Roll up, roll up, crap club


The Rangers International share prospectus contained references about league reconstruction possibly expediting the club’s ascent to the Scottish Premier League for the first time.  This was never on anyone else’s agenda and was merely the latest manifestation of the train of thought that Scottish football could not, and would not, consider life without ‘Rangers’ in the top flight, or perhaps one division below.  We can only hope that the company’s budgeting was not dependent on this aspiration.

Even the most ardent advocates of the belief structure that a ‘Rangers’ branded company is wanted and needed by the rest of the game must now accept ample evidence exists that their flat earth claims are folly.  For the record, Scottish football no more needs Celtic than it did Rangers, we are a lumbering albatross around their necks.

The Rangers chief executive, Charles Green, makes a valid point about the remainder of his club’s season, “If this [12-12-18 reconstruction] does happen, what is the point of us finishing the season?

“We might as well have a winter break from now until August. I can’t see any point in carrying on with meaningless matches.”

Crap club

As many have pointed out, his is the same purpose as the teams in each division who are free of relegation threats and already out of title/promotion contention – it’s called sport, but all teams in the SFL Third Division are effectively now playing for the joy of the game itself, which is pretty much what most of the do anyway.  Let’s hope Mr Green’s comments are not widely reported to those he is trying to sell tickets to.  It was astutely reported that Green has the makings of a PT Barnum about him, but rubbishing your own product is more Gerald Ratner than Barnum.

Roll up, roll up

By contrast, PT Lawwell’s comments on the proposed reorganisation, “To be fair, it is one of the very infrequent times when the greater good of the game has been taken into account”, could be taken straight from the consensus-builder’s manual.  It remains to be seen how best to serve the greater good, but any solution has to work for every club, not just one or two.

Delighted Terry Butcher is staying in the Highlands.  Great news for Inverness and the SPL.  I’m enjoying this season; more please.

Have you ordered your CQN Annual yet? Get it here!

You can read the latest edition of CQN Magazine free online by clicking on the double headed arrow at the bottom right of the graphic below.
[calameo code=000390171cc0c3617c8cc lang=en page=60 hidelinks=1 width=100% height=500]

Click Here for Comments >

About Author

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 22

  1. Tamrabam


    The risk conditions have changed. They had us to contend with and we them. Add to that the ‘help’ they got from others and the risk factor has reduced significantly.However prudence dictates we do not bank on 4 CL windfalls which is why I suggested half.


    Besides we have methods and an infrasructure in place that is the equal to most of our Uefa rivals, further minimising the risk of not participating so I cannot see us over reaching to a fatal extent. We also are not starting from the same debt position they were on.

  2. Mr X loves having a "fly kick" on

    Who knows whether their budgeting depended on a quick return to the top tier, but that share prospectus was at the end of the spectrum headed “wildly optimistic”.



    At the back of my mind I still remember reading that Sheffield Utd fans requested a DTI investigation into their Green-inspired share offer which they alleged to have been mid-leading.



    Perhaps history will repeat itself. Then again, the Sevconians don’t present themselves as the smartest bunch.

  3. Ten Men, Re the Sevco Shares, for every seller there has to be a buyer. Who in the name of God is buying them. I worked in the Financial Industry all my life and have a reasonable knowledge of the Stock Market and its machinations but I have to admit, I’m totally gobsmacked trying to figure out what is going on with the Sevco shares.

  4. Going to Barnsley would be a retrograde step for Butcher: why would he go when he has the opportunity to have ding-dongs with Ross County, Aberdeen, Hertz, Hibs & the mighty conquerors of Barça , Celtic F.C.?


    I’m deadly serious. Things are gradually picking up in the spl as the toxicity of the undead slowly seeps away and they are exposed more and more for the malign influence they have been.


    To choose to stay in Scotland’s top flight, rather than return to the dubious delights of one’s homeland, is to be lauded.


    KAYAL 33



    Hahahaha,brilliant stuff.



    Russia/Ukraine. Hilarious.



    I hope that one happens-they play in the summer,which will play merry hell with their marching season.



    On top of that,the security forces over there don’t mess about.



    And as for desecrating a cathedral,I think precedence was set with Pussy Riot.



    Please make it so,Charles.

  6. zombies in work very quiet today. The realisation we dont want or need them and the prospect of more trips to Elgin and the like have knocked them for six.



    Stupid hurting zombies…

  7. pabloh_AKA_NEIL LENNON on

    Yep fair play to Butcher for staying with Inverness. Refreshing to see a manager or player in the SPL not jumping immediately at an offer from an English club

  8. SKY TV must be buying (or already mystery backers perhaps) their shares, hence the constant SSN coverage of all SEVCO guff.

  9. What is share ramping?



    Share ramping (also known as ‘pump and dump’ and ‘book ramping’) is where criminals influence the share price of a company and then take advantage of it.



    It is commonly done by bringing a company to the market with false expectations of its profitability.

  10. Kevinlasvegas, really pleased for ICT.



    pabloh, don’t think so.



    BOBBY MURDOCH’S CURLED-UP, you’re welcome.



    leftclicktic, you never know.



    southside, ah!

  11. I think Butcher is hanging on for the sevco job, hoping that Sally uses the


    reconstrution issue to enable him to jump ship back to question of sport

  12. I just don’t know miki67. On the face of it the shares are toxic, the portion set aside for fans was undersubsribed by 50%. Anybody who wanted a bit of the action could have had all they wanted then at 70p. Since the Share issue closed there has been no good news from Sevco quite the opposite in fact, yet are we to believe there are investors out there who are now prepared to pay 89p for these Shares when they didn’t buy them for 70p a few weeks ago. To quote Victor from “One foot in the grave”, I just don’t believe it.

  13. Philbhoy - It's just the beginning! on

    Perhaps the money/terms Barnsley offered could not match or exceed his existing deal at the world renowned ICT.



    (I’ve forgot what it stands for)



    It just doesn’t make sense to me.

  14. sixtaeseven - 4 fouls 4 cards & penalty, a day in the life on



    We are constantly told by Chuck and Co that they have been punished enough.



    Perhaps and appropriate name for them would be The Sufferajets, especially since they don’t have a vote.



    I had to laugh when he advocated a “winter” break until August, I guess they don’t like spring and early summer either.


    Maybe they’ve forgotton that their biggest ever game (vs Dundee Unt in the cup) is scheduled for 2nd February. Although, true enough, they don’t want their fans to attend that match.



    As you say: Crap club.

  15. God didn`t make Charles Green apples, Magners now being served in chapels, roll on summertime


    Chuckies gone, he took the cash, he even stole wee Coisty`s sash, its a pantomime


    Jabbas now a full time Jake, guess who`s on his fifth steak bake, that`s an easy one


    Sevco are no longer here, not even in the lowest tier,au revoir the hun

  16. Philbhoy - It's just the beginning! on

    Would it not be a new show for the wee fat obnoxious one?



    A Question of Portly.

  17. SSN, suggesting an MLS franchise for the bold sevconians, you can just picture


    them in the louden,”awright guys whit times the bus fur ra galaxy gemme”

  18. Great article regarding TUPE from Twohundredpercent




    Charles Green: TUPE Or Not TUPE – Is That Still The Question?Posted by Mark on Dec 24, 2012



    An unforeseen side-effect of the Rangers International Football Club share issue was the regurgitation of the “TUPE” issue surrounding the transfer of old Rangers players to Charles Green’s new Rangers on June 14th. The share prospectus, issued on December 5th, referenced an Employment Tribunal claim against Rangers Football Club Limited “on behalf of 67 un-named players.” Caught unawares by this ‘revelation,’ sections of the Scottish press splashed with what they thought was a new legal nightmare for Rangers. However, it wasn’t ‘new’ at all. Green’s half-successful share issue campaign – institutional investors over-subscribing in search of early profits, supporters excusably under-subscribing in tough economic times – has commanded most of his oratorical energies recently. Previously, he devoted much of them to Rangers players who “objected” to their transfer of employers from old to new Rangers, after Rangers’ CVA failed. Green appeared not to expect any such objections and made every effort to appear affronted by them. Without claiming deep expertise, I have knowledge and personal experience of TUPE, or ‘Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment)’ legislation, having been ‘TUPE-transferred’ myself and been a union representative of other transferees. The legislation prevents employment conditions being altered detrimentally as a direct result of a transfer. It also allows employees to ‘object’ to it, the issue to which TUPE has applied most contentiously to Rangers.



    Rangers players were represented by agents and Scotland’s Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA Scotland). Employee representatives were entitled to formal consultation on the transfer. Players were entitled to notification of the transfer itself (formally – not just by reading about it in the Daily Record), the reasons for it and the “legal, economic and social implications” of it. And contracts would automatically transfer unless “prior to the transfer or upon being notified of it, the employee objects.” In that event, players could leave Rangers without a breach of contract. For all the understanding of this legislation displayed by some protagonists, the ‘transfer of undertaking’ might as well have been about funeral arrangements. But whether Green really misunderstood it seems unlikely.



    There was certainly no public acknowledgement of formal notification to the players prior to the transfer. And each senior Rangers official appeared to have a different version of the process. Newly-installed chairman Malcolm Murray said on June 15th that “it was still a bit of a grey area” and that while “most (players) are on holiday” Rangers would “get Ally (McCoist) to talk to them…as soon as they are back.” McCoist, though, was one of the transferees. “Formal” notification wasn’t his role at all. Green, meanwhile, appeared to make things up as he went along, telling reporters on June 27th that “it is clear in the regulations, if someone has an objection they have to notify within 24 hours. This is nearly two weeks.” He didn’t specify which 24 hours and he didn’t give anyone time to ask “where in the regulations does it say that?” – not least because the answer was… er… nowhere.



    Seven days earlier Green admitted that he wouldn’t be “sitting down with (the players) and explaining where we are” until “next week.” By then, a number of them had formally objected to the transfer. And Green immediately accused them of “being ready to breach their contracts” merely to “secure handsome signing-on fees (from) other clubs while Rangers get nothing.” PFA Scotland had already clarified that they had received no formal notification or consultation. On June 13th, their CEO Fraser Wishart said he was “delighted…that Mr Green and (Rangers’ administrators) Duff and Phelps agree with (us) that TUPE applies to the players’ contracts…in a transfer to a newco.” But, like he knew what was coming, he added: “TUPE affords everybody the statutory right to object to the transfer – employers cannot select which parts of TUPE they wish to apply.”



    PFA Scotland were not consulted until June 25th, by which time six players had objected. And players were certainly not informed of the transfer’s “legal, economic and social implications,” as no-one was sure what they were. “There is too much uncertainty over what division (Rangers) will be playing in,” said ‘objector’ Steven Naismith, correctly. And it wasn’t even certain that Rangers would even BE playing. Green, though, insisted that contracts automatically transferred under TUPE, regardless of other issues. He took the matter to the SFA for arbitration, to get compensation for breach of contract. And by mid-July, PFA Scotland had raised the issue of a “protective award claim” over Rangers’ failure to inform and consult.



    This pretty much remains the situation. And the situation remains ill-understood. After what it called the “reaction to the matter becoming public,” a PFA Scotland statement on December 11th explained the “what,” “why” and “on whose behalf” of their claim. Within hours Green responded. And three days later, McCoist added his top pence worth. Wishart sought to “clearly set out” PFA Scotland’s position “to prevent any further misunderstanding” after the Record’s rather outlandish claims about the action.



    According to the Record’s Keith Jackson (so it must be true…), the union were taking the action on behalf of players who had no interest in or knowledge of it, had not given permission for it and were embarrassed by it. Oh…and the union were suing Rangers for 90 days’ pay for each player. Wishart explained that this, and the share prospectus reference to the matter, was cods. Their claim was “raised in the name of PFA Scotland only” and, as Wishart noted with increasing frustration, “is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any player, let alone some 67 individual players, as has been reported. “It is quite simply inaccurate therefore to suggest that PFA Scotland has acted here without instruction. PFA Scotland does not require instructions to raise a court action in its own name.”



    The statement explained that PFA Scotland had a legal entitlement to be consulted “in advance of a TUPE transfer.” Yet “unfortunately,” Wishart sighed, administrators Duff and Phelps failed to enter into any consultation whatsoever with the players and PFA Scotland,” even after an April reminder “of the players’ rights under the TUPE legislation.” Rangers captain Lee McCulloch had told the Record that PFA Scotland were given “no mandate to sue” the club. Wishart responded: “It may be that no players will pursue this… in fact, many of the players have already said they will waive this entitlement.” He then “stressed” that the motive behind the claim had “never been financial” but rather “an important point of principle, since our rights as representatives of the players were wholly disregarded by those involved in the TUPE transfer.”



    Green’s statement repeated his summertime arguments. The players objecting to the transfer had “unilaterally terminated their contracts in an unlawful manner.” Their objections were “incompetent.” And if Rangers could not get compensation – “from the players and their clubs” – through an SFA Arbitration Tribunal, “there are other routes available.” He also offered his “explanation” of PFA Scotland’s claim, repeating factual errors which Wishart had just corrected, in a statement Green must have seen, as he quoted from it. The claim was “supposedly on behalf of 67 un-named players,” although “fans will note how club captain McCulloch and a number of other players have quickly disassociated themselves from this action…and have already waived any right to participate in this claim.” As Wishart had just explained.



    Green added that “a number of players whose contracts were due to terminate at the end of last season and who were never in line to transfer under TUPE have been included in the numbers, “…numbers which had come from Rangers’ share prospectus, not PFA Scotland. He then told a tale of “the father of one player calling, quite furious, to say that his son has been attached to an action he knew nothing about,” adding that “PFA Scotland has confirmed as much in its statement earlier today,” which was simply untrue. And he declared that “in reality, we are talking about six players who have form of dispute, rather than 67,” while “the fact that so many of the supposed 67 players are still at Ibrox and have indicated they have no part in this action begs the question why it is being raised at all” – the question which Wishart had already answered.



    Green had his own answer: “The purpose of the failure to consult claim is therefore not to safeguard the rights of the 67 players but to attempt to persuade the club to abandon its legitimate pursuit of compensation from players who, in the club’s view, walked out on their contracts of employment.” Well, yes. Yet this legitimate negotiating tactic was presented as a bad thing, while Jackson’s news article in the Record called it “clumsy.” Green is, of course, not one for persuasion on any matter. And in this case, there’s no reason why he should be. So it’s off to arbitration for Green and PFA Scotland. And NOT 67 players, named or un-named.



    McCoist’s take was instructive. Despite three days in which he could have been set straight, he was still allowed to repeat the prospectus errors, despite admitting that “maybe there’s more to it than I’m seeing,” and that “I don’t know all the facts.” He showed a touching faith that “somebody will correct me if I’m wrong.” But when he was… they didn’t, as when he said “it was my job to inform the players” of their rights under TUPE.Particularly instructive, though, was his response to objectors such as Naismith, who this week said “I wouldn’t go back to Ibrox for a game” because “a lot of the fans aren’t happy with what went on.” An unsympathetic McCoist simply said that such players had to “live with” their decisions. As Naismith correctly noted, he and other objectors had last season taken a 75% pay cut “to try to stop the club getting liquidated.” Yet McCoist said the club had “every right” to pursue them for “financial benefits.” But he added, intriguingly, that “as manager I have to – and will – back that stance,” a hint perhaps of some discomfort with Green’s bullish stance.



    Green’s bullishness has dominated the “TUPE” issue. He has all-too-often resembled a Thatcherite bully-boy, riding roughshod over workers’ rights, backed by a tabloid press all-too-willingly engaging in lazy, ill-informed union-bashing, like Jackson in the Record. Green had, for instance, freedom to portray PFA Scotland – and players such as Naismith – as unprincipled money-grabbers…an irony which could surely only be lost on Americans. And while a Rangers share prospectus contained the misleading information about PFA Scotland’s action, Green surely approved the relevant paragraph, even if he didn’t pen it. So… yet more Charles Green bullishness, bullying and borderline deception. Doubtless some readers have grown weary of reading about it. But how long must it take before they grow weary of HIM. That really IS the question.

  19. stevietar - putting the turd back into the turd division on

    How can something still be so funny after 11 months? Is this another world record?

  20. leftclicktic


    12:31 on


    10 January, 2013




    Thanks for that old chap and no I’m not Philvisreturns, our phil has most likely succumbed to the excesses of the NY celebrations, humungous amounts of Dolphin steaks washed down with a few swallies of chateaux-de-pape, he’s likely funding that through his tax rebate (thumbs up).







  21. ArranmoreBhoyLXV11 on




    I reckon Sevco could re locate to the Ailsa Craig.. It’s handy for their support in Ayrshire and NI..They can sing and march and raise as many wee flags around the wee island till their hearts are content..




    Meanwhile back in life, the good people can get on with living together and enjoying what we can without a riot..




  22. Philbhoy - It's just the beginning! on

    Does anyone know the difference in the amount of calories contained in one pint of Belhaven Best (cold) and one pint of The Magners please.



    Their could be some benefit immediately re my diet, depending on the answer.

  23. miki67 – 12:44 on 10 January, 2013



    There’s nothing illegal about the share issue. I wouldn’t necessarily even call it a scam. So far, I’ve seen far worse happen on the AIM market.

  24. Just went to the fridge for a small snack and surveyed 4 tins of Magners sitting there invitingly, was tempted but naw its way too early in the day for me.

  25. Paul67



    You believe wrong ,Tam Crapper never invented the bog it was the ghuy who built Bar67


    ,still in use today I believe .hh

  26. Clare Adamson asks the first minister what the Scottish government’s response is to the recent CNN poll that places Scotland as the number one tourist destination. Mr Salmond says that most people in Scotland will say “well done CNN for putting Scotland at the top of this list”.



    And then reality kicks in…



    The number of tourists visiting Scotland fell sharply last summer, according to official figures.



    The number of nights travellers spent in the country between July and September fell by more than 100,000 – or 12% – on the same period in 2011.



    The amount they spent also dropped by about £50m, according to Office for National Statistics (ONS) data.

  27. weeminger, in your opinion is the share price being artificially engineered or is it reflective of a genuine trade between a willing buyer and a willing seller. I certainly can’t believe its a genuine trade.

  28. Falkirk Chairman, Martin Ritchie, said on BBC Radio Scotland last night: “It’s too dangerous to talk about R*****s”.


    That is the toxicity whereof I ramble on. The iron rule of omerta, more in keeping with organised crime.


    Partly why I’m extremely sceptical re. the share issue which, in conjunction with CG’s love-in with mad dogs, must raise an eyebrow or two.


    Is it all really inexplicabe? Or is it all too stark staring obvious?


    Ssssshhhhh……..musn’t talk about it. It’s too dangerous. Have yez no heard?

  29. Cg comments about leaving show he is a business man and doesn’t care one jote for sevco or the sport they play in.




  30. Sport 24 reports that the South Korean football association have given life bans to 41 players over a 2011 match fixing scandal, according to BBC Monitoring.



    Initially the ban had extended only to the domestic league, but Fifa have since extended it worldwide.



    Vacancy for Sevco in South Korea?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 22