The Double Whammy

Today the Nominee Directors have stepped up their communication with the support through interviews with blogger Chris Graham, of the CRo and TRS websites.

While there are lots of similarities between the interviews, it has to be seen as a step change that both Wilson and Murdoch are stepping out of the shadows and a number of secret meetings with a small number of supporters, and answering questions publicly.

What is a tad unfortunate is the stage managed propaganda evident from both interviews and the distinct lack of detail from either nominee.

Murdoch’s interview is very negative indeed, and the subject matter is most definitely everyone else associated to Rangers apart from him. Now that could be down to Graham, or some CRo editing, but there is absolutely nothing in terms of substance as to what he feels he personally can bring to the board, or what the plans of the nominees are to stabilise financial performance of the PLC business that runs Rangers.

Instead, what we see is oft repeated negative accusations about Brian Stockbridge and Jack Irvine.

My issue with this is that I already distrust these two and wish them out. What I am now looking for is the nominees to give it a rest on telling us what we already know, and start telling us in detail how they will recover the business

Wilson’s interview is marginally better than Murdoch’s, with an interesting question that graham asks him (but not Murdoch)

Assuming you are successful in being appointed to the board, is there more you can say on specific plans for funding or how the club would be run? Is it possible to be more specific?

AW - We know how we want to operate but what we find when we get in there is impossible to say. When we lift the lid on it we have no idea what is going to come out. What worries us is that there is a cash outflow which has not been explained, so we need to look at what we have and then start to address it urgently. We can't say specifically who will invest. We have 3-4 people who are wealthy individuals who have approached us and said they will put money into the club if the board is trustworthy and clean. We've also had some of the institutions, who we can't name for reasons of confidentiality; tell us they will put more money in. We just can't put names into the public domain at this time as frustrating as that might be for people



Of course it’s a bit vague and unclear, given that we know that the nominees have been receiving detailed information on various transactions and contracts that Rangers have placed.
What that means is that either there is no business plan to recover the RIFC company, or that the nominees don’t wish to share their plans

The simplistic view is that, after excluding the “one off costs” published in the accounts, that RIFC are still trading at a loss.
Therefor there are limited options outside of fundraising to address that ongoing deficit.

These limited options are to either increase revenue, decrease expenditure, or both.

Without specific reference to these limited options , and how this would be tackled, it is difficult to get any confidence that the nominees would be able to make RIFC a break even business without investment or share issues.

I sincerely hope that the nominees will soon start to move their focus from voting off the current board to voting the nominees on.

For me that is what is required for any lingering doubters in the fan base to make their minds up

Bill

Smoke and Mirrors

As the Nominee directors posed for a photo shoot to sign a “Rangers Constitution” piece of propaganda yesterday it all seemed a little contrived, and desperate.

It’s worth recalling just what these pledges these nominated Directors make in detail

“1. We will never sell Ibrox Stadium. We will ring fence the asset to ensure this can never happen. This is our home and will always remain our home.”

This is a pledge we should all welcome, and pressure should be put on the current board to make a similar promise in print.

2. We are committed to fan representation on the board.

One can only hope that this process is fair and democratic and the whole Rangers support can openly vote for candidates. One also hopes that any Rangers supporter lucky enough to be elected is genuinely objective and inclusive.

3. No director including his/her family members
or close business associates should have
any financial interest in any contract involving
the club.

This should be a given

4. We will undertake to ensure that all executive director salaries and bonuses are approved by a Remuneration Committee and subject to market benchmarking.

This should also be a given

5. We will undertake to ensure that all shareholders are treated equally.

At this point it just looks like they are trying to pad out this “constitution” as it would look far too light with 5 points on it. What exactly do they mean here? Do they seriously wish us to believe that Joe Bloggs with one share will be treated the same as Jimmy Smith with 2M shares? Really? How?

6. We will undertake to ensure that there is total transparency in all the club’s affairs.

This seems like a very vague statement that cannot be quantified. Rangers are a PLC company who have to adhere to strict LSE Guidelines. How the requisitioners intend to fulfil that promise without breaching these guidelines should be explained in laymans language. Of course this should be in the interests of transparency

7. There will be no long term debt.

While all Rangers fans would agree that the club should never be exposed by its corporate shell’s banking activities, it would be silly to dismiss any opportunity to utilise any debt facility. This statement raises more questions than answers.

It assumes that the club will have to be operated at break even level immediately.

Therefor, given that the club is operating at a loss at the moment, even discounting the IPO transactions, what business plan do the nominees have to increase revenue and decrease expenditure in order to achieve that break even position?

While this “constitution” is largely a vision based series of pledges, what would be far more effective in convincing shareholders to vote them on to the board would be some tangible plans for how to firstly return the club to a sound financial footing, and how to build on that footing to grow the club.

Without such a solid plan, how can anyone have any confidence that there is any substance behind such vague statements?

8. All non executive directors fees are to be waived unless the club is in Europe.

What exactly do they mean by fees? Bonuses? Surely bonuses should be decided on appropriate performance targets? Some Rangers fans would question whether bonuses should ever be appropriate. I’d be wary that such a statement doesn’t stop the gravy train rolling in to the station when Rangers return to Europe at the precise time the team will need more investment.

What I would ask these nominees to do is cut the crap and start telling us how they will save the club.

They could start by telling fans’ groups intent on starving the club of its primary source of income that boycotting Rangers is counter-productive and will only damage the club.

I won’t hold my breath on any of the above happening.

Bill.

Celtic player jailed for 5 years…

…could have been a headline in today’s newspapers, following the guilty verdict on Celtic player Ryan Caird, but it isn’t.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/celtic-youth-star-caught-with-knife.22718299


“CELTIC youth player Ryan Caird has been given a year to show he can be well behaved after pleading guilty to carrying a knife. The 16-year-old was caught with a four-inch knife in his pocket by police officers in February. Yesterday Glasgow Sheriff Court deferred the case until November 2014.”


http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/celtic-youth-star-admits-knife-charge-142917n.22735415


“Celtic youth star admits knife charge


CELTIC youth player Ryan Caird has been given a year to show he can be of good behaviour after pleading guilty to carrying a knife.

The 16-year-old was caught in February this year by officers on patrol who searched him in the street.

He had a four-inch knife in the pocket of his tracksuit top and was arrested and taken into police custody before appearing in court two days later.

The teenager, from Cambuslang, pled guilty at Glasgow Sheriff Court to having the blade on him, on February 23.

And yesterday at the court sheriff Charles McFarlane QC deferred the case for 12 months for Caird to be of good behaviour.”

Strangely this “sentence” flies in the face of the SNP Scottish Government’s proclamations on how they are addressing knife crime in Scotland.

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/dec/msp-pledges-help-clear-knife-crime-streets

“MSP pledges to help clear knife crime from streets Sun, 02/12/2012 - 09:34

The success rate of the Scottish Government’s joined-up approach to combating knife crime in Scotland – and in particular South Lanarkshire – is being hailed by Christina McKelvie MSP.

This comes at the end of a week which saw Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announce that the maximum penalty for carrying a knife is to increase from four to five years imprisonment, which is part of the strategic battle against knife crime.

Ms McKelvie, SNP MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, said:

“The joined up approach involving the Scottish Government, the police, Scottish Courts, Crimestoppers UK and people of all ages and backgrounds in our communities – nowhere more so than here in South Lanarkshire – will overcome the scourge of knife crime.

“There is now a record number of police on our streets which has helped drive violent crime down to a 30 year low; there are 44 per cent fewer weapons on our streets since 2006/7, but there are some who still persist in thinking it is OK to carry a knife.

“It is not OK - and together we will drive that message home.”

One has to wonder about this anomaly between these proclamations on knife crime, and allowing Caird to walk free without so much as a rap on the knuckles.

One also has to wonder at the same Sheriff sentencing someone to 6 months community service for abusing Celtic manager Neil Lennon via the internet.

Isn’t the Scottish Legal system odd?

Bill

The Most Shameless Support in Football

The Celtic support can count themselves lucky that Rangers civil war and a compliant media have ensured that the Amsterdam riots have largely been kept off the front page of Scotland’s newspapers. In the cases were reports have been published, they are completely at odds with the reports from the Dutch press, and also at odds with the shameful scenes filmed and broadcast on Youtube of Celtic supporters attacking trams and undercover police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SbVLYzcWNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF1IyeegIo

As 8 undercover police officers were attacked in Dam square with one knocked unconscious the scenes, 44 Celtic fans were arrested on the night, with most simply cautioned, but 6 were detained in Amsterdam, 4 of whom have been released.

The scenes were reminiscent of the ugly scenes in Manchester 2008, however, the response in the media and amongst the support involved couldn’t be more different

While Manchester City Council and the GMP did everything to antagonise the Rangers support, the vast majority of the 200,000 present in Manchester did their club and their country proud. Those involved in the trouble amounted to 0.02% of the support present that day.

Of course there is no excuse for the behaviour of a miniscule percentage of the Rangers support that day, and the response across the UK was one of disgust.

The many cases of police brutality that night were glossed over in favour of that that shameful attack on Mick Regan of GMP. What followed was a hatchet job on the Rangers support by Scotland’s tabloids, broadsheets and broadcasters, with CCTV stills on the front page of every single alleged participant of the riot.

The BBC in Scotland ran dedicated radio programmes to discuss the riots, and Real Radio had Phil MacGiollabhain guesting on their show claiming to have “broke the story”. He never did admit if he was in Manchester to watch Rangers, or why. BBC also ran a Panorama programme across the UK, with an appeal for witnesses being the cover for as high a profile hatchet job on the Rangers support ever seen.

Given that there are cases of football violence in England on a similar scale almost every week that decision to broadcast this “appeal” seemed very strange

The Rangers support itself condemned the behaviour of that small minority.

Fast forward to 2013 and Celtic’s riot in Amsterdam is being spun by those same media outlets to portray the rioters and those responsible for knocking a policeman unconscious as victims. There is little in the way of condemnation and lots in the way of lies and spin in the media with some of the defending of the indefensible quite disgusting.

Even worse, those at the thick of it, rather than be condemned by their fan chiefs and fellow fans for shaming their club are being supported.

The Celtic Trust have now started a campaign to “free the Amsterdam 2”

http://www.celtictrust.net/index.php?func=d_home_article&id=449

The brass neck takes some beating, to pardon a pun

Bear in mind that the two in custody are charged with seriously assaulting a police officer

This must be the most shameless support on the planet



Bill

Fair? Wanna Bet?

Following the Ian Black “betting” affair, Rangers fans quite rightly expressed concern at the apparent singling out of a Rangers player.

My first instinct when I heard the news was that Black should have been sacked, given that reports stated that he had betted against his own club, with the inference that it was Rangers he betted against.

As it has now transpired he betted for Rangers to draw in a match he played in, and scored in a convincing victory, at odds (pardon the pun) with his fixed odds coupon prediction, it was not as serious as has been made out.

What has happened since has been interesting.

Aside from the fact that Black is to date the only player identified and punished for “irregular betting” in Scotland, public boasts of betting from other players in Scotland on Twitter have been ignored completely.

It’s common knowledge that players enjoy a bet, and picking one player out, who just happens to be a Rangers player, may just turn out to be the last player to face just scrutiny

It just so happens that the SPFA have been visiting grounds across Scotland to advise players on betting.

Clearly, if it wasn’t a problem, they wouldn’t be talking to every player in Scotland about it.

Players have been told that a Ladbrokes employee “grassed” Black to the SFA, following him winning a bet via his telephone account, and them investigating his activity.

Any Rangers fan who still uses Ladbrokes, should take their business elsewhere.

The Nasty world of PR

In the last two weeks the Scottish public have been exposed to the brutal workings of the PR industry, with the machinations of Jack Irvine and Iain MacIver shocking a public who should be aware of how unprincipled a profession it really is.

For his part Irvine, who has spent many years allegedly acting for Rangers, but actually working for prospective owners, promoted a blog by arch Rangers hater Paul McConville, then added insult to injury by allowing himself to be interviewed by another Rangers hating Celtic supporter Andy Muirhead for Scotzine.

If Rangers fans needed any convincing how much of a lowlife Irvine was then this should have been the nail in the coffin.

Irvine, in rubbing various people up the wrong way, is doing the exact opposite of what a Rangers PR should be doing. Rangers can now count themselves victims once again in a week of negative propaganda led by The Scottish Sun, in two ridiculously ill-judged stories about Rangers, that would in normal circumstances be ripped to shreds in a libel court.

The timing is curious, and comes on the back of David Leggat leaking an email where Irvine personally slated Sun Editor Andy Harries as well as Record Editor Allan Rennie. While one can understand Leggat’s anger at Irvine’s hypocrisy and unsuitability for the Rangers job, the leak has been counter-productive, with Harries apparently being sensitive to criticism, and now on the attack. Sadly he’s not attacking Irvine, but attacking Rangers.

On the back of the PR gaffe by SNP MSP Bill Walker’s spokesman slating the victim of Walker’s physical abuse, it shone a light on a dark world That world of professional spin is at least now visible, but the dark arts have been at work in other less exposed places, also on Rangers business.

There have been three huge Rangers stories dominating the front pages of Scotland’s media this week, two of which are most definitely touched by the dark art of “spin”.

First up was the ridiculous story of a Celtic supporter complaining that his dog was the victim of sectarian abuse by two Rangers fans, on his word alone, and no evidence, nor any charges. The piece in the Sun covered 3 pages with photos of said mutt and owner resplendent in the colours of Glasgow’s second team.

One Rangers site pointed out that the complainant had questionable opinions on a number of matters, with some screenshots of his facebook, exposing him as a rabid bigot, republican and racist.

Strangely, the Sun chose to ignore the fact their “witness” was about as reliable as Craig Whyte’s cleaners, but just wished to spin the yarn that Rangers fans are bad eggs all round.

Next up was the one of the BBCs cast of Anti Rangers bigots, Jim Spence, who claimed on BBC that Rangers had died. I won’t use the exact quote, as I’m sick of seeing it. The result was 400 complaints to the BBC Trust to point out that their own ruling on the matter was being ignored by Spence. What happened next was remarkable. The BBC issued an odd statement that was interpreted by some as an apology. It was not. They said, and I quote “I am sorry if you were offended by this”.

I’m afraid, that is not an apology. Subsequent to this, Rhebel blogger Phil MacGiollaBhain claimed that Spence had offered voluntary redundancy in disgust at the BBCs lack of support for him. More propaganda was released that the BBC were now to back him, with input from NUJ Scotland chief Paul Holleran.

By now it was being reported that the legitimate complaints about Spence’s deliberate error were abuse, and that Spence was the victim of Rangers fans’ abuse Again this was with no evidence, but plenty of “support” from MacGiollaBhain, Celtic Minded’s Scott McMenemy, and Graham Spiers all expressing their concern over the treatment he was "getting". The concern and co-operation in turning a situation around was a remarkable lesson on how to manage the media in Scotland, although it has to be said being in the media to start with must help.

So, while the NUJ should be berating a member for deliberately ignoring legal guidance on the status of Rangers, and thereby deliberately being inaccurate when describing the club, they have done the opposite, and assisted him to engineer a situation where legitimate complaints about the disgraceful conduct of a journalist are ignored, and said journalist is perceived as a victim.

Unsurprisingly, Spence is now complaining that he has been abused in the street. Given that he has been in victim mode all week can he really be believed? The unofficial PR with Spence has been remarkable, and Irvine should take note as to how it can be done, and it is not done in isolation, it is done by co-ordinating with people with the same aims as you, not with the enemy.


The other story this week that the Sun printed (this morning) was that Frank Blin and Paul Murray had been appointed to the Rangers board, despite the club statement to the LSE yesterday saying no additional board members were to be accepted to the board.

Rangers reiterated the statement this morning, and it later transpired that Blin had in fact completely walked away from the Jim McColl requisitioning group.

How they completely called it wrong is for them to explain, but they have embarrassed themselves this week, and damaged their already decreasing credibility.

Who in their right mind can now believe anything in that paper?
Bill

Return

After a lengthy hiatus I have decided to return to my blog.


After following the Charlotte Fakes blog, I was intrigued to find out more about how the Twitter account was getting it’s information.

Most of the evidence pointed to the involvement of Craig Whyte and Imran Ahmad, but I was interested in finding out more, and started making tentative enquiries As soon as I started on this process I became aware that I was not alone, and that there were others working to the same objective, including one blogger, one writer for a Rangers site, and a dedicated Twitter account.

While in the past my sensitive ego would have had me trying in vein to get information first, to blog about it, this time my objective after some initial enquiries was to find out enough to pass information to one of the fellow bloggers and let them run with it.

As luck would have it, both the twitter account, and the blogger must have, between them, spooked Charlotte Fakes as they (Charlotte Fakes) have feverishly been covering their tracks, since one blog named an individual, and the Twitter account made some hints as to who it could be. It halted my bigger plans to investigate the network of leaks to Charlotte Fakes, but did rekindle my desire to blog again I have to thank both “themanthebheastscanttame” and “Charlotte Hunter” for (at least temporarily) silencing the Charlotte Fakes account You may wish to blame them for me deciding to blog again.

More Soon

Bill