Search the Community

Its probably the perfect title for a saga where truth and fable are as difficult to separate as any Arthurian Legend. In one of Camelot's famous towers we have blogger Bill McMurdo, apparently revelling in his recently acquired nickname of Merlin. In another we have the requistioners of Jim McColl, Malcolm Murray and a remnant of the Blue Knights in the shape of Paul Murray. The latest attempt to pull the sword from the stone came from the wand of Bill, who conjured up an interesting spell in his blog. It read : For those of us sitting at the round table, trying, often forlornly, to make sense of it all, it is a significant development, and without putting too fine a point on it – a serious allegation. The truth and veracity of this allegation may well be a determining factor in determining who is to be believed and who can be trusted. The identity of those behind Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita has been an issue of major concern for Rangers supporters, with some discussions even raising a fear that the dark spectre of Craig Whyte may be behind them, and the consequences of that for our club. The anonymity of these investors is an issue the requisitioners have focussed on recently : Jim McColl :- http://www.dailyreco...-murray-2665945 Malcolm Murray :- http://www.scotsman....crecy-1-3172886 The question on the minds of a lot of Rangers fans is would that big stick have been brandished Malcolm if Blue Pitch and Margarita supported the requisitioners ? In fact would the identity of these investors even have been an issue ? Perhaps if the requestioners undertake another question and answer session it is a question which should be asked of them “ Did you or have you attempted to recruit the support of the anonymous investors Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita ?” Someone somewhere is misleading and misdirecting the Rangers support. It is either Bill McMurdo or the requisitoners. All I would ask is whoever is guilty would you please do the honourable thing and fall on Excalibur – this support have been fed enough bullshit in the last few years to last a lifetime.

Anybody saddened to see this cease to be as of Wednesday 30th October? The telly service was full of sports news including footy latest news covering individual clubs on both sides of the border which had dedicated pages on Rangers as well. The BBC text service in comparison hasn't had much to say about Rangers since our drop to the lower leagues and only report on the negative stories that emerge, never ever do we get a match report from them, not a mention either of tonights Ramsdens Cup semi-final match at Ochilview whereas over on Sky you get team news followed by a full match review after the game. I'll miss Sky Text...but thankfully we do have 'Gersnet where anything you want to know about Rangers can be found.

Here are the answers from Paul Murray on his Sons Of Struth Q&A session Do you foresee Frank Blin joining the rangers board should you gain power? I have huge respect for Frank Blin. For various reasons he decided to withdraw from the process. I would like to think that if we achieve a stable, competent Board then we can have a further conversation with him about a role. Who are the individuals hiding behind the corporate unknowns that are BPH and Margarita? I don't know who the beneficial shareholders behind Blue Pitch and Margarita are. If the Board wish to rebuild trust with the supporters then they should disclose this information asap. If they will not then you have to ask why? What do they have to hide? What guarantees can he give the support that we will have sustainable spending & what level of income does he foresee should the requisitioners be voted in ? First of all we have to maximise all revenue streams open to the Club. This will be the job of an experienced and capable CEO supported by the Board. We then have to balance our costs. We all want to be the most successful Club in Scotland but we must do it on a sustainable basis. It is not rocket science. During my 4 years on the Board previously we reduced the debt from £35m to £16m whilst winning 3 successive SPL championships. We did that by running the Club on a break-even basis based on domestic revenues with any European income being used as an "investment fund" to pay down debt or invest. There is no reason why that cannot be done again but we need a top class executive management team to achieve that. What has happened to Allistair Johnston will he be back on board. Again I have huge respect for AJ. I speak with him quite often but there are no plans to bring him back on to the Board. Most fans will agree the current squad is far too big and the wage budget is excessive, how does he plan to address this? It is a balance. We have to run a tight ship but we also have to invest so that we are ready for the SPL as and when we get there. I think we also have to be smarter where we spend our money eg we have allowed our scouting network to disintegrate. One of our plans is to invest to restore an effective scouting network How many new directors and what are their business background We have proposed 4 new non-executive directors. I have financial and investment skills. Malcolm Murray has extensive City connections. Scott Murdoch has property skills and Alex Wilson can help us rebuild the organisation structure of the Club which has been allowed to wither. More importantly we will look to appoint a top class CEO and CFO and we have candidates identified and ready to go. Do you think the banner protests are a good way to keep pressure on the board and should we keep them up until the AGM I think protests are fine as long as they are peaceful. We live in a democracy and it is entirely appropriate for people to express their views. Will he make sure Stockbridge and his cohorts have no links whatsoever to rangers using other rangers linked companies i.e GARRION security and rangers retail,rangers media etc as Stockbridge is still a shareholder in these companies right now and benefits personally We will have a policy that no Board members have financial interests in any Club contracts or other conflicts of interests. Does he plan to introduce a self imposed wage cap in line with turnover ratio? Almost all fans will agree the current wage bill is far too high, how does he intend address this See my previous answer on revenues and costs. I don't think a blanket cap is necessarily the right approach but clearly you have to balance the books. Will Paul Murray and co stop paying out bonuses to board members regards results on the park All Board members should have their remuneration bench-marked. In line with every other business I have ever been involved with any bonuses should only be paid for performance against sensible measures. Michael Grover Mr Murray you don't know me but you know of me.I sit in my seat in Copland Rear every home game where as a boy and through my youth stood supporting my team. I have responded to every "Clarion Call"to assist my club and have done to the best of my ability. As you probably realise I am not a young man and Rangers has been a big part of my life. The last 18 months has been a roller coaster event for our club and I don't want it repeated. I along with others have taken the decision to assist in handing out leaflets and protesting within our Stadium as part of the action group known as the Sons of Struth. What can you say and do now to reassure me that the future of Rangers is safe and I will not, after the AGM be back to taking peaceful direct action against you and the Board? Michael Grover: Michael, the issue in question here is re-establishing trust between the Board and the fans. The one thing that you can trust 100% with all of our group is that we will ALWAYS act in the best interests of the Club. The Club's interests must always come first. That has not been the case in the last couple of years and that has been a fundamental issue. Can we find out why the IPO cost so much and why?and who benefited from this vast overpayment also why was £5.7M written off using the IPO as an excuse? There has basically been a lack of transparency across the board with the level of IPO costs just one example. We will undertake to examine all "excessive" payments and see whether there can be any recovery for the Club. Do you envisage a second share issue diluting the current holdings? The Club will need to raise more capital so there will need to be at least one further share issue. To maximise the proceeds it is critical that there is a credible Board with a credible business plan in place. On that basis iam sure that there will be an appetite from existing and new investors. Will he ask for criminal charges to be brought if any wrongdoing with regards to money passing between green white and duff&phelps is seen to have occurred. I think the best and most effective agencies to examine this are the Police and BDO, the liquidators of the old company. Will he protect the good name of the club whenever it is being sullied? I think we have to defend the Club but also take a positive role in leading Scottish football. We are a massive and critical part of the game in Scotland and we have to play our part in helping shape it. Alan Flockhart Can u pass on the gratitude of the decent fans to Paul and the others in his group, hopefully one day his efforts are rewarded and we have a clean club again. One question I would like to ask, his thoughts on long term fan ownership? Thanks SOS I have said publicly that there should be proper representation for supporters. We would plan to canvass the fans to understand what they want and what is workable. As regards ownership I think an effective model would be to have say a small number of high net worth individuals owning say 30%, the fans owing 10-15% with the balance held by financial institutions. We also plan to introduce a Rangers Constitution that all directors would have to sign. This will set out our core values. As part of that exercise we intend to canvass the shareholders about putting Ibrox into a "trust" structure so that it is legally protected from any future sale. The club have been using Jack Irvine and Media House for “PR” for a long time. Would a new board carry on employing them? I think Jack Irvine should consider his position after we come to the end of this process. Will Paul and the group he represents ensure complete openness & traceability in their investors etc Transparency is key and has been sadly missing in the last couple of years. We will always ensure that we are open and transparent and that is why we are seeking full disclosure on who is behind Blue Pitch and Margarita. What kind of wages will the directors receive will everything be transparent the way yourself has asked for See my previous answer to this. Our group have no desire to make money from RFC. We are all custodians of the Club with the aim being to enhance it for the next generation. Will his group look at the amount of consultants still employed at the club earning vast sums and billing the club over inflated costs!. It will be the CEO's job to review all third party contracts and relationships and ensure that the Club is getting the best "value for money". As I said before we would have a policy that no directors have interests in any of the Club's contracts. Does he plan on working with king ? And also what's his views on the easdales involvement and would he consider working with them ? Iam supportive of Dave King, who I served on a Board with for 4 years. As regards the Easedales I think that they should disclose who they represent. That would go a long way to building trust with the fans on their intentions. Would you be willing to address the issues facing our disabled supporters and in particular wheelchair users and look into the amount of able bodied carers on the committee of the rangers disabled supporters club as it seem an uneven balance against disabled on the board, I would obviously be more than happy to address the rights and issues surrounding our disabled supporters. Taken from FF

He is presumably now gazing at himself in a mirror, but - anyway - here's his latest: http://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/bad-news-on-kings-return/

For your Sunday morning consideration. Just like the best newspaper keech, brought to you the night before! Unseeing seems to be the order of the day, alright. From the lights going out at Ross County, to the media blackout of celtc's 'Oranje Bastard' ditty, to media and SFA Prophets of a New Dawn, proclaiming Great Days Ahead. Those of you who played the music above will no doubt be reflecting on the stirring, rousing tune which inspired so much hope, fear and ultimately despair, as the Soviet Union sank from revolution to eventual collapse in 1991. I imagine those with no time for the doctrine of Marx and Engels can concede that, coming from Tsarist Russia, it was a noble attempt, even if it failed in gallons of the blood of its own people. What does this have to do with Rangers, I hear you ask? Hunners. Images of the old Soviet Union rushed back into my mind last week when the Pacific Quay CSC, in a move of unparalleled daftness even for them, decided to ask Jim Spence to cover the latest Rangers story; and then Josef Vissaronovitch Rhegan himself emerged on the back on some decent results for the national team to laud his latest useless initiatives. Perhaps Spence was being tested to see if the he could actually manage to report on Rangers without being inaccurate; perhaps it was to punish the listeners by making them listen to his awful ,stuttery, regional accent more than usual; perhaps it was an 'up you' to the Rangers fans who apparently lined themselves up with those other emblems of totalitarianism, the Nazis and the Stasi, by invoking the feared, Gestapo like tactic of emailing the BBC complaints department. Many of the survivors of world war two have, now you think about it, mentioned in their memoir the resemblance between the BBC and the authoritarian regimes they had help destroy, so this should come as little surprise. Who can forget Airey Neave's classic 'Colditz? A Holiday Camp Compared to the Beeb', or Douglas Bader's 'No Legs is Nothing Compared to No Freedom at the BBC'. Anyhow, those images of communist days. As a young leftie, I often watched with open jaw as representatives of the USSR came on the screen to tell us how everything there was wonderful and the western media were lying. That this was so obviously untrue left one wondering what it was they were trying to do; and the obvious answer was, of course, that they were trying to cover up the truth. Those old enough to recall the Chernobyl disaster will perhaps also remember the special, English language edition of Pravda which was on sale in Britain, and which sought to limit the consequences of this aged nuclear reactor blowing up to roughly akin to those of Kirk Broadfoot microwaving his breakfast. No-one was fooled. All the more nostalgic then, that Soviet Jim Spence should wind up his piece last week with a heartfelt op ed about how wonderful things were in the Scottish footballing garden, and that only Rangers were kept inside, locked in a permanent argument with its mum and not being allowed out to join in. Pravda got nothing on you, boy. No doubt the fans of Dunfermline & Hearts, going through their own miseries, felt a trifle piqued at being lumped in with the everybody happy! gang. It's unlikely many premiership treasurers are licking their lips at the thought of Hamilton winning the championship and bringing the bonanza that is the Accies travelling support (last home games, attendances 1,113 against Raith and 1,059 against LIvingstone) to the behemoth that is the SPFLP. Big Money!!! Kilmarnock fans, fighting their board to see who can hurt their club the most, might take issue with his comments; it goes on and on. Aberdeen close stands; the game is vibrant, apparently. celtc hide empty swathes of seats with banners; never been better! If only Pravda still existed, a job would be made for Spence instantly. The lights going out at Ross County during their game against ICT the other week says it all - if you don't want to see it, you don't need to see it. You can't help but think of Zaphod Beeblebrox's 'danger glasses' in The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which black out whenever danger threatens. Cool facewear, and great writing, but no basis to plan the future of the game. And what about us? A tartan version of Trotsky, exiled to the Mexico that is the fourth division, one can sense the ice-picks being readied lest we attempt to get back to what it known, apparently without irony, as the top of Scottish football. This expression seems to me to be akin to trying to find the top of your arsehole, but let that pass. The terror among some media commentators lest someone with money to invest get inside the doors of Ibrox is palpable; Rangers, the betamax to the SPFL's VHS, the Oracle to it's Teletext, the Scott Brown, if you will, to their Mezsut Ozil, are going to face some serious barricades which are being hastily erected to hold us back. Red Rhegan has broken his recent and extremely welcome media silence to re-assure the fans of other clubs that should Dave King try to get a job at Rangers, well, blimey, he will certainly have a good look at it and by gum, there will be no hiding places! Only the best of people for us! No doubt we'll all sleep better tonight knowing Stewart is looking out for us. Only a churl would recall his total lack of action when not one but two shysters bought our club, and conclude that he's more afraid of Rangers getting themselves organised than he is of any more damage to the club. We certainly have our problems and some our fans are probably as blinkered as Spence on some issues. But at least we don't pull the commissar's cap down over our eyes and insist that paradise is just around the corner. The bad news for Rhegan and his media mouthpieces is that our eyes are well and truly open now...we see you, and we know what we're looking at.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/barry-ferguson-saw-scottish-fans-2528944 YOU need a thick skin to be a professional football player. If you’re going to fall to pieces when fans scream abuse at you then you’re in the wrong game. But there are occasions when lines are crossed and when behaviour becomes so disgusting it’s unacceptable. That line was crossed in Moscow the other night. It wasn’t the thickness of Yaya Toure’s skin that made him a target for the bampots in the CSKA support. It was the colour. And this is exactly the kind of incident that should get football stopped. I’m deadly serious, if UEFA have any intention of stamping racism out of the game they should hit the Russians hard and fast. Kick them out of the Champions League right now and show the world football takes a zero tolerance approach to morons who think making monkey noises at black players is just a harmless bit of fun. I take my hat off to Toure for being able to handle what was going on around him and to concentrate on playing football. If it was me I might have walked off the pitch, as Kevin Prince Boateng did last season during a friendly for AC Milan. Maybe if Toure and his Man City team-mates had done the same thing – bringing a Champions League game to a standstill – it would have forced the powers that be to hand out proper punishments. But I can’t blame the guy for dealing with it in his own way. He stayed out there, took everything they could throw at him and did not quit until the game was won and his team was heading home with three points. He left them with nothing and I have to say I really admire Toure for being so strong. The question now though is what exactly are UEFA going to do about it? They talk a lot about “fair play” and “respect” but it’s time for them to put up or shut up and to show Toure they’ve got his back. They have a chance to make a real difference. Handing out two bob fines or closing stadiums for a one-off game won’t wash. It is time for a clear message to be sent around the world there is no place in football for behaviour such as this – and I’m speaking as a guy who is not easily offended. In fact, I’m all for rival fans giving the other team pelters. I used to love walking off the Rangers bus outside Parkhead on Old Firm day. As soon as you popped your head out of the door you’d hear the Celtic fans screaming and booing. It was brilliant. I’d go so far as to say I thrived on it. The moment you walked off that bus the game head was on. There was something special about walking out into a stadium knowing 55,000 people hated your guts – but the other 5000 were standing shoulder to shoulder with you and your team-mates. It created a feeling we were all in it together and that brought the best out of me. If you’re going to s*** yourself at the thought of getting abused you’d be as well walking back to the bus. It’s a man’s game and I don’t recall any team-mate of mine quaking in his boots because they felt intimidated by any set of supporters. Yes, a few of the foreign lads might have had that “what’s going on here” look about them when they first played in an Old Firm game but for me this was just the way it was meant to be. But I remember one game when I felt a line was crossed. It happened at Ibrox shortly after the 9/11 atrocity when Claudio Reyna was at the club. Some halfwit at the front of the Celtic end made an aeroplane gesture when Claudio was over there taking a corner. That one was hard for us all to take. I had sat in the dressing room with Claudio on the day the World Trade Centre came down so I knew how devastated he was. He had friends who were in one of the towers so it hit him on a really personal level. So for some idiot to stand there, arms outstretched, trying to goad and mock him at a football game? No, that was completely unacceptable. But what was done to Toure was even more appalling. I remember 1988 when I was just nine years old and Mark Walters had signed for Rangers. I used to go and watch a lot of games back then because my brother was in the team. To this day I can still see those images in my head of bananas being thrown on to the pitch. I was a kid, I didn’t really understand what was going on. But looking back, it turns my stomach to think Scottish fans could have acted like that. Thankfully, we’ve come a long way since then. If such a thing happened in a British stadium today there would be a massive outcry. You just need to see the stick Roy Hodgson has taken for telling a joke about a monkey to see how seriously the subject of race is treated. That ridiculous episode should never have got further than the dressing-room walls. Andros Townsend didn’t take offence because it wasn’t racism. It was just a bad joke. But what went on in Moscow on Wednesday night really does deserve all of our outrage. I just hope UEFA have the courage to do the right thing.

How many truly World Class players have played for the club? Jim Baxter for one. Any others?

Posed by the RST on Facebook, if this is in the wrong place or it's already been started... feel free to move or delete. Minutes of meeting with C Mather and B Stockbridge Minute of meeting between the Rangers Supporters Association, Rangers Supporters Assembly and the Rangers Supporters Trust had a meeting with club Chief Executive Craig Mather, Finance Director Brian Stockbridge and Director of Communications James Traynor. Ibrox Stadium 10 October 2013. SEDERUNT C Mather, B Stockbridge, J Traynor and J Hannah (Rangers FC). Fans reps - D Roberton, J Kirk, T Green, M Dingwall, R Johnston, A Sheppard and G Letham. INTRODUCTIONS CM - Introduced himself, keen to be open with the fans. Brief introduction of fan groups and rationale. IPO ISSUES GL - Queried the excessive £5.6m costs from fundraising, can we get a breakdown. BS - pre-IPO fees are high. Large cost to secure the club - at time of acquisition there was no license to play football and it was risky private investment and that attracts high costs. GL - normally fees would be 5% - why are these as high as 25% BS - fees paid were commensurate with normal legal and professional fees but the other costs were high. I came in on 14th June by which time these costs were already fixed. Payments agreed by the club prior to my joining were only paid if I considered they were properly incurred and constituted proper commercial contracts. Intends putting together a more informative analysis of historic costs ref the IPO before the AGM - this sort of information is not normally in the public domain. Will have to liaise with investors and advisors that they are happy to have fees disclosed. Hope to be as transparent as I can be. You must remember there were Inherited costs - in terms of wages these were around the £30m mark for example and will not remain at that level. GL - £450,000 arrangement payment to Zeus - is this transaction included in the cost of the IPO? What about refunds to investors such as Laxey, Eurovestech and Alan Mackenzie? BS - Yes, it is included. But there were no illegal returns of capital. CM - as far as fees are concerned I'm happy to state a £50k - 5% commission was paid on my introduction regarding investing in the company. GL - why have the costs of finance raising been so high? Charles Green assured Rangers fans that fundraising would be easy. BS - can't be responsible for CG statements or contracts. Only invoices club pays out are those which are contractual, reasonable and binding. We have cut costs considerably going forward. STAFF REMUNERATION The staff costs appear massive and should not have been incurred for the level of football or the amount of work undertaken. CM - certain salaries are in the Annual Report and some scrutiny is valid. My own salary is £300k and the major institutional investors are aware of that and happy with it. The structure of my bonus has been discussed but it will not be linked just to winning the league. Lots of other factors will have to come into play, meeting player and financial budgets. Both McCoist and myself are content to work together to ensure that we reach a balance on incentives regarding the PLC budget for players and saving money so that one part of the club is not working against the other. We're looking at reducing the historic level of professional costs - for instance, we are considering an in-house legal department to cap the level of expenditure there. We need to restructure and define cost centres. We are looking at the efficiency for example of Murray Park and wish to make that measurable in setting remuneration/bonuses. BS - the terms of my contract are public - £200k bonus for each of the next three years. I voluntarily agreed to remove my bonus payment that had been agreed for those years. It's about delivering financial performance, I'm not taking an automatic bonus. Expect that post-AGM my remuneration and bonus will be announced. I joined the company on 14th June and wasn't salaried until September. Paid a £50k electric bill form my own resources. Banners and chants do not reflect the reality of the situation. I have no outside interest and I have no 1p shares. BS paid 70p per share at the IPO. TG - why give up bonuses now? BS - with hindsight I should have been rewarded for financial performance not football basis. CM - I want Brian looking over my shoulder as finance director controlling spending. BS - the club is financially secure. We have a completely clear audit from Deloittes. We have no debt. CM - McCoist package - we've almost got it signed off. An agreed reduced package will be put in place soon. GL - termination payments appear very generous - for example Charles Green. BS - Green's package was decided by the Remuneration Committee. I sacked Imran for gross misconduct, he received no compensation. DR - I thought Green had resigned? CM - it was a compromise agreement to protect the club. Employees have rights they can exercise. BS - The Remuneration Committee contains no executives - it contained Malcolm Murray, Phil Cartmell and Ian Hart. CLUB ACCOUNTS GL - We don't want to dwell too much on the historical numbers, we would rather focus on the future. We would however record that the accounts just released were an appalling set of figures. CM - We recognise the losses. These were predicted and investors knew there would be a substantial loss in the first year. GL - pre-IPO research note issued by the broker Cenkos predicted a £1m loss compared with a £14m actual loss. Half-year forecast predicted a £7m loss. BS - We've seen leaks of price-sensitive information from illegal leaks. It's difficult to form an accurate opinion on partial information. We've removed £2m costs off operational expenditure. GL - your December management accounts predicted a £6.8m loss but the loss was £14m. BS - we've had problems with the retail division - the JJB contract going and the Puma deal being late. A lot of one-off costs - £1m for the Pinsents investigation. Pay-off for Green, etc. GL - do you have a monthly phased plan for the current year and are actual results reviewed against this plan by the Board on a monthly basis? CM - yes, and regular Senior Management meetings. GL - can you tell us what the budget revenue and operating profit/loss figures are for the current year 2013/2014? BS - I can't give price-sensitive info and hence can't give profit forecast numbers. However, Daniel Stewart are working on a research note for insitutionals. We do things by the book - we'll note non-recurring items and will break them down. RJ - what about provision for similar costs for next year? BS - difficult to predict as we did have a lot of non-recurring fees this year. RJ - but we keep losing executive and non executive board members on an almost regular basis and incurring associated costs. CM - unusual year of change. For instance we had season ticket sales on course as of 1st August but then the requisition for the EGM came in and killed confidence. Sales went from 174 a day to 6. But that's based on perception not reality. We're ahead of budget in many areas. I want to sort the club - the Board have to be able to look at themselves and if I am not the right man I will go. If I haven't performed then I deserve to be voted off at the AGM. I have successfully bought businesses out of administration before - I know what I am doing. What happens if we are voted out at the AGM and there is no alternative? BS - the Stock Exchange will suspend the company from the market.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5195-rangers-announce-annual-results

Suspension lifted. Let's get to the bottom of who has most to hide. No punches pulled. Despite Charles having ownership of over 5 million shares at 1p each, not 1 had been paid for until a forced deduction from final salary. Why did the board sanction a £600k pay off and not go down the misconduct route despite privately sharing so many reasons to do so? At the Pinsent Masons meeting on 29 April 2013, directors wanted to follow the money regarding the purchase of Green's property in France. Tom Stocker advised that this was not part of the investigation and that they should stick to matters relating to Craig Whyte. On that very same date Pinsent Masons stated that they would be unlikely to give a clean bill of health to Green/Ahmad as regards dealings which they/5088 may have had with Craig Whyte. 17/5/2013 Messrs Green, Ahmad Whyte, Earley and others were invited to provide information to the Investigation but have not yet done so. PM were instructed to conclude the report despite the lack of co-operation by all the main players. How can the accounts give comfort? Despite a request by the SFO to review the report, this was denied on the basis of legal privilege. RIFC do not consider that there are any events which should be reported to the SFO. This was despite the fact that Pinsent Masons were now about to move on to stage 2. AIM and the SFA also asked to see the report. On the 31 May it was made clear that the current RIFC boards way of thinking was to deny giving the SFA a copy of the report in any format. Indeed the main cause of concern between lawyers was the difficulties it may cause if AIM are permitted to view but the SFA are still denied. Legal Privilege was used as the excuse. Well worth checking up if the SFA ever received a hard copy. It is plainly clear that as at the end of May 2013, the SFA were to be denied access by the board. So the primary basis of all comfort from the fact that CW had no rights to the assets appears to have been delivered by FFW. Despite being the company lawyer, several of the board wanted to report Christine/FFW so that the companies activities could be investigated I shall come back to some of the other payments under investigation later. The existing board cannot be permitted to continue the cover up. A nomad should act with the utmost of integrity. However the most recent of requisitions was engineered by Cenkos on their day of departure. Rather than facilitate a smooth handover, Cenkos took the lead role in the recently aborted coup which has crippled the board. A signal was given to them by another director to engage 15 others inc McColl, King, Artemis, Hargreave Hale and Miton, to name but a few. Cenkos turned against their very own client and were given the blessing to proceed if they could gather the support. Very cloak and dagger. During one of the numerous AIM investigations into RIFC, Cenkos were able to confirm that as a result of terminations, leaks should cease. Also it was stated to the regulators that the email server, hosted by a third party, had been breached. *This is news to me. Had such an intrusion taken place, I would have heard about it. I would therefore urge all to ask RIFC for further clarification and implications.

Tam Cowan dropped by BBC Scotland after sexist newspaper column (Herald) Saturday 28 September 2013 Tam Cowan was ousted today by BBC Scotland from his normal Saturday lunchtime radio show after the publication of a newspaper column that was widely seen as unacceptably sexist. His article in the Daily Record belittled the Scottish women's football team's 7-0 win Bosnia Herzegovina at Fir Park, which was shown on BBC Alba TV. Cowan's column, which included a number of crude jokes, caused a storm of angry reaction on social media networks, and prompted the paper to add an editor's footnote to the online version, saying it should be "taken with a large pinch of salt". However, BBC Scotland decided to ban him from Off the Ball today. Management are thought to have seen the column as unacceptable. It is not known yet if his absence is temporary or permanent. Cowan, 44, was taken off air before the show went out at lunchtime, and was replaced at short notice by Annie McGuire, who has previously worked with Jim Traynor on his BBC Radio fans' call-in. At the start of Off the Ball, co-host Stuart Cosgrove made no reference to the Daily Record column, but explained Cowan's absence by saying: "Alas, Tam's been delayed today…we're looking for him. He's out there somewhere." Cowan's Record column began: "If I had my way, today's Premiership fixture between Motherwell and Ross County would have been cancelled. That's because Fir Park should have been torched on Thursday in order to cleanse the stadium after it played host to women's football. Why do they still persevere with this turgid spectacle? And why was it allowed anywhere near Motherwell's hallowed turf?" He added: "Admittedly, I've not seen a lot of women's football…and I'm not having a pop at the people taking part. Just the other week, I bumped into a couple of women footballers (I've still got the bruises to prove it) and they were honestly two of the nicest blokes I've ever met… "…Face it, folks, nobody cares about women's football. There was barely a thousand inside the ground, shocking for an international in ANY sport, and I guess putting the girlies head-to-head with Emmerdale and Eastenders was a bit daft." Among the critics on Twitter were Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson, who tweeted: "Fire up the Hillman Imp, Tam Cowan's going back to the 70s with his views on women's football." SNP MSP Humza Yousaf added: "Invite Tam Cowan to come watch Glasgow Girls FC with me one day - he'll eat his words! Top quality football and great atmosphere too!" Comedian Janey Godley said: "I like Tam Cowan but am disappointed he turned into a 70s misogynist ranter & tried to pass it off as 'comedy' Jim Davidson would be proud." Leading novelist Ian Rankin added: "I wonder if anyone's told Tam Cowan that Charlotte Green read out the football results tonight (on Radio 5 Live - the first female to do so)." After the backlash, the Record's online article was amended with the inclusion of an editor's note, which read: "Folks, we would like to point out Tam is a professional funnyman and what he has to say should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Also, his views are not necessarily those of the Daily Record as a whole." The Record then tweeted: "Tam Cowan's piece today is HIS opinion. Read it and make up your own minds. Not publishing would be censorship." Cowan is an ardent Motherwell fan and Daily Record columnist since 1998, producing a bi-weekly sports column and a weekly restaurant review. He has presented Off The Ball for many years in tandem with his friend Cosgrove, who holds a senior position with Channel 4. In February 2010, Cowan presented a six-part STV documentary series on literacy and numeracy difficulties among adults. In 2011, Cowan was also a co-presenter for STV's lifestyle magazine show The Hour, with Michelle McManus. The programme was axed four weeks after a move to a weekly prime time slot and a revamp led to low ratings.

It has been suggested a few times by some Celtic-minded media that BBC Scotland may decide to challenge the BBC Trust's ruling on whether or not Rangers should be referred to as a new club. Occasional blogger @Gri64 (mainly posts on twitter) contacted the Trust and asked some questions and today got the answers so here they are. Q. Can a trust decision be challenged by a BBC department? A. The Trust is the final arbiter in the BBC complaints process and their decision is final. Q. Can a trust decision be challenged by a judicial review? A. Yes. Q. Can I ask how many times the Trust have had a decision subjected to a judicial review if this is the case? A. The SNP asked for a judicial review of a complaint about the televised Prime Ministerial debate in 2010, however, the challenge was withdrawn after an initial hearing. Q. Can I ask if a BBC department has ever "appealed" a Trust ruling or went down the judicial review route? A. No. The BBC are obliged to accept the Trust’s findings. A BBC department has never sought a judicial review of a Trust decision.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/video/2013/sep/19/james-richardson-european-paper-review I reckon most people will know about this but if you don't, it's fantastic. Plus, most of us on here will remember Football Italia in the 90's, James & his ice-creams & cakes....have a wallow in 90's nostalgia.

The move has come after the BBC had apologised for any offence caused by the comment, after more than 400 complaints from fans who see references to "the old club" as malicious and inaccurate. The BBC Trust's Editorial Standards Committee are to investigate hundreds of complaints about Mr Spence's comments on Sportsound. Fans have escalated the complaint because they were unsatisfied with BBC Scotland's response and that no apology was heard from the presenter. Mr Spence provoked the ire of Rangers supporters after making the comment while discussing attempts to end a boardroom war by appointing four additional non-executive directors. Three months ago, the BBC Trust's ESC ruled that BBC Scotland had breached its guidelines on accuracy in reports about the financial collapse of the holding company running Rangers. It upheld two complaints that the corporation had been wrong to use the terms "new" and "old" club. Mr Spence, a former law student, said during the broadcast: "John McClelland, who was the chairman of the old club, some people will tell you the club, well, the club that died, [is] possibly coming back." Mr Spence further used the term "the old club, the old regime". Complaints director Colin Tregear has now confirmed a new investigation will be launched that will include a "review of the correspondence so far, a discussion with the programme-makers and any other enquiries that might be appropriate". A BBC Scotland spokesman said last week: "Jim Spence did not state that the club had died but, in the context of a discussion about former board members joining the club, commented that there are some people who hold this particular view." http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bbc-to-investigate-row-with-rangers-fans.22152836

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4989-club-statement

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the deadline for the board to agree to the boardroom changes not extended to last Friday or an EGM would be called, or an agreement to incorporate it into the AGM ? I haven't seen anything mentioned about it over the weekend, unless I've missed it ?

Tuesday, 10 September 2013 THE RANGERS AUDIT, DELOITTE MAN, SEAN BEECH AND THE CHARLES GREEN LINK THE RANGERS accounts will be audited by the same company where a man who Charles Green claimed was his pal, holds a senior position. The Ibrox board have brought in Deloitte to forensically examine the books and to provide an independent audit of the accounts to be sent out to shareholders ahead of the club’s Annual General Meeting which has been promised for next month. But now I can reveal that the man who heads up a division of the Deloitte company which will be responsible for that independent audit is Sean Beech who is a partner specialising in corporate tax and is head of Deloitte’s Liverpool office. Sean Beech’s name first surfaced and was first associated with Rangers in the spring of 2012 when it was mentioned by Charles Green on numerous occasions to a number of different people during the period when Green was desperately seeking to establish his credentials and reputation in Scotland as he fronted the still mysteriously funded takeover of Rangers which was facilitated by controversial administrators, Duff and Phelps. Green is alleged to have cited Deloitte high flyer Sean Beech as someone who he had done business with on a number of previous occasions and who could therefore vouch for him as a businessman. Now the same Deloitte outfit where Sean Beech holds a senior position will be conducting the much sought after and long awaited so called independent audit of the Rangers books. But the link which Charles Green claimed he has with Sean Beech throws doubt on the appearances of propriety when it comes to the Rangers audit. An audit which must be totally independent and above any suspicion, whether justified or not. It was also Deloitte who investigated any link Charles Green had with Craig Whyte and cleared Green. Though that is still a matter which is being looked into. Now the involvement of Deloitte in the audit of the Rangers books, particularly if there is any involvement in the process by Sean Beech, someone who Charles Green claimed as a business associate and friend who could vouch for him, will be a matter of concern to all Rangers supporters. Just as the joint statement from the Trust, Association and Assembly demanding a date for the accounts to be published and a date for the AGM shows the concern fans have for the club’s financial well being. This whole business – the alleged links between his senior employee Sean Beech and the apparent delaying tactics by Rangers in releasing the audited accounts to shareholders and naming a date for the AGM - should also be a matter of concern to Deloitte chairman David Cruickshank and senior partner and chief executive, David Sproul and the man who runs the Deloitte operation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, Ian Steele, who is based in the company’s George Square offices in Glasgow. If, however, Sean Beech has had no previous business dealings with Charles Green and if he does not even know Charles Green, then Sean Beech must make a public statement to that effect. For the avoidance of doubt, any reporter wishing to follow this story and give Sean Beech the opportunity to make such a statement, then Sean Beech can be contacted by email at sbeech@deloitte.co.uk http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-rangers-audit-deloitte-man-sean.html

From poster McCoist_355 on FF: http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?t=932306 For posterity... Lord Nimmo Smith/Glennie/SPL: http://tiny.cc/ojiipw - NimmoSmith verdict's proving Rangers FC continues (JPG) http://tiny.cc/832kqw - Lord Nimmo Smith's report (PDF) http://tiny.cc/xn6kqw - SPL CEO Neil Doncaster: "It is an existing club, even though it's a new company" 1 minute in. http://tiny.cc/0ko6xw - Lord Glennie - distinguishing between company and club UEFA: http://tiny.cc/u8akpw - UEFA Rangers "Scottish Cup" squad (Elgin game) updated 8th Dec 2012 (LINK) http://tiny.cc/r12kqw - UEFA's updated Scottish Cup squad (JPG) SFL/SPFL: http://tiny.cc/8h832w - SPFL Rangers home page - "Founded 1872" - Full trophy list (LINK) http://tiny.cc/pyyzyw - Derek Longmuir, SFL CEO, congratulating Gers on 140 years. SFA: http://tiny.cc/xn832w - SFA statement - Newco are "the new owners of the Rangers Football Club" http://tiny.cc/b1kuyw - SFA Annual Review - RFC "entering liquidation and subsequently accommodated into SFL3" http://tiny.cc/qdfjqw - SFA's Scottish Cup archive: Rangers FC record continuous into 2013. (JPG) http://tiny.cc/gt3kqw - SFA Q&A: clarifying status of "Rangers FC" re. Div 3, 4 yrs of accounts, Scottish Cup entry (LINK) http://tiny.cc/lu3kqw - SFA statement "full membership has been transferred". (LINK) HMRC: http://tiny.cc/cryzyw - "the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale [of Rangers FC] can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation." (LINK) European Clubs Association: http://tiny.cc/yw5kqw - "The organisation considers the club’s history to be continuous regardless of the change of company" (LINK) Advertising Standards Authority: http://tiny.cc/gs832w - Rangers' most successful club claim is rubber-stamped by the ASA BBC - Independent report by Editorial Standards Committee: http://tiny.cc/lezzyw - "where.. the BBC had made the distinction between an “old” and “new” Rangers.. club as opposed to the “old” and “new” company, ..due accuracy had not been achieved." Proof of post-liquidation survival precedents: http://tiny.cc/5jnqqw - Leeds WERE liquidated/No CVA - KPMG source http://tiny.cc/7tpqqw - Arbitration case proving Leeds no CVA http://www.theifo.co.uk/adjudication...llettfinal.pdf - Luton No CVA (IFO)/Bournemouth/Rotherham/Leeds too http://judgmental.org.uk/judgments/E...A_Civ_180.html Crystal Palace were also liquidated. http://tiny.cc/9xp6xw (PDF) and http://tiny.cc/8cq6xw (JPG) - Portsmouth were also "liquidated" in 2010 And finally....Dermot Desmond: http://tiny.cc/vqo6xw - "A fantastic club with great history"

Haven't seen this on RM or here but according to the Daily Mail today McColl's gang tried to bring back McClelland as the chairman. Absolutely frightful stuff if true. A real return to the old days when he was Murray's puppet and presided over record levels of debt. I'm neither here nor there with the current board and prospective future board. To me they all remind of the South Park episode where a douche and a turd compete with each other. But it's absolutely disparaging that our prospective leaders want a return of one of our past failures.

Glen Gibbons: Ally McCoist’s claim to have as formidable a squad of players as any club in the country outside champions Celtic would do nothing to dispel the impression that his tongue these days is quicker than his wits. The words had hardly left the Rangers manager’s lips when his side were beaten 3-1 at home in a closed-doors friendly by Hibernian, who could not reasonably be described as the galacticos of the SPFL’s Premiership. The former striker’s readiness with the impulsive, unconsidered response may be rooted in his history as a media-friendly figure. He has, after all, been what is known these days as the go-to personality for the telling quote for as long as anyone (including himself) can remember. It is possible that McCoist has become so practised in the art of filling space that he cannot break the habit. Even so, he has been steadily compiling what might be called a portfolio of outbursts, some of them grossly ill-advised and even dangerous. McCoist’s errant views began at Dunfermline two years ago when, without having seen the incident, he insisted that Steven Naismith could not be guilty of elbowing Austin McCann because “he’s not that type of lad”. Naismith, of course, was caught on camera and suspended. There followed the infamous “we want to know who these people are” demand in the wake of the review panel who sat to consider Rangers’ rules breaches in the wake of their entering administration. A similar noise was made over the question of Rangers being fined for their indiscretions while Hearts and Dunfermline were not. On both occasions, the SFA revealed that McCoist (and, in the latter case, his chief executive, Craig Mather) already knew the answers. Perhaps most seriously of all, McCoist declared himself “appalled” by the arson attack on the bus depot which housed Rangers’ new luxury coach, clearly implying that it had been carried out by rival football fans. The subsequent police investigation disclosed that the crime was not related to football. If these previous retorts are a measure of his judgment, there is unlikely to be a stampede of punters desperate to plunge on Rangers for the only “major” left to them, the Scottish Cup. http://www.scotsman.com/news/glenn-gibbons-scots-send-in-the-clowns-1-3081141

Amidst his unsurprising defence of Jack Irvine, it's interesting that Bill is suggesting a deal to avoid an EGM is 'likely'... http://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/civil-war-stalemate/

MYSTERY still surrounds just what sort of a dodgy deal disgraced former commercial director Imran Ahmad struck with the even more disgraced and totally discredited Craig Whyte in order to get his hands on the former owner’s Rangers shares. However, by the admission of Imran Ahmad’s front man, Charles Green, we do know that some sort of shady back street deal was struck between Imran Ahmad and Craig Whyte. We know it was more than just the “stringing Whyte along” tactic claimed by Ahmad and Green. We know because Charles Green revealed it in a letter to the Scottish Football Association in which he wrote that in July last year, after liquidation, Imran Ahmad was given the task of getting his hands on Craig Whyte’s shares. The reason, again according to Charles Green in the same letter, was that this was necessary in order that a name change could be effected from Sevco Scotland to incorporate the words, Rangers Football Club. What Charles Green insists Imran Ahmad did not do, again the Green claim is made in his letter to the SFA, was make any form of legal commitment in relation to remuneration or compensation for the shares. So, just how did he get them? For we know, according to the gospel of Charles Green, what Imran Ahmad did not do. What we do not know is just what sort of deal – which did not involve any form of legal negotiation – Imran Ahmad actually did cook up with fraudster Craig Whyte. And that is something which will surely thwart any outrageous plans Imran Ahmad may be making to return to Ibrox , despite the fact he has now sold almost all of his Rangers shares and made an obscene profit. And Charles Green’s close association with Imran Ahmad and his unwillingness to make the nature of the Imran Ahmad-Craig Whyte stitch up known, will also bar his way to the Blue Room. For the Scottish Football Association have already pounced on this latest gaping hole and inconsistency in the letter Charles Green sent to them in April when he was still chief executive. By the time the SFA replied to Rangers, Green had been booted out of that role, therefore the reply was sent to then chairman Malcolm Murray, now, of course, no longer on the board. In the letter, the SFA said they were a little bemused by the events of July 2012 in relation to securing Craig Whyte’s shares, as the understanding was by that time the Ahmad-Green Consortium had indicated to Whyte that he would not be part of the structure in the future and that once the asset transfer had gone through they had essentially severed their connections with him. The SFA further added that in that context it seemed curious Whyte was willing to co-operate with Ahmad to transfer shares and to facilitate the passing of name changing resolutions. Then, quite properly, the SFA asked what arrangements had been entered into at that point to procure Whyte’s co-operation. The SFA also pointed out that the Administrators had appeared to have insisted on the release of the debenture relating to shares earlier than July 2012. Finally, the SFA asked why this did not enable the Consortium to take control of the shares? Why indeed? It seems, once again, Charles Green has indulged in his old tactic of believing bullshit baffles brains. And once again been caught out. With still no real clarity as to what the real relationship, as late in post liquidation in July 2012, was between Imran Ahmad, Charles Green and Craig Whyte. ..... AND...... I am looking forward to meeting The People at a special dinner at Ibrox to launch the first ever biography of the great Bill Struth. The event, on Saturday September 7th, is being organised by Simon Leslie, the man behind the successful tribute dinner to Iron Curtain goalkeeper Bobby Brown which celebrated his 90th birthday last April. Further details of the Struth celebration are available on the Follow Follow site or by contacting Simon at sie1872@googlemail.com

An advert in which Rangers described itself as the "most successful" club in Scotland, prompting complaints to the advertising watchdog, is to be reviewed by the body. An advert in which Rangers described itself as the \"most successful\" club in Scotland, prompting complaints to the advertising watchdog, is to be reviewed by the body. Custom byline text: Martin williams The move follows the intervention of a retired top civil servant who is now a senior Advertising Standards Authority executive. If the review concludes the advert is misleading, Rangers may be forced to stop describing itself as the most successful club in Scotland. The advert had initially been cleared by the ASA after there were 78 complaints about ads which said: "Join Scotland's most successful club at Ibrox (stadium)" as part of a promotion on season tickets. Taken from the Herald....

The Scottish FA are likely to review an incident that let to a penalty for Rangers in their 2-1 win over Dunfermline, BBC Scotland has learned. Pars manager Jim McIntyre claimed Rangers' Sone Aluko dived to with the spot-kick, converted by Nikica Jelavic. Alleged simulation can be processed using the SFA's fast-track procedures and compliance officer Vincent Lunny is expected to review the incident. A decision would be made on Monday at the earliest. The penalty was awarded by referee Steve Conroy when Rangers were already a goal up, with Martin Hardie the player penalised. However after Jelavic netted, Joe Cardle pulled one back for the Dunfermline to set up a tense second half.

Since the turn of the century, seven Scottish clubs have entered administration. With Rangers new owner Craig Whyte having admitted that he is working to avoid taking the Ibrox club down the same road, the spectre of insolvency still hangs over the national game. The business implications of calling in the administrators are countless and can threaten the existence of a company, or provide it with a road to recovery. The sporting implications also have to be considered, and with clubs answerable to as many as four different governing bodies for different competitions, can be wide reaching. We've put together a layman's guide to the rules and regulations regarding administration from the authorities concerned and answered some of the key questions often posed. How many points will an SPL club be deducted? The simple answer is 10 points. The only way a club can be deducted more than 10 points is if it goes into administration twice in the same season. When will they lose the points? If the "insolvency event" occurs during the season, the points are docked straight away. If it happens in the close season, the club starts the next season on minus 10 points. Can a club appeal a points deduction? Only if it can prove it did not go into administration. What happens if administration lasts over more than one season? If a club begins a season in administration, they will begin on minus 10 points. What happens if a club goes into administration twice in one season? Ten points are docked each time a club goes into administration, unless the events are linked. It is up to the SPL board to decide, this can be appealed. Will a club still be able to sign players? No. The only exception is if a team requires an emergency goalkeeper or if a club is looking to replace a player who has left the club. This means no permanent transfer and no loan signings. Clubs can still sell players. The SPL board has the final say. How many points will a First, Second or Third Division (SFL) club lose? The SFL do not have a set figure. The amount docked from clubs is decided by the board on a case-to-case basis. The SFL are also likely to impose a registration embargo. There are no fixed punishments and the SFL can set any conditions it chooses. Can an SFL team be thrown out of the league mid-season? No. Gretna and Livingston were relegated to the Third Division for being in administration but this can only happen in the close season. What can the Scottish FA do to clubs? The Scottish FA's Judicial Panel has the power to suspend or terminate the membership of any club which goes into administration. This has never happened. Alternatively, the SFA can instead choose to â??censure, fine, sanction and/or penalise the member in such manner as it considers appropriateâ?. This has nothing to do with points deductions. The SFA has never exercised this power. Another option available to the SFA is to exclude a club from the Scottish Cup. This is a new provision which first appeared in the organisationâ??s articles of association in the 2011/12 season. Can UEFA do anything to Scottish clubs in administration? If a club is playing in Europe, it needs a UEFA club licence. If a club goes into administration but has already been given permission to play, it will not lose its licence for the season. Would a club get a new licence when in administration? It is unlikely. The club would have to prove it owes no money to other clubs, to its employees, and to HM Revenue and Customs. Additionally, the club would also have to prove to the SFA it is likely to survive until the end of the season in which the licence applies to. Club licenses are valid for one season and are granted at the start of each season. What happens when a club wants to exit administration? A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) is drafted for a club to try and reach an agreement with its creditors. Clubs must agree with those it owes money to over how much to pay back, and over what period of time. Everyone who is owed money is then invited to vote on the proposal. A 'yes' vote is required from creditors up to 75% of the value of the overall debt. For example, if total debt is £10 million, the company must receive the backing from creditors to the tune of £7.5 million. How long does it take before the club is out of administration? If a CVA is approved, creditors have a period of 28 days to register their opposition to the decision. If there is no opposition, the club exits administration and continues in its current form, paying back its creditors over the agreed period of time. What if a club fails to reach an agreement? A club may try again to reach a satisfactory agreement with its creditors. But, if is unable to agree a deal, the company will be dissolved and the club will cease to exist. There is an alternative for football clubs. As was the case in England with Leeds United, the insolvent company can create a "phoenix" club and attempt to transfer every part of the club to a new business, leaving behind the debt. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/277010-what-happens-when-a-football-club-goes-into-administration/ Administration has been a key concern for Scottish football clubs in recent years with seven clubs having gone through insolvency. In part one of our analysis, we looked at cases when a club goes into administration and emerges having resolved its debts. However, in rare cases, a club can go into administration and be reborn as a "phoenix" company. This has most notably happened at Leeds United in 2007. So what is a "phoenix" company? A company that is set up to replace the old football club's parent company but that wants to run the club and keep the team in competition. Can they just take over everything without the team being relegated or having to start in the Third Division? They can, but they have to get approval from all the major bodies in the game. There are licences, shares and memberships that have to be moved over to the new company and each governing body has to make a decision. For Scottish top flight clubs, two bodies have to give consent. The Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football Association have to rule on the new application. A place in the League Cup, run by the Scottish Football League, is automatic if the club is entered into the SPL or the SFL. How does the "phoenix" club keep its Scottish Premier League place? The SPL is jointly owned by all of the top-flight clubs, who hold an equal share in the business. The share is held by the administrator of the old, dissolved company but can be transferred to the â??phoenixâ? club. The SPL board has to approve the transfer. The SPL board can put conditions in place before they give their approval. That can mean they impose a points deduction or any other terms they think are appropriate. The conditions for entry are set by the SPL board, and not the representatives from the remaining 11 member clubs. The board consists of Ralph Topping (SPL chairman), Neil Doncaster (SPL chief executive), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Derek Weir (Motherwell) and Steven Brown (St Johnstone). Topping has the casting vote in the event of a split decision. With the SPL rules bearing a broad similarity to the regulations of the Football League in England, a situation they dealt with can give a hint to how things may be handled in Scotland. Has it been done before? Yes. Leeds United went into administration they failed to reach a CVA in 2007. A â??phoenixâ? company, Leeds United 2007, was created and an application was made to transfer their share and membership of the English Football League. The Football League accepted the application but said that the new company, closely linked to the previous dissolved club, couldn't start without some terms being imposed, to keep the spirit of the rules. The â??phoenixâ? company was allowed to take its place in the competition but in that specific case the board only granted the transfer on the condition Leeds started on minus 15 points. There's no guarantee that the Scottish Premier League would act in the same way as their counterparts in England but the similarities between the regulations mean that the precedent may be used as a guide. So will my team be deducted 15 points or more? It should be stressed that the figure of 15 points imposed by the Football League was discretionary and was a one-off. Reports that the SPL would dock 15 points, 25 points or more are speculation. The SPL could impose any conditions, or none at all, if they allowed a share to be transferred. Does the same apply to Scottish Football League clubs? The SFLâ??s Constitution and Rules (Rule 13) give them the same powers over membership that the SPLâ??s regulations detail for their competition. If a new company is created, the League would make the decision on whether to grant a transfer of membership, imposing any terms and conditions as it sees fit. And what about the SFA, do they have to grant permission? The SFA also exercise their authority on the transfer of membership and forbids any transfer of membership without its permission. The governing body makes it clear in their Articles of Association (14.1) that when a transfer is requested, a review is undertaken by the board. The board has complete discretion to grant or reject an application for transfer but also retains the right to impose any conditions or terms on the â??phoenixâ? club. Do the SFA decide on whether the club gets into Europe, provided they qualify? No, UEFA decide that. They issue a club licence every year to sides who make the Europa League or Champions League. Clubs need to be granted a licence to take part in European competition and applications are made on a season by season basis. As stated earlier, if a club enters administration during the season then the licence is not immediately withdrawn so participation in the Europa League or Champions League can continue. If a â??phoenixâ? club is created though, entry into European competition the following season would be affected. Transferring a membership is forbidden. UEFA regulations state that a club must have been a member for three consecutive years in order to be eligible for a license. Any â??phoenixâ? club would be considered as a new entity and would begin a three year wait from its inception before being eligible to play in Europe. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/