It’s Free Speech Jim (Spence), But Not As We Know It – Rangers v BBC – Guest Post By JohnBhoy

An event has occurred that should prove a second watershed in the history of Rangers FC. The first turning point introduced the lexicon of business insolvency into the sporting arena, under the tombstone headed LIQUIDATION; the second pivotal moment is no less seismic. The orchestrated campaign by The Rangers and their fans to formally complain about Jim Spence of BBC Scotland Sportsound ought to have but one ending: the formal announcement by a pillar of the establishment – the BBC – on the status of Rangers FC.

Let us recap. Jim Spence had the temerity on BBC Scotland Sportsound to voice a view, not necessarily his own, that the current club plying its trade at Ibrox is not the same club pre and post liquidation. On the 4th September Jim uttered the immortal line: “John McClelland who was the chairman OF THE OLD CLUB, some people will tell you the club, well, THE CLUB THAT DIED, possibly coming back in terms of the new chairman…” This caused outrage amongst Rangers fans who, encouraged by Chris Graham, immediately complained to the BBC. The Rangers website issued a “Club Statement”, wherein they disclosed that they have instructed “Rangers’ lawyers to write to the BBC Trust” to ensure that “uses of the terms ‘new’ and ‘old'” are not used when referring to Rangers.

The purpose of the main stream media is to inform. To perform this function they must be allowed to represent multiple voices without fear of retribution or censorship. This is called freedom of speech and is guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public bodies and regardless of frontiers.”

The efforts by Rangers to silence any reference by the MSM to Rangers FC as an old club, or even acknowledge that others may hold that belief, is an Orwellian attack on free speech. There is widespread disagreement about the status of Rangers FC and The Rangers. Rangers fans, unsurprisingly, maintain that both are one and the same club; there are others who think differently and argue that liquidation confined Rangers FC to the history books. For Rangers to instruct their lawyers to close down that debate, and for their fans to demand no reference to their club’s status other than one that coincides with their own view, is a step too far.

Historically, the Scottish press fawned over Rangers FC. The phrase “succulent lamb journalism” was coined in Scotland to reflect this sycophancy. Today this deference is still much in evidence. Such is the sensitivity over Rangers’ status that even decent, intelligent journalists are careful when typing not to awaken the gorilla in the room. Tom English, a journalist for The Scotsman, made the following comment while reporting on Peter Lawwell’s appointment to the board of the SFA: “He’s in charge of the biggest and most successful club in the country.” Tom, for he is a loveable rogue, immediately attempted to retract any suggestion that Rangers was not Scotland’s most successful club, writing confusingly on twitter: “To various Rangers fans: Most successful club. In the here and now. I’m talking about the present day situation, not a bygone age. Relax.”

According to Tom, Scotland can simultaneously have two “most successful clubs”: one that is the most successful club “in the here and now” (and which may change next week); and another from “a bygone age”. To be fair to Tom, he does imply that the most successful club from the “bygone age”, even though they did not win the European Cup, was the old Rangers, as the new Rangers, contrary to their own advertising, is not the most successful club “in the here and now”. There can be only one existing “most successful club” in Scotland and Tom inadvertently confirmed that to be Celtic. Still, Tom English got himself into an hilarious fankle trying to appease Rangers fans and his comical prima facie “retraction” saved him from further ire. Jim Spence was not so lucky.

A free media – press, radio, television – is the main vehicle through which citizens are informed on societal issues. James D. Wolfensohn, when President of the World Bank, argued that a free press was fundamental to the very development of society (Wolfensohn, J. 1999. ‘Voices of the Poor.’ Washington Post, 10 November 1999):

“A free press is not a luxury. A free press is at the absolute core of equitable development, because if you cannot enfranchise poor people, if they do not have a right to expression, if there is no searchlight on corruption and inequitable practices, you cannot build the public consensus needed to bring about change.”

No one is suggesting that corruption has taken place, but if the press will only listen to those who shout the loudest then the credibility and independence of our press will be fatally undermined; and if those without a voice cannot depend on the press for informed reporting, and to have their opinion represented, then society will struggle to develop in a balanced way.

On the issue of Rangers’ status, when the death-knell of liquidation was sounded not one reporter claimed that Rangers FC would remain intact as the same football club before and after liquidation. They all stated unequivocally that liquidation meant the end of Rangers FC and that, whatever grew from the ashes, if anything, would be a new club with a new history. Insolvency law was unambiguous: liquidation was the end of Rangers FC.

Then Charles Green had an epiphany and so did the press. The commonplace notion that liquidation means the end of a business, including its history, is erroneous after all. According to the emerging narrative that emanated from Ibrox, liquidation was nothing more than a surgical strike on “holding companies”, leaving the core business and its history to survive unscathed and to behave as if liquidation was merely a form of soap powder that cleansed the outside and removed all known debts.

As liquidation takes its current course, this Rangers-in-Wonderland script permits two parallel universes: one where Rangers FC and its history will survive and another where something called the “holding company” and its history will be liquidated. If only we could apply such co-existing alternative realities to everyday life: it is only the “holding name” of the house that is repossessed; I have changed my name so the me that owed the student loan company £20,000 is a different me, not me; I have purchased Einstein’s brain so henceforth his Theory of Relativity shall be known as JohnBhoy’s Theory of Relativity.

Why did the press in particular not challenge this imaginative Satresque “being-and-nothingness” dual world-view of liquidation? “Jings, crivens, help ma boab; this directly contradicts what Rangers previously told us!” Then again, can we expect much from a press that ignores Charlotte Fakes because they are not sure of its sources or how the data was obtained? Professor Roy Greenslade lanced that puny boil. At least ask the bloody questions.

A solitary journalist did disagree with Rangers’ interpretation of The Insolvency Act 1986 – Graham Spiers. He said that the insolvency experts he spoke to concurred with the normal interpretation of the Act and that Rangers accordingly was a new club with a new history. For voicing his opinion he was vilified as a “Rangers Hater”. Jim Spence has now joined that list.

Two events may have persuaded journalists to think differently about Rangers’ status, but neither carries the weight of legal statute. Firstly, Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS), while chairing an investigation into oldco’s alleged breach of SPL rules, expressed an opinion en passant that Rangers FC still existed, although not as a separate legal entity (so someone bought the history of a non-legal entity! And why buy the history and not the club? Was the club, a non-legal entity, listed as an asset? Introduce a parallel universe and the cross-over between reality and fiction creates so many points of amusement). Secondly, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld Rangers’ claim that they are Scotland’s most successful club, clearly validating the view that Rangers’ history remains unbroken. Yet, LNS was not tasked with determining the status of Rangers FC and his opinion on the matter carries no legal weight. In other words, his is not a legal ruling as to the status of Rangers FC. The Independent Reviewer has upheld a complaint that the ASA’s decision was flawed and ran contrary to previous judgements and, in any event, no ASA conclusion, in either direction, supersedes legal statute.

The BBC Trust also ruled in favour of Rangers. Hence the current furore over Jim Spence’s alleged breach of that ruling. However, the ruling has wide-ranging implications for free speech, where reporters are not even allowed to report on what other people think about a contentious issue without suffering retribution and censorship. Oh how reporters and presenters must long for the day when they can write or talk about the beauty of sport without worrying about tribal hostilities, but in this case you reap what you sow. Further, if the BBC Trust depended solely on the same information as that used by the ASA then their initial judgement may be similarly flawed.

So, reporters pre-liquidation had the force of the Insolvency Act 1986 to support their position that liquidation would signal the demise of Rangers FC. Even Rangers held that opinion. To alter their mindset, the press had a non-legally binding view from LNS and a flawed judgement by the ASA. They also had the anger of Rangers fans to concentrate their minds. Neither LNS’s personal opinion nor the ASA’s defective approach usurped insolvency law. Was it the case that the media were mindful of A. J. Liebling’s distinction between their civic function and financial role?: “The function of the press in society is to inform, but its role in society is to make money.”

It is clear that the issue of Rangers’ status is topical and disputatious. For that very reason it needs to be clarified one way or the other and to do that necessitates a legal determination. The press, to their shame, have declined to at least hold a debate. Rangers – club and fans – by their actions against Jim Spence may have forced the hand of the BBC. Where the press have continually failed to understand the meaning of free speech, and the need to represent multiple voices, it is now up to the BBC to stand their ground and defend Jim Spence and what he represents: the democratic right to express an opinion. What the BBC now needs to do is state, after seeking legal advice, their considered opinion on Rangers’ status. The BBC Trust will have to like or lump the consequences. It is untenable for the BBC to follow the footsteps of our supine press and allow a section of society to dictate what can or cannot be aired by our media. If Rangers consider that they have been defamed by the BBC then they should settle the matter in a court of law to secure that legal determination.

Our press have also arrived at an important junction. Live in the past or become part of a modern Scotland and fulfil their primary function to inform without fear or favour. Choosing the latter option might arrest the general decline in readership, and even recover some lost custom, leading, in turn, to increased income. If it is the former option, then step aside for the Internet Bampots.

Jim Spence offered an opinion and his employer was told to silence him. It’s free speech Jim, but not as we know it. It’s time for the media to grow some cojones, support their colleague, and defend free speech.

Posted by JohnBhoy



Filed under Free Speech, Guest Posts, Press, Rangers

192 responses to “It’s Free Speech Jim (Spence), But Not As We Know It – Rangers v BBC – Guest Post By JohnBhoy

  1. But its not even as if Jim Spence called Rangers “the club that died.” He stated, factually, that some people say the club of which Jim McClelland was chairman “died.” Rangers fans, old and new, really have lost the run of themselves if they can’t make that distinction.

    • Steerpike

      Utter dross, quoting liquidation experts and journalists when the only opinion that counts is the SFA, and their reasoning was confirmed by one of the most senior legal brains.

      What a terrible post, bring back ecojon…..or worse Coatbrig.

      What next ? The lunatic from Manchester who hates Rangers for psychological reasons.

      • @gortchomhor

        The SFA isn’t the arbiter of business law. You could argue that business and property law (which is what we are essentially dealing with) are the most important of all laws, they’re up there anyway, and so you seem to be saying the SFA has a role in presiding over the most important laws of the land.

        So the SFA can change business laws to suit Rangers… lol

        Nonsense, of course. The business went into liquidation and took everything else with it. It’s really very simple. There isn’t some special category of laws for football businesses or hairdressers… the law is the law, liquidation means death.

        • GaryAbbot

          The rangers (eco even you use Rangers when you clearly meant The Rangers…) can be the old rangers if they really want to…

          Just go to UEFA and say look we are old rangers (Ranger FC) and as that club we have avoided £50+m in debts and are now debt free – whats the punishment for that…..???

          UEFA has a score card for financial debt avoiders….

          – Malaga slow to pay 400,000 euro, punishment is THE NEXT 3 TIMES THEY QUALIFY for europe they miss out

          – Irish club, into debt, liquidation, come out avoid 250,000 euro, and qualify for europe – UEFA says you miss next qualifiation, this year!

          So “The Rangers” want to go down that road please do… UEFA will happly make example of any club avoiding financial rules to avoid debt and become debt-free and therefore gain advantage….

          Just dont see SFA trying to help “The Rangers” in this … cos its going to be so painful.

          Or New Rangers club and therefore only 3 years out of UEFA.. maybe…

      • johnboy

        why would lord charles (craig whytes puppet ,remember him with the monolce ) state on tv, the history has gone without the CVA,or james traynor stating the the same in the daily loo roll,would change thier minds did they get it wrong, who was the impartial senior legal brain,because if 10s of

        of millions dont give you an unfair advantage,then i dont know what will,,,,maybee we should have asked the poeple who looked into the ben johntson doping scandle ,funny how the SFA are ajoke when you want them to be ,then when a statement suits you ,,,,,,,,,well its got to be true cos these guys are beyond reproach
        ha ha

      • How much of this would we have been exposed to if LNS had not made his contentious decision

        LNS from loon to Hero

      • I don’t understand. Are you saying the SFA’s “opinion” is more important than a legal fact?

  2. AD Bryce (Bryce9a)

    “Rangers are the same club” is not a claim with any reference to matters pertaining to insolvency law at all… UNLESS you establish first that ‘club’ is being used by the claimant as synonymous with the term ‘company’.

    • mark

      You mean like in the rangers fc (now deid) articles of association?

    • Steerpike


      At last I have found another refugee with a functioning brain, these poor misguided fools cannot absorb the difference between a club and a company. The whole concept of an undertaking is beyond their intellectual capacity, I personally mourn for their souls.

      • mark

        We are not afforded that luxury as you obviously don’t have one. You have found a like minded individual but functioning brain? Deary me, incorporation mean anything to you?


    • reilly1926

      Your club/company is not dead but it is dying currently in the liquidation process.

      As your fans suggest the SFA are corrupt and if it is this mob that you’re hanging your same club notion on then more fool you.

      Man up and accept the obvious FFS. It’s sad and pathetic.

    • Complaints that such terms were a result of an “anti-Rangers bias” at the BBC Scotland were rejected by the Trust.

      Several reports on BBC Scotland online had held that “old” Rangers, the entity that entered administration, became “new” Rangers once Charles Green’s consortium purchased the assets of the club and relaunched it in the Third Division.

      Objectors maintained it was only the company, and not the club, that was liquidated.

      The decision, reached the by Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee, said that such stories “had not used clear, precise language and due accuracy had not been achieved such that the guidelines on accuracy had been breached”.

      The ECS added it was “satisfied that although there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines in relation to due accuracy and the use of clear and precise language, it had not seen anything to suggest that the BBC had knowingly and materially misled its audience”.

      BBC Scotland said it stood by the accuracy of its reporting, but noted the Trust’s decision.

      “We remain of the opinion that due accuracy was achieved,” a statement read.

      “A football club, once incorporated, is indistinguishable in Scots law from its corporate identity.

      “If the club was separate it would need its own constitution, committee members, trustees, etc.

      “Rangers Football Club does not have that because it is incorporated.”

  3. the above statements confirm to me that Scotland can NEVER go independent as these people who try to rule free speech will turn us into an Northern Ireland situation. They will try and rule the roost the same way the people in the big hoose try to rule Scottish football even though they are only a very minor club since they became servco!!!!

    • “Never go independent”….absolute rubbish! We’re currently in the UK and suppression of the truth is happening everywhere inside the UK and without. You will always find groups of individuals who are self serving and wont lift a finger to do the right thing.

      • If we go independent we wont have to kowtow to a BBC for a start!

        • Pie man hates bridies!

          @960jeannie960,so what do you think Jeannie,when Alex Salmond says,when the rangers(I.L.)debacle unfolded,i was on the phone to H.M.R.C. to ask for leniency for them,to me that means he condones theft,tax evasion and outright cheating on the field,and off,of play as does the B.B.C.,who in my book,are now really saying,we don’t want our Journalists to tell the truth. What do YOU think Mr.Salmond and the B.B.C. are really saying if not what i believe?

          • Here we go back to the “don’t back independence bcos you will give that AS what he wants after what he done to offend us!”. While you have a right to feel aggrieved it’s a pretty narrow minded view when the future of your country is at stake. We would have been screaming out for AS to do the same thing for us…..back in Fergus’s day we didn’t have our own Parliament but if we had we would have been banging on his door. I don’t know if it would have done us any more good than it did them but it’s consigned to history (much like RFC and we have to move on.

            Independence is not about SNP they’re driving the bus…..for the moment. Other politicians from other parties are splintering off and getting on that bus because they see the chance to be in the position to run our country better than SNP. In fairness you can’t really trust anyone in positions of power because they’ve dumped on a lot of people to get there…..truth and free speech become suppressed in such an atmosphere and that’s something that happens the world over. You can bet that the authorities knowing how this was going to pan out were more than likely trying to avoid the shitstorm that followed.


      How right you are Hugh – and yet some of our ‘kind’ would vote for separation because the ‘klan’ wrap themselves in the Union flag. The ‘klan’ is not the UK and an independent Scotland would be no friend to our minority.

    • Steerpike

      Hugh Burns,

      Nice little smear tactic you got going on there, trying to frighten Irish-Catholics with a potential Northern Island situation, is this not the same place where Irish Catholics want their independence from the UK ?

  4. Monti

    Why didn’t the the rangers fans fake outrage when Walter the myth wished ‘ the new club well in the future”?
    Or Richard Gough when he did likewise or even Steven Naismith, when talking about taking a 75% wage cut said ” I was proud to be one of the first players to take a 75% wage cut, in an effort to help the ORIGINAL rangers”?

    Ibrox still stands, the fans who followed rangers are now turning up to follow second rangers.
    The name of the original rangers is still above the Ibrox door!
    Rangers were not demoted or relegated, they went broke owing multi, multi millions in unpaid tax & bills!
    This new club has one only one trophy in it’s short history, the lowest league in Scottish football!

    The BBC should publicly back Jim Spence immediately without fear or favour!

    Well said Jim Spence!!

    • Monti

      ‘won’ only one trophy.

      • graham

        Apart from the celtic fans inside and outside the media ..
        Tell which of the many many organisation that the celtic fans have pleaded with to say the clubs history is
        Have actually came out and said it
        The rangers are not dead 141 years 54 titles and still going on !!
        Unlike the loaf to history celtic football and athletic company !!
        I think they are now called craptic fc
        Forever !!
        Ah it’s good to be a supporter of the worlds most successful club !!
        And we will be BACK to win more

        • Monti

          Not being funny m8 I couldn’t decode what the fk your talking about!

          • graham

            Monti ,
            To simplify it
            Your are not the team from 1888..
            ‘Celtic football and athletic club’
            You are now ‘celtic fc ‘
            We however , are still
            Rangers fc !!
            141 years unbroken
            Simples !!!

            • Pie man hates bridies!

              @graham,you really are a fud,you are deid and because of this you use the old ragers tactic of,smear them with the shit we are covered in. I noticed that at no time in OUR unbroken history did our timeline ever come into question until yours did,funny that!

            • rodney


              You really should just step away from this debate. I’m afraid that even the simplest arguments may just be far too difficult for you to understand. I don’t usually get involved in insulting The Rangers fans online but enough is enough,eh?

              Perhaps The Rangers’ legal team should actually start suing the BBC et al for defamation. A day in court and the mockery of the entire Scottish legal and financial fields would really help you all to focus your minds on one singular fact – there are NO exceptions to liquidation. Not even for naughty football clubs. All other challenges that your club faces are insignificant when measured against this point.

              Why don’t you ask the Ranger’s Fans (in)Fighting Fund to spend some cash on getting an authoritative view on liquidation re. football clubs, y’know from perhaps an insolvency practitioner? Just a 1 hour appointment should be sufficient to have it explained clearly.

              The Rangers did not, can not and will not re-write the insolvency Act 1986 to suit their own means. Jim Traynor, Mr Green, etc have been lying to you.

        • Andreas


          Is it not 55 titles? Surely you will be able to tell the world that the the old 3rd division title is equally as important as any first, premier or premiership title?

          What I love the most about this is that every fan of OldCo accepts that liquidation occurred, they just clearly do not understand what liquidation actually means.


          God Bless you all. You make every day worth living and get me through the tough days.

        • Back ,to where ?
          the man that bought deadco’s titles said his Rangers had never played in the SPL,

          IF it’s the same club, and it was the company alone that got liquidated,please tell me, as Duff & Phelps were brought in to administer the company not the club

          who was it that sold the CLUB’s titles to Green, who gave them the authority to sell the titles, how much were they sold for and who took the money

          • Steerpike


            ” IF it’s the same club, and it was the company alone that got liquidated,please tell me, as Duff & Phelps were brought in to administer the company not the club who was it that sold the CLUB’s titles to Green, who gave them the authority to sell the titles, how much were they sold for and who took the money “.

            I knew you would never understand something as complex as an undertaking,, let me lead you by the nose on this one to avoid any ambiguity.

            A club is an undertaking to participate in football.
            An undertaking is externally attached to a company.
            A company does not own the undertaking, it is a pledge to the SFA to participate in football under their rules and regulations.
            A company cannot transfer the undertaking to another company without the approval of the SFA.
            The undertaking is not under company law because it is an attachment to the company, it comes under SFA laws.
            If the SFA transfer the undertaking then that is the Law, end of debate.

            The SFA transferred the undertaking from the old company to the new company, a condition of the undertaking transfer was the payment of all debts to those who participate in football.

            .This agreement had nothing to do with D&P and is clear evidence of all my above points, if the undertaking was an internal part of the company then it would have been sold by D&P, it was not.

            I can smell your hair burning.

            • Cluster one

              The SFA transferred the undertaking ……………..pmsl, No they did not, show me anywhere it says The SFA transferred the undertakings

            • rodney

              You may need to lead me by the nose too. Do you mean that the SFA’s own rules (on how to run a football league) supercede centuries of Scottish legal precedent? Intriguing, tell me more…

              You said: “If the SFA transfer the undertaking then that is the Law, end of debate.”
              I’m not so sure that the SFA’s decisions become any kind of Law, certainly not one I’ll be abiding by. Maybe you should rethink what you are saying because you can imagine the confusion that’ll happen if people can just pick and choose which laws/taxes/rules are applicable to them. And just fudge the rest until it seems plausible.

            • PCFC

              So how did they end up in the bottom division? As a new entity they had to apply for membership of the SFL and of the SFA. Had the club not died then they would still have been in the top tier.

        • Kerrygirl

          Well if there had been in my opinion an impartial view taken by the leading legal brain who carried out the work of the black hand gang, your ex team would be down titles and cups. Imagine if Celtic had carried on the way your two teams have ,,,,,, they would have been tarred feathered and ran out of town,,,,,,,,,, gypsies tramps and thieves

  5. Ed Paisley

    Chris Graham needs to wipe his teary eyes and snotty nose and grow up. The man acts like a huffy wean whenever anyone disagrees with him. On balance, insolvency law trumps the SFA/LNS “make it up on the hoof” approach. EXTINCT. Pay all of the creditors if you want to claim continuity. Dunderheids!

    • Shiva

      He’s brilliant value though.

      Backing the wrong horse every time, his enemies of rangers list, the #letsseehowitallpansout, oh, there’s been so much comedic value from him and so much more to come.

    • Maggie

      @Ed Paisley
      Ed,have you forgotten my habit of referring to Chris Graham as “His Mammy’s Big Tumpshie” for the reasons you list above.
      Every single time he’s on the telly or the radio,he sounds as if he’s whining to his mammy about how all those bad bhoys are bullying him,and making up lies about him and his pals at Ibrox.He has the most unfortunate whinging voice and begretted facial expressions,but sometimes wears a nice jacket and he does, however, have a university degree,so in Sevconia that makes him an intellectual 🙂

  6. Monti



  7. George

    ‘Freedom of Speech’ – as long as it’s not Rangers fans giving their opinions. Every time I ask the likes of Tomo why a poll on journalists having a lower public rating on truth than politicians has been removed by the moderator he fails to answer. As Lou Reed stated ‘don’t believe half of what you see and none of what you read’. Your Blog is a good example. A lawyer banned by his profession blogging on legal matters. You couldn’t make it up.

    • Monti

      Are you employed sir?

    • mark

      You did just make it up. Either that or knowingly repeated a total lie about the guy that runs this site.

      You Sevco supporters can have your free speech but it doesn’t trump the law or common decency.

      • George

        Monti, thanks for your concern and yes I am employed though judging from the amount of times you comment on here it looks like my taxes are not achieving best value. Mark, I welcome your reply I’m only going by this article. Care to comment

        • Maggie

          Can’t defend the points,so attack the messenger.
          If you’d been paying attention to Paul,you’d know it’s called an Ad hominem attack.
          Save you opprobrium for those Spivs that ran your dead club and those who are now about to assassinate your new entity Sevco.What are you doing about that,if I may be so bold to ask.

          The very fact that Paul allows you to comment on his difficulties in the past speaks volumes about his character.Go back to Mc Murdo’s blog where you can all congratulate each other on your supremacy and your uncovering of the gazillions of Rangers’ haters,with no dissenting voices permitted. All you people have is “WHATABOUTERY” that’s your only defence to the indefensible,well that an your usual anti Catholic,anti Irish rhetoric.

          • Well Said Maggie, was gonna engage with the numpty but you saved me the time and effort thanks, if he spent half as much time analysing the sevco situation maybe he would be properly informed but its unlikely as the general rule is to ignore deflect or attack truths as usual.

          • George

            Maggie, Paul could hardly allow an article headlined as ‘free speech’ and then ban me. Or could he – others have, like Tomo. As for bringing McMurder into this – gave up reading his crap ages ago. I only venture on to these boredes now and again. Love to see all this indignation when I post a deliberately wind up comment. Get a life.

          • ecojon


            When I see vicious idiots like George being a standard bearer for newco then I reckon it won’t be long before they transition back into deidco.

            • Maggie

              They’re all out in force today eco,names we haven’t seen before and lots of “blasts from the past”. Things must be looking very bleak behind the scenes for Jabba to be assembling the deflectors and deniers.
              It’s been a long while since the last ad hominem attack on Paul,whiffs of serious desperation to my mind eco.

            • George

              ‘Vicious idiot’ from someone who spends a good proportion of his time commenting on a football team he obviously hates. The irony. Good to see this blog encourages balanced debate.

          • Steerpike


            ” Go back to Mc Murdo’s blog where you can all congratulate each other on your supremacy “.

            Kettle…………pot……………….black………………..boom………………boom, are you joining me for tea and scones ?

        • johnnymanc

          Taxes? Thought you lot didn’t believe in paying them? If you do and if you are the same ‘club’…..well you know the next step. But as it’s the same step The Rangers won’t take and since The Rangers won’t be punished for it I guess that only leaves us with one conclusion….let’s see if you can join the dots eh.

        • Kerrygirl

          Yes George ,you done a wee bit of digging there.pity you weren’t digging in your own back yard,,,,,,,,,,,,,ooooooooh the stench ,check your shoes ,did someone just kick the skin off something……wipe your feet at the door ,or better still take your shoes offf

    • Mick

      Surely you mean suspended rather than banned? How in your view does having served a suspension prevent one from commenting on the law? Or are you the self appointed Thought Police?

    • And people who live in glass houses, should not throw stones, or should it be ‘he who is without sin, cast the first stone’ moron.

      • George

        ‘Thought Police’, ‘moron’. My you lot love to indulge in an intellectual conversation. ‘it’s free speech, but not as we know it’. Look at yourselves. Obsessed. Can’t you be happy you’re in the Champions League? Thought not.

        • mark

          This is the same jack Irvine inspired gash you lot have been blindly and loyally peddling repeatedly for the last year or so – it’s quite ironic that you’re all gunning for him now on chrissy Graham’s orders.

          PmcC’s a banned lawyer – no he’s not
          Can’t you be happy, you’re in the Champions League (again) – we are, doesn’t mean we can’t pass comment on the highly entertaining car crash still happening down in Sevconia
          You’re obsessed with the rangers – this is the biggest scandal to hit Scotland, it began 20 odd years ago and has far-reaching implications in banking, politics, the media as well as sport. We’d be idiots if we weren’t interested
          Celtic are skint and have loads of debt – no we’re not and we have audited accounts to prove it.

          If you can’t engage in a grown up manner you may be best going back to follow follow or elsewhere where your sentiments will find a happy home and you’ll get a cracking intellectual conversation on such worldly subjects as earl haigs in high places, and where you can get a good sash bash before away games.

          Anyway, we’ll give this grown up chat a wee try. Insolvency law, does it apply to football clubs?

          • George

            Mark, oh the bile you spout. Would you like your work peers to deliver this judgement. Yes or No will suffice – no need to let your blood pressure rise again

          • George

            Mark, I now realise why you are unemployed. Making up stories and then being found out is not a good career move. Where did I state ‘Celtic are skint etc’. Be a bit more grown up. Suspended or banned. OK suspended means you can’t be a lawyer for that term and banned means you can’t be a lawyer for that term. It’s all lexicology to me.

          • Maggie

            Another troll is among us I fear mark.Apparently he only posted his disparaging comments and links to articles about Paul as ” a wind up” he informs me above.You know,as you do mark,use other people’s Ill health and the resultant misfortune as a wind up.
            If I was him I’d be very afraid,Karma’s bitch,as is Nemesis,just ask SDM et al.

        • It’s nothing to do with Celtic being in the Champions league though is it?

          It’s to do with a football club who binned all that debt and are now trying to convince everybody that they are the same club!!

          Sevco fans are a complete and utter joke and every other football fan in the country can see it but them.

          it’s just too good………..

        • Of course Paul doesn’t hide behind a cloak of Anonymity like you why don’t you post some details of yourself on here and let us check your credentials…

          • George

            Oh dear. Asking me to reveal myself when no-one else on here does. Good post An article on free speech as long as its not mine. Why don’t you ask Paul why he’s removed one of my posts? And why are you so obsessed with me and my team. Surely you welcome free speech. Or does free come with a ‘must conform to the views of all my followers’ price tag. Bit like Hitler maybe?

    • graham

      Well said George

      • mick

        Are you Botox lips from the telly all the Celtic kids say you look like Rambos mum lol a bet leggo loves it thou

        • George

          My my Mick you are a wit. You’ve really added to the debate. Are you the same Mick as the stories I hear about ‘Mick and Paddy are sitting in the bar…..’

          • Kerrygirl

            Right George ,,,time for baw baws ,,,,……zzzzzzzzzz

            • Kerrygirl

              Yes you have a history , a history of paying no one ,credit rating zero, irrespective of future results the stain will never wash out you are the laughing stock of football. You will always be known as shysters

    • Kerrygirl

      Show us the books

    • Kerrygirl

      Leave it out barabas

  8. Dan

    Here’s the thing. I know wee Jim Spence. And may my children and grandchildren (and myself) roast in Hell if I’m not telling the truth when I say he is a one thousand per cent, died in the wool, Dundee United fan. If he has an agenda it is ‘anti- The Old Firm’ as they used to be known before Rangers passed away. I can put my hand on my heart and say if the situation was reversed and the wonderfully wonderful, very very solvent, law-abiding, tax-paying, non-robbers-of-charity-funds, Glasgow Celtic had passed over to the other side, Mr Spence would think nothing of making reference (qualified of course, as he has done in this instance) to the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Celtic.

    One can only hope that his employers stand by him. But hey—-BBC Scotland? Mmmmmm.

  9. Clarkeng

    Merr Pish!!
    Rangers are still very much alive and will continue to live despite the grossly misinformed speculation this Albion Rovers ( aye right!!!! ) loving site espouses.
    The club is the club… the club… the club…….is the club……always has been…… always will be.
    There is no doubt the great unwashed on here would like it to be different………..but………..tough cookie……….it is not.
    Learn to live with it.
    Has anyone thought of a testing question for Liewell?
    Like why have we not made £10m profit this year?
    Or why are we carrying £31m of debt in Celtic FC?
    Why is our property valued at an inflated £50m on the balance sheet?
    Surely it is only worth what the Coop would pay for it to build a supermarket on it ( or does that only apply to other clubs )?
    Oh I forgot the Coop own most of it already.
    The mortgages are still being paid off.
    Why has there been in excess of £61m raised in share capital and the net worth of the club is now only £32m?
    Must be the excellent business model……

    • mark

      You’d be better doing a simple copy and paste job from your rangers media/leggo/media house crib sheet.

      It would save you time and get your inaccurate whataboutery-type ramblings across with inbuilt grammatical errors, there’d be no need to add your own in.

      • Clarkeng

        In built grammatical errors??!!
        Feel like I’ve just been savaged by a gumsie dug!!
        Now about the inaccuracy I strongly suggest you check out the LSE for Celtic FC and Celtic PLC.
        Have a peek at the balance sheets ( without the green tinted glasses ) and then reconsider.
        If you need help with big numbers let me know.
        I will be happy to help and I can add you to my mentoring class.

        • mark

          Apologies, didn’t realise you’d had similar conversations with yer maw….

          Re the accounts (not just balance sheet) don’t think I’ll be taking advice from a conian that thinks liquidation = continuation. What’s your take on medical matters? Death is just a wee sleep, we all come back as cleopatra?

          I’ve read (and unfortunately for you understand) celtic’s accounts and they’re not too bad for a club operating in this market.

          You do realise that having a mortgage doesn’t mean you’re skint don’t you?

          On the other hand, not paying your bills or remitting tax and writing off your true blue loyal life long debenture holders emotional investment. What do you think that means?

          • Clarkeng

            Why is it when you lose a bit of a debate you have to resort to insult about someone’s family?
            You are a low form of life my friend.
            My late mother would make ten of anything in your family.
            It is not unfortunate for me that you understand the accounts rather it is unfortunate for you and your like minded unwashed – “not too bad for operating in this market”.
            What happened to the cash rich, £10m profits and soundly run business?
            “Not too bad” indeed.
            Not very good could equally have been you description could it not.
            You have admitted they are bad and this in the golden years of tainted titles et al.
            So if you understand them can you explain how a sound business plan has generated so much in losses and reduced the value of the club to half of what has been put in?
            Can you explain the value of the property on the balance sheet?
            Can you explain why it was ok to revalue the property over the last 8 years.
            Was it to prop up the balance sheet due to the liquidity ratio.
            What does the liquidity ratio tell you about the cash position?
            Finally if you really do understand the accounts can you explain the Celtic FC debt at £31m against assets of £5m.

            • mark

              You my friend, are a halfwit pretending to be intellectual regurgitating half baked nonsense thought up by jack Irvine (of the Hun is a sectarian word and Manchester was a good wee party where a handful of Chelsea fans got over excited fame) which would result in an epic fail in an accountancy 101 exam.
              Analysis of Celtic’s numbers has been provided by better than I so I’m not going to (nor do I need to) justify them to the likes of you. You really need to lose the whataboutery blinkers and concentrate on what’s happening over at Sevco. To lose one club could be considered careless but to lose two…..

              It’s not like we’ve not all been warning you for years.
              Also, don’t you think there’s more than a touch of hypocrisy in your last post?

              Last word for your dear old late mum, may she rest in peace.

              No sorry, can’t let it go. Ok John Harvey jones, tell me about this 30 million debt of Celtic’s. Scotland are playing tonight so I could do with a laugh

            • Steerpike


              You just got crunched in a financial debate, it seems the boys in blue are on the way back in more ways than one.

              Excellent post Clarkeng.

            • Kerrygirl

              Gypsies tramps and thieves

            • Kerrygirl

              So your business model is ,build up a mountain of debt pay no one ,close the doors start up again ,fleece your customers with a share issue ,the vultures pay themselves handsomely , you have been stiffed and you will be again ,love is blind,show us your books Celtics are there for all to see

          • Clarkeng

            I did not say having a mortgage means you are skint.
            I had hoped hoped you would understand what I did say.
            Think about it.
            When wee Fungus left did Sellik have a mortgage or should I say mortgages?
            Why did they need a mortgage or mortgages for circa £30m, after the “most successful share issue for a British football team ever”?
            And the subsequent share issues up £61.5m with a further £9m in convertibles on which they pay 6% interest annually.
            Where did the money go?
            Why has the value of the money put in halved in value and the debts risen so much under a “sound business model”?
            Did Sellik under Martin O’Neil try to buy players they could not afford?
            Why does big Des get all that money ( 6% in perpetuity – that means for ever ) paid to a tax avoidance company based in Gibralter?
            Why is the property valued on the balance sheet at £50m?

        • Kerrygirl

          Show us your books , Celtic ‘s books are there for all to see , and you can interpret what you like from them ,,,,,,, but they are there , show us the books

        • Cluster one

          Balance sheets look good

    • Monti

      😀 we are trying to mock your dead club, don’t interrupt again. :/

    • Mick

      So it boils down to the tautology ” the club is the club is the club”. Meaningless nonsense.
      Rangers are in liquidation. End of. A new club using a similar name is manipulating you out of your money. Good luck with that

    • Kerrygirl

      Show us the books

    • Kerrygirl

      Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz show us the cooked books

  10. Fab post JohnBhoy your spot on with ‘at least boody ask the questions’ and the SMSM’s ability to put it’s head in the sand and also fail to support a colleague, shame on them.

  11. Monti

    The SFA have not helped the situation by continually perpetuating the myth that it’s the same club as before err death 🙂

    I actually contacted Mark Snell, press officer at the SFA & asked him ” when the new club win it’s first trophy, will it be recorded as this club’s first honour”? He replied ” No ” I asked why this was & he said ” coz Charles Green bought the history”
    I asked him why did he need to buy the history if it was STILL the same club & also how much did the History cost & could he break each trophy amount down”?
    Silence…..silence…..silence……he then said he couldn’t go into financial details!
    Was sure I heard the distant hum of a shredding machine in the background.

    • graham

      Aye and them nasty anti celtic people in Uefa who also won’t say the rangers are dead !
      How dAre they not tell a lie to keep the craptic fans happy

      • joe

        ”The Rangers Football Club PLC is a public limited company registered in Scotland (company number: SC004276) and was incorporated on 27 May, 1899. When the current company is officially liquidated, all of its corporate business history will come to an end. When this happened to Airdrieonians in 2002, all of the trophies, titles and records associated with the club were discontinued and a new club, Airdrie United FC, took over. Airdrieonians’ official history ended in 2002, then Airdrie United’s took over.” (BBC)

        Charles Green’s Consortium did not take over the old Rangers club. Nor did it buy any shares. It bought the trophies as assets and formed a brand new club.

        The new Rangers club are not entitled to any prize money from the previous club’s campaigns. They do not have a 10pt penalty applied to them, as the new club is not in administration. They had to pay a fee to begin life in the SFL. As Charles Green admits, the new club has never played in the SPL.

        The new Rangers club are not banned from Europe. UEFA deem all new clubs must play three years of football before they are eligible for Europe. The new Rangers club are not eligible to play in Europe for at least three years, even if they win the SPL or the Scottish Cup.

        Throughout the old Rangers club’s administration process, we were continually told that a CVA was the favoured option “TO SAFEGUARD 140 YEARS OF HISTORY and avoid liquidation.” The CVA failed.

  12. joe

    Rangers were not demoted or relegated, they went broke owing millions in unpaid tax & bills! They had to reapply to join Scottish Foot ball.
    13/06/12 – DAILY RECORD – “They’ll slip into liquidation within the next couple of weeks with a new company emerging but 140 years of history, triumph and tears, will have ended. No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died. They were closed and a newco must start from scratch.” (Jim Traynor)
    Oh that Jim Traynor head of Media at Ibrox………..

  13. Dead as a proverbial dodo says the law of the land

  14. willy wonka

    “Jim Spence had the temerity on BBC Scotland Sportsound to voice a view, not necessarily his own”
    Who’s view was he expressing if it was not his own John ? Was it perhaps as some of us think, maybe the view of Pacific Quay C.S.C. ? Part of an ongoing propaganda campaign to throw mud at Rangers ?
    You go on about freedom of the media. I agree, such freedoms should be preserved. However, Spence knew fine well what he was doing. The Rangers fans had already complained to BBC Trust about exactly the same lie being spread. The BBC accepted the complaint, apologised and sent out instructions to BBC Scotland that it shouldn’t be repeated. Spence is in breach of the BBC charter. He did it deliberately and should be sacked.

  15. BB

    You’re spot on JohnBhoy. Yet again, the BBC fails in it’s objective responsibilities regarding Rangers, and the fans have the cheek to go and get all annoyed about it. They have no right to complain, it’s just not on!….

    • Read the link, maybe the last line ‘no one would speak for me’ was a reference to Traynor, he was a SMSM jounalist for many years and i’m sure has plenty skeletons tucked in his cupboard that others know of.

  16. joe

    28/10/12 – THE SUN – ““Ally McCoist, Kenny McDowall, Ian Durrant, Jim Stewart — all fantastic people. It is still a brilliant club for me, although technically it is now a new club.” (TERRY BUTCHER)

  17. Raymilland


    TRFC is on the brink of extinction; however, death can bring dignity.

    The reality is that CW & CG have taken Rangers to the edge of the precipice. Rather than concede to their exploitation of Sevco 5088 which hold the club to ransom; Jim McColl & Co would best bide their time until the current business model collapses (which won’t take long, given the lack of funds and the dispute over the assets).

    The only viable route for Rangers is to come clean; and sever their ties to the old club. That would require transfer of the current membership to an entirely new entity that wishes to play Association football at Ibrox.

    The current threat of claim and counter claim over the assets would finish off TRFC in any event, there is also a distinct possibility that other substantial liabilities could fall upon TRFC; including Ticketus and EBT related debts; these debts could be tied to the ‘same’ club (oldco has gone but not the club?).

    For the above transformation to happen; the SMSM would require ‘permission’ to report of the diabolical and calamitous exploitation of Sevco 5088 which would undermine the current occupants of Ibrox. The ‘new’ potential incumbents of Ibrox would require the full might of civil law (SFO) and the football authorities; in order to oust the ‘villains’.

    With all of the above in place; BDO could establish the initial sale to Green to be nullified.

    The rouges are left with nothing. A fresh start for the gallant pioneers under a new banner; The Clyde Blowers Rangers is beginning to grow on me.

    A wind of change shall soon be blowing via the SMSM
    (Watch this space) 😉

    • Clarkeng

      I’ve been biding my time waiting for these tips for Shawfield.
      What happened?
      I say again and P McC please note :- there has never been a reversal of a sale by an administrator or a liquidator.
      P McC tried some time ago to explain it was possible but it has never happened.
      Any argument between Whyte and Green over Sevco 5088 is just that – between them.
      Ticketus have already been granted decree against Craig Whyte and his corporate empire in the sum of £17m plus interest and costs.
      They are currently winding up his main asset???? Liberty Capital and look likely to receive one and sixpence back.
      If it falls as it will in a matter of time the rest falls like snaw aff a dyke as the cross guarantees kick in.
      It does not affect Rangers in any way shape or form.

      • Raymilland


        If Sevco 5088 was a greyhound it would not be granted the papers necessary to race. The RSPCA would be after the owner for cruelty.

        Wouldn’t you prefer a responsible owner?

        You underestimate the significance of the dispute between Green & Whyte.

        The Ticketus deal will be settled eventually. If they only ‘receive one and sixpence back’, where else will they turn their attention……The Big Hoose?

        “It does not affect Rangers in any way shape or form.”…..Is newco moving to Shawfield then?

        • Clarkeng

          I sense mate that you might be just a wee bit in agreement with my points.
          You know as well as I do the dispute between Green and Whyte is just that.
          Nothing to do with Rangers.
          As far as Ticketus is concerned the buck stops at Wee Craigie – but you know that already.
          You cannot promise to pay the piper with someone else’s money and get away with it every time.
          Something has to give.
          They should have done their homework before handing money out to Craigie.
          There’s a few on here who fall into that category and should do it before posting.

      • @gortchomhor

        Clarkeng, you misunderstand. Nobody is talking about “reversal” of the liquidation. If the transfer of assets to Sevco Scotland was improper in terms of the novation, rescinding wouldn’t be possible either — technically the assets did not change hands. It’s pretty simple and contrary to what you suggest it happens all the time.

        If an agent sells something which is not rightfully his, that isn’t a legitimate sale, it isn’t any kinds of sale… it’s a crime. You wouldn’t rescind that, it would be deemed unlawful and in effect nullified. The assets wouldn’t return to the rightful owner because in the eyes of the law they never left his ownership.

        • Clarkeng

          The sale was between the Officer of the Court ( the Administrators ) and Sevco Scotland.
          This has now been established.
          Clearly this would not have gone ahead if there was uncertainty re the transaction therefore as I have suggested elsewhere the shareholders of Sevco 5088 or the Director ( note the singular as there was only one ) has approved the novation to allow the sale to Sevco Scotland.
          The probability is that when Green persuaded the placees to move to Sevco Scotland that Sevco 5088 no longer had the means to buy out the assets however that does not imply any illegality or wrongdoing.
          As both were initially private companies the only way you will ever get to see what happened is if they decide to reveal it.
          Whyte might have a claim against Green for breach of a verbal agreement if that agreement was made in Scotland however if the discussions took place in London as suggested then I do not think he can do much about it.
          Perhaps P McC can illuminate us all on this.

          • Raymilland


            The conflict over ownership of the assets is a matter of record. Given the court ruling against CW; any assets belonging to him are fare game to Ticketus in recovery of their losses.

            Imagine a tug o war…..Green at one end, Whyte at the other, the Ibrox assets being the ribbon tied central to the rope. In the event Charlie fails a dope test 😉 and CW is awarded the blue ribbon; Craigie’s victory would be short lived when Ticketus realise Green had gained the assets unlawfully.

            This is a dilemma for CW and TRFC.

            Yet more skulduggery would be required to keep Ticketus out of the equation, a sale and leaseback being a possible method to keep everything ‘in house’.

            For the above leaseback to be successful the Ibrox board would require assurance from Whyte that he will go no further with his claim; and that any irreparable damage has not already caused a chain of events that will compromise any new deal over the assets. BDO and the SFO may have serious concerns regards the above tug o war.

            The situation with the assets may be too toxic concerning any further under the table business with Whyte. TRFC face a mountain of legal and financial problems. In the end, it may be less hazardous and financially proper to enter another period of administration in order to sever all ties with the original club; and emerge totally cleansed.

            • Raymilland


              There are many benefits of entering another period of administration, not least, the ability to get rid of Fat boy and his sidekicks for a pennies in the pound redundancy deal 😉

            • Clarkeng

              I think the conflict is more to do with whether CW can prove he was a director or a shareholder of Sevco 5088 and whether he is entitled to a return for this.
              We know he was not a director of Sevco Scotland who purchased the assets.
              We know he did not participate in the IPO and this grossly diluted the original share holding of Sevco Scotland.
              He can threaten CG all he wants.
              He still has to defend the claim by BDO against him for £25m and he also has to find the £17m plus costs plus interest ( rising daily ) to pay Ticketus.

          • Steerpike


            I am in 7th heaven, you are killing them, come on Ray…..roll the film.

            • Raymilland

              Time gentlemen please

              and ladies 😉

            • Clarkeng

              Just a couple of wee issues with your vision mate.
              CW lost control of the assets as soon as he put the company into administration.
              The floating charge he tried to register failed to have any attachment as it was posted after administration had taken place.
              The administrators established clearly that CW was not a creditor therefore no debt attached to the floating charge.
              In fact it looks as if CW will be found to be a debtor and have money to pay to BDO.
              And finally the money CW borrowed from Ticketus was secured by CW personally and on his ( mega billion ) companies.
              There was no security on the assets of Rangers as he did not own Rangers when he borrowed the money.
              And lastly as a condition of the purchase from Murray he was required to expunge the existing debt as well as pay a pound for the 85% share holding.
              He has done this.
              The £18m paid to clear the debt to Lloyds Bank was clearly not in the form of a loan or any other consideration as it was effectively part of the purchase price.
              Sorry mate – dream on longingly – but………..CW is stuffed.

            • Clarkeng

              Stay out of there Steer.
              It’s full of tits.
              Remind you of here?

          • Kerrygirl

            Och okay if you say so ,I’ll take your word for it then , pack up bhoys and ghirls time to go home the ludge hus spoken

          • Raymilland


            Clearly there is no uncertainty of the transaction as the recorded novation plainly states………… .hold on a minute.

            “Whyte might have a claim against Green for breach of a verbal agreement if that agreement was made in Scotland however if the discussions took place in London as suggested then I do not think he can do much about it.”
            The only significance of any verbal agreement in London will be the involvement of Scotland Yard when they investigate the nature of the scam.

          • @gortchomhor

            Everything you say there is either factually wrong or guesswork and reveals your obvious bias. On that basis, I see no point in responding other than to say we shall see…

      • Kerrygirl

        you dont get it ,,,, we don’t care about your two teams they will be pilloried in every ground they go to ,these are not your darkest days ,,, they are yet to come ,when the cry of cheats ,cheats , rings out ,gypsies tramps and thieves

        • Clarkeng

          I know that you know that the girls just love a bad boy!!
          Keep in touch – join in the success.
          Won’t be long till we’re back.
          Then we will see if ra Sellik can handle the competition.

  18. joe

    19/06/12 – BBC NEWS – “We wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune” (Walter Smith)

  19. Maggie

    Welcome back JB,you’ve been missed.
    Great post,now get to work on the comments thread and “kick some ass”

  20. joe

    Charles Green: (speaking about Dave King) “…for a man who is the second largest shareholder in the Club…to go out publicly and recommend that the creditors vote down the CVA it seems to me quite unbelievable because what we’re doing in that is saying the history, the tradition, everything that is great about this Club, is swept aside. Why??!”

  21. Deansy

    Very good article, especially pointing out that the media’s job is not only to inform but to also make money, but what about the other factor that exists in the ‘Old V New’ battle – the ‘Physical Threats ??. It’s well-known (but rarely mentioned) that rangers are not slow in using this particular ploy to get their own way – remember the ‘Sun’ pulling out of serialising Phil Mac Giolla Bhain’s book ? – Or McCoists ‘Call to Arms’ hidden laughably under a cry for ‘Openness’, which resulted in 3 members of the SFA Panel receiving personal, physical threats, not only to themselves but to their families and livelihoods ??. These are not isolated incidents either, ‘Threatening Behaviour’ has been prevalent throughout much of rangers-history but this has greatly been accelerated since they went into administration – how many other journalists/titles have been on the receiving end of such vile behaviour ?. Anyone involved in the media must have this factor at the back of their minds when writing/saying anything about rangers -they’d be a fool not to consider, not only their own personal safety, but that also of their family/friends etc – our Law-Enforcement Agencies should be taken to task as to why they’re not enforcing the laws that were created to deal with such odious, vile behaviour !!
    (Just for the record, I am not a celtic-supporter – like Jim Spence, I am ‘Anti Old Firm’ !)

    • ecojon


      Don’t forget that their last erstwhile saviour Charles Green felt so threatened he had to go on the run and stay at different safe houses every night because his life had been threatened.

      And Bomber Brown was threatened too after he raised issues.

  22. graham

    Jim spence is comes from the same side of Dundee as that other half wit from up there George Galloway ..
    Enough said ..

  23. @George

    Ironic that you want to complain about my faults and the abuse of free speech on (a) a blog where you are free to comment and (b) on a blog post that I did not write!

    It reminds me of Alex who spent a few weeks here complaining about being censored – and whose every comment complaining about censorship was being published!

    Anyway, back to work


    • Maggie

      @Paul Mc
      Don’t confuse him Paul,he’s on a roll,deflecting and denying.
      Out come all the old chestnuts,Celtic have gazillions of hidden debt ( sequestered beside the unseen Fenian hand peut être) Ad hominem attacks,and as soon as cam & the uncool(er) king get up from their daytime sleep they’ll be straight on with their anti Catholic,child abuse posts and helpful hints as to how we can avail ourselves of the ferry “back home” ………God they don’t half earn their fee,trolling on an epic scale.
      It’s actually hard to believe they are grown ups.
      I too, better go and get on with some work before the boss sees me……Oh wait,I am the boss. 🙂 Such fun Paul.

  24. ismellafix

    A new club called Sevco Scotland applied to join the SPL and were refused entry. Ten member clubs voted against, one (Kilmarnock) abstained and one RFC voted for. The simple fact that the “deid” Rangers still had a vote shows that the two clubs existed simultaneously and CANNOT be the same club. The fact that Sevco Scotland later changed their name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd does not mean they suddenly became the original club!!!

  25. mcfc


    Anyone who doesn’t know his Lou Reed from his Marvin Gaye deserves no respect here !!!

    Just back from hols and have been lurking while I catch up. Have I missed anything while I’ve been away – well – so far – Walter gone, James in, Green back, Green gone, Dave free at last, Jim scheming, Charlotte gone, Spence gone (?), Money gone (?), EGM on.

    Looks like just another few weeks in the history of a dieing institution.

    • Maggie

      Pretty much covers it mc,same old internecine warfare,we need do absolutely nothing ( except laugh,obvs) to assist with the suicide.
      Great to have you back,hope you had a brilliant time in Oz. 🙂

      • George

        Maggie, MCFC, Paul removed my reply. No swearies etc. Obviously doesn’t like my version of the truth. Never mind he likes yours. Free speech etc eh?

        • mcfc


          I think you’ll come to accept that Paul is scrupulously fair. If you posted it, it will appear. If you mis-type your email address it may go into moderation because you look like a first-time poster. Sometime posts don’t appear where you’d expect as the comments build up – that seems to be a WordPress bug. Sometimes browsers screw up – so keep a copy of any posts so you can re-post them without re-typing.

          • George

            Thanks MCFC and good advice to everyone. Just as well i had cc’d – a lesson learned from trying to debate with C4 and Tomo. Here’s my reply to Paul that hasn’t made it to the debate yet.

            Ironic Paul that you think my posts are ironic. Bit like its ironic that an Albion Rovers fan should devote so much of his time commenting on Rangers rather than his own club. As for ‘back to work’ I believe there’s a few miners that wished you had been working on their cases instead of ‘blogging’. As for the article on your website not being in your name. Do us all a favour – bit like the SNP claiming they will defend Scotland when they can’t even defend their e-mail account. Now if you want to remove this comment (I’ve cc’d it by the way) when the headline starts ‘it’s free speech’ then go ahead. Bit like the Stasi really. Always the offended, never the offender. Bit like that guy in Australia who taught at Fort Augustus. I notice you haven’t devoted a blog to that story. Perhaps Monti, Maggie and Mark wouldn’t approve?

            • mcfc


              There’s a pretty standard reply to that – if you feel strongly about a subject write a guest blog to make your case and take the comments on the chin – good and bad, for and against.. Look through previous blogs and you’ll see the guest post policy is as open as the comment policy.

              Generally, though the “whataboutery” approach is just boring. Trying to the change an uncomfortable subject by saying that someone else’s sh*t smells worse that yours is rather juvenile and won’t get you far here.

            • Steerpike


              I salute you sir, you are like a breath of fresh air in this house of horrors, want to hear a funny story, mcfc is not a Celtic fan, or even interested in Scottish football, he just hates Rangers, yes…..I know… is certifiable.

            • mcfc


              Now remember, you certified that I was not a Rangers Hater – remember – I have the a copy of our exchange somewhere – and I also remember that you assured me that you are ALWAYS right so on this occasion you must be mistaken.

              As I’ve pointed out before, you should not mistake hatred for the mocking and ridicule for people outside your silly little bubble.

            • Kerrygirl

              Beddy baws George

            • Steerpike


              Hope you enjoyed oz, I have missed the competition, Ian and coatbrig are just too easy.

            • Kerrygirl

              Thought we were talking about football , pretty poor boy George , have you got cams camisole on

  26. ecojon

    @ JohnBhoy

    As usual the only word to describe your post is ‘EXCELLENT’.

    At the end of the day it matters not whether Rangers is alive or dead – what you rightly identified as important is the right of people to state their opinion as to what they believe to be the case.

    In the grand scheme of things no football club matters a jot when stacked against the right to free speech and expression. I am sure sensible Rangers supporters are well aware of that and won’t be signing any petition or making a complaint to the BBC.

    And for those who have done – I hope that the BBC asks for and checks the address given as many Rangers fansites have always been awash with posters boasting that they don’t buy a TV Licence and giving hints on how to avoid prosecution. I think that factor should be taken into account when ‘weighting’ the value of their complaint.

    What would be funny if it wasn’t so serious is that I reckon 99% of those complaining did so without hearing the words spoken. They acted as a mob seeking to impose their will through intimidation. Who, indeed, are these people?

    It is up to every one of us to contact the BBC and support the right of Mr Spence and others to freedom of speech and expression within the normal parameters acceptable to the wider society and not an increasingly isolated and vicious clique who believe that only their opinion should prevail.

    In a sense I think this could be the tipping-point for the Ibrox WATP Brigade – people have cut Bears a lot of slack because they know how much they have been hurt by events. But we can’t allow their grief to be turned into rage directed at fellow citizens going about their job and intended to have them sacked.

    A modern, inclusive and forward-looking Scotland has to win this battle and let’s hope that Rangers take legal action against a Spartacus for declaring their club is dead so that we can have this issue settled once and for all – not by the often dubious Scottish Legal System – but at the European Court!

    • daviecooperonthewing

      Eco..your work is almost done.
      Is it a mere coincidence that CF pulls the shutter down and takes a sabbatical while TSFM and the rest of the CFC affiliated bloggers go into overdrive spreading the word in a well orchestrated and choreographed production? No. I didn’t think so either. Now that the TSFM baby is in the pram and gone walkabout, will we be seeing more of you on here? Giive my regards to Charlotte/RTC. Happy lurking…and feel free to interject should you feel the campaign being blown off topic. I must check KDS and mad Phil’s place for prodigal returns and similar campaign characteristics.

      • ecojon

        @ daviecooperonthewing

        My work is never done – there is always a principled cause to fight for.

        Happy to see your paranoia remains in your various guises 🙂

    • willy wonka

      @eco, “It is up to every one of us to contact the BBC and support the right of Mr Spence and others to freedom of speech and expression within the normal parameters acceptable to the wider society and not an increasingly isolated and vicious clique who believe that only their opinion should prevail.”
      There’s only one problem with that – the BBC is a public funded organisation who work under a charter.
      Go and read the charter. Telling lies is not permitted. Spence is and was telling lies.

      • daviecooperonthewing

        Hear hear WW.
        This is nothing other than a pre-ordained campaign. The bampots have been noising up T.English, G.Speirs, and S.Cosgrove for weeks. The BBC who have well known links to “darksiders” are being played llike a big bass drum. Cosgrove (links to PhilMcgibber) and his BBC pals has been lobbied to get the word out on off the ball. Have a look at the people who almost immediately jumped to JSpence’s side. This is no coincidence.
        Cha’s gone. Eco’s back lurking and monitoring. Our esteemed blog shepherd suddenly has time to tend his flock, moderating(lol) and blogging like crazy after a period of neglect.
        CQNET Angela Haggerty, Phil Mcgibber, Andy Muirhead. The dots are there just waiting to be joined up. It’s time the beeb were getting more than 400 complaints.

        • @gortchomhor

          As if that wasn’t all bad enough for your poor, loyal, bigots, now you have another team of plundering marauders running your club… Awwwww.
          You know the routine now though. News conference at Ibrox, chairman on the steps, regrettably it is my duty to inform the fans of our club’s intentions to invite administrators Honest & Honester, blah blah blah…

          Hello darkness, my old frieeeeeeeeeend…
          I’ve come to talk with you agaaaaaaaaaaaaain.

      • Raymilland

        @willy wonka

        Are you aware of what Jim Spence actually said?

        Could you kindly explain the content of your supposed ‘lies’?

  27. joe

    > ”The Rangers Football Club PLC is a public limited company registered in Scotland (company number: SC004276) and was incorporated on 27 May, 1899. When the current company is officially liquidated, all of its corporate business history will come to an end. When this happened to Airdrieonians in 2002, all of the trophies, titles and records associated with the club were discontinued and a new club, Airdrie United FC, took over. Airdrieonians’ official history ended in 2002, then Airdrie United’s took over.” (BBC)

    Charles Green’s Consortium did not take over the old Rangers club. Nor did it buy any shares. It bought the trophies as assets and formed a brand new club.

    The new Rangers club are not entitled to any prize money from the previous club’s campaigns. They do not have a 10pt penalty applied to them, as the new club is not in administration. They had to pay a fee to begin life in the SFL. As Charles Green admits, the new club has never played in the SPL.

    The new Rangers club are not banned from Europe. UEFA deem all new clubs must play three years of football before they are eligible for Europe. The new Rangers club are not eligible to play in Europe for at least three years, even if they win the SPL or the Scottish Cup.

    Throughout the old Rangers club’s administration process, we were continually told that a CVA was the favoured option “TO SAFEGUARD 140 YEARS OF HISTORY and avoid liquidation.” The CVA failed.

    • willy wonka

      Joe. Are you forgetting Clydebank when it comes to talking about Airdrie ?

      • joe

        “The SPL disputes that Rangers FC ceased to be a Club on 14 June 2012, and argues that the relevant date is 3 August 2012” (Scottish Premier League Commission)

        > “140 years of history is formally ended” (The Herald)

        > “As a result of appalling mismanagement, Rangers fans “no longer boast an unbroken line to the past…The emotional ties will remain forever but historical strings are severed. ” (Daily Record)

        > (on liquidation) “the shell that it used to operate from – and I understand the history of it – would be the thing that disappears.” (Paul Clark, Duff/Phelps)

  28. Carl

    I certainly hope Jim Spence brings this matter to the wider UK audience. For only then will the bigger picture of this scandal be brought to the attention of decent, normal and lawful minded people whereupon a tsunami of embarrassment will flood out the perpretators of this national scam

  29. Free speech ??? You must be having a laugh ! Is Hugh keevins still banned from breezeblock castle ? Hypocrites.

    • notnearlydeadbutreallydead

      Hahaha. Carson’s obsession with celtic goes on. It’s about a journalists right to state opinion and fact. Have a read of it again. It’s bigger than football.

      • willy wonka

        Deary me. “Obsession” ? What do you think has been going on at this and umpteen other selik minded sites since the days of Whyte ? About 90% of the guys on here couldn’t tell you the sellik goalies name but they know every microscopic detail of Rangers business.
        Lol.. “Obsession” ? REALLY ?!!!

    • Kerrygirl

      Hoopocrites please

  30. George

    Careful Carson, Paul doesn’t like the irony of an article on free speech having comments removed.

  31. graham speirs says in his article on ‘JOURNOS WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE’ SCOTTISH FOOTBALL REMAINS POISONED, WHAT BULLSH-T MR SPEIRS HUNLUVER , IBROX AND ALL THINGS sevco remain poisoned,thank god big pete is now running the shithoose that is scottish football, because all of the proddies , orangeman & freemasonic scumbags have ruined the game in shitland, INDEPENDENCE HA HA YOU MUST BE JOKING NORN IRON 2

  32. joe

    03/09/12 – DAILY RECORD – “McCoist and Green are committed to opposing any move to have history books rewritten even though they accepted they had to begin again as a new concern after Rangers, the club with history, slipped into liquidation and closed. That should mean the titles aren’t really any of their business. But on the other hand, the SPL refused to hand over £2m, which should have gone to Rangers for finishing second last season, pointing out that the club no longer exists.” (Jim Traynor)

  33. tamtic

    Hi Carson,I’ve missed a few days of the blog and had to catch up. My post on Sat hoped for a large attendance for Stan’s charity match and I had the temerity to point out the proceeds would actually go to charity. I seemed to have touched a nerve with you. Now normally I ignore your pish but calling me a fanny and claiming I was scoring cheap points off Stan’s cancer illness begs a reply. Firstly I never mentioned Stan’s illness, you brought that up which maybe gives us an insight on how you think. Secondly I would never, I repeat NEVER use anyone’s illness to score points. I’ve done the chemo thing, it’s horrible. Also the major surgery thing within the past few months and I’m a couple of bits less in my body than I started out with but I’m recovering well just as I hope Stan and Sandy Jardine and anyone else out there whose going through it will recover. To sum up Carsie, was I having a dig at the shameless charlatans who run your club? your damn right I was. Will I do it again at the first opportunity? your damn right I will. Was I making capital of Stan’s illness? Not guilty M’lud, the thought’s aborrent

  34. top of page 8

    number,and the male shall include the female and vice versa.
    The words “club” and “company” and also the words “member” and “shareholder” throughout the said memorandum and Articles of Association shall, where the context admits of it, be of synonymous
    meaning .

    adjective equivalent, the same, identical, similar, identified, equal, tantamount, interchangeable

  35. Steerpike

    Well, I wonder what cam will think of this absolute battering, a tag team called Clarkeng and George just wiped the floor with the lot of them.

    Long live free speech.

    • mark

      Long live free speech indeed.

      You can be free to post la-la land ramblings where liquidation is a mere blip on the road to continued success and domination and having a mortgage (that you make regular payments on) and having an available credit facility (that you can draw from but don’t use to pay operating costs or service long term debts) are seen as signs that the bailiffs will be coming knocking.

      It’s not la-la land but I think there are a few mad bowler hatters where you are.

  36. .

    I don’t think Sevco are going to be having it quite their own way for much longer.
    Hands up anyone who thinks Sevco would go to court in an attempt to prove they are Rangers

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s