Some Highlights From the Rangers Website

I have been very busy recently, so have not been able to indulge my “Obsession” ((c) some Rangers Fans) by reading the finest football club website in the country – Rangers.co.uk.

However, having a few spare minutes, I had the chance to see if any nuggets (gold rather than chicken) were there for our delectation and delight.

And, guess what! There are!

————————————————————-

Charles Green – known to Sheffield United fans as “The Man Who Sold the Team” – was talking today about selling naming rights to Ibrox. One line in the piece from the official Rangers website struck me as ironic. It is not a quote from Mr Green, but as it comes from Andrew Dickson, one of the crack team of writers assembled under James Traynor.

The sentence is:-

Green spoke yesterday of being restricted to doing one-year sponsorship deals with other companies due to uncertainty about the club’s status within Scottish football going forward.

Charles Green’s Last Hurrah for the Rangers Share Issue

There is some interesting phraseology here. (I have put on my “Ibroxologist” hat here). My comments are in bold.

From the official Rangers website:-

CHARLES GREEN, chief executive of Rangers, last night released the following statement.

He said: “I am delighted we have been able to fulfil our promise to give fans the opportunity to once again hold shares in the club as that has been our stated aim from the beginning.

Two things – he has fulfilled his promise to give fans the “opportunity” to hold shares. I am sure he is not being negative about share take up, as all the comments from official and unofficial Ibrox mouthpieces has emphasised the fantastic numbers of shares in which interest has been expressed. But the sentence almost has the unspoken addition of “we gave them the chance but they did not take it”. I am sure that is incorrect on my part.

Secondly, the shares are not shares IN THE CLUB. They are shares in the holding company which will own 100% of the company which owns the assets which make up the club. This is a perfectly normal and legitimate structure for a football team. However, if we are looking for precision of language, what is being sold is NOT a share in the club.

Why Rangers Share Issue Might Be Useful For an Alienation Rainy Day

In between lots of real life stuff, there has been little chance to look at the Rangers Prospectus in some detail. I did look to see whether the issue of “gratuitous alienation” might be raised as a risk factor. It does appear to be covered, although obliquely.

I have seen frequent comments asking on what Rangers are going to spend the money which will be raised in the undoubtedly successful share issue, and why they are looking for the money now. To be fair all these are laid out in detail within the Prospectus, and that is where the answers are to be found. However, looking at contingencies, it is always possible that the funds, even though earmarked for one purpose, can be used for another where circumstances justify it. I am NOT suggesting that the Prospectus in any way misrepresents what the cash raised is for. However, if you have some money put away as a deposit for a holiday, but your car breaks down and needs expensive repairs done, it is entirely legitimate to use the reserve for that, and to replenish the funds later.

Against that back cloth I can see how it might be very advantageous to Rangers to have the share issue taking place now, and as successfully as appears to be the case.

Is There A Limit To Charles Green’s Temerity – Guest Post by Jon

Jon (who is neither Ecojon nor JohnBhoy before anyone starts to accuse him of “dual log-ins” etc) has contributed the following piece, prompted by an exchange on Sky on Thursday. It is my fault that it was not posted before now.

 ————————————-

5.29 pm December 13, 2012 Sky Sports News

Kirsty Gallagher

“Rangers Chief Executive Charles Green believes they should never have been relegated to the bottom tier of Scottish Football. He thinks they deserve an apology after a judge threw out a claim from the taxman that the old Rangers were liable for over £50m.”

Charles Green

“We’ve always maintained that no decision should have been made till the outcome of this tax case was known. Ah, Clubs and indeed, you know SPL started this title eh, stripping escapade, ah (sic), all of which we felt were premature. Of course the judgement which came out two weeks ago vindicates Murray Group and indeed Rangers and so there is an element of prejudge; so where we were supposedly cheating and we were using these schemes to win titles is now not the case and the disappointment, I feel, is not that we’re now in the third division, and we’re happy with our life and we’re moving on with it, is that no-one’s been big enough to apologise. We haven’t had any comments from the people who made these judgments to say, ‘actually we were wrong we judged you too early’ and that’s the sad part of it.”

————————————-

Kirsty,

Do you and your colleagues at Sky not understand Rangers were not relegated to the bottom tier of Scottish Football? Their SPL share was transferred to Dundee FC because Rangers FC was to be liquidated and rules did not permit a new team, at that time called Sevco 5088, to be admitted to the top tier of Scottish football.

Secondly, whilst a judge voted in favour of Rangers in their case against the taxman the decision is to be appealed and so no final decision has actually been made but I do commend you for making the distinction that there is an old club called Rangers so why the confusion about relegation in your opening sentence?

Now Chico, is there any limit to your temerity?

1)      You have not always maintained that no decision should have been made till the outcome of the tax case was known. That is a lie. The old Rangers was to be liquidated and decisions had to be made as to who would take their place in the SPL, regardless of the FTT. Unfortunately for you, as the rules went there was no place for your newco.

2)      As far as any title stripping escapade goes, it has only just begun and we await the verdict. They may well find in favour of the old Rangers but that will still have no bearing on where your new team are currently playing nor should it have done previously.

3)      The tax case did not vindicate Murray Group and we await the appeal but either way, bear in mind that a murderer charged with 20 murders and convicted of 3 is still a serial killer. (Editor’s Note – this is NOT a suggestion that anyone connected with Rangers has ever been a serial killer).

4)      No-one’s been big enough to apologise? Apologise for what exactly? And did the old Rangers ever apologise to the people they didn’t pay for services rendered?

The longer these myths perpetuate about poor hard-done-by Rangers being relegated to the third division in their 140^th year etc the more the delusion sets in and it is very dangerous indeed – the fabrication of history is tantamount to an Orwellian nightmare.

The question is, what can we do about a moronic mainstream media that continues to ignore facts after all that’s happened and no doubt is yet to unfold?

Now that’s the saddest part of all.

Posted by Jon

Adam Answers the Walter Smith Mystery – The Rangers Website Got it Wrong!

I posted a piece a wee bit earlier today, which was prompted by Adam and Ecojon talking at cross purposes (that being a charitable explanation) about Walter Smith’s position as a Director of Rangers.

I have mentioned before, regarding other Ibrox directors, that there is a duty to notify Companies House of Directorial appointments and departures within 14 days. Ecojon was wondering why Mr Smith’s appointment, trumpeted all over the press on 11^th and 12^th November did not seem to have been noted by Companies House.

I looked at what the official Rangers website said on 11^th November, and what it is saying today, and pointed out certain inconsistencies.

Adam, who has in the past had access to the inner workings of Rangers came up with a fine “nothing to see here, please move along” response as noted below.