Boycotts and a director’s duty to promote the success of a company – by Malcolm Combe

Who is Malcolm Combe? His blog biography reads as follows:-

Bachelor of Laws. Scots lawyer working at the University of Aberdeen. English qualified. Took far too long to write this bio. Blogs on legal issues and might veer into other purportedly intellectual stuff from time to time.

Tweets about legal issues, fitba and music @basedrones.

I do not propose to add to that except to say that his legal musings are always of excellent value, and he is far better at getting to the point than I ever am!

I would commend his blog, and his prolific Twitter feed to my readers.

The reason for mentioning Malcolm today is that yesterday he posted the following piece – Boycotts and a director’s duty to promote the success of a company.

It is well worth a read, written, as it is, in relation to the Dundee United v Rangers Scottish Cup match to come.

I am not just mentioning it because he was kind enough to mention me. Rather it is to show that it is possible to write well, and succinctly, whilst analysing the law comprehensively and comprehensibly.

I must learn to do that some day myself!

Thanks Malcolm for allowing me to link to your piece.

Posted by Paul McConville




Filed under Charles Green, Companies Act 2006, Rangers

151 responses to “Boycotts and a director’s duty to promote the success of a company – by Malcolm Combe

  1. Budweiser

    I can see the hares a skipping and a jumping already.

  2. Adam

    There is an obvious flaw in article. He cites the fact that the SPL chairmen listening to their “respective customers” in relation to kicking Rangers out of the SPL was a defence of their duties to promote the success of a company yet fails to mention that Charles Green has used the very same defence to justify the boycott of Tannadice.

    What would harm Charles Green more in the long run ? Losing 35% of an additional £50,000 United ticket sales or losing 1,000 regulars who take a defiant stance against his decision to take tickets?

    • Thanks for the comment, but I would reply as follows:

      “The point about keeping your customers happy by not pissing them off would stand in relation to the Rangers fans as well, so the point could be argued either way.”

      I quote from my blog. Is that an obvious flaw? Or something I fail to mention?

      • Adam

        My humble apologies. I read that in a different context. I even had to read it twice there again. So you agree that Charles Green could defend himself citing it is what his own customers asked of him and it was the lesser of 2 evils.

        • Yes, I entirely agree he could run that argument and it would be a point for debate as to which would win. But, then again, there are other points in section 172, e.g. section 172(1)(c) which places importance on:

          “the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others”

          Dundee United are certainly an “other”. And football clubs are not really “competitors” in the traditional sense of nicking business from each other, hence the traditional name for the Old Firm making money together, so the course of action Green has decided on is not exactly fostering anything for the future.

          And yes, it is tricky and open to interpretation!

  3. Grant

    Pretty much a non article from what I can see, he is stating what the rules are and not commenting on whether or not he believes Green is flouting these rules.

    If Green us guilty, then so are all the other SPL chairman who voted against Rangers in the summer. They all have the same argument, keeping their customers happy.

    • Please see my reply to Adam above. I am highlighting rules that have not been highlighted thus far in relation to this, and demonstrating something of a prima facie case. If other people want to argue the point either way, that is fine, all I am seeking to do is introduce another angle.

      • Thank you for the post – I found it informative. But you now see the problem with this site – see below. The regulars have now found something shiny to play with (is new rangers the same as old rangers) and your measured and thought provoking blog is likely to go unremarked upon.

  4. carl 31

    There are companies that operate vs other companies in a straightforward arrangement across a number of sectors of the economy, and then there are sporting clubs that are also companies, which compete against one another in commercial terms and on another level, in sporting terms. This places dual duties in directors, who are also occupying roles of club office bearers.
    As well as the legal requirements that set out the duties to promote the success of the company, there are sporting imperatives in play too, IMO.

    Whichever way you view the Rangres Saga, its undoubted that it has led to, and still leads to, pressures on such persons in Scottish Football as haven’t been experienced before. This also goes for administrators of the game, and indeed, the fans.

  5. Adam

    Interesting press release from the European Club Association, the sole independent body recognised by UEFA and FIFA as representing clubs at European level.

    “Rangers FC held ordinary membership with the ECA before entering into administration and later into liquidation,” an ECA spokesperson confirmed to STV.

    “Meanwhile Rangers FC, owned by the Rangers Football Club Plc, transferred all its assets, including its goodwill, to Sevco Ltd (Sevco Ltd later changing its name to the Rangers Football Club Ltd)

    “Alike at Scottish FA level, this ‘new entity’ had to re-apply for membership with ECA as according to Swiss law, membership of an association is neither heritable nor transferable (article 70.3 of the Swiss Civil Code).

    “In dealing with these re-application, ECA applied the terms and provisions of our membership policy and statutes.

    “According to the prerequisites set out in the membership policy, Rangers FC did not meet the requirements to be granted ordinary membership (top division and European licence).

    “However, Rangers are permitted to hold associate membership, which holds no voting rights, as they are one of the founder members of the ECA. The organisation considers the club’s history to be continuous regardless of the change of company.

    “With regards to associated membership, the membership policy states amongst others that founding members are granted automatic membership,” the spokesperson explained.

    “Taking into account that the ‘new entity’ also acquired the goodwill of the ‘old entity’, it was held by the ECA executive board that the goodwill, taking into account legal and practical arguments, also included the history of the ‘old company’.

    “Consequently it was concluded that Rangers FC was entitled to associated membership of ECA as considerer to be a founding member.”

    • carl 31

      So the ECA is of the opinion that the history is continuous, but the club isn’t? – hence the absence of, ‘…considers the club to be continuous…’ but the words, “…considers the club’s history to be continuous…”, and using the words, ” ‘new entity’ “.

      I agree that is interesting.

      • Adam

        “So the ECA is of the opinion that the history is continuous, but the club isn’t?”

        Whilst i believe its taking pedantry to a whole new level, i think they cover this off in the last paragraph when they concluded that Rangers FC who play in the Scottish 3rd division, taking into account practical and legal arguments are still considered a founding member of the ECA.

        Completely independent and devoid of any coloured glasses.

        • carl 31

          the angle I was getting at was that it notable and interesting that they neither categorically and explicity ruled out nor ruled in that they are the same as before.

          The organisation was faced with deciding what to do. They had to look at how to treat one of its previous clubs that had gone through an insolvency event. They did – and have set out how they will now view the club they name as Rangers FC.

          The old Rangers did have the ‘goodwill’ of the ECA, and the current Rangers also do, whether or not one thinks that they are one and the same, since the goodwill was bought as part of the asset sale agreement (which is documented somewhere).

          I’m not arguing they are right or wrong, or that it proves anything – just that the statement is, as you said, interesting.

        • ecojon

          @ Adam

          But is that not more or les the position adopted by LNS which chico refuses to accept? Someone is certainly confused.

          On the question of boycott: My understanding was that the Rangers boycott of Dundee United was to inflict financial damage on the club.

          On the other hand the supporters of the SPL who threatened a boycott over Rangers’ entry were esentially threatening to boycott their own club by not buying season tickets. I see that as a major differences in what was going on earlier this year and the recent situation.

          With regard to the Dundee Utd you surely have two potential boycotts 1) Against Dundee Utd and 2) Against Rangers by its own fans.

          I see someone estimated that if Green hadn’t backed the Dundee Utd boycott then he would have lost 1,000 regulars at Ibrox. I just don’t see it as they have paid for their STs and by the time next season comes around how many of that 1,000 wouldn’t buy a season ticket?

          Of course perhaps the SPL boycott is going to continue this season and next and at some stage the SFA will need to deal with it. But we also now have a Plc in the offing with lots of different shareholders with chunky percentages and it may be one of them might become unhappy with progress or direction of the company and threat of legal action is a way of removing execs from a Board.

          These things happen in Public Companies and can be much more out in the open than in a private Ltd company.

        • dan

          Were Third lanark not a founding member of the SFA? And won’t the history books still say as much? But where are they now. UEFA rules state the club and the company are indivisible. Sorry, but your club/ company is dead. Accept it and move on.

    • Adam,

      What ECA says is inaccurate. It says that:

      “Alike at Scottish FA level, this ‘new entity’ had to re-apply for membership with ECA as according to Swiss law, membership of an association is neither heritable nor transferable (article 70.3 of the Swiss Civil Code).”

      This is NOT a true explanation of what actually happened in Scotland.

      Sevco aka THE Rangers did not qualify for membership of the SFA, hence all the rule bending & breaking to accommodate them. Until the granting of a Conditional Licence in July Sevco were not a member of the SFA in any shape or form..

      They had to APPLY, NOT Re apply thus causing the strange “Conditional Situation” in July. How does this tie in with the claim of the transfer of membership of the SFA & thus the continuity argument.?

      It was not transferable or heritable so therefor RFC & Sevco renamed THE Rangers existed at the same time. RFC were a member of the SPL until the handover to Dundee, Sevco, renamed THE Rangers were already playing then as a Different Team in the 3rd Division. .

      So we have TWO separate FOOTBALL Members of the SFA,, not just Companies,,RFC as members of the SPL & SFA & Sevco as an Associate member of the SFA playing in the SFL …

      How bent & crooked is that? Where in the Rules is it covered & allowed? All the more so when people try to pretend they are one & the same.

      The truth is they are being treated as such because the Powers that Be want it to be, not because of any Rule but because of all the Rules which were Bent, Broken & Ignored to make it so. were broken by the SFA/SPL/SFL who declined to enforce their OWN Rules & thus allowed the membership of Both at the same time, while Sevco aka The Rangers claimed to be the same Rangers as ,….Rangers. .

      But within all the Machiavellian machinations there is no getting away from the fact that RFC & Sevco aka The Rangers were BOTH Football entities at the same time.

      As for the ECA position, I would ask only this, how many OTHER Associate members do they have? Or is it just being nice to a founder member & a wee bit of Rule re arranging again?

      • Tedi


        You are incorrect, Rangers have never been GRANTED an SFA membership, this was transferred and is indeed the same membership that belonged to the oldco

        The SFA rules and regulations (even look them up) clearly state:

        -“14.2 For purposes of Article 14 ‘club
        ‘ means any club in membership of the Association and any club in membership of an association in membership of an association in membership of UEFA and/or UEFA

        For the last time, The SFA membership was TRANSFERRED in FULL and wasn’t GRANTED (as would be the case if a new club applied) ,so has never ended, This is confirmed (as you all know) by the SFA statement released on 27/07/12

        -“We are pleased to confirm tht agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the TRANSFER of Scottish FA membership between Rangers F.C (in administration),and Sevco Scotland Ltd,who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club Ltd

        note how Sevco are referred to the new owners of the FOOTBALL CLUB

        • Tedi,

          I note your LIMITED reply…

          I said Sevco APPLIED & were GRANTED a CONDITIONAL entry, Where have I made a mistake in this statement?.

          You Quote a Rule to try & justify a Blatant misuse of Other Rules & said that I said RANGERS were Granted an SFA Membership. .

          Correction I never said RANGERS were granted an SFA Membership against the Rules… I said SEVCO were.,

          My point in the original post is that Rangers were alive, surviving, but in a terminal condition & that SEVCO EXISTED as a separate FOOTBALL TEAM at the same time,… outside of Theological debate, or a discussion of a mental disorder, TWO can’t be ONE.

          In a Footballing sense TWO cannot hold the same licensed right to be the SAME Member… Can They? If so , show me THAT Rule.

          -”14.2 For purposes of Article 14 ‘club
          ‘ means any club in membership of the Association and any club in membership of an association in membership of an association in membership of UEFA and/or UEFA… This is YOUR Quote… Verbatim.

          Can you explain to me How SEVCO Fulfill this? SEVCO were not a member of ANY WORLDWIDE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, never mind the SFA when the Conditional acceptance was granted..

          What were the REASONS for granting this CONDITIONAL acceptance against the Rules?
          The Conditional acceptance led to SEVCO being admitted to the 3rd Division & the Transfer from RFC followed on… You are joining this journey at the fourth bus stop… Let’s go back to the terminus.

          Show me the RULE which allowed non compliance of the need to produce 3 Years worth of AUDITED ACCOUNTS… I have read that they accepted RFC Accounts instead… OK… Show me THREE YEARS OF AUDITED RFC a row & current before they folded.

          While we are at this Rule explanation stuff, can you show me the Rule which Governed the FIVE way Agreement?

          Can you explain the line of continuity between RFC & SEVCO, given that RFC were still a Member of the SFA & the SPL, but terminal, while Sevco played in the Ramsden’s Cup as a seperate team on that famous Conditional?

          As a matter of interest, Sevco, soon to be renamed THE Rangers, played new signings, given the LATE granting of that CONDITIONAL, when & HOW were they registered?.

  6. So the ECA are going to allow the wee mockit brother into the room because he was there when the gang started up. He just canny say anyhin now.

    • Oh, for goodness sake shut up. Do you people never tire of arguing about the same thing all the time. There is an interesting article to comment on and you are off at the usual tangent but safer ground.

      • Adam

        The SPL club bosses may have failed in a duty to promote the success of their club. They will argue the opposite. Charles Green may have failed in a duty to promote the success of his club. He will argue the opposite. No shareholders or Board members will ever challenge it. That about covers things to be fair.

        • JohnBhoy

          Adam, given that you raised the ECA communication, I assume that Violet’s blast is particularly directed at you:

          “Oh, for goodness sake shut up. Do you people never tire of arguing about the same thing all the time. There is an interesting article to comment on and you are off at the usual tangent but safer ground.”

          You have been warned and, based on painful experience, I would recommend that you tip toe in another direction. Or change your name.

          • charliedon

            That’s a bit unfair JohnBhoy. Since alex hasn’t been on for a while, his voluntary defence attorney is meantime unemployed so a new target has had to be identified.

            • The blast so called was directed at all of you, not just Adam. But I see from below that you are having a go at commenting on the article. My work here is done for the moment, but I will be returning and woebetide the man who brings up the usual subjects for even more microscopic inspection.

              P.S. Does anyone have any comments on the various postings I offered on the IPO. Such as is it illegal to offer shares in an IPO at a discount to some people? Or are the Institutions buying (guaranteeing) the shares so that they can release value by breaking up RFC? And a few others. Play nice now.

          • ecojon


            Anyone that wants can use my name as it is already used incessantly by my stalker 🙂

  7. JohnBhoy

    A short but informative piece.

    Charlie’s actions to-date have the hallmarks of someone making decisions with one eye on the door marked ‘Exit’. The boycott appealed to fans of that new club The Rangers yet, paradoxically, may act against their long term interests, and the interests of future shareholders. Irrespective of any claim to validity for the boycott, the image of the club is further damaged and, as a consequence, other clubs may be less willing to fast-track The Rangers up the leagues (if that became an option). In addition, fans of other clubs may retaliate by boycotting games with The Rangers. In that respect, Charlie’s boycott could fall at the first hurdle of Section 172 1(a) of The Companies Act, wherein he should have regard to “the likely consequences of any decision in the long term”.

    Basedrones, your football allegiance is neither here nor there, unless of course you have the temerity to express an opinion.

    • cam

      Green said at the outset he wouldn’t stay long.
      The boycott is perfectly valid as it’s a democratic right.
      Rangers don’t want any SPL fast-tracking.
      Hopefully other clubs do boycott Ibrox so we can fill it ourselves.

  8. Adam

    mick,eco or Johnbhoy about to post as the thumbs down have all started to appear. 🙂

    • JohnBhoy

      Au contraire, in the spirit of good will to all men, I gave you a TU for your wee summary above about SPL bosses.

    • ecojon

      @ adam

      Take the meds adam – calm the paranoia.

      if I had TD’d you I would say and I haven’t. There are some twisted mixers on here playing their own devious game. I would have thought by now you would know if I’ve anything to say to you it is said out in the open,

  9. i see the article as a paradoxical look at the issue.

    i note that adam read the article at least 3 times and still doesn’t understand

    rangers were not voted out of the SPL.

    the vote was to not allow the new rangers [franchise] entry.

    the reason for this was – RANGERS FC WENT INTO LIQUiDATION
    …out of business…went bust…doon the pan…

    they had to give up their spl share and sfa membership
    chukles consortium bought the assets and started a new team.
    he got away with adding the word THE to the name to make
    as they are a new club, the were given a temporary membership of the sfa or rather “conditional” membership, which is not in the sfa rules.
    the “conditional” membership was converted to “full” in august.

    because the rangers are a new team, they do not have 3 years of accounts on record, so they will not be allowed to participate in any european competition for 3 years.

    in the unlikely event that lord nimmo smith’s independent tribunal find rangers fc guilty of breaking the sfa rules
    … by not registering all payments and benefits
    made to players by rangers fc as a result of the employee/employer transactions [other than related reasonable “expenses”].

    then any action lord nimmo smith advocates, will be a consequence of breaking the rules, it will not be a “punishment”.

    any thoughts adam?

    • Adam

      As far as im aware the membership transferred so any assertion that it “was given up” is up for challenge. The European question is a strange one as i dont believe UEFA have said we are not allowed in for 3 years. I know Charles Green suggested it months and months ago, but i know that recently, there has been high level discussions on the validity of that claim and it might not be the considered stance anymore.

      I dont really understand your last question. For me, we have been punished with some of the old clubs woes which is unheard of in a business sense.

      And on that note, im heading out for the night. It would have been great to reads mick interpretation of the ECA press release but I fear I may be worse for wares by the time i do. 🙂

      • mick

        adam uefa rules three years audited accounts yous missed the cut of date by a week so its four years from start of season uefa and fifa dont regonise yous as same club check uefas last rfc game ??? what about the malcolm combe article greens breaking coperate law legislation and breaching sfa rules and uefa rules with the boycott stay out all weekend adam and give us all a break you are the equivalent of a bag of nails in a tub of mortar lol

        • Adam

          mick demonstrating he cant read. what about UEFA’s last rangers game. Tell me so i can make a fool out of you yet again. As for the articles, Green isnt breaking any corporate law legislation. Its utter bollocks.

      • mick

        interpretation of the ECA independant not official so there you have it adam contact uefa about it see what the say lets us know in a post so we can debate it

      • JohnBhoy

        Adam, “worse for wear”. As in: “After Charlie’s departure fans of that new club The Rangers were worse for wear, particularly in light of the breaking news regarding their (new) club’s impending bankruptcy. On the bright side, Jabba and Leggo were seen boarding a flight to Bolivia.”

      • GWG

        one would hope your night out is not being funded by ST sales or indeed any share issue investments

      • ecojon

        @ Adam

        Surely that is the crux of the issue. The club is either continuing or it isn’t. The problem is that if it continues then you can’t pick and choose what you carry forward it has to be all or nothing. If the club isn’t continuing then nothing is carried forward.

        But one thing that has increasingly interested me is that chico increasingly vehemently declares he bought the history and it is his. It’s not the original investors, it’s not the shareholders, it’s not the club.

        Is he going to transfer it to Carlisle? Who knows?

      • Adam,

        That is one of the claims I cannot find possible to understand given the facts of the situation.

        RFC were a member of the SFA & SPL, their share in the SPL being eventually transferred to Dundee in AuGUST.

        Sevco renamed THE Rangers were given Membership of the SFL, in JULY,

        They Played in the Ramsden’s Cup While RFC were still members of the SFA & SPL.

        How could they BOTH have the same membership?

    • mick

      @jim well put they died and reapplied the opening in the league was not put out fairly as there was no invites to junior teams the sfa fixed it and broke rules to get them in there scotlands black sheep the now forever

    • GWG

      yer spot on with this pal~~~~ Dundee Utd / Celtic / Aberdeen and ALL the other SPL clubs did NOT vote the former Rangers FC (now Liquidated) to be voted out of the SPL or voted for them to be regulated to the backwaters of Scottish football. What they did do was to vote against a NEW football club to be allowed to leap frog / march / parachute or whatever into the top level of Scottish football
      but you’ll have a hard time trying explain that simple FACT to some on here

      • mick

        @gwg there doomed to fail as there not there on merit and that is vital in sport it will end in tears agian 1 day as they still have there head in the sand and cant see anything other than what they read in the msm green will fleece them then walk loaded with there cash and leave them to sink agian hes laughing at them and conning them also they have not shown 1 bit of remorse for 20 years of cheating karma will catch them sooner or later just like we witnessed at the death of the most cheating club on earth there deluded and backwards follow swollow anything thats printed by jabba just somes them up daftties they lot of them

        • GWG

          Whether they fail or not is IMO irrelevant they will never be the same club again, they’ve taken on too much water and have too many holes beneath the water line. (ie)
          No Banking Facilities
          No Back Up Financial input (Overdraft or Leading at reasonable rates)
          No Football club in the world will deal with them on the transfer market unless its cash up front
          No or very few football related business’s will deal with them
          No previous business’s that have lost their money will deal with them
          No major prize money to play for
          A management team that are probably the worst in football
          A LOT of directors that are paying themselves mega dosh
          A BIG debt to “investors”
          And of course~~~~~~~ CRAIG WHYTE!!!

          “IF” they were to sussed then it will indeed take many years to get anywhere near what they once were
          And don’t forget that the clubs in front of them in the SPL will be improving their lot at their expense.

  10. mick

    what will the ECA say when the financial doping is proven agian as it was in the fttt a wonder if they will take action on this along with uefa and fifa and sfa

  11. He is decent, honest and honourable (see Leggo) – I am so sorry I myself have strayed – I will have to blast myself. I just couldn’t resist

  12. mick

    following on from the last post post cam was slagging the barras a would like to point out the market traders are both celtic and rangers and 99.9%of them have licences there is no reason for not shopping there and helping sole traders do business at street level it is well audited and licenced and has something for every1 next time your in town pop by and help market groth by buying something people like cam cost jobs and ruin markets with there stero typing of market traders as a said it all celtic and rangers fans and mostly if you asked there would be people who are from other west coast clubs selling there also it is a fital part of the local economy make a point of buying yourself something nice at the barras weather it be batterys for your new xmas shaver or a light for your bed room there is lots there and they pay there taxes and employ locals there is cafes bars and shops forevery1 do it to annoy cam and help local traders at the same time

  13. mick

    getting back on the topic this boycott is sad for a team that died and was allowed to resuface much like a phoniex and helped back to life by sfa with being given a membership that was not put out to tender (junior teams were not allowed to apply for spot) so for the sevco to cliam they are victims is mental and shows how deluded and brain washed they are with msm lies whos next on there list ? and what action are the sfa taken and the spl shoud be pushing for justice for utd to make sure they keep all the cash rasied as sevco dont deserve a penny ,will dundee utd lawyers raise this with the spl and sfa as it is agianst all the laws in place to make sure things are fair

    • cam

      Rangers didn’t die,they are immortal
      The SFA didn’t help the Gers,they looked after their own interests by letting Scotlands biggest club enter at the bottom after shameful attempts by Regan,Doncaster to cobble together afix that would keep Coyote Pete happy.
      Sevco is incorrect terminology
      There is no action the SFA/SPL can take to force supporters to attend a match.
      The Gers are playing by the SFA’s own rules
      Chico wisely listened to the many potential shareholders in the club and did the right thing in the company’s interests to keep the fans onside by politely telling DU,,no thanks our fans don’t want to take the risk of being fleeced again by your money grabbing chairman.

      • Dcr

        In what universe do supporters of a defunct team who cheated businesses, schools and hospitals have the morale right to accuse others of money grabbing? Some humility please, your never-waning superior attitude stinks.

    • ecojon

      @ mick

      Interesting read

      • mick

        @ecojon it seems there all well crooks murray and his mates are well not to be trusted in business

        • cam

          Mick what about the free tickets that Celtic are handing out?
          The Green seat brigade are letting you down,the wage bill is horrendous,the CL money will paper over this years cracks but if Lenny wants to buy then he will be told to sell first.
          Dermot won’t bail you out as he told the CFC fans who criticised him to go jump in the Liffey.

          • mick

            10,000 for 2 games cam to season ticket holders to bring a mate but they have to collect at office on day its a merry xmas for fans free footie for family and friends lets hope they like it and go back

  14. mick

    RES 10 filed by RANGERS FOOTBALL PLC SC437060 allotment of securities – That’s Rangers International Football Club PLC btw

    Please elaborateAUTHORISED ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AND DEBENTURES Got this as an alert from companies house is it worth the £1 to download?

    what does this mean ???? a seen this else were and copy and pastie throw out my time as a commenter if a see anything a post it for all to see in case its important to the puzzle

    • ecojon

      @ mick

      You won’t know till you spend your £1 or maybe that’s a penny if you’re chico 🙂

      I think they were going to sub-divide the subscriber share capital but the more interesting stuff will probably be after flotation

      • mick

        a was going to but am going to keep it for when the shares fall in price the day after they float and by a 100 with them lol will a get a free rangers with it

        • cam

          Sorry Michael you can’t own Rangers,,,there’s a fit and proper person test.
          I know its painful to see the Mighty Glasgow Rangers growing stronger by the day,to see full houses every other week,all the traders in the surrounding area profiting,the subway full,the pubs doing a roaring trade,the bookies having the Gers down as a banker home win now that the refs are helping us again.
          The bloggers sold you a counterfeit promise Michael,,wur no deid,54 and counting! LNS yer having a laugh!
          It’s great to be a Bear.

          • GWG

            Dear Lord~~~~ “all the traders in the surrounding area profiting,the subway full,the pubs doing a roaring trade,the bookies having the Gers down as a banker ”

            Be interesting to know just how many of the above satisfied traders would be willing to give Sevco a line of credit
            my only advise to you pal is keep taking the dope and keep outta the sun

  15. This is fun the book burner has obviously lost all sense of proportion, as those of you who are in contact with me can see, censoring and deleting factual posts isn’t censorship something that the legal profession finds to be an anathema ?

  16. Charles Green’s pursuit of a successful share issue could well be described as being in the best interests of the current share holders. That is to say, the company.

    Boycotts and other issues on which he has taken the Rangers fans with him have in all probability garnered support for his position, and made the uptake of shares by ordinary fans more likely.

    Whatever one makes of the direction he is taking, he certainly knows his duty.

  17. firstly good to see ECA has put to “experts” on Rangers in their place , although it wont stop them making an a**e of themselves ! and secondly the i do not see the problem with the boycott as septic fans ( the greatest this side of the campsies) have been have been having a boycott of septic park all season . chin chin old bhoys

  18. In the fullness of time, probably sooner rather than later, Charles Green will depart the stage of Scottish football.

    It may well be on the back of a successful share issue, widely taken up by ordinary Rangers fans. If not then it will be ‘exit stage left’ while new and possibly more interesting players take the limelight.

    Rangers will not cease to exist in Charles Greens absence, regardless of whether he departs in success or failure, within the limited terms that such a thing can be measured.

    No one will remember the veracity of anything CG said given a few years distance, not because truth has no value, rather because both success and failure for CG will render him surplus to requirements and no longer worthy of comment.

    • cam

      Correct,Green,Whyte,Gold,Murray,the FTTT,LNS,BDO are all transient,the Rangers will always exist simply due to the will of the people.
      RFC will find its way back into the secure grasp of good Gers men who will ensure that the others can continue the chase.

      • I would hope that RFC finds it’s way back into the hands of ‘good Gers men’.

        I also hope that ‘good men’ need no further introduction.

      • ecojon


        The last thing Rangers needs in the long term is good Gers Men. They need responsible businessmen in charge who are strong enough to take decisions which a few thousand of the support won’t be happy about.

        In any case, they weren’t there when the club could have been bought for buttons – and cardigan’s return to me is well . . . I’d better not light the blue touch paper as I’m mellow with some nice wine at the moment 🙂

        • cam

          They weren’t there possibly due to the “contingent liability” fantasised and spewed by the bloggers.
          Go find people within football who have a bad word to say about Walter Smith and fill up the back of a postage stamp.
          I’m having a nice wee bottle of Merlot myself whilst guarding the big hoose from the doom sayers

    • Ecojon,

      It’s an interesting post though I’m minded of something a good friend showed me today.

      It was a claim by a Rangers supporting fan commenting on a site (not this one) illuminating his fellows that Celtic fans might be posting within the guise of Rangers fans to undermine their share issue, and indeed calling into radio shows for the same purpose.

      It was all looking plausible until It became amusing, (and worthy of pointing out) the fan in question claimed that it was ‘an old Jesuit trick’.

      I can only assume that the 140 year history of Rangers has been somewhat understated.

      though quite how those old Jesuits got there hands on telephones and computers I’ll never know.

      • ecojon

        @ Martin

        Of course all sides get up to that although personally it has never floated my boat 🙂

        But I would have thought GersNet would have checked the two posters’ bona fides before letting them loose. It is one of the best critiques I have seen of the Prospectus and actually has quite a few things I missed.

        And here was me thinking it was Opus Dei that were the new Computer Crusaders.

    • Den

      Didn’t hold back.

      Must be Rangers hater.

  19. ecojon


    Lovely wee quote: ‘ According to one source, speaking to Investors Chronicle, Capita Registrars has received subscription demand for RIFC shares totalling £24m’.

    I could say that it seem strange they are only offering the Bears £10million in shares. But par for the course as they claim institutional investors pledge £28 million but they kicked back £8 million towards the Bear shares.

    But I wonder if chico has decided to get his own back on all the Celtic pledgers by claiming their pledge amounts towards a massive supposed oversubscription for shares. No flies on oor cherlie – he never misses a trick. But it works both ways because say he only sells £5 million to Bears it can just as easily be argued that £19 million worth of Bear shares walked away from the offer.

    Oh what a twisted and tangled story 🙂

  20. anyone fancy a sweep ? just to see how many of the green seat brigade turn up for sell out saturday ps wonder if the seville calculator will be given a run-out ?

    • cam

      Its Xmas,,,the fans will be doon the Barras buying counterfeit copies of Downfall,the Craig Whyte tapes and big Giorgios £5 million dive dvd

      • mick

        cam your 1 sick individual slagging market traders off in a ressesion you are showing your true colours dont forget alan sugar start in a market similiar to the barras east lane in london

        • cam

          His stuff was legit mick,,,i had an Amstrad hi-fi playing Roxy Music when i was pulling the burds.
          Tom Hunter sold trainers from his da’s garage,,,billionaire!
          Richard Branson,,smart cookie.
          Check your facts mate,the drug money is being laundered through these schemes.
          I loved the old Barras when i was a wee schemie,we used to go there and spot all the fancy cars and drink the mussel juice.
          The working class traders i’m all for and i hope the GCC get the place in order and make it an asset not an embarassment

    • mick

      sell out saturday was months ago stupid try and make sence when you post as the world views the blog and will just see yous as daft

  21. JohnBhoy

    Ally McCoist:

    “It was my job to pass on information from the administrators, which I did 100%. It might not have seemed enough and I can understand that. But I was passing information that was being passed to me.”

    – No Ally, it wasn’t your job. Under employment law it was the job of the Administrators to pass on the information and meaningfully consult with the recognised trade union, the PFA.

    “I don’t know all the facts and figures so I stand corrected if I’m wrong but if I’m one of the players and I was against the action, I would probably be a little bit disappointed that I had possibly been put in a compromising situation, especially with our own fans.

    – The old implied threats again, and that is without knowing “the facts and figures”. Ally should not be trying to undermine a trade union and if players do not like the idea of a trade union doing what they are paid to do then they should terminate their union membership. There are plenty of football players on a low wage with an uncertain contract that depend on a strong trade union.

    Ally really has swallowed Charlie’s right-wing mantra, hook, line and sinker. I admired him as a footballer but as a man he is woefully disappointing.

    • cam

      I hear he doesn’t think much of you either.

      • JohnBhoy

        That’s a relief. You do know how to critique? Oops, swords are about to be unsheathed…

      • ecojon


        The MSM of course miss the actual story about the players – they really are pathetic – no not the players – the journos.

        After the players walked ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’ couldn’t raise the arbitration action with the SFA for compensation because it wasn’t a member of the SFA.

        So a shabby deal was stiched-up between the SFA and who? where SFA member oldco(IA) was allowed to take the arbitration action on behalf of non SFA member newco with any compenation going to newco.

        The Player’s Union have objected pointing out that newco wasn’t a member of the SFA when the players walked. Bottom line is if any compensation is won it doesn’t go to ordinary creditors but to newco.

        What isn’t known is who arranged the deal. Was it D&P? Was it chico when he was in his strange dual role and, if so, what hat was he wearing?

  22. ecojon

    @ JohnBhoy

    I was watching him and thinking jeezus you are under some pressure. He really has become a Mr Wobbly.

  23. mick

    are you sure hes not wobbling with all the pies he eats or has he seen the deeds ???lol

  24. lordmac

    i often wondered in sport who has the most integrity. to me it must be synchronized diving or formular 1 as you are not allowed any thing at all, to enhance your performance without notifying them first. and should even the likes of mclaren put a go faster sticker on there car without telling them, they would be stripped of the grand prix, and a life ban such is the value they have on fairness and integrity. we need the SFA to be strong we
    don’t need cheating, in scottland we allow cheating, but hope we have the balls from now on, to put a halt to it, and it should carry a very big time limit ban for any one caught or found at it, first offence I would say 3 year restriction on home games 30 points subtraction
    30% gate money and be made to where a full yellow strip full term all moneys distributed to the clubs that are in the league where the offence took place.

    • JohnBhoy

      I agree that cheating should not go unpunished. The generic response to cheating in sport should be:

      1) If cup game, removal from competition and stripped of any title awarded
      2) If league game, forfeit every game wherein cheating occurred and, depending on number of games forfeited, stripped of any awards gained in that competition.
      3) Punishment.

      What form the punishment takes I’m undecided, but your proposal is a good starting point for discussion.

  25. With all the difficulties surrounding Rangers football club, I have yet to see a compelling argument for the fixed views of their current manager.

    In fact like anyone caught in a storm, the minute by minute pronouncements given, can shift wildly with the strength and direction of the wind.

    It’s easy to be a critic from a safe port.

    A time will come when the current Rangers manager feels he can say what he wants. Doubtless it will make for a best seller (possibly penned by leggo).

    As it is we as outsiders, are in no position to judge.

    • JohnBhoy


      We are in a position to offer an opinion in that we judge a man by his actions. That is a far cry from being in “no position to judge”. If it later turns out that Ally, for example, did not actually believe what he was saying at the time then he is even less deserving of any sympathy. The logic of your position – that where we are not privy to the inner workings of an organisation then we ought not to offer opinion that is critical – would render much of public conversation mute and reduce the necessity for free speech. Whether what we say is wrong is another matter altogether and is not a reason from desisting from censorious comment.

    • ecojon

      @ Martin

      Ally is paid too much to say what he wants even if he were capable of doing so and I actually wonder at that. He is being used and he knows that IMHO and he is ceasing to be his own man.

      It has been a hell of a traumatic year but tbh he’s probably got another 3/4 years like it in front of him and I doubt if he will survive it.

  26. cam

    Just a thought,that i will put out there to be debated, destroyed(very possibly).
    When BDO get to the Gratuitous Alien chappie and decide if Chico’s consortium purchased oldco for an unfair price bearing in mind current estimates of worth,would the “contingent liability” of the BTC have a bearing on the worth of the club and the price that a purchaser was willing to pay?
    I’m like Ally,business is not my area but i do like pies and i’m a cheeky chappie.

    • Cam,

      when all is said and done. When one’s life is measured in the balance of the ultimate judge.

      A pie is still a pie, cheekiness is still cheekiness and that trumps all, or so I have read.

      Relax, it’s all good 🙂

      • cam

        I know/think a few of the guys/ladies in here have a good grasp of business and company law so any input would be interesting.
        If i was interested in buying a pie shop that was in trouble and it was all over the papers and internet that the business was liable for a crippling tax bill then i would expect the price to reflect that contingency.
        I might still fancy a punt knowing that the pies were very tasty and 50.000 people bought them every fortnight as long as i didn’t change the recipe.
        So i buy said pie shop,the pies are selling like,,well hot pies! and then some greetin faced pie shop owner doon the road says “haud oan thats no fair” he shouldn’t have got that shop at that price thats pure Gratuitous Aliens or summit i read off a blog site.
        Am i talking mince?

        • JohnBhoy

          Ha ha. Are you talking mince? Do you ever talk anything else. You must be missing Violet tonight. You’re getting awful tetchy.

          • cam

            Prime scotch lean beef mince John,a wee bit gravy and a nice pie paste,,food of kings.
            The Lisbon Lions conquered Europe on such fare.

            • JohnBhoy

              Cam, have you calmed down? Your rant about history of sectarian bile was a wee bit OTT. “Hunette” was the word mick used once which, in the context, I thought was funny (though I initially thought he said Lunette, which I think would have been even funnier). I apologised when it upset you and might upset V. As any lawyer will tell you, context is everything. As for rudeness, I respond to the level of those that post. Happy to open old wounds if that’s your taste.

          • cam

            I’m a calm cam John,sword sheathed,apology tendered and i recognise when i’m up against a better opponent.

            • JohnBhoy

              Cam, you’re not up against a better opponent. You give as good as you get. I too apologise for my daft digs. Shit, I’m toast when V comes back online.

      • cam

        Can you give me the Latin for that Martin,?,,those are words to live by.

    • ecojon


      I genuinely thought there was little chance of BDO going down the Gratuitous Alienation route. Basically because of time element and then because of the Plc and the fact that it would be the shareholders who would actually be punished.

      But I now wonder if BDO are happy to wait a bit and use the revaluation to squeeze say £10 million out of the Plc in a deal with chico or whoever is in charge.

      The stick behind the back would be the threat of say a £30 million legal action againt the Plc if they didn’t play ball. Can you imagine what that news would do to the Plc shares.

      What I don’t know is whether BDO could go direct for the Plc or whether they are restricted to going after D&P.

      • cam

        Thank you for your reply,you are one of the guys who seems to have a decent grasp on these things(well much better than mine!)
        If the purchase price was affected by negative publicity and the main doom sayer RTC’s spoutings then this could possibly have lessened the amount going into the creditors pot.
        Chico as an outsider may have not been put off by the sweetie wifing and might just well have pulled of the deal of the century,,for him at least.

        • lordmac

          heres how it went cam, Duff and Phelps where dealing with a marked deck IMO, they did sell the club but it was not done in
          the best interest of the creditors, and the reason i say this is quite simple and i would find this very very hard should the try and defend it in any court. as you say when you go and buy a pie shop your words, you do not have to put up a £500,000 bail to see the books
          or a 5,000 bail on it. so you see with this happning only those and such as those, would have been given a wink, the procedure should have been open to all, and the option to buy all or parts of the said land, and assets as this was never offered as a pubic auction, and that my freind makes me think of charllottes web, more so when company directors have known one and other, like Geir and whyte. yes and we where all hoodwinked. who do we think is the judas here for 500 peices of silver me i think it was d@p

        • ecojon

          @ cam

          Either by design or ignorance chico wa always going to pull-off a great deal for himself even if it was mick’s Tesco 🙂

          Just how much the deal ends-up being we will have to wait and see but one thing I can confidently guarantee is that no matter the amount raised through sale shares chico will declare it: ‘A world record Flotation’ and the Scottish MSM will slavishly parrot the words of the Great Man.

      • cam

        I noticed this comment by Paul whilst i was perusing back issues during my self imposed wheest hauding
        Paul McConville

        April 30, 2012 at 11:31 am

        It’s only worth what someone will pay. Bidders not exactly knocking down the doors!

        I may be taking his remark out of context from the debate that it pertained to but i’m currently standing outside the Hilton hotel waving this piece of paper at Mr Cohen’s room window.
        I think i look like Neville Chamberlain,,there will be no Gratuitous Alienation in our time!
        A taxi just went by and some guy throw me a 50p,,,that will go towards my shares.

  27. ecojon

    Kenny Shiels says fourth official’s ‘fabrication’ got him sent off

  28. joedimagio

    good piece basedrones,can i ask if CG is doing more harm to his position with regards to the continuous referral of never returning to the current SPL ,but yet in his IPO we see the readers told repeatedly “once they are back in the SPL” ? is this not telling lies to investors whilst at the same time pandering to the lowest common denominator!and do his duty as a CEO AT THE SAME TIME,i’m sure we could look all day and find many more instances of the same manor.Also,we keep hearing the rangers fans shouting from the roof tops about court room decisions going in their favour,what about the judges decision about the abandoned game,that DU were within there rights!and we all know how much they love their courtroom drama and decisions these days.CG will do more harm than good to what is left of ( you dont know what to call them these days ) the persons who play football at Ibrox (soon to be re-named!)

    • cam

      Chico is the master of rhetoric,he is like a boxer bad mouthing his opponent to talk up a fight.If he gets K.O ‘d then more fool him.
      If you go to see Mr Buble and its called off and you have to pay again to watch him are you a happy chappie? even if the small print says,,haha sucks to be you!
      Its the famous Glasgow Rangers who play at the BAFTA/ORWELL stadium.

    • That is a fascinating point you raise about the dual game he seems to be playing. If nothing else, it suggests any position of non-co-operation/boycott is fickle, and fickle positions are more difficult to justify than rational and reasoned positions. You cannot be all things to all men, in life or indeed in company law.

  29. GWG

    “I hope you’re not accusing me of mendacity,were you at the game caller?”

    No Jim….. I “relie” wholly on your match reports which as everyone knows are the most honest / factual / and without prejudicial football copy ever written indeed I’m heartbroken you have left the building but I’m totally confident your understudy Keith J will do a fine job in replacing you, Scotland’s Voice of Authority and become “His Masters Voice”….. It’s a brave thing that you do but your company needs you…. Good Luck

  30. joedimagio

    @Cam….boxers,no matter whom they are,try to deliver a knockout blow,they will jab away,a wee 1 2 here,try an upper cut there then a cheeky below the belt,befor the real fighter turns round and lands him one right on the chin,with an almighty thudder he hits the canvas and the ref counts to 9…10 and he’s out…….i reckon CG is at 9 1/2…..when he is finally found out,the man will have used the money,stashed some here there,the Virgin Islands and Monaco,knowing that he has fleeced the supporters and knowing had to leave Sheffield under police escort he will be asking himself “how t’ell will get CHARLES GREEN OUUTA ERE” the real fighter here is the rangers fans Cam.

    Also,is it not rather worrying that he keeps refering to himself when he talks,is this not border line delusional in some aspects.

    • ecojon

      @ joedimagio

      If I was a Rangers fan I think what would seriously worry me is how he keeps saying he bought the club history personally and he is keeping it 🙂

  31. joedimagio

    i know its not about the headlines,but you rangers boys n girls,what do you make of the wages and bonuses to be given out to EO and NED’S?
    plus £10mil in refurbs and land,i wonder if he will use his own builders!
    what about On 11 May 2012, Imran Ahmad, a director of RFCL, provided a loan of £200,000. £178,000 was repaid on 15 August 2012 and £22,000 was converted into ordinary share capital of RFCL. Imran Ahmad also received an arrangement fee of £50,000 relating to this loan.

    i would urge bears to look in a mirror or get the better other half just to check the buttons arent on your back

    look i miss rangers,i really do…they gave us a nice cushion whilst we battled for top spot against the rest of the SPL,i think a few folk dont realise that Celtic and rangers gave each other this cushion,both took more points of every other club in the league,now with rangers gone the race to the top has became slightly slower,and to an untrained eye more challenging

    • lordmac

      the rangers trust have money why where they not in vited the simple answer to this they have reeal money and it is that MR GREEN needs
      to pay of thee investers that loaned him the money to buy rangers
      so you see it will be rangers once again buying rangers just another form of tickutus trickery. hell mend them, if they dont take this on board
      we had a celtic man in charge of our share deal, but have they i dont think so.

    • ecojon

      @ joedimagio

      Worth also considering whether Imran’s £22,000 of share capital purchased 1p shares which would return 70p at the flotation price – they would then be worth £?.Work it out for yourself because I can’t believe my figures 🙂

  32. Adam

    So….loads of whataboutery, nothing of anywhere near concrete nature and a completely INDEPENDENT BODY from a country not embittered in bigotry has made a ruling based on principles of law that Rangers FC is as was before.

    Rangers then. Rangers now. Rangers forever.

    • ecojon

      @ Adam

      Adam – it in’t a completely independent body! You are at your twisting again. It is a ‘club’ to promote a small group of football clubs to make sure they all can earn as much money as possible out of European football.

      Nothing wrong with what they are about but recognise the organisation for what it truly is which is a protection society and lobbying group for the clubs who are members or associates of it.

      By banging the drum and trying to inflate the importance of the body you only betray you actually know you are on shaky ground. Your post would be well-received and suited to some Rangers fan sites.

      On here it is examined and the true worth asessed and it is zilch actually and all your bombast doesn’t make an ounce of difference to an informed examination of the organisation.

      Indeed I would go so far as to say only a handful of people in Scotland knew of the existance of this all-powerful font of wisdom until chico saw a chance to use it and went to their agm to plead the Rangers case.

      • Adam

        It is an independent body in respect of the Rangers situation.

        We all know that whenever the SFA/SPL/COURTS/POLICE/BBC/STV/RECORD/SUN/TRIBUNALS/JUDGES writes/says/does something positive about Rangers, half of Glasgow calls them biased and whenever its negative, the other half say it biased. Incredibly sometimes, both sides can read the same thing and still claim they are biased.

        That cant be said for this organisation who cant be tainted with any of the garbage we read and hear all the time in Glasgow.

        I think deep down, and it would be nice for a few people to admit it, everyone knows that the press release has hit a sensitive spot.

  33. Oh dear, another rtc type fiasco the angst ridden will be suicidal.

    54 and counting.

  34. JohnBhoy

    Dear Ms Violet

    After you left the room to attend to other duties I behaved like a hippo and sprayed my excrement here, there and everywhere, wagging my little tail in mischievous delight. Cam, who sits at the front of your class beside Alex, merely reacted to my waste discharge.

    I am too scared to look at any disapproving comments that you may have posted and, instead, I offer the following self-administered lines as punishment:

    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.
    I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse. I am a hippo’s arse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s