.” This is a clear and unambiguous definition, which is being ignored by the SFA. Why is this issue so important? Simply, a football club must be held responsible for its commercial activities. For example, an over-ambitious and over-spending Rangers changed the Scottish football landscape forever. Other clubs tried to compete in an unsustainable “Cold War”-like football arms race. I believe Scottish football was damaged. Many clubs have been taken to the brink of death. This could happen in any country, in any league, anywhere in the world. For that reason, a football club and its corporate body must be one and the same, living or dying, inseparably intertwined. The separation of club and company is a myth, a myth dangerous to good governance. Rangers (1872-2012) should be a cautionary tale told to every club owner. There are many benefits to club licensing. These including minimum standards for stadia and infrastructure, youth development programs, and much more. I would heartily recommend that you read the FIFA document if you have the time. It gave birth to the word and spirit of Financial Fair Play. Look at some of the financial benefits detailed: 10.3 Benefits Implementation of the financial criteria will help deliver both short and long-term improvements for clubs, the licensors and the football family in general. For the football family in general, the financial criteria should help to: • safeguard the continuity and integrity of competitions; • increase the transparency and credibility of clubs’ financial operations; • improve confidence in the probity of the football industry; • create a more attractive market for the game’s commercial partners and investors; and • provide the basis for fair competition, because competition is not just about the teams on the pitch. For the licensors, the financial criteria should help to: • improve their understanding of the financial position and prospects of their member clubs; • encourage clubs to settle liabilities to creditors on a timely basis; • enhance transparency in the money flow of clubs; • enhance their ability to be proactive in assisting clubs with financial issues; and • provide a starting point for club benchmarking at a national level for those licensors and clubs who want to develop this aspect. For the clubs, the financial criteria should help to: • improve the standards and quality of financial management and planning activities; • enable better management decision-making; • enhance clubs’ financial and business credibility with stakeholders; • improve financial stability; and • enhance revenue-generating ability and cost management. Important words, and I trust the value and opportunity these regulations offer are now clear. Note bullet points 3 and 4, and that our top league currently does not have a sponsor. The SFA must ensure the integrity of competitions, discourage financial recklessness, and protect football for everyone. This is only possible with a clear, unambiguous statement that confirms club / company are one and the same thing. To suggest a football club can in some way survive liquidation is to undermine the definition of what is a football club, one of the cornerstones of FIFA Club Licensing Regulations. For the SFA to suggest a football club can in some way survive liquidation, or allow this belief to go unchallenged, is a shameful dereliction of duty. It puts all of football in danger. We cannot allow this. There is too much at stake. The poem ends thus: And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! The blind men were each partially right, though in their vanity / stubbornness / ignorance they failed to find the truth. There is a lesson for us all in this story. This may appear to be an attempt to renew the old club / new club debate. It is not. To see this as an opportunity to score points against Rangers fans is to completely miss the point – you have failed to find the truth. This is global issue affecting one of the fundamentals of good governance. Good governance must be the beating heart of our game – ensuring good health and long life. I am looking at the here and now, and ahead into the future. We must protect and promote ALL of the FIFA Club Licensing Regulations. To deny any part is to refuse to see the whole elephant, like the foolish blind men. Now the berrz can adopt their "too long, didn't read" stance - adding an obvious attention span issue to the basic head-in-sand posture. Oh, and I've no doubt the author is wan ae thae tarriers, an'aw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.