Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you


I have been sitting on Rangers 2011 financial results for several weeks.  The decision to not post them on here was partially in the hope that Mr. Whyte would grasp the opportunity to have a massive creative accounting party with the numbers.  Releasing my figures after the fact could help expose any slipperiness.  Alas, the numbers in both documents are pretty closely aligned.  The few numbers which are not in complete agreement are only off by margins that are consistent with the polishing and refinement process that will take place during the preparation of financial statements for any company. The biggest difference is the charge for the “wee tax case” (Discounted Options Scheme) in the official Rangers data.

You can read and compare the data for yourself here.  One benefit of using my copy of the accounts is that you get to read the numbers against the traditional Rangers’ graphic layout. I am sure that we will all agree that this presentation is much more dignified than the tawdry Times New Roman affair available on the club’s website.

The differences in this file and the unaudited numbers released by Rangers can be discussed in more depth in the blog replies, but I do not see anything materially amiss. Curses! Foiled again.  The meaning behind the numbers is more important.

    • Plus ça change

It is seven months since Whyte completed his purchase of Rangers. Yet reading the Chairman’s Statement accompanying the unaudited numbers was like a trip down memory lane. You could be mistaken for hearing the mellifluous voice of Sir David Murray as you read. No financial disaster was too great to be spun as a period of great opportunity and success. Data is cherry-picked to emphasise any good news that can be found and a jaunty, upbeat tone is always appropriate. For example, the weight placed on heralding that the club is now free of the yoke of bank debt and interference. Overlooked is the fact that Rangers still owe this money to their parent company and that far from delighting in being ‘bank-free’, Rangers’ board spent a lot of effort after the takeover to try to find a bank that would lend to them. (I have the documentary evidence to prove it too). Of course, Whyte is hardly unique among corporate Chairmen in this regard, but he has, yet again, missed a golden opportunity to level with the very people whose support he will need in the coming months if he is to see Rangers safe.

    • What was missing

The superficial good news for Rangers was the reduction in net debt and the impressive cash balance reported at 30 June 2011. However, Mr. Whyte appears to have embraced a technique long favoured in the east end of the city for generating soothing headlines and low net debt figures. As we have discussed in the replies section of this blog many times, net debt is a meaningless number- especially for a football club. It is simply “bank debt minus cash” on just one day in time. However, it does not include money owed to other creditors. If you stop paying your bills before the end of the season, you will end up with more cash. The bank debt will stay the same and the increased cash will result in this “net debt” figure dropping. The day after your reporting date, you can pay your bills and watch your cash pile evaporate, but you do not have to report those numbers to the public. It is like skipping a lease payment on your car. You will have more cash in the bank. Your personal “net debt” will have dropped, but you are deluding yourself if you think that you have achieved anything.

To get an accurate picture of Rangers’ real debt, we need to include negative working capital (the difference between what others owe you and you owe others in the short-term).
The following information was not included in yesterday’s announcement and is needed to understand the real debt picture:

The meaningful debt (click here for a calculation) is actually about £22.7m and not the £14m claimed.

More interesting is the verification of what this blog has been telling you in recent weeks.  Once the increases in trade creditors and social security/ taxes (i.e. bills that they had chosen to not pay to allow the cash balance to rise) are  accounted for, Rangers actually had only £644k more cash at 30 June 2011 than they had on the same day in 2010.

We have been telling you about this: Rangers have not been paying their trading partners nor HMRC as a matter of deliberate policy.

    • The big picture

Other than for those who enjoy financial navel-gazing, these accounts do not tell much about Rangers’ future. Until the FTT(T) returns with its findings, Whyte has to sustain the club by whatever means he can muster. Had the club been paying its bills as they fell due, they would have exhausted the cash from normal operations about now. By delaying every bill, Whyte gets to extend the life of the club incorporated in 1873 a bit longer. To survive until a “death with dignity” can be arranged following the crystalising of the Big Case bill Whyte will have to access external funds. Perhaps he is a man of fathomless wealth and can do so with his spare change. If Whyte cannot arrange external financing, he is going to have to sell off a lot of family silver between now and May just to avoid the blame for any insolvency.

With Whyte’s financial results appearing as a reasonably credible representation of Rangers financial performance last season, we are left to ponder the question: why are they unaudited?

The Glasgow rumour mill has been rattling away for a couple of weeks about discord in the relationship between Whyte and Grant Thornton.  I cannot say more than that, but I think that Rangers’ accountants will have finally ran out of patience with the risks associated with the Rangers audit.  (Whyte does not have the ability to dangle the MIH work in front of them either).  There will be one issue that is causing more trouble than any other: the inclusion of a going-concern warning.

It is the client management / board of directors’ duty to provide a statement on the validity of the assumption that the business is a going-concern i.e. it is not expected to fail anytime soon.  The auditor is expected to review that statement and if he has material concerns, to provide a qualified or modified audit opinion.  If the client and the auditor cannot agree?  In the old pre-Arthur Andersen / Enron days it was much like a protection racket (or an insurance policy if you like).  The fee could be increased to compensate the auditor for his increased risk for signing off on the accounts without raising the alarm.  In recent years, conflicts like this are more common and chartered accountants are less likely to yield to client pressure.  There is no obligation on Whyte to use Grant Thornton.  He could just as easily get a “single shingle” chartered accountant to sign off.  To be frank, I am surprised that he has not already done this.

One of the practical problems of a qualified or modified audit opinion is that Rangers would have to move to quarterly reporting i.e. producing financial statements every three months.  For a man with a less than stellar record of filing corporate documents on schedule, Whyte is unlikely to want to provide such frequent insight into his affairs.

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

481 Responses to Rangers 2011 Financial Results: What Mr. Whyte has not told you

  1. Adam says:

    Auldheid. Are you saying then you have not on here claimed that it was your opinion that the SFA have “cheated” Scottish football by continually turning a blind eye to rangers issues over the years ?

    If you haven’t, then I humbly apologize for mixing you up with whoever it was.

  2. Adam says:

    Oh and I agree an open and transparent policy is best. But I believe the organization is so badly run that it’s wishful thinking.

  3. kmag says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    01/12/2011 at 11:59 pm

    On the subject of plus, while they will accept an unaudited financial statement, Listed Companies must comply with the following:

    51 An issuer must publish annual audited accounts within the time frame required by the jurisdiction to which it is primarily subject or its applicable accounting standards or, if no such time frame is decreed, within a timetable which the issuer must agree in advance with PLUS.
    52 An issuer must produce annual audited accounts in accordance with UK GAAP, US GAAP or International Accounting Standards, or other appropriate standard agreed with PLUS. Where PLUS agrees that an issuer may produce annual accounts to another appropriate standard, the issuer must state any significant differences between the accounting policies of the alternative standard and the most similar prescribed standard.
    53 Where the audit report in respect of the annual accounts of an issuer has been modified in relation to going concern, the issuer must thereafter prepare a trading statement in respect of the first and third quarters of each financial year (commencing with the first such quarter to end after the announcement of the issuer„s final results to which the modified audit report relates) until an audit report without modification is published in respect of a subsequent financial period. The trading statement must be announced as soon as possible and no later than one month after the end of the relevant period, and contain the following information:
     an explanation of the impact of any material events, transactions or developments

    Click to access IssuerRules.pdf

  4. Auldheid says:

    Adam says:

    02/12/2011 at 9:56 am

    Adam

    I have been very careful right from the off to avoid that emotive term. It generates heat and little light, it was a barrier to making any progress. If I have used it other than as I explained I have gone against my own rule. To say cheating took place would be to infer all sorts of motives that are at the end of the day unprovable, unless of course evidence of motives came out.

    As to reforming the SFA it requires culture change, but I have experienced that in my old work environment and it can be made to work. A feature of the process was fear on the part of those at whom change was aimed and a couple of years later wondering why it had not been done sooner. If I can go back to my original point using the Tait story, lets stop playing the old game and start playing a new one that eschews all that was wrong (in the sense of not working) about the old game.

    The problem is the pace that football administration works at but I am encouraged that
    a) The SFA voted for reform
    b) The speed that the new Disciplinary process was introduced and the work that went into seling both by Stewart Regan.

  5. MDCCCLXXXVIII says:

    Adam says:
    02/12/2011 at 8:16 am
    So the “cheating Celtic” only started in 2009 in your mind Auldheid? Again I raise you a “William” who actually believes that since the sporting integrity nonsense spouted by Peter lawwell that the SFA have been “infested by Celtic sympathizers” including referees and linesmen who are hell bent on cheating rangers.

    ————————————————————————————————————————

    Adam do you never wonder why more and more posters are getting irritated with your comments. The above statement is, in my opinion, just a typical, crass instance of ‘whataboutery’. I have followed Auldheid’s informative views on a number of websites for several years. In my opinion he is as measured and consistent a contributor as any. Paranoia is not a term that anyone can label Auldheid

    That you are an intelligent man who has contributed well to RTC’s blog isn’t in doubt. However you seem more and more content with acting as an agent provocateur. You really should quit the histrionics, ‘wow just wow’, ‘little pieces of you dying’ and ‘Hugh, I know you are pretending to ignore me’ do you a disservice. I’m sure you’re a better man than that….or are you?

  6. calderon says:

    Adam says:
    01/12/2011 at 11:35 pm

    Tbk – I honestly can’t think of any. What I find crazy though is that people actually believe that Celtic Directors with in the region of 25 years service in the SFA sat back and allowed their club to be prejudiced against by fellow officials with no connection to the club they were apparently helping all along.
    _________________________________________________

    So, you are saying that these Celtic directors should have been able to see into the future when Rangers’ use of employment benefits trusts and non tax payments became apparent in 2011 and taken action?

    It looks like the responses to the blog have settled into that routine where Adam feels that he is in the driving seat.

  7. Timmy7 says:

    No MDCCCLXXXVIII, he’s not. His raison d’etre on here is to distract and annoy. He claims not to be a frequenter of FF but constantly uses their kind of arguments in his ‘whataboutery.’ Fortunately Auldheid has proved too wise to take the bait.

  8. MDCCCLXXXVIII says:

    Timmy7

    I’ve no intention of getting in to slanging matches with anyone on here. Auldheid is articulate and intelligent enough to stand up for himself but I just felt that Adam should call a halt on this one. RTC himself has confirmed that Adam has been guilty of trolling on occasion, and in my opinion Adam has cranked this up further of late, needlessly in my opion.

  9. MDCCCLXXXVIII says:

    *opion should read opinion.

  10. MJR88 says:

    Having read today’s papers, there seems to be a significant step change in the reporting of Rangers financial woes. For the first time since this all began I think the MSM are only just starting to get the message that something is seriously wrong with the integrity of the MBB and that the pesky tax issues are not going to “blow over”

  11. TheBlackKnight says:

    The Scotsman,
    “Whyte could face ‘fit and proper’ test as SFA seek answers on disqualification”
    By STEPHEN HALLIDAY
    Published on Friday 2 December 2011 00:14

    “Under the SFA’s Articles of Association, they reserve the right to rule on whether any individual listed on a club’s official return of office bearers is a “fit and proper person to hold such position within Association Football.”

    Among the “relevant facts” listed by the SFA in their determination of such suitability, which they acknowledge as “illustrative and not exhaustive”, is that an individual “has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Directors’ Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years”.

    Whyte was disqualified as a director of Vital UK Limited in 2000 for a period of seven years. His period of disqualification therefore expired four years ago, within the five-year period indicated by the SFA article. But Rangers contend that Whyte should be assessed on the actual date of disqualification, which was 11 years ago.”

    I’m sure I have read this before 😉

  12. BertieBuggerlugs(I was never a Captain but was always the first to bend his ear when the blaming started) says:

    I enjoyed the article, but until the 10,000Ib gorilla is fed a bunch of bananas or locked up once and for all in the Zoo on Aministration Lane, then these accounts are like a roast dinner you are not allowed to eat. All that you can do is move the peas around the plate.

  13. BillyBhoy68 says:

    So what’s the options then for the SFA, demand that CW sells up ?

    Another trick up CW’s sleeve then, not that it was planned.

    Not only can he blame the old regime, he’s now in the position of possibly stating that it’s the SFA who are now playing hardball and he has no option left but to withdraw, saving himself the grief of adding to his £1 expenditure to date.

  14. TheBlackKnight says:

    just to echo Hugh’s comments (among others). It is amazing how the MSM can get it sooooo wrong.

    “Whyte was disqualified as a director of Vital UK Limited in 2000 for a period of seven years”.

    As is stated in the Rangers statement to the Plus Markets.

    What they haven’t said, or picked up on, is that The Whyte Knight was banned from being a director. Period!

  15. scoobytees says:

    Just been doing an exam with a student-one of the questions was;

    Which of the following can be used a source of short-term funding?

    A. Tax provision

  16. JD says:

    Does anyone at Hamden do anything pro-active apart from arranging xmass festivities for themselves ,are we to seriously believe they have not discussed CW before now ,any company with even a little credibility would have initiated investigations if any TV company had made a programme that carried the type of information the BBC had released into the public domain about CW factual or otherwise ,even a call to say ,is there something you have forgotten to advise us off , but you know whats next ,they will revert to old and set a meeting for May to discuss this .

  17. Hugh McEwan says:

    If he has had to make an admission to the PLUS market under the 5 year rule then he must accept that the 5 years runs from the end of the disqualification. At least for them.

    Surely the same principle would apply to the SFA. Or is it just a coincidence they both use 5 years as their time period. With one starting from the date of disqualification whilst the other starts from the date disqualification is over.

    No wonder Mr Whyte is confused.

  18. TheBlackKnight says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    02/12/2011 at 12:12 pm

    Hugh, stranger still, it appears The Whyte Knight was only “disqualified” as a director from one company. 😉

  19. rab says:

    There are a number of contributors who are on top of their game just now, but auldheid is my man of the match in the last 24 hours. Great stuff.

  20. Justinian says:

    Adam says:
    01/12/2011 at 11:35 pm

    I’ve emailed Mulder and Scully though. If anyone can understand these thoughts. It’s them.
    *************************************************************************************
    Well, you keep mailing them, my son.

    You may find evidence such as I possess.After graduating from GU I was apprenticed to a Lawyer who was a noted Celtic personality, indeed a Board member. The titbits which came my way at morning coffee breaks would shake to bits your confidence in the glorious institution which you place your faith in.

    A scourge on Scotland all of my life and, sadly, I do not see much changing when the likes of you continue to offer up some kind of defence.

  21. Hugh McEwan says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    02/12/2011 at 12:18 pm
    Hugh McEwan says:
    02/12/2011 at 12:12 pm

    Hugh, stranger still, it appears The Whyte Knight was only “disqualified” as a director from one company.

    =====================

    Now that’s harsh, they invent a punishment just for him.

    Though to be fair it isn’t a particularly onerous one.

  22. easyJambo says:

    I just checked the English FA’s “Fit and Proper Persons” rules to see how they handle disqualifications. It appears that they only require that you are not disqualified at the time of the declaration you make as meeting the criteria as a “Fit and Proper Person”. i.e. there is no time constrained rule.

  23. TheBlackKnight says:

    easyJambo says:
    02/12/2011 at 12:55 pm
    “I just checked the English FA’s “Fit and Proper Persons” rules to see how they handle disqualifications. It appears that they only require that you are not disqualified at the time of the declaration you make as meeting the criteria as a “Fit and Proper Person”. i.e. there is no time constrained rule.”

    Do you believe the same type of form was issued to the SFA?

  24. Thomas says:

    Auldheid says:
    02/12/2011 at 1:58 am
    Adam says:

    02/12/2011 at 12:34 am

    I’m not talking about the last 25 years, my Tait reference was to the joke at the end, not Tait’s reported leanings. It was my way of saying time to stop this charade and start preparing for a different footballing future that includes Rangers. FFS, I thought you were smart.

    When it comes to paranoia I am talking about the events starting in 2009. Before then I thought much as you do and thought the breaks more or less evened themselves out.

    However in season 2009/10 I watched refereeing decisions that defied belief and then in Oct 2010 listened to Hugh Dallas and Graham Speirs on the Monday after the Tannadice match on Clyde talking about a new initiative from UEFA to get linesmen more involved. An initiative that I never heard mention again. I remember at the time looking at the radio and thinking stop insulting my intelligence for that is what it was. I later compared what Dallas knew at that time with what he had said that night and concluded it was an attempt that night to stop the truth coming out. Craven had blown that away.

    Celtic had obviously had enough too and made a deal with Regan on getting reform, I do not think that was paranoia driven either and I wonder what leverage Celtic applied. I think Celtic knew themselves when their intelligence was being insulted and please do not try insulting mine by saying Dallas never lied. He knew the truth, did not tell it and tried to use some new UEFA guidance to justify what had happened between McDonald and Craven. When you hear that kind of thing, match officials lieing, their boss lieing, it stops being paranoia mate.
    ——————————————————————————————–

    Not to mention the revelations of the tampered match reports.Of which an unusually large proportion of them involved Celtic.

    (sorry, hate to go off topic but I’m supporting Auldheid here)

  25. FJ says:

    According to the Stewart Regan interview on BBC they asked for clarification of Mr Whyte’s ban after the BBC documentary, and they’re still waiting now.

    I won’t be holding my breath.

    What will be interesting (and Mr Regan dodged the question when asked) is how long they will wait for Rangers to volunteer the information.

  26. easyJambo says:

    TBK I would expect that it would be something similar

    Click to access FAFitProperRegs1011.pdf

  27. Davythelotion says:

    Now the MBB will have to brief Carter Ruck to sue the SFA, muck rakers!

  28. TheBlackKnight says:

    EJ, that’s not what I asked. 😉

  29. It might have been mentioned on here alreday – but the McIntyre v Rangers case is calling in court next week.

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/rangers-have-another-appointment-at-court-next-week/

  30. TheBlackKnight says:

    DJ Rangers Football Club Plc Director Declaration

    TIDMRFC The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. Director disclosure

    The information in the paragraph below is disclosed pursuant to paragraph 18 of Appendix 1 of the PLUS Rules.

    Craig Whyte was disqualified to act as a director of Vital UK Limited in 2000 for a period of seven years.

    The Directors of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. accept responsibility for this announcement.

    END

    (END) Dow Jones Newswires

    November 30, 2011 11:31 ET (16:31 GMT)

    Hmmmmm. Just been corresponding with my ‘advisor’ and I was struck by the possible ‘importance’ of this document.

    It does say that The Whyte Knight was indeed “disqualified to act as a director of Vital UK Limited in 2000 for a period of seven years.”

    Does this purposely state that he was not disqualified to act for other companies?

    This could be construed as an admission that he believed he was disqualified, but only for that company. It would make sense as public record of the fact, but the question should be, why does The Whyte Knight and by association, Rangers Football Club PLC, believe this statement to be true? Is this their “misunderstanding” (of the rules governing company directors?)

    He was disqualified as acting as a director, of ANY company.

    To purposely lie to a Plus Market Stock Exchange is a criminal offense (fraud).

  31. Mark says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    02/12/2011 at 1:52 pm

    Well TBK he is a criminal…….in my opinion…..pay the lass her 3000!

  32. TheBlackKnight says:

    I have been pointed to this:

    “If disqualified, a director may not act as a director or manager in the disqualification period, if he /she does so, that is a CRIMINAL offence.!
    The penalties are: on conviction; imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine or both. Plus the possibility of personal liability for ALL relevant debts of the company.

    An interesting point to remember is that; if a director or manager acts on the instructions of a person who has been disqualified then, they too may be made personally liable for the company debts. So beware of banned directors.”

  33. Daft Laddie says:

    Forgive my simplicty in these matters, but can someone please clarify the status of RFC’s currently ‘frozen’ monies?

    In particular, what happens to those monies if RFC enters admin?

    If they revert to the company (RFC) – and with the £2.4M due to be collected by HMRC next week – it would seem there must a huge incentive for MBB to call ‘Time’ before then …?

  34. altim says:

    Can someone with the relevant financial or companies background advise me of the following with regards administartion and subsequent liquidation.

    I am of the belief that if RFC or whatever they call themselves at present bring in an administrator it is their position to administrate the company initially to see if there is anyway of moving forward as a going concern. If this is not possible, for example if they cannot meet their liabilities, they call for the company to be liquidated. Which I believe mean selling off of their assetts. I think that realistically they have Jelavic worth on a normal market £3to4M obviously minus the outstanding balance due to his previous club. Davis £1.5to2M, McGregor £3to4M, and maybe Papac £1.5M. If the market is forced these players will be worth less, due to economic fact. The rest of the squad is worth near to nothing, perhaps £5m on a good day. This is not me taking a boot at the rangers team, it is just as I believe.

    Being that there is some dispute over Rangers as a going concern, does this mean that the next to go are Ibrox and Murray Park?

    Again I believe that it was reported a time ago that as security to loans their value was vastly inflated and in the event of a forced sale their value will plumate.

    Does this effectively mean that Rangers are out of business or does admin/liqiud protect their assetts in someway?

    Honestly looking for an answer, not having a go!!

  35. chicos says:

    http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/284543-rangers-did-not-disclose-craig-whyte-ban-to-sfa/

    Rangers did not disclose Craig Whyte’s directorship ban on documents submitted to the Scottish Football Association following his takeover of the Ibrox club, STV has learned.

    The SFA has requested “key information” from Rangers regarding Whyte after the club confirmed to the Stock Exchange that the businessman had been banned from acting as a director for seven years from 2000 onwards.

    Rangers are bound by the governing body’s rules to supply information on any office bearers appointed by the club in a document known as an official return. The club submitted the relevant paperwork in May following Whyte’s takeover at Ibrox but details of the disqualification were not included.

    The SFA Articles of Association lists facts that they take under consideration while considering who would be a “fit and proper person” to hold office. Specific mention is made of disqualification in Article 10.4 which includes mentioning whether an individual has: “been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Directors’ Disqualification Act 1986, within the previous five years”.

    The admission by Rangers that Whyte had served a disqualification raises questions as to whether or not the club breached SFA rules by not declaring the ban.

    That could rest on the interpretation of the rule in question. Whyte’s ban began in 2000 but ended in 2007, meaning that if the five year reporting period is considered to apply to the start of a ban then there is no obligation to disclose.

    However, if the rule is taken to mean serving a disqualification the Rangers could find themselves in breach of the rules.

    When asked, Rangers declined to comment.

    ——————————————————————–

    now i know there has been plenty of debate re: the 5 year thingie. some are saying this is served at start point, others after the 7 year period.

    if the former were true, then would MBB need to inform the plus stockmarket as per wednesdays anouncement ? shirley there would have been no obligation for him to disclose this if the 5 year reporting period started at the same time as his ban ? no ?

  36. Barcabhoy says:

    Auldheids views on the SFA are very much in line with my own. I believe the SFA have on occasion been guilty of bias, not suspected of it, guilty of it as demonstrated by Farrygate.

    However i think these were rare occasions, and were not proof of an institutional position.

    Like Auldheid, i watched refereeing displays in 09 and 10 which defied logical explanation. Some decisions, like McCurry’s performance in the Rangers v Dundee Utd game, were beyond parody. Similarly the decision by Craig Thomson to deny Maloney a penalty at Ibrox for the most blatant foul imaginable, was beyond belief.

    Thomson is a good ref, who has returned to being a good ref. I dont have any concerns now about the fairness of the officials. However anyone who doesnt question refereeing performances in the 09-10 season, either didnt watch the games, or is in denial.

  37. Barcabhoy says:

    Altim

    If Hooiveld is worth £1.5 million, then i suspect Davis would be worth a lot more, probably £4-5 million

  38. altim says:

    Sorry barcabhoy I should have stated, values in the fire sale that would be at Ibrox if what I am asking is true. But I would think on a good day £3M at best

  39. Paul Mac says:

    Barcabhoy says:
    02/12/2011 at 3:34 pm
    Auldheids views on the SFA are very much in line with my own. I believe the SFA have on occasion been guilty of bias, not suspected of it, guilty of it as demonstrated by Farrygate.

    However i think these were rare occasions, and were not proof of an institutional position.

    Like Auldheid, i watched refereeing displays in 09 and 10 which defied logical explanation. Some decisions, like McCurry’s performance in the Rangers v Dundee Utd game, were beyond parody. Similarly the decision by Craig Thomson to deny Maloney a penalty at Ibrox for the most blatant foul imaginable, was beyond belief.

    Thomson is a good ref, who has returned to being a good ref. I dont have any concerns now about the fairness of the officials. However anyone who doesnt question refereeing performances in the 09-10 season, either didnt watch the games, or is in denial.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    That will be the same season Craig Levein at the aftermatch interview commented on how his defender had more or less caught the ball in their own penalty box and he was amazed it wasn’t a penalty…the ref Mr. McCurry,,,the result 0-0 the oposition Celtic…the venue Celtic park..

  40. Paul Mac says:

    Barcabhoy says:
    02/12/2011 at 3:38 pm
    Altim

    If Hooiveld is worth £1.5 million, then i suspect Davis would be worth a lot more, probably £4-5 million
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Sunderland have a new boss…with little to spend…he will be fully aware of his bargaining position..

  41. paul says:

    Where does Murray stand in all of this, it would appear his DD was worse than lack lustre, if he actually commissioned any.

  42. StevieBC says:

    Justinian says:
    02/12/2011 at 12:40 pm
    …was apprenticed to a Lawyer who was a noted Celtic personality, indeed a Board member. The titbits which came my way at morning coffee breaks would shake to bits your confidence in the glorious institution which you place your faith in…
    ===============================
    That sounds interesting.

    Maybe we can return to this when we get to 2,000+ Comments and slagging off each other ?! 🙂

  43. Paul Mac says:

    paul says:
    02/12/2011 at 3:51 pm
    Where does Murray stand in all of this…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    🙂

  44. MERIDIAN says:

    I suppose we be better seen to be doing something – me thinks

    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/hampden-bigwigs-in-talks-on-shake-up-1.1137889

  45. Gwared says:

    Jonnyboy,
    I found this on a Motherwell message Board.

    re: Whyte fae Motherwellif my memory serves me right his father is Tom Whyte who owned a plant hire company, and with his father were both founder members of the now defunct Vice Presidents Club.

    Laughed my erse off.

  46. thomthethim says:

    MERIDIAN says:
    02/12/2011 at 4:21 pm

    I suppose we be better seen to be doing something – me thinks

    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/hampden-bigwigs-in-talks-on-shake-up-1.1137889

    Looks like they are planning the Soft Landing League.

  47. TheBlackKnight says:

    Paul Mac on 02/12/2011 at 3:50 pm

    😀

    I had suggested same a number of weeks ago (if I am correct in interpreting your suggestion) but was variously ‘shot down’.

    There would be a certain irony if MON takes Rangers down a peg or two (again).

    I’m sure McLeish will answer the rally call, inflating any bids. May be an interesting game of bluff 😉

  48. StevieBC says:

    MERIDIAN says:
    02/12/2011 at 4:21 pm
    I suppose we be better seen to be doing something – me thinks
    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/hampden-bigwigs-in-talks-on-shake-up-1.1137889
    ==============
    With line included from the article re: amalgamation of SPL/SFL, “…That was one of the key recommendations of Henry McLeish’s report into Scottish football.”
    So it’s just a coincidence that RFC is about to fall off a cliff: it’s actually thanks to Henry McLeish that this story is now released to the MSM.

    No mention in the ET article about the impact that the RFC situation might have on accelerating these ‘reforms’ – but doubt very much if the question of RFC was asked of the SFA/SPL – or if the question even crossed the journalists’ mind ?

    Another reason to continue checking into RTC to get the real info.

  49. MDCCCLXXXVIII says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    02/12/2011 at 4:44 pm
    Paul Mac on 02/12/2011 at 3:50 pm

    I had suggested same a number of weeks ago (if I am correct in interpreting your suggestion) but was variously ‘shot down’.

    There would be a certain irony if MON takes Rangers down a peg or two (again).

    I’m sure McLeish will answer the rally call, inflating any bids. May be an interesting game of bluff

    ————————————————————————————————————————-

    TBK

    I can’t for the life of me see Randy Lerner sanctioning inflated bids for players at the whim of his manager. The MBB will struggle to realize top dollar for any of his top players, particularly as he will be looking for incoming funds to be ‘front loaded’.

%d bloggers like this: