Search the Community

Wednesday, 09 October 2013 13:00 Gers Agree M&H Partnership Written by Rangers Football Club RANGERS Football Club has today announced a new Platinum Sponsorship deal with M&H Logistics. The three-year agreement will see the Scottish firm fulfil all of the Club’s logistics requirements. Rangers Chief Executive Craig Mather said: ““We are delighted to announce M&H Logistics as a new Platinum Sponsor of the Club and we look forward to working in partnership with them over the next three years." M&H Logistics Managing Director Tom Wotherspoon added: “M&H Logistics are a leading logistics company specialising in the movement of palletised freight throughout the UK and we are delighted to support Rangers on the journey back to the top of Scottish football." http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5250-gers-agree-mh-partnership

If you were constructing a gallery of guilty men at Rangers then you’d want to make sure your walls are supported by reinforced steel, such is the weight of numbers you’d be hanging up there. Walter Smith has pretty much stood alone as the good guy in all of this. ‘In Walter We Trust’ as some Rangers supporters might put it. It’s hard not to respect and like the former Ibrox manager given all that he has done in the game, but it’s possible to hold him in high esteem while at the same time pointing out the fallacy that he is blameless in the spectacular mess that his club has become. In the deconstruction of the Rangers story you’d point the finger at plenty of guys *before you’d have Smith in your sights, but the fact is that he has played his own part in the *malaise. He possesses none of the spiv-ish nature of some of the chancers who have come and gone at Ibrox, but he still warrants criticism. It didn’t come across in his interviews on Tuesday, but Smith is no innocent bystander in all of this. We go back to last summer and a tabloid headline that read ‘Walter’s Heartbreak’ above a story that told of Smith’s failed bid to take control of Rangers in June 2012. To talk of his heartbreak was a little kind given that the bid failed partly because, as Malcolm Murray subsequently pointed out, there was actually no formal bid – he called it empty posturing – and partly because even if there was a bid it was too little, too late. By the time Smith, Jim McColl and Douglas Park mounted their white steeds and galloped over the horizon in Govan, calling on Charles Green to “step aside” in the interests of Rangers, Green had already secured the business and assets for a song. What took them so long? Where had they been? They made no secret of their concern about the motivation of Green and his group. They were spot-on there. So why wait until Green had done the deal before appearing on the scene? On these pages in the past I equated their action to somebody busting in on a funeral with a defibrillator. Smith asked Green to step aside in the interests of Rangers. Appealing to his sense of fair play wasn’t going to change the course of events. The one thing that Green would have listened to was an offer. Money doesn’t talk to Green, it hollers like a banshee. Smith’s group had the financial clout to get the Yorkshireman off the scene and they didn’t deliver. They spoke openly of their serious reservations about Green’s mysterious group but didn’t do what needed to be done. We could talk about Smith’s axis of excess with David Murray back in the day when Rangers thought they had money when in actual fact what they had was credit and iffy tax schemes, which eventually came back to trouble them and helped cause the spectacular implosion. More recent events show that the hubris of the 1990s and early 2000s hasn’t been fully purged. Smith was right to be anxious about Green. For months, Green attempted to get him on board and was getting nowhere. Getting Ally McCoist’s imprimatur was incredibly valuable to Green and the chances are that his regime would not have got off the ground had McCoist stayed true to his own initial feelings about the Yorkshireman, but he didn’t. The endorsement of McCoist helped shift season tickets and helped endear Green to the Ibrox faithful after an early and bitter stand-off with the supporters, featuring a death threat. Getting McCoist on side – publicly at any rate – was good, but getting Smith to join him was equally important given the IPO last December. In November, Walter jumped into bed with Green. They shook hands and smiled for the cameras. One big happy *family again. Smith became a non-*executive director. The veneer of calmness was what Green was looking for and thanks to two Rangers icons, he got it. Both men would have been better advised to stick to their original positions on Green and his cohorts. By changing their minds, they played their own part in facilitating the embarrassment that followed. It can’t have been that much of a surprise, given how dubious they were about Green in the first place. Smith became chairman last June, not because he wanted to but because he felt he had to in the wake of the in-fighting at Ibrox, the dysfunctionality of the board as he later described it. It was to his credit that he moved into a position that he had no experience of. He knew he lacked the tools but, equally, he vowed that he would be as hands-on as he could possibly be. “No-one should believe that I see my role as a passive one,” he said. “That hasn’t been my way in the past and it won’t be my way in the future.” Encouraging words for the Rangers fans who craved authority and order at the top of the club, but it’s easy to see how Smith was virtually powerless in that bonkers regime of Green’s. You can’t blame him for walking away from the civil war. But some of the things he said on Tuesday jar a little all the same. His comments on the financial waste at Ibrox, under his watch in part, demanded explanation. “I knew they [Rangers] would make a loss [for the financial year ended 30 June] but I wasn’t sure exactly what it would be. It was quite a surprise when it came out to be such a large figure.” Quite a surprise? Smith was chairman for the end of that period. Did he ask questions about the financial state of the club while he was there? Did he get answers? Were the answers truthful? If yes, why was he then surprised when the accounts revealed such a massive cash-burn? If no, then did he feel people inside the club had lied to him? Smith was chairman. He should have known, shouldn’t he? Having the business savvy to be able to do something about the obscene bonuses being dished out would have been a different matter entirely, but as chairman he should have known. Unless he was a passive chairman, which he said he wouldn’t be. On the football side of it, it’s pretty clear that Smith had no issue with McCoist earning £825,000 a year. Also, he has said that giving a player a wage of £7,500 a week (Ian Black, for one) while in the Third Division was not such a big deal. Presumably he had no truck with other deals, like the one given to Fran Sandaza that would have seen the Spaniard’s salary rise to £10,000 a week in the final year of his contract. The overall wage bill in the Third Division was £7.8 million. Smith said: “People come out and say ‘Ah, it’s not necessary for them to have those players in that division’. But it’s not just the division that matters at Rangers, it’s the fact that you have 45,000 people coming to watch something on a football pitch…They are still losing money. But when you make a decision to be involved at Rangers, there is no common sense to it. The financial bit of Rangers Football Club and common sense don’t often go together.” That’s a remarkable statement when you think about it. What is wrong with Rangers attempting some common sense in their spending? Why be so accepting of a lack of common sense? It didn’t have to be that way. There is no law – apart from the law of hubris – that says Rangers have to lack common sense in their finances. This is the 2013 version of David Murray’s freakonomics. ‘We are Rangers and we’ll spend what we like’. Either through arrogance or stupidity – or both – that mindset hasn’t changed all that much despite the torment. What would have been so wrong with offering Black £3,000 a week instead of £7,500? What would have been the problem had McCoist been put on £400,000 from the point of administration instead of continuing on £825,000? Why is the wage bill so eye-wateringly high for a club in the Third Division? Because there is no common sense at Rangers, says Smith. Instead of just accepting it, how about doing something about it? Incredibly, it wouldn’t appear that the penny has dropped yet. The former manager deserves all the respect for what he achieved in the game, but in the on-going crisis at Ibrox, he is not blame-free. Rangers are still stuck in a financial time-warp. And many people have allowed it to happen.

Neil Doncaster has stressed that he remains comfortable with the situation where the Scottish Professional Football League is still to find a title sponsor as the season enters its first break for international matches. The new league set-up has been in operation for more than a month, and the reconstruction was formally completed at the end of June. The fact that the SPFL continues with no title sponsor has provoked concern in some circles. Doncaster again insisted that it is not a significant problem. He also played down yesterday the extent to which finance from a title sponsor impacts on clubs when compared to revenue brought in from broadcasting deals already in place. The chief executive pointed out that he is content to take his time “to find the right sponsor, rather than the first one that comes along”. The recent controversy surrounding Wonga’s sponsorship of Newcastle United, which led to striker Papiss Cisse briefly threatening to refuse to wear a shirt promoting a payday lender, highlighted how an association with certain brands can lead to problems. Doncaster wants a sponsor that enhances the image of professional football in Scotland. “It’s clearly important that we get the right sponsor rather than do something quickly,” said Doncaster, before adding that “we shouldn’t get carried away” with the notion that the financial guarantees from having a title sponsor in place would transform the Scottish game. The deal the Clydesdale Bank struck was worth £8 million a year to the Scottish Premier League when originally signed in 2007. No figure was publicised when the contract was extended in 2010. The association between the bank and Scotland’s top flight ended last season. Irn Bru’s sponsorship of the Scottish Football League – worth in excess of £3 million over the course of the last three years – also expired earlier this summer. “It’s certainly the current focus but we shouldn’t get carried away by the amount of money that it contributes to the game,” said Doncaster. “The vast majority of money that goes into the game through the SPFL comes through broadcast rights – something like 90-95 percent of the entire pot and all of that is secured already. “So you are talking about something that is important, of course, but it’s not fundamental to the finances of the game.” Doncaster added that the SPFL is “flexible” when it comes to the specific details of a sponsorship deal, and whether all four leagues would need to be sold as one sponsorship package or could be separated. “We’ll be led very much by what sponsors would want to do,” he said. “There is an attraction for sponsors in having all 42 clubs, in having one sponsorship which covers the whole of the country – but that would be led by their requirements when we talk to them.” Doncaster insisted that securing new sponsors is not the only consideration at present. “I think it’s important that we continue to work hard on a number of different fronts, whilst remembering that we have two key roles at the SPFL,” he said. “One is to run a fair competition and the other is to commercialise that competition. “That has been a successful commercialisation to date, largely based on broadcasting. Of course sponsorship is important and work on that will continue but it will be done when it’s done.“It must be a partner that’s fit for the game and fit for the SPFL in terms of the image that it projects. We’ve had a number of expressions of interest from a number of different parties, but it’s important that we have the right brand for the SPFL at such an important time in its development. That’s worth waiting for.” Doncaster was speaking at a Murrayfield Stadium event held to encourage safe driving on Scotland’s country roads. The SPFL and the Scottish Rugby Union have joined forces to help promote a campaign spearheaded by former Formula 1 driver David Coulthard. Doncaster has welcomed the new spirit of cooperation that now exists between the SPFL and the Scottish Football Association, following Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell’s appointment to the main board of the SFA. “The relationship between the SPFL and the SFA is a good one and I think a much better one since the reconstruction’s completion on the 27th June,” he said. “It’s important that the SPFL is properly represented at the Scottish FA main board. We have one representative from the Professional Game Board and now Peter has been elected unopposed by the seven members of that body. “So we are very pleased to have effective representation at the main board following [former chairman] Ralph Topping’s excellent contribution to date. “I think there’s a genuinely collegiate atmosphere at the moment between the Scottish FA and the SPFL and that certainly makes it easier for both bodies to do the best that they can in their different spheres.” http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/neil-doncaster-relaxed-over-lack-of-spfl-sponsor-1-3076595

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

(I posted this thread on RM. I would like to have spent more time on this post but work commitments don't permit. I hope this can be the basis for further investigation, particularly amongst the accountants and solicitors on the forum, on a matter that does appear to have been missed by everyone from McMurdo to McCollco and everyone in between. Feel free to correct the post as necessary given my lack of time to follow through some points, but I believe it is basically correct and explains several unresolved issues from the Accounts. For the avoidance of doubt, no illegality is implied.) The Mystery of the £5.7m Share Issue Costs It was Charlie wot done it. One of the main issues raised from the Accounts was that £5.7m of costs were charged against the IPO proceeds. But we were told the IPO costs would be about £2.5m. So why the difference and who got the other £3.2m? I believe the answer is that there wasn’t actually £3.2m more physically paid out because it was simply a paper transaction. And it relates to the 5m shares issued to Charles Green basically for free. As we know, Green was due a percentage of the shares (complicated but basically more than 10% of the company post IPO) for doing the initial deal to buy the club and for getting the initial investors (pre-IPO) to buy £7.7m of shares. There is reference in the prospectus to both an employment contract and an option for Green to buy shares at 1p. The option was eventually satisfied by the issue of 5m shares to Green on 31 October 2012 as part of his agreement for the IPO to go ahead. Green ended up with under 8% of the company - less than originally agreed. This did not cost the company any money – it merely diluted the shareholdings of the initial pre-IPO investors. It is an important technical point that this issue of shares was heavily dependent on a successful IPO. When shares are issued, the value of those shares (as opposed to the issue price) needs to be reflected in the share capital and share premium accounts. We don’t have the information to know exactly what value was put on these shares because nor do we know exactly how much the IPO costs were, but I would suggest 50p-70p is likely (£2.5m-£3.5m) given the IPO price and the information previously leaked about the pre-IPO share issues. So far as the company was concerned, the premium element of this deemed value of shares was to be charged against the share premium account as part of the cost of doing the IPO, so it had no net effect on the cash raised. Read Accounts note 23 and think of it like this: 10-6=4. If you add 2 onto both numbers you get 12-8=4. You still end up with the same number. It is accountants playing with bits of paper. Why was this done? One consequence is that the (say) £3m doesn’t then get charged to the profit and loss account, which would have worsened our loss. But I don’t think that’s the real reason. It was to shift what may be an income tax matter (up to 45%) for Green, to be a capital gains tax matter (up to 28%). HMRC may want to look further at this structure but Green has indemnified the company against any tax that arises, which again points to this being the reason, so it’s not really our problem. For this structure to work, the share premium had to be charged on paper against the IPO money. That’s why it looks like the IPO cost so much and why the issue to Green was specifically dependent upon a successful IPO. But in layman's terms, it didn’t really cost £5.7m in money paid out – the (say) £3m was really Green’s cut for the initial work. That was of course before we knew what league we would be playing in, hence Mather’s comments today are not incorrect. A further point worth noting is that the £7.7m initial fund raising exercise is what effectively paid for the purchase of the Club, not the IPO money. It was the initial (pre-IPO) shareholders who gave Green a free ride, not the IPO proceeds. The purchase of the Club appears in the Cashflow Statement as a result of merger (as opposed to acquisition) accounting - an unusual one even for accountants. So Green walked away with not just £933,376 salary but also 5m shares worth about £2.5m by today’s prices. Nice work if you can get it. The costs of £5.7m charged to the IPO share proceeds are therefore technically correct but the real pound note cost to us was closer to the original estimate of £2.5m The rest was bits of paper that did not affect the cash from the IPO or the shareholders who invested in the IPO.

In the teeth of fierce fan dissent - and a continued campaign to dislodge existing Rangers directors by a group of investors including the former chairman, Malcolm Murray - the Ibrox chief executive, Craig Mather, mounted a forceful defence of the accounts issued on Tuesday which posted an operating loss of £14 million for the 13 months to June this year. The results were in vivid contrast to those of Celtic, revealed last month, which showed a pre-tax profit of £9.74 million on a group turnover of £75.82 million. Rangers’ turnover to June was £19.1 million, most of which was derived from gate receipts and hospitality income. Playing squad salaries fell during the period but so too did earnings from sponsorship and the media. Throughout the accounting period and also subsequently there has been a persistent concern amongst supporters and some investors that the cash burn at Ibrox has been out of control. Asked why the costs associated with the public share offer last December were as high as £6.1 million, Mather replied: “There are the physical IPO costs, the costs of raising money and what we would deem non-reoccurring costs - for example, exceptional costs in excess of £4 million. “Nobody can shy away from the fact that the IPO cost was high and the cost of raising money was high but if you go into the detail of that – and the devil is in the detail, without fear of contradiction – at the time, when I wasn’t CEO, just for clarity - there was no football security. What I mean by that is the club didn’t know what league they would be playing in. “It was never ever going to be cheap to raise money against that backdrop but Rangers had to be saved. For me, and to five million fans looking at it around the world, it was imperative that this club was saved. “Under normal circumstances, people in the City would take a view of somewhere up to 7.5 per cent is a normal cost of raising funds. This wasn’t normal and I’m not trying to defend the people involved - I wasn’t there, I wasn’t party to it - but it’s obvious that you have to look at what you can offer the investor in return for the investment. “If you can’t tell them if you’re going to be able to kick a football, or if you’re going to be able to play in a certain division or get membership of the SFA it’s not an easy sell.” Another bone of contention is that the directors have set their own remuneration, to which Mather replied: “It was a decision taken by the remunerations committee and the chairman at the time, which was Malcolm Murray. “So Malcolm Murray decided the remunerations for Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge and unfortunately the directors are duty bound to honour those scenarios historically. I can assure you on my watch that won’t be happening. “If you look at my pay, there was talk about £500,000 but the actual amount I agreed to in the end was £300,000. Brian Stockbridge was on £200,000 plus a contractual bonus. Again, quite openly he’s agreed to waive that contractual bonus of his own accord.” The accounts reveal that £6.75 million was used to purchase trade and assets. Some critics have suggested that Charles Green’s consortium did not buy Rangers, but rather that the club itself did. “That’s categorically untrue,” said Mather. “It’s just mischief making. The club was bought by the Green consortium and I wasn’t part of it at that juncture. Monies were paid in good faith for those trading assets, full stop.” As to the Ally McCoist’s wages, Mather said: “I’m not suggesting Alistair become the lowest paid manager but he’s very happy to take a pay cut of his own volition. It’s a substantial pay cut.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/10348112/Malcolm-Murray-to-blame-for-Rangers-directors-high-wages-claims-Craig-Mather.html

Apparently the Dunfermline match at Ibrox on Saturday October 12 with a 5.30pm k.o. will not be moved to accommodate the Ramsdens Cup Semi-final tie whoever we get. Good.

"Borrowed" from FF, hope that's ok. I print below extracts of a couple of emails a chartered accountant pal of mine sent me. He had a look at the December management accounts that were published online, took note of the figures released through the Sun newspaper, took on board comments made at the fans meeting with the directors on 8th August, and the projections made in the Prospectus which accompanied the IPO. You can download his analysis as a spreadsheet using this link - https://www.hightail.com/download/OG...Z1ArV3hwdmNUQw Key issues are: Rangers Retail performance and dividend policy. How much of this 2013/2014 season ticket money is included at June 2013 In simple terms if running costs are £2m per month (£24m per annum) and we have £10m cash at June 2013, we need another £14m receipts in the next 12 months.This looks highly unlikely unless we get some decent dividends from Rangers Retail or large sponsorship funding. I suspect we wont run out of cash until the turn of the year but really need to understand how and when cash is extracted from Rangers Retail. Excluding Rangers retail the coffers will be empty in Q1 next year but there must be a mechanism for extracting cash from Rangers Retail ( probably dividends) but I have no info of the quantum and timing of this cash. Sorry forgot to mention in first email that Rangers retail figures shown include 100% of their figures so we are only entitled to our share (50%) of the profits with the the rest going to Sports Direct (shown as minority interest in the P&L account) Begin forwarded message: Mark, I attach a one page summary of the revenue and cost figures extracted from the management accounts. This highlights how the boards own forecasts for improving results rely almost entirely on a massive improvement in Rangers Retail revenues (from less than £1m first half to £11m second half) and profits (from c £0.5m first half to c £7.0m second half). Excluding Rangers Retail the board forecast an Operating Loss of £5.8m in the second half (c £1m per month) with running costs at £13.3m (£2.2m per month). The cash forecast at June was £15.6m including an assumption of £6.8m of season ticket money for the new season. As you know BS has said the actual balance was only £10m at June but it is highly unlikely anything like £6.8m was received before June so this would account for some of the shortfall. We will need to wait to see the actual results but I would expect the Rangers Retail profit forecasts to be highly optimistic and the running costs to be underestimated given the fees and bonuses agreed since December. There may however be some additional sponsorship income which was not anticipated when these were prepared in January. At least it gives us a much better insight into the the breakdown of revenues and costs. Yours,

No-one likes a thorough examination. It could be a test for English, it could be a check-up at the dentist. God forbid, it could even be the prostate exam from an overweight medico with fingers like fairtrade bananas. This week saw the appointment of that bogeyman figure for many Rangers fans, Peter Lawwell, to the Professional Game Board of the SFA. Leaving aside the hilarious irony of anything connected with the game in our country having the sheer balls to call itself 'professional' - the name of the new league was, for me, the highlight of the summer, an act of self-mockery and criticism not seen since the Red Guards were touring the Chinese countryside in the 1960's - you'd think the raising of another Celtic employee to another administrative role ought to have aroused some examination. As things stand now with the SFL gone, the SPFL Board consists of Steven Thompson of Dundee Utd, Eric Riley of Celtic, Aberdeen’s Duncan Fraser, Les Gray from Hamilton, Mike Mulraney of Cowdenbeath and Bill Darroch of Stenhousemuir plus CEO Neil Doncaster. Even Celtic fans must realise Mssrs Riley and Lawwell's various roles raise some interesting questions. Is it good for the game, or their club? Is it good for them, personally? Can they avoid conflicts of interest, and can they operate best with a work-load of this nature? What does it say about the structures which oversee the much vaunted reconstruction of the game in Scotland? Gersnet poster Brahim Hemdani sums up the bemusement may feel when he said "Quite why the other clubs think that having two represetatives from one club in the top echelons of power is appropriate is beyond my comprehension but that is the state of play that we have to live with." I ask these questions because they will affect us, like every other club, and because the overall coverage of the move has been muted to the point of fearful censorship. Tom English has taken refuge in slating OF fans for being loonballs rather than look at the appointment itself, while no-one else seems to have mentioned it at all. Maybe no-one is a little concerned that one club looms quite so large over the landscape (you may recall Kenny Shiels swift demotion by the ever sensitive Pacific Quay from colourful entertainer to highly suspicious proto-bigot when he touched on this subject), or, more likely, maybe they're worn out by all these saga and don't care anymore. Dangerous attitude, if true. We need to care. My own view is that no-one from either Rangers or celtc should be on any governing body, nor anyone with a connection to them. Rules out a hell of a lot of people, doesn't it? But look at the history! Since the mid-1980's, the Old Firm have more or less run the game. First them then us have been, during that time, complete basket cases. Prior to that, with faceless, anonymous men who enjoyed the benefits, yes, but were primarily upholders of the game as a concept - that is, as a sport - Scotland actually did not too badly, certainly by comparison with its later, hideous self. Of the two potential scenarios - well meaning if possibly bumbling amateurs, or corporate OF types - one would have to be a follower of either side to support the elevation of the latter to the running of the game. If that maybe sounds like accusations of bias toward the media, maybe it is - given the outrage we saw over such issues as contentious capitalist contract practices and internal SFA inquiries, surely they would feel the make up of game boards also need a revolution? No? Happy to carry on as we have for thirty years, are you? Thirty years of continual decline and failure? Quite content to see the setup which has brought the game to the laughable stance of not even having a sponsor - bear in mind, this is a league which reaches both Rangers and celtc fans every week, that's market penetration many a company would give their right arm for; you are looking at well over 2,000,000 potential customers on a more than weekly basis being exposed to your product - and think this is a suitable plan for the future? Well, fair enough. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. But you can hardly be surprised when people raise a quizzical eyebrow, and wonder quite what the reason is for your optimism. celtc's current dominance is the reason put forward, I guess. That ignores their two decades of shambolic behaviour since the early 1980's; no doubt our period of insanity will be as quickly forgotten. It also forgets the wasteland that the rest of the game is; perhaps a momentary lapse in memory by our writers, or again, perhaps they just don't care. The game desperately needs diversity, in terms of cup winners and media coverage. We're unlikely to see the latter, since the media is as self interested as the next man. I can't see how having the people from the top club running the leagues will help create that diversity; the logical outcome will be a set up which favours that leading club. Cravenly avoiding the fairly obvious self interest inherent in this move, and whining about how Old Firm fans are loonies while you pretty much cowardly refuse to actually examine the move, won't impress anyone. Maybe, when this blows up in the face of Scottish football (as OF people running the game always will, in my opinion), those who have airily seen it through on the nod will have the guts to examine their own role in it. I won't be holding my breath, though. As the dire Neil Doncaster happily points out "“The relationship between the SPFL and the SFA is a good one and I think a much better one since the reconstruction’s completion on the 27th June.” This is unsurprising when the same people, two of whom are from the same outfit, sit upon these boards. If blissful happiness and an end to dissent is the aim, I can see the point. If running the game in a progressive and accountable way is the aim, it becomes rather more questionable. But questions are good, in a healthy democracy. We need our media writers to question, to examine. Their current craven obedience will be just something else we will all come to regret.

MOST football fans in Scotland do not support Celtic. The majority are not Rangers fans either. MORI and Gallup do not exactly do polls on this sort of stuff so there is no way to be scientific about it, but maybe each of them has about 35-40% of the people who follow a team and the rest are shared around all the other clubs. What those of all allegiances are coming to terms with - whether they rejoice in the fact or resent it - is that Celtic have turned the Scottish game into a one-party state. For most of its history the league title has been an endless tennis rally between Celtic and Rangers, the championship switching from one to the other every year or two. Only now and again has one of them emerged into the clear daylight of a sustained period of dominance. Celtic won six in a row from 1905, Rangers five from 1927. In the late 1960s and early '70s there were times when it looked as if Jock Stein had built a force that would never be caught. When Rangers emulated Stein's nine consecutive titles - latterly buttressed by the bountiful revenue stream of the Champions League - it felt as if Sir David Murray, Graeme Souness and Walter Smith had moved the Ibrox club to a position of power which would obliterate any competition. And what happened? The Lisbon Lions era was built around Stein's individual genius and when his powers waned Celtic were drawn back into the pack. In the late 1990s Rangers grew old and tired, and misspent their resources, to the point a rebuilt Celtic got back among the titles. Currently the record books show only two consecutive league wins for Celtic but that is the equivalent of taking a snapshot of Usain Bolt in the early stages of a 100m race. Everyone can be pretty sure of what is coming next. At Tannadice on Saturday there were the latest renditions of a tune that the Celtic support has been singing for quite a while: "Here we go, 10 in a row." It's part-celebration, part-triumphalism, part-threat to you-know-who. There are 40 clubs which have long grown accustomed to the idea of having no real chance of being Scottish champions any time soon, and one which has a demanding fanbase unused to being denied anything for long. It is common these days to hear people talk about how Celtic have the potential to begin a period of unprecedented domination "if they use their money wisely". What they mean is that if Celtic keep running themselves prudently, employing the right manager and players, staying out of debt and always having money to spend to replenish a winning squad, it is going to take an almighty effort for Rangers to ever catch them. The apocalyptic scenario for Rangers is that Celtic keep getting into the Champions League group every year. They secured £20m in Uefa money alone last season and now they have another £16m this season. That is almost twice as much dough as Rangers raised from a one-off share issue. If Celtic pull off another two qualifications in 2014 and 2015 that would amount to around £80m washing into the club before Rangers even have the chance to take them on in the league. Given that all the fundamentals - season-ticket, commercial and sponsorship income - are otherwise broadly comparable between the Glasgow clubs, the long-term difference between them will be Champions League income. And that means that when a player's agent tries to bring a talent to Glasgow (the same player is often offered to both clubs at the same time), Celtic should be able to pay higher transfer fees and wages every time they both want the same man. All of this is a chilling thought around Ibrox. Horrifying, in fact. The Uefa golden goose that was once Rangers', and then shared, is now exclusively Celtic's. They can thank David Murray and Craig Whyte for that. It used to be the rest of Scottish football that was excluded at one or both of the Old Firm's expense; now Rangers are out in the cold too. Rangers have been in the Champions League group stage 10 times and Celtic are about to play in it for the eighth time. At a very conservative estimate (Champions League income has grown over the past 20 years) that is about £180m of Uefa money the Old Firm have enjoyed, in addition to their already vastly superior regular income. Last season Motherwell made around £195,000 from Uefa, and Hearts and St Johnstone £75,000 each - a tiny fraction of Celtic's £20m. The champions' excellent campaign also meant £100,000 in "solidarity" payments from Uefa for all other top-flight clubs, but that amounts to (welcome) crumbs. The Champions League embodies the concept of a self-perpetuating elite in which the rich get richer. When I spoke to a couple of SPFL Premiership club directors about how they reacted to Celtic generating Uefa income on a scale which makes it impossible for them to be given anything more than the odd bloody nose over the course of a season, one said: "It almost doesn't concern us. We're resigned to them always winning the league now and our competition is to finish second. Most clubs are happy for them to get into the group because it means a bit of Uefa money for us. It's probably very different for Rangers." Every empire falls eventually. The eras of Stein and Souness/Smith came to natural ends. Rosenborg show that even monopolising a country's Champions League access does not guarantee permanent rule. But Celtic's position of strength, and their advantages, are greater than any board of directors have known since Scottish football began. By Michael Grant (Herald)

Right hear me out.... I know the title seems a little out there and yes many will disagree however having spent the weekend reading about Celtics European "adventure" and the money that will be coming into the club. It is becoming evident that we as a club need a man who is willing to invest his own money to allow us to compete financially once we get back to the top flight. Dave King has been quoted numerous times saying he is willing to invest in the club without looking for a financial gain. Will we see him make him move over the next few weeks?

Has a bit of me. me, me running through it/

SPFL chief Neil Doncaster insists “uncertainty” remains the key reason that the Scottish leagues remain without a sponsor. With Clydesdale Bank’s deal to name the SPL running out at the end of last season, the newly formed four tier SPFL is still searching for a title sponsor, almost a month into the season. Speaking at the draw for the third round of the League Cup, Doncaster said that “lengthy conversations” were still taking place with potential backers but added that the uncertainty of the summer was still having an effect. He said: “Work is ongoing to bring in a title sponsor for the league and also to support the League Cup. “There has been a huge amount of uncertainty as to what any sponsor would be getting involved with. “It is only since the end of June that we have agreed the way forward for a single league covering all 42 clubs. “Conversations are ongoing and we’re extremely hopeful of getting the right sponsor in to be part of an exciting time in Scottish football. “These are clearly lengthy conversations and we are talking about substantial amounts of money and people need to be sure of what they are getting involved with and what they are getting in return.” The Scottish football chief was delighted to see Celtic safely reach the Champions League group stages with their last gasp 3-2 aggregate win over Shakhter Karagandy and he said the financial rewards from Neil Lennon’s men taking their place at Europe’s top table would spread throughout the country. Doncaster said: “It is absolutely huge for Scottish football to have a club in the group stages of the Champions League. “It of course benefits the whole game in this country. All of the top tier will benefit directly financially from Celtic being in the group stages so it is a big result for the game.” http://sport.stv.tv/football/237751-neil-doncaster-uncertainty-still-hampering-efforts-to-secure-spfl-sponsor/?

I'm sitting in Oslo Airport and who do I see,yip the famous Claudio Reyna! , never had time to chat as such but I did shake his hand and tell him I'm a massive Rangers fan, all his reply was AWSOME!

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2565&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=12361 As if we haven't got enough going on.

IF YOU wanted to delve into the world of footballers placing bets on matches then you had better set aside a year of your life in an attempt to document it. Even then, a year would probably only get you a bit of the way through the alphabet, maybe as far as H for Hartson. Big John never made any secret of his fondness for a bet when he was a professional footballer, nor ever attempted to hide the fact that he was dealing in pretty big sums of money. It’s all there in his autobiography. Chapter and verse. Hartson was lucky in that, although he gambled outrageous sums, he never seems to have been a problem gambler, never a man who couldn’t control himself when he needed controlling. The game was full of such people, past and present. They have a disease. Kevin Twaddle was in the papers the other day – and published a compelling book – about his epic struggle with his gambling addiction, a struggle that brought him to the point of suicide. There are stories all over the game of high-profile players losing almost everything. Matthew Etherington, the Stoke midfielder, said he got on the team bus years ago and, by the time he got off it, he had lost £20,000. In his gambling years he estimated that he blew £1.5 million, mostly on horses and dogs but also on football. Dietmar Hamann, the former German international and ex-Liverpool player, lost £200,000 in one night. Dominic Matteo, the Scotland international, said he only came to terms with his own self-destruction when he experienced a moment of clarity about wasting his daughter’s inheritance. Kevin Kyle’s battle was well documented. Andy McLaren’s too. There’s no end of sad tales. It’s a grim business. Mercifully, Ian Black, we believe, is not of these people. His gambling is said to involve small – if not tiny – sums, so the question of his betting being a curse in his life does not arise, it seems. That’s a relief. Black, of course, is one of many, many players who dabble in betting on football matches. Casual punters doing a coupon or two on the weekend. The fact that it is banned by the SFA clearly has no impact on footballers. So many of them have a wager and so few of them make a secret of it. Some of the lesser-known players even go on Twitter talking about it. They’re the fortunate ones in that they have not been charged, whereas Black has. His followers can bang on all they like about him being made a scapegoat and the SFA opening up a can of worms and they can slam the SFA for being hypocritical if they like, for players are not allowed gamble but the association is only too glad to accept the sponsorship of a betting firm, William Hill. There’s been a lot of noise around the Black subject. It was only a fiver. They’re all “at it”. The central charge is that Black not only contravened clearly-stated rules but that he went several steps beyond that by gambling on his own team not to win. That is the most serious charge you can level at a footballer. The allegation is that he backed his team not to win, so did he try to influence the result while on the field? It was only a fiver? The amount of money involved hardly matters. What matters is if it is true or not. What is key is the charge that, on at least one occasion, Black played in a match in which he backed against his own side. He will face sanction on the other 157 charges if they are held up but he can recover from those even if found guilty. Players have recovered from a lot worse. An awful lot worse. The battleground is the three games and particularly the one – or more – in which he played. Ignorance of the rules is no defence. Nor is the old chestnut of them all being “all at it”. Did Black bet against his own team? That is the only seismic, potentially career-ending, question to be answered here. Trust is the big issue at Ibrox now Charles Green might have left the building but in offering the Easdale boys first refusal on the vast majority of his shares, when he’s free to sell in December, the question must be asked about the fine detail of any cosy arrangement between the former chief executive and the Easdales. He’s gone in body, but will Green’s influence live on regardless? The latest statement that came whirring out of Ibrox tried to strike a conciliatory note, offering a welcome to Frank Blin from the agitators in the shadows led by Jim McColl, Paul Murray and, of course, the supporters in great numbers. You could paraphrase the statement thus: “Okay, if we let Blin in will you shut up and mind your own business and will you, for heaven’s sake, stop banging on about the state of the accounts?’ Green may have “gone” but the need to carry on and bring real change to Ibrox is as pressing as it ever was. The fans are being told that there was £12.5 million in pre-share offer money lodged to the Rangers bank account along with £12m of season ticket money and £22m of share money and that, of the £46.5m raised in something like 10-11 months, only £10m is left. If that is true then it’s a crisis of waste. If it’s not true it’s a crisis of trust. Either way, Green or no Green, accountability and responsibility needs to visit Ibrox before it’s too late. In that sense, Green’s exit should change nothing. No Spanish inquisition over Schuster doping comments when the former German international and current Malaga manager Bernd Schuster spoke about performance-enhancing drugs and why he thinks their use is legitimate when helping a player to recover from injury you might have expected a major reaction from the footballing authorities in Spain. Doping deemed acceptable in certain circumstances by one of the game’s most high-profile figures? Imagine if somebody said the same in Britain. There would be an outcry and, most probably, a demand for the person in question to explain his comments. In Spain, there has been virtually nothing. Because, in Spain, this kind of thing doesn’t really matter. Doping? Yeah, whatever. Schuster’s attitude to doping should have had the governing body in a flap. If he condones this kind of thing, has he ever allowed it to happen? Does he allow it now? To his knowledge, has any player under his stewardship ever taken performance-enhancing drugs for any reason? Do any of the medics attached to Malagahave any history in doping in professional sport? Questions, questions, but no answers. Indeed, none of them is likely to be asked. Back in February, Inaki Badiola, a former president of Real Sociedad told the AS newspaper that in the early years of the millennium, in a regime previous to his own, Real Sociedad employed the infamous doping doctor, Eufemiano Fuentes. Badiola stated that he discovered annual payments to Fuentes of almost €328,000 and that he sacked two of the club’s doctors when he realised what had been going on. The payments were repeated for a number of years and the products that were administered to the player were banned substances. The response of the authorities was to deny and then look the other way “Thanks be to God, there is no doping,” the president of the Spanish FA, Angel Maria Villar, told El Pais. “Well, very little, so little that the cases given are just an anecdote to an anecdote. In Spain, players take many tests each weekend and nobody is found to be positive. That is the reality. The rest is just talk, talk, talk. . .” “As long as it’s for recovery purposes, I have no problems with it,” said Schuster. “If a player can reach his full fitness level two to three weeks faster, then it makes sense.” It tells you much about the unquestioning culture in Spanish sport that Schuster could say such a thing seemingly without any fear of an inquisition.

Here's an interesting article about Uefa's financial fair play regulations by Stefan Szymanski http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=527 He thinks that it will lead to a closed system like the N.F.L. where big clubs are protected from competition and owners can actually make a profit. I've been aware of, and opposed to, these regulations for a while but the following quote surprised me: Interested to read what the rest of you think of it all.

On Saturday, not long after the Stranraer match, the club published a statement entitled, “For the Avoidance of Doubt”. The article was written under the tag, ‘Rangers Football Club’, although almost everyone acknowledges that it was probably penned by the club’s Director of Communications, James Traynor. Although the statement was generally well received by Rangers fans, it was more noticeable for what it didn’t say, rather than what it actually did say. Whilst the statement is welcome, it is long overdue, and I doubt if it will have any substantive or meaningful impact on the serial Rangers haters who constantly misrepresent and malign our club. I suspect that most Rangers fans consider the statement to be much too terse, and would have preferred a more comprehensive, robust and forceful statement. Certainly given the nature and content of the statement, it is noticeable for its failure to comment on the serial offenders at Rangers who consistently utilise the local anti-Rangers media to further their own agendas, or censure those Rangers bloggers who are aligned with one side or another in the current Boardroom wars, and who often give interviews to the local rags, including the Daily Record. In fact it fails to confront the leaks that are clearly emanating from Ibrox, and it doesn’t ‘sit well’ with the fact that our board of directors, club officials and employees regularly utilise the local rags for their own ends. Fine words from James Traynor – but actions speak much louder than words! It is for that reason I have penned an alternative version of “For the Avoidance of Doubt”. For The Avoidance of Doubt (Alternative version) “Rangers Football Club is aware of wildly inaccurate stories circulating on various websites and would like fans to know that these flights of fancy will be monitored by our lawyers. Where it is considered necessary, we will instruct our lawyers to initiate legal action against the owners and administrators of any website, or any other media vehicle, that publishes (or disseminates by any other means) material that is inaccurate, libellous or misrepresents the club’s position in any way. The club will keep fans advised of any action initiated as a consequence of this monitoring process and will provide regular updates on the club’s official platforms. In particular, our lawyers are examining a malicious piece which seems to suggest that the club does not own its facilities. That suggestion is, of course, utter nonsense, and the club wishes to make it unequivocally clear that the club owns all of its facilities in their entirety. We urge Rangers fans to treat these idiotic and lumbering articles with the contempt they deserve. Better still, ignore them completely. However, we acknowledge that many fans may wish to analyse and assess them and, where appropriate, respond to their misrepresentations by means of their own websites and blogs. Indeed the club recognises the very practical assistance provided by the fans in monitoring these articles and responding in circumstances where the club is, either, unable or unwilling to do so. But we must also stress we cannot waste time responding publicly to every blog or ridiculous claim against the club, although we acknowledge the magnificent work that has been done by Rangers fans in challenging the reprehensible Rangers Tax Case blog; BBC Scotland’s consistent misrepresentations and its inaccurate and biased reporting; the vindictive and malign blogs of those such as Alex-Thomson of Channel 4, Phil Four Names, Paul McConville and, of course, those journalists in the mainstream media such as Graham Spiers, Tom English, Keith Jackson etc. who continually misrepresent, and unreasonably, attack our club. There is also a dangerous proliferation of anonymous obsessive’s on various social media sites and we will not give them any credence, although we will continue to monitor the material they publish and seek to identify the source of any leaks, particularly where specific material is proven to be genuine correspondence emanating from Rangers Football Club. In such circumstances we will take appropriate action against any director or officer of the club who is found responsible for leaking confidential information including, if necessary, precautionary suspension and summary dismissal. Nor can we react to every journalist and publication that appears to pursue an anti-Rangers agenda; publications such as the Daily Record which today boasts yet another headline which does not accurately reflect what manager Ally McCoist said in his press conference yesterday. The paper’s intent is clear, and we urge our fans to see it for what it is, as we urge those prominent bloggers who are closely aligned to the Club, and prepared to give interviews to the Daily Record, and provide them with information relating to the business of our board, its shareholders and the club’s operations, to desist forthwith. In this regard, the club will make every effort to ensure that no member of its board, any shareholder, club official or employee will provide information to, or give interviews to, the Daily Record or any of the other recognised anti- Rangers media. If Rangers fans want the truth they will find it only on the club’s official platforms, and we will make every effort to ensure that, from this point onward, there is substantive and meaningful information available to fans on the club’s platforms in relation to current anti-Rangers news stories, statements that misrepresent the club’s stated position and those that are causing significant concern to the fans. This is particularly relevant given the current boardroom upheavals. Finally, Jack Irvine of Media House does not speak for this Club, although we can confirm that he and Media House currently represent the interests of the Easdale brothers who are major shareholders in Rangers Football Club.”

Like every other football kit manufacturer PUMA are releasing their 2013-14 kits daily. Most kits released by PUMA have been met with disdain. This is to-days release. DUNDEE FC:

The deadpan Welsh comedian, Milton Jones â?? you can see him regularly on Mock the Week and Have I Got News for You? â?? has a joke which goes: â??When I got back from work the other day my wife was already home. â??I called out, â??Hi, Hon!â?? â??It wasnâ??t a term of endearment â?? itâ??s just that my wifeâ??s German.â? OK, OK â?? itâ??s a joke that depends on how you hear it, not how you read it. And if Milton wants to press charges for murdering a gag, your correspondent is done bang to rights. Hereâ??s the point, though. If he had used that routine in a Scottish nightclub and changed the punchline to: â??It wasnâ??t a term of endearment â?? itâ??s just that my wife is a Rangers supporterâ?, would he fall foul of the Scottish Governmentâ??s proposed laws in respect of sectarianism in Scottish football? There are times when Alex Salmond exudes the powerful impression that he supposes he can walk on water. By now, though, you would have thought that a politician as astute and opportunist as Salmond would realise that, on this issue, he and his SNP colleagues are marching into a swamp. The Tories at Holyrood also tipped head first into the mud when their new leader, Ruth Davidson, discovered she was employing (or rather you and I were, because his pay comes out of the public purse) a researcher called Colin James Taylor, who tweeted about â??Timsâ?. Now should you be a reader who happens not to have the requisite information to divine meaning from this term, it is used among some Rangers supporters to refer to Scottish Catholics in general, Catholics of Irish extraction in particular and Celtic supporters likewise. The origin of the term is not certain. Some say it refers to a mythical generic Celtic supporter called Tim Molloy or Malloy, others that it originated from a Glasgow Irish Catholic gang of the 1930s, a rival to Billy Fullertonâ??s Protestant gang â?? the Billy Boys of the proscribed song. There was, if memory serves, a witty echo of the name by a metals firm in the east end of Glasgow which traded under the title of Tim Alloys. Be that as it may, when Taylor, a Rangers supporter, Tweeted about Tims, he was told by his new governess to withdraw and say sorry, which he duly did. That he caused offence â?? possible, actual and self-generated â?? is likely, perhaps certain, in the current climate. Would he, however, have committed an offence under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill? After all, there are Celtic supporters who refer to themselves as Tims, just as they refer to Rangers fans as Huns because of the clubâ??s traditional attachment to the Union Flag and the Royal Family, with its distant German ancestry. And, again, if a Celtic supporter replied to Taylorâ??s Tweet and referred to him as a Hun, would both of them be dragged off by the thought police? The answer, says the Scottish Government, depends on context. Badinage is one thing, malice is another. Intent to cause offence would therefore presumably play a part in determining whether or not a crime had been committed â?? yet offending one another is also the stock in trade of football supporters and the fiercer the rivalry, the more calculated the offence. You might think that Scotland is already well provided with laws that deal with anything that crosses the boundary into menacing behaviour, especially since there is now a range of crimes which can be aggravated by religious, racist, sexist or homophobic abuse. The SNP, though, insist that we need even more and are hell bent on delivering them. They do this despite the example of muddle-headedness set by Uefa. The governing body of European football is admirably dedicated to the eradication of racism within its domain, but it is notably uneven in its enforcement and haphazard in its methodology â?? especially with regard to Eastern Europe and Spain. Closer to home we have Rangersngers fans banned from away games in Europe because some were reported for singing The Billy Boys â?? with its line about being â??up to our knees in Fenian bloodâ? â?? a sanction imposed for an incidence of a song sung at a game and reported by FARE (Football Against Racism in Europe) but not by the match delegate, in one of the two instances. Now Celtic have been cited â?? though not by FARE â?? for â??illicit chantingâ? at their 3-1 home victory over Rennes. Again, the match delegate was not the originator of the charge, which was instigated by the police match commander, the former Scottish Premier League referee, Eddie Smith. Celticâ??s chief executive and the Assistant Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police want to meet the Green Brigade to discuss the legality of their songs and chants. I assume there will be a lively argument, especially since, last time I looked, the Green Brigadeâ??s manifesto included a 32-county united Gaelic-speaking Irish republic, an independent Gaelic-speaking Scottish republic and a demand for boycotts of global brands whose sponsorship underwrites the game at various levels. They might well ask Peter Lawwell, the chief executive of Celtic, what he supposed they were likely to sing and chant when he invited them to act as Celticâ??s resident glee club. If he is then sucked into a debate about how one manâ??s terrorist is another manâ??s freedom fighter and how one clubâ??s support hears a hymn of hate when another believes it is singing a ballad of liberation, then he will have something in common with Mr Salmond. They both set in train a course of events without anticipating the consequences, no joke for either of them â?? or a laughing matter for Scottish football. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/scottish-premier/8897701/First-Minister-of-Scotland-Alex-Salmond-is-walking-into-swamp-over-banning-songs-on-terraces.html

Changing Stadium names due to sponsorship is all over the news at the moment due to Newcastle renaming St James Park to the Sports Direct Stadium. What are folks thoughts on this happening with Ibrox??? Obviously this could prove to be VERY financially beneficial to the club if the correct sponsorship could be found.

Fellow bears, I first posted this on the follow follow forum and it has been greatly received by the fans over there. So well in fact, it's members have raised over a £1000. Following a chat with Frankie, GersNet are keen to get involved and happy to support this venture by giving me the opportunity to approach you, the fans, for sponsorship. Some of you may be aware of the recent Gazza commission I painted for Rangers. As a result of the painting I have been asked to paint murals on the walls inside the concourses of the Copland, Broomloan and Govan stands at Ibrox. The club have stated that although this is something they are keen to go ahead with, there is not likely to be a budget available for such a project. Instead they have proposed the incentive of a Rangers License to be able to produce my work "Officially". As well as exposure and publicity for my art, that the club will be able to generate as a result of the completed murals. As a Rangers fan and budding artist, this is obviously a massive opportunity, however will cost a small fortune in materials alone. Not to mention I may have to take unpaid leave from my current full-time job for the duration of the project. What I propose to you is the chance to get involved in something that could change the look of the stadium concourses forever. Instead of the plain white breeze block, there will be vibrant murals depicting scenes of our clubs most famous victories, the 9 In A Row era, '72 Cup winners cup, legendary player portraits, and many more - the possibilities are endless. If you make a donation of £10 or more then you will receive a small print of one of the murals painted, which I'll sign the same way I do my paintings. Don't worry my ego isn't that big that I think any of you will want my autograph, it's just a little gesture from me to say thanks for your support! Obviously if you're able to donate more than a tenner it would be greatly appreciated! I'm looking to raise in the region of £3000. If you have a company who would like to sponsor the project then please also get in touch. I will be recording the progress of the murals from start to finish using a camcorder and then producing time lapse videos which will be edited professionally. The videos will have a credits section and here is where your company could get some recognition - as well as on my website. I'm also open to wearing t-shirts/hoodies while painting in the videos. A list of the users who donate will be created here, along with the amount donated; USER... AMOUNT Craig - £100 Shorerdbear - £10 Ian1964 - £50 Frankie - £10 A few forums now getting involved, so when making a donation can people please use the "Comments" box on the donation page and put in for example "Username from Gersnet" I look forward to your support, and welcome any ideas you might have with regards to the murals. Donations can be made via PayPal by using the donate button on my website's homepage; http://www.thegamesartist.com/ You can also keep up to date with all developments and progress on this by follow follow'ing my facebook page here; http://www.facebook.com/pages/TheGam...49411641738241 (My latest painting I'm about to post up is set to raise a handsome sum for RSEA ) These murals will be there for as long as Ibrox stands and this could be your chance to make it happen. Obviously if for some reason this does not go ahead, all donations will be refunded! Total raised so far (as of 11.35pm 29/10/11) = £1,266.37 :spl:

Ibrox club face UEFA ban if HMRC liability forces them to start again as new company, finds Andrew Smith RANGERS face the prospect of three years without European football if forced to start a new company because of the HMRC tax case. The licence required to contest UEFA competitions can only be obtained by clubs that have been members of their national association for three years. If Rangers enter administration then fail to strike a deal with their creditors, the prospect of starting up again as a new company becomes a realistic possibility, but one UEFA is alert to. â??If a club sets up a new company simply to avoid paying its debts or obligations then they would almost certainly fail the three-year rule,â? a spokesperson for UEFA told Scotland On Sunday. â??This is to ensure clubs do not simply create a â??newcoâ?? and leave the previous entity in charge of dealing with debts.â? Rangers owner Craig Whyte, below, admitted last week that the Ibrox club could go into administration if they lost their ongoing tax tribunal with HMRC over the use of Employment Benefit Trusts and were landed with a £49 million tax bill. One possible option in that scenario, he conceded, would be to form a â??New Rangersâ?, with the assets, but none of the debts, transferred from the old Rangers FC. Financial fair play is a key plank of Michel Platiniâ??s UEFA administration and the strict licensing criteria were applied in the summer in the case of the Romanian club Timisoara. They finished second in their top league but were denied entry to the Champions League and demoted to the second tier of their domestic set-up because they failed to meet the licensing criteria. Following a failed appeal by Timisoara to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, UEFA made the following statement: â??Clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by â??cleaning upâ?? their balance sheet while offloading debts â?? thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a clubâ??s legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association and consequently three years must pass before a club can apply again for a UEFA licence. In other words, the three-year rule is designed basically to avoid circumvention of the club licensing system.â? It appears difficult to see how Whyte could avoid administration if Rangersâ?? tax case goes the way of HMRC. In these circumstances, to exit administration as the same entity they went into it, Rangers would need to obtain a Creditors Voluntary Agreement â?? wherein creditors accept a pence-in-the-pound fraction of the sums owed to them. Insolvent companies need to have agreement that covers 75 per cent of their debt. HMRC has a policy of not voting for CVAs. If HMRC wins the tax case with Rangers, it will be owed more than two-thirds of the Ibrox clubâ??s debt. Rangers, then, would have to form a new company that would have to apply for membership of the Scottish Premier League. On entering administration, the club would be hit with the automatic ten-point penalty. If Rangers cannot exit administration via a CVA any further punishment would be at the discretion of the SPL board, whose role it would also be to decide on what basis Rangers would be allowed to transfer their SPL share to a new company. The six-man SPL board comprises Ralph Topping (chairman), Neil Doncaster (chief executive), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Derek Weir (Motherwell) and Steven Brown (St Johnstone). If it were to come to a vote for Rangersâ?? re-admission, it could mean Celticâ??s Riley deciding on the fate of his clubâ??s arch-rivals. But the reality is that SPL clubs are likely to allow a reconstituted Rangers back into the fold because without them the championship and its television and sponsorship deals would be devalued, with serious financial implications for the member clubs. Like the very bank that allowed the Ibrox club to rack up huge debts across the past decade, in terms of Scottish football, Rangers are simply too big to be allowed to fail. http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/rangers_run_risk_of_three_year_euro_exile_if_they_lose_tax_case_1_1938625

The prepack route for Rangers Newco FC In the event of Rangers facing financial Armageddon after the resumption of their HMRC tax hearing a quick – very quick – recovery scenario is available to them. At any point during next month’s hearing they may consider their position is no longer tenable and, unable to meet the tax bill, a new company could be formed which attempts a prepack administration. A prepack offer from a new company, for example, Rangers Newco FC Ltd, would offer an administrator a deal for all assets of the club, including stadium and offer to meet outstanding player wages. Deals like this seldom offer unsecured creditors much but even a small percentage might realise more cash than the administrator would gamble on raising in an unstructured sale. In such circumstances, the administrator could accept as little as £4m for the unsecured creditors. In normal business Rangers Newco FC Ltd would begin trading and this would be the end of the story but football is not normal business. Rangers Newco FC would own a stadium and would employ some footballers but they would not be part of any league structure. They would need to apply for membership to the Scottish Football League or Scottish Premier League. In this scenario, the death of Rangers Football Club would leave a vacancy in the SPL, presenting several financial, logistical and sporting challenges. Without Rangers, the league would have to invalidate all this season’s results involving the club, one team would be without a game each weekend for the rest of the season, current TV contracts and sponsorship deals could be jeopardised, while future contracts would be worth a fraction of their current values. Every team in the league would have to downsize and some would have to win fresh support from their bankers, which may or may not be forthcoming. There is, of course, a resolution to this problem. Rangers Newco FC Ltd could present an offer to the SPL. The new company, with its stadium and thousands of potential supporters, could take the obligatory 10 point punishment for going into administration and adopt the place of Rangers FC, complete their fixtures and allow every other team in the league to fulfil commercial obligations. If these events took place before Christmas, Rangers Newco FC could be debt-free and signing players in January to enhance their league challenge. To force the deal through, Rangers Newco FC would require 10 of the remaining 11 SPL clubs to vote in their favour. If any two clubs stand against them, they would have to apply for membership of the Scottish Football League, but, having researched this story for several days, I expect Rangers Newco FC Ltd would get enough support to pick-up the place of the defunct Rangers FC. Any natural sympathies towards Rangers aside (which will not exist in all places), money talks and, apart from Celtic, this league is neck-deep in debt. Celtic might be in a position to survive Rangers failing but it would cost our club tens of millions. Crucially, if the other SPL clubs back Rangers Newco FC, they create a template for a snap recovery from their own troubles. Instead of repaying your debts, simply get yourself into a safe league position, ditch the company, prepack and start again with a clean sheet. This would create a clear incentive to stiff creditors. While the banks will get wise and not offer unsecured facilities in future, HMRC and small traders are likely to become perennial fall guys. Why would any mid-table team pay millions in tax, rates and policing bills, when they have a sporting incentive to ditch creditors without punitive penalty, freeing income streams to buy football bling in the next transfer window? This would make a mockery of the Uefa predident Michele Platini’s Financial Fair Play initiative and make our league the poster-boy for Financial Doping. Scottish football will be mortally wounded if it were to parachute a club straight into the upper echelons of the game while establishing a blueprint for the abandonment of creditors. It is incumbent on all who care about the game, in Scotland and throughout the world, that we insist Scottish Premier League clubs do not allow a prepack company to phoenix into the shoes of a dead football club. Celtic fans, as well as those from Aberdeen, Hibernian, Dundee United and St Johnstone, together with fans from Motherwell, who could become genuine championship contenders, and from those clubs who would avoid relegation if Rangers failed, must insist their club votes against any prepack company parachuting into the league. The SFA executive must use whatever influence it can to prevent the name of Scottish football being brought into disrepute. Politicians, who either have, or aspire to have, tax raising responsibilities, must register their abhorrence that a self-serving oligopoly should attempt to vote themselves an escape from paying tax. Fifa and Uefa must explain to the Scottish FA that the days of shady financial deals in football are gone. Watch the media coverage of these events carefully. If and when the decision time comes, the case to acquiesce to Rangers Newco’s demands will be overwhelming. Sincere ‘impartial’ observers will do their upmost to convince us all we must do whatever necessary to save Rangers for the good of the Scottish game. Some voices will even tell you Celtic need Rangers Newco. Whatever part of my club is dependent on Rangers I am willing to lose. Rangers-HMRC tax hearing resumes next month, when there is also a two week international break. The most important element of making a prepack offer succeed is to offer a fait accompli: ‘Here is a solution, you have no time and you have no alternative’. Should Rangers go into administration, I believe this is a very, likely scenario. If you are a supporter of Celtic or any other club, make your views known. taken from celticquicknews.co.uk (link removed) :tongue: :spl::spl::spl:

Explained: eligibility of 'cup-tied' players in UEFA competitions. Players can play for more than one club in Europe in any given season, but only if their old side fail to make it into a competition proper. With Champions League and Europa League qualifying games starting at a time that most managers are still putting together their squads, many clubs will be poring over UEFAââ?¬â?¢s rule books to see if their transfer targets will be free to play in European competition. Worried supporters have watched on as names linked with a move to their side have played in European competition, potentially ruling the target out of playing in Europe for them or, worse, a deal collapsing as a result. However, UEFA regulations however can clear a player to play for two clubs in Europe in any given season, based upon an exception which applies to participation in the qualifying rounds. Rule 18.07 states that if a player features in the first, second or third qualifying rounds of either the Champions League or Europa League, he can play for another club in either competition from the group stages onwards, provided his former employers do not reach the group stages themselves. If a player is involved in any of the aforementioned qualifying rounds for a side which then goes on to play in the group stages of either UEFA competition, he is not eligible to play for another club in Europe in that season. There is a common misconception regarding rule 18.19, which states that from the knockout stages, a player cannot be registered to play for another club if he has already played in the same competition that season, or if his previous side remain in that competition. However, this rule does not mean that a player would be able to play in the group stages for his new club, and then find suddenly himself ineligible to play in the knockout stages. Provided a playerââ?¬â?¢s former side were eliminated prior to the group stages, and the player was then registered to play in the groups of either competition for his new club, he is free to continue playing in the knockout rounds of either the Champions League or Europa League. Current example Player A features for Club A in a Europa League second qualifying round tie. Player A has been linked with a possible move to Club B, who are participating in the qualifying stages of the Champions League. If Player A is subequently sold to Club B, he would not be able to play in the qualifying rounds of either the Champions League or Europa League. However, provided Club A do not reach the group stages of the Europa League, Player A could be registered to play for Club B in the group stage of the Champions League or Europa League, as per rule 18.07 of the regulations of the two competitions for 2011/12. Under the same set of circumstances, Player A would also be free to play in the knockout stages of either the Champions League or Europa League, provided he had previously been registered for the group stages with Club B. If Club A were to reach the group stages of the Europa League, Player A would not be able to play for Club B in European competition in the 2011/12 season. Past example Rangers faced similar circumstances when they signed Nikica Jelavic from Rapid Vienna at the start of the 2010/11 season, with the striker having turned out for the Austrians in the Europa League qualifying rounds. However, as Rapid went on to qualify for the group stages of the Europa League, Jelavic became ineligible for the group stages of the Champions League. Jelavic would have been clear to play in the knockout rounds of the Champions League but, as Rangers dropped into the Europa League, he was unable to play for the same reason. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/263283-explained-eligibility-of-cup-tied-players-in-uefa-competitions/ Explained: UK work permit rules for footballers. Any player from outside the EEA needs a work permit to come to the UK but the rules on how to get one are often misinterpreted. The regulations in place for a footballer applying for a work permit to move to a UK club remain frequently misunderstood and misinterpreted. Various outlets, officials and supporters have quoted varied rules from the past, many of which remain relevant but have moved on from the assumed requirements for a footballer to be given the necessary immigration status. Previously, a club would apply direct to the Home Office for a work permit, with the well-known requirement being that a player had to have played 75 per cent of his nationââ?¬â?¢s competitive games within the last two years to qualify. Now, the relevant governing body must endorse any work permit application by a club before it is submitted to the Home Office, cutting down on the number of requests made directly to Government which are unlikely to succeed first time. Who needs a work permit? Any player who is over 16 years old and is not from the European Economic Area, which covers 32 countries aside from the UK requires a work permit to play for a British club. A Commonwealth citizen with at least one grandparent who was born in the UK does not need to apply through the points based system. Such players will still require a work permit but go through a different process. How to get a work permit When a club signs a player who requires a work permit, they agree to sponsor the player to be in the UK, meaning they will provide the funds for his time in the country. A certificate of sponsorship is then produced by the club, which is then submitted to the relevant FA for them to consider an endorsement. The Scottish FAââ?¬â?¢s rules on work permit endorsements follow the same guidelines as previously outlined by the Home Office. For the SFA to give their approval, the player in question must have played 75 per cent of his nationââ?¬â?¢s competitive games ââ?¬â?? excluding friendlies ââ?¬â?? in the two years prior to the date of application. Furthermore, the country the player is coming from must be in the top 70 of Fifaââ?¬â?¢s rankings. Failure to meet these requirements results in an automatic rejection of any application for an SFA endorsement for a work permit certificate of sponsorship. As of June 28, 2011, it costs an applicant Ã?£550 to apply by post for a work permit in the UK, or Ã?£850 in person to process the application on the same day. There is a reduction in cost for nationals from Croatia, Turkey or FYR Macedonia, with the same applications costing Ã?£495 and Ã?£765 respectively. The appeals process If an application is rejected, a club can then appeal to the governing body. An appeals panel will ultimately weigh up whether or not the player is, in their view, an internationally established player and whether another professional within the UK could not perform a similar role. The panel must also be satisfied the applicant is a player who is going to make a contribution to the development of the game at the highest level of Scottish football. It must also be proven that the player is of a sufficient standard to improve the game. That appeals panel typically sits within three to five working days of an appeal submission and is made up of football experts, made up typically of former professionals. Officials from the league, the FA and the playerââ?¬â?¢s union also sit on the panel to argue the case for the player being granted an endorsement. In Scotland, experts who have sat on the decision panel previously include former player-turned-pundit Pat Nevin, one-time Motherwell boss Willie McLean ââ?¬â?? brother of Tommy and Jim ââ?¬â?? and former Hibernian and Liverpool midfielder Peter Cormack. Status of immigration The length of time a player can remain in the UK as a player depends on his grasp of the English language. There are two immigration statuses available to a player applying for a work permit: tier two and tier five. Under tier two, a player can remain in the UK for an initial three years, with the possibility for an extension for a further two years. To qualify, the player must accrue 70 immigration points under the Home Officeââ?¬â?¢s system. 50 are given for getting an FA endorsement, with 10 more given for being able to prove sufficient funding to remain in the country. The final 10 are awarded on the basis of the playerââ?¬â?¢s English. If the applicant comes from a predominantly English-speaking country, or has a degree from a course which was taught in English, the 10 points are subsequently awarded. Additionally, a player can sit an approved English language test upon their arrival in the UK to obtain tier two status. Failing that, a player can apply for tier five status. Again, a certificate of sponsorship and proof of sponsorship is required but a visa is only valid for one year. However, the player can then sit an English language test within that year and apply to switch to tier two status. The current Home Office financial criteria for a player to come to the UK outlines he must be continuously funded during his time in the country and has had at least Ã?£800 in his bank account for 90 consecutive days prior to the point of moving. The process simplified A football association will typically endorse a certificate of sponsorship for a player if he has played 75 per cent of competitive games for a FIFA ranked top 70 nation over the past two years. Under no circumstances will an FA endorse a certificate of sponsorship on the first attempt if the criteria is not met. A club may then appeal if the first application is rejected. An appeals panel will then convene to establish whether, in their view, the player's transfer would be of benefit to the game in the relevant country. If they are in favour, the football association will then endorse the certificate, which then contributes the biggest part to the Home Office's criteria. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/193378-explained-uk-work-permit-rules-for-footballers/ Maybe Admin can make this a sticky for future reference?