der Berliner

I take the liberty to C&P Bluedell's reply ... (and land myself in deep trouble with him )

... with regard to Pacific Shelf 595 Ltd.

There are 3 main companies in this discussion:

 

1. Celtic plc - this company was formed in 1897 and was previously known as "The Celtic Football And Atheltic Company Limited". Its name changed in 1994. It was the football club (and may well still be). It appears to own the players and Celtic Park.

 

2. Celtic F.C. Limited - this company was formed in 2001 and was previously HMS (402) Ltd. Celtic describe it as being a fotball club and it receives all the gate money and pays all the wages of the players and other staff.

 

3. The Celtic Football And Atheltic Company Limited - This was set up in 1994 and was previously Pacific Shelf 595 Ltd. It is not the football club despite its name and Tannochside Bear has confused matters by claiming it is. Not much goes through it. It had £80K of turnover in 2010. It was probably set up just to maintain the old name.

 

The football club is either company 1 or company 2. The company that owns the ground isn't important but the companty that owns the players is. You would think that the company that owns the players must be the club, but you would also think that the company that owns the players must be the one that pays them, which it doesn't, and the one that collects in the gate receipts.

 

It seems to be a mixture of company 1 and company 2, but if I was to guess, I'd say that company 1 is probably the football club as it owns the players.

Only scratching on the surface, but one never knows what sort of "illegal" skeleton may lie buried here ...

Sure enough. Obviously, the blame should also lie with Ticketus for not checking the law in place. Whyte et al can always blame not to have known it either ... and Ticketus (if this comes off) may try to sue him.

Money of his own? I doubt if that's in question.

I was just remembering rbr's post about those businessmen in that pub cracking some champagne bottles on the day we went into administration. If they knew that Whyte had used the Ticketus money to pay the debt and thus possibly conning Ticketus out of 20 to 24.4m, erasing the Lloyds debt without paying anything more than 1 pound for the club ... well well.

Just had a small conversation with Bluedell about these companies that "are Celtic" and methinks if they want to go down this trail, they may find a nasty surprise in their own records.

This would raise the question: was that Whyte's plan in the first place? (Did he just make (24.4m minus 18m for the debt)?)

Anyways, you'd hope that this is done quickly.

For our law gurus: If the Ticketus deal is declared "void", yet their money was used to pay off the Lloyds debt, wouldn't we/someone has to pay Ticketus their money back?

Well, whether it is Murray & Co. or someone like Kennedy, someone should step onto the stage and clear this mess. While a plan with a split ownership between money-men and fans is always a good option, if it takes too long to develop, we need someone to step in and "save" the club for now. In years to come, a member-ship / consortium could still take the club from the "saviour" ... they just need to get their heads together over this and have a plan. After all, as good as a membership model is, you need to get people out there and become members to make it work ... and rather soonish.

As of Whyte ... I reserve judgement* still. If he says the money "missing" is accounted for, (probably) kept away from HMRC's grasps in one or two of his companies and thus still there somewhere, the administrators will find out and tell us. There is still enough time to whip him through the village if the truth is as dire as many predict/assume.

*Why? Because I simply do not believe that he conned SDM (& Co.), Lloyds (& Co.), and Ticketus (& Co.) into this without having any money of his own.

As I said before, a membership scheme with fans investing set sums at the start and then annually would be a great help and if structured correctly, could create some sort of fan involvement within the board. For the latter the members would need a spearhead figure - president-style like in Germany - to which they all would agree, a diehard level-headed Bluenose of some standing even amongst the moneymen. My choice right now would be Walter Smith.

Not true dB. He was a center half before we brought him to Rangers, but he can play anywhere accross the back line, so he's essentially a utility defender despite the fact that we've mostly played him in the right back position.

Yes, I know, hence I put him in "...". He was signed as utility defender and performed as left back more often than not. Much like Papac. In the 2008 season he was one of our more consistent (if not world class) performers both on the left and on the right hand side of defence. His problem now might be that he's been out for so long while most people he will play against have half a season under their belts. Thus making him look bad (in not that great a team anyways) is perhaps not that difficult, though I sincerely hope that Kirk surprises us all again.

... well, I hazard a guess that we might miss out on the title this season, so as runner's up (hopefully), we will have to go through a couple of extra-qualifying rounds anyway. Only the season after next is when our previous runs are included methinks. Maybe those who continuously fail to make a mark in Europe have enhanced Scotland's (Is there irony in here? Yes there is!) co-efficient by then.

"No later than 8 weeks", starting from February 14th, in my book means April 11th or the like. If they speed this up, we might still make it. I put no hopes on this, just see what happens and go with my signature.

While European football is important, the survival of the club is a priority. And without placing too much on this season's exit, unless someone/somemany with money happens by, the squad will probably much weaker than any we were able to field these last four seasons. Thus, getting past these many qualifications rounds is sure getting no easier.

Double Standards will soldier on, I think I'll take the points to someone in a higher position in the near future.

On a sidenote ... people sometimes mix up the ban of "sectarian" songs in the stadia with being restricted in their personal freedom (of speech). You can essentially sing nigh any song 24/7 out there at home or in the streets, though it is always about the way these songs are being sung. Much of the rebel and loyalist songs are essentially "folk" songs or the like and are being sung all over Ireland and in parts of Britain with no ill intend in mind. The only places you are not allowed to sing certain songs is on a Saturday afternoon for about 100 minutes in a football ground. That is essentially the some "law of the land" rule that is in place in every concert house or library. Something everyone ought to be able to obey. That said, if there is one rule for us, there should be rules for the rest too. The SFA/SPL should have more guts and make sure that e.g. Killie supporters also stop their version of TBB and whatnot.

In the Glasgow context, the songs take on a more grim tone though, yet I for one would still regard them as some sort of ill-adviced and cynical banter between football fans. At least until roundabout 2007. Since then, the more we essentially "stopped"* nigh all singing of TBB and FTP because of UEFA rulings, the more their singing took on a viler tone. As if they would revel in our songbook's decline and the fact that absolutely none is being done about theirs.

Their songs revolve around terrorists and anti-British behaviour, not football, and sure not politics. And even if, what would be the difference between "discriminatory" chanting on our behalf and pro-terrorist chanting on theirs? Apart from the latter being offensive not just to Rangers supporters, but to all British people, not least the British troops who served in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan et al, whose dead are continually mocked? Points I will put to that higher authority.

*That said, you cannot expect 100% correct behaviour in amongst thousands of football fans, who come from every age group, being emotionally charged up or simple bampots. But these 5 to 10% per game cannot simply be put to the sword or the like each and every game - nor being used as a club to wield against the whole Rangers support. FARE's Celtic-minded spy has shown the way though ...

Edu has played CD for the US of A before, but methinks his engine is needed in the midfield. Bedoya, BTW, has also played alongside the right hand side for his country. Maybe it is time to see people used in their correct positions.

Good to see midfielders Andrew Mitchell and Rhys McCabe getting involved, the latter is being said to be "another" Naismith in the making.

While I'm no friend of sectarian (a term that needs a definition much more than "fenian" or "hun", btw) songs, I clearly see a difference between calling someone with a title like "Hun" (which is IMHO just a cynical sort of football banter), or using the title Fenian in full knowledge that it refers to a terrorist group that is responsible of thousands of deaths. And here I refer to the Hooped Horrors using this word to denote themselves, not us. They bath in this anti-British tradition, this faux-Irishness and sure wet themselves - as we write this - that it is in fact those who oppose their terrorist-mindedness who have come under the scrutinity. It is essentially like the Spanish government castigating those who voice anti-ETA songs at the ones who praise these terrorists.

As I pointed out already, "Fenian" has been re-defined in the West of Scotland ... and it is pretty clear by whom. There is a clear agenda behind this and the sooner this movement is being tackled the better. What next? Look up a nicer meaning for Al-Qaida or Taliban and warp reality to that?

I gave a definition of that term from an independent book over on our German website:

+ + +

... the definition of the word in one of the worldâ??s leading publications on the matter: James MacKillopâ??s - Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology.

Fenian - Neologism (DB, i.e., a new meaning for an older word) coined in 1804 by charlatan scholar Col. Charles Vallancey. Although apparently derived from Féni, a name for early, landed freeholders, Vallancey used it as an anglicization for fianna (DB, i.e., "warrior band"). In many 19th century writers, e.g. Sir Walter Scott, Fenian pertains to stories of Fionn mac Cumhaill. The ambiguous reference to both fianna and Fionn persists in the naming of the Fenian Cycle. In 1858 "Fenian" was adopted as an alternate name for the Irish Republican Brotherhood, a secret revolutionary society dedicated to the overthrow of English authority in Ireland. Never fully quashed, Fenian activity in the British Isles and North Amercia peaked in 1866-7. In the 20th century "Fenian" popularly denotes Republican anti-British activity, especially in the six counties of Ulster, still part of the United Kingdom.

(ODoCM, p.210)

When a Rangers supporter uses this term, s/he does not refer to anything else but the terrorist group mentioned above or their supporters. No anti-Irish sentiments or the like, as modern day press- and media folk like to impart into anything the Bluenoses sing or utter.

The Bears usually denominate the Celtic support as Fenians (much like the latter call themselves too (sic!)), as well as anyone connected to the I.R.A., which essentially is nothing but a successor of these â??Feniansâ?. The term as such is not religious or sectarian, unless used in the context of Roman Catholics of Irish descent. Other than common opinion, the latter is not the pre-eminent notion when common Rangers supporters address those of Celtic as Fenians. For the Celtic support revels in the traditions of the "Fenian" I.R.A. terrorists, glorifying their personnel and deeds in many a song. People who are responsible for the deaths of more than 1,800 British citizens.

+ + +

As long as we do not make a stand against the

... Broadfoot is a "left back", while Little can play right back, right winger and striker. Has done it before. On a sidenote, Kerkar has been utilized as left back by Walter and Ally in the reserves, so we may send Broadfoot to the right and Kerkar to the left back positions. I do expect a packed midfield though, with Edu and Davis being charged to do some cover work on the wings, while McCulloch "clears" the middle.

EDIT: in all honesty, I have not been impressed with Bartley since his return. Not that anyone bar Aluko has shone these last few months, but Bartley did not reach his own standards of last season. Maybe saving his wages is welcome too.

With Celik and Hemmings the "key" players on the bench. Is Bedoya still there?

NB: Yes, Little has been used as a right back before.

IMHO, it is beyond sanity that a handful or even a hundred of people amongst 50,000 shouting TBB or the like are highlighted as having commited a cardinal sin that needs all the attention of the SPL and media, whereas for weeks and weeks those across the city can spout their sectarian terrorist-adoring bile in their thousands without any word of it appearing in the press.

Time to address some higher authorities, methinks.

... and another point is that now there is people seeing the need,so IMHO it has to be done now, since the momentum (as ill a term in this situation as any) is still going.

I have heard that previously as well...

 

However with the recent reports of possible illegal dealings etc, I am starting to find the whole Patsy theory a bit far fetched.

With regard to the latter, I'd still be massively surprised if the Murray, Lloyds and Ticketus folk were all "conned" by Whyte and his lot. So at least with regard to Murray, I would think that this rumour might have some substance - not that we'll ever find out.

A membership level system like that of Motherwell might work (though how it can be turned into ownership is to be debated). People would pay for the certain membership levels and for the first "season of need", rich investors could easily buy e.g. 6 of these e.g. 1886 Memberships with a 25k joining up fee, while those who can afford less than that take up a membership they see fit. Members would be represented by someone with a name, someone who looks how the money is wisely spend. Someone who's a diehard Bluenose, someone the people all trust. Someone like Walter Smith.

The problem at the moment is the 'official source' right now is Craig Whyte.

Right now, I regard Whyte as semi-official at best. The source right now are the administrators' statements. And while the scenario is still grim, they have been rather positive* about it all so far.

*Relatively speaking, of course.

One day you'll have to change your tune....

My tune is that I do not believe the rumours and hearsay of the press unless it gets confirmed by an official source. And that holds true with transfers or our recent financial plight. As I've said before. And, BTW, I for one tend not to remind others of the "tunes they play or want to listen to".

While we are at it, I again like to ask questions how the BBC gets a look into HMRC documents and how money frozen in our accounts can be used to pay off VAT or the like. The former is confidential ( I would assume), the latter is nigh impossible (I would assume).

I was under the assumption that Whyte blamed Bain & Co. for e.g. not finding out and taking care of the small HMRC case. They had quite a few numbers of years to do so. Anyways, that was just an assumption.

As for this "liar" stuff, we should keep that bit civil too. While we all know the saying "once a liar, always a liar", our parents would also belong to that when it e.g. comes to Santa Claus. I'm quite sure now that Whyte walked in the shady and grey areas of financial dealings, yet ... I have to wonder how SDM (and his folk), Lloyds (and their folk) and Ticketus (and their folk) would have agreed to all what they did if Whyte was all bluster but no substance. Given his previous, you would think that they all did their job on him ere agreeing any deals.

And their source is? The administrators? HMRC? ... would any of the parties in talks just now spill any sour beans to the press and make the situation even more difficult? (And believe to be in the job by tomorrow morning?)