There’s trouble at t’mill, as one of the previous shysters at Ibrox would have termed it, as he scooped his takings into his big hands before engineering his exit with a few well chosen words.
Gary Hughes, who twelve years ago , referred to Rangers fans as “the great unwashed “, has decided he can’t be arsed with the SFA any more, and won’t stand for re-election.
We believe his letter stating this was along the lines of “fuck this, its dying anyway “.
It’s all very surprising that somehow a throwaway remark has come back to haunt him in this way, and for those of us who have dreamt of a job in the SFA corridors of power who have also made throwaway remarks about a cheating club who stiffed their knuckle dragging bigoted and gullible support perhaps seek employment elsewhere.
Dave King couldn’t believe his luck.
As any fool involved in politics will tell you, if you can’t fault someones performance then you go for his personality, known as playing the man and not the ball.
And if it also happens to fit your own agenda, then thats a bonus.
King delightedly went after Hughes, accusing him of all sorts of impropriety, giving him a welcome distraction for all of his own failings-there’s still no share issue, no offer in accordance to the takeover panel, and the manager he’s hired for his revolution isn’t qualified for the job- and Hughes, as we have seen, can’t be arsed with it any more.
However, king has seen Hughes’s decision as a sign of weakness, and perhaps even guilt, and now wants to know if the recent decision to charge his club with naughty business was anything to do with Hughes.
In fact, its more to do with the evidence available pointing to the Ibrox club being a little less than honest in their dealings, which is usually enough to bring a case against anyone.
The solution, of course, as pointed out by Auldheid on the Scottish Football monitor, is quite simple..
Given DKs concerns that the JPD process might have been “got at” by Hughes surely the best way to assure everyone it will play with a straight bat is to have a representative from UEFA who knows both the rules and their purpose involved?
Who better to judge if charges are groundless or ridiculous?
Res12 accused no one of anything, it just asked for a fair investigation by UEFA and if the answer is licence granted in line with UEFA rules and intent then that is the end of the matter?
Wits the problem?
Given the mess the SFA are in right now, it must only be a matter of time before they ask for independent adjudication.
Except, of course, they know that UEFA will decide they aren’t fit for purpose either, and no one at the SFA is prepared to kick away the ladder they just climbed to get to where they are.
Which brings me to an interesting piece of tittle tattle we heard the other day.
We’ve been unable to verify it, but there is a case for questions to be asked. although, of course , we know no one will answer them.
You be the judge… its only fair you should get the chance to make your own minds up, as we respect the opinions of our readers equally.
The article that surfaced containing the comments made by Hughes was in a trade magazine-the brewery trade-and even people in the trade would rarely take any notice of the publication, unless they were in it.
How did King come across this information ?
Stewart Regan allegedly sent him the article in a letter, and if thats true one has to ask why, and why now ?
Back around the beginning of May last year, King met Regan in Glasgow to discuss “general topics “, and one now wonders if we are becoming aware of what they were.
Regans days by then would have been numbered, and King needs support at the SFA, which the new chiefs are not guaranteed to give him.
Were they laying the groundwork for this assault ? Or merely pooling resources for when they might be useful ?
Or, of course, there is the possibility they didn’t talk about this at all.
There is some kind of power battle going on behind closed doors at Hampden. The only real shame is that we can’t put a lock on those doors and leave them all in there.
Hibernian man Rod Petrie, himself unpopular with his own supporters, is after the top job, which he believes he will inherit after MacRae steps down, and he might. The times they are a changing, and whilst supporters may demand quicker and perhaps more sweeping changes, thats not going to happen.
Not yet, anyway.
There are cries for Celtic to speak out, but sometimes saying something for the sake of saying something is the incorrect approach, and Lawwell will be aware of that.
It will have to happen, but they will be considering whether to play the man or the ball themselves.
But only when the time is right, and they must garner support from other clubs in the meantime to avoid turning this into another Celtic Rangers issue, which it is not, and never has been, but suits the agenda of those who don’t want change.
Lawwell has done sterling work for Celtic, and he won’t want that to be tarnished by the actions of a dodgy few at Hampden.
Yet if nothing is done, he will be remembered as the man who did nothing about the ongoing shenanigans in the corridors of power. That would be unfair, but thats how it will turn out.
Like the club at Ibrox, the SFA is doing its best to keep things as they are, and as events conspire against them, due largely to their own interpretations of the rules, and their own sense of self preservation, they , too, are flailing like a fish on a boat about to be hit with a lead pipe.
The issue here isn’t who said what about who, its about how this information is being used to discredit someone for someone elses selfish motives, and how a fairly innocent throwaway remark twelve years ago is being lauded as up there with certain ” Rangers ” men manipulating the rules to allow their club to receive a licence that they should not have been given.
I’m quite sure that our media are aware of this, but when one leading journalist from a notable newspaper claims that one of those who originally bent the rules back in 2011 is a “nice guy “, then there have to be doubts about how far they will go to unearth the truth.
Actually, there aren’t any doubts at all. The phrase “the square root of fuck all “ springs to mind.
Speaking of European licences, Barcabhoy on twitter has argued rather eloquently that there are grounds to question any issue of a licence for next season..
This is superb stuff, and deserves enormous praise..
A thread on the new Uefa FFP guidelines , valid from 1 June 2018, and how they present multiple problems for Rangers 1 The FFP rules state that group structure applies to FFP. This matters because it means that both The Rangers Football Club Ltd & RIFC need to comply
2 It’s clear therefore that the
@ScottishFA needs to look at RIFC’s finances as well as TRFC Uefa have many rules regarding compliance, but it’s only the FFP aspect i’m writing about here The first red flag is the losses in excess of € 5 Million over a 3 year period
Losses over €5 Million up to €30 Million are allowed if covered in full by new Equity or Capital Contributions (CC) However what is not allowed is running up debt to pay for losses TRFC has CC from RIFC, however RIFC has repayable loans not allowed to reduce losses to €5 M
As stated Uefa do not allow Capital Contributions which are classified as a liability
As shown the loans to RIFC are repayable and are in the liabilities section of the RIFC balance sheet . Capital Contributions classified as liabilities are specifically excluded by Uefa
Another Red Flag
RIFC therefore fails with regards to the allowable losses rule set by Uefa. Rangers losses in the last 3 years have been
2015 £7,657 M
Total £16,535 which at todays exchange rate = €18,823 Even with Youth Football & Stadium deductions = fail
The 2nd Red Flag relates to going concern warnings Uefa are explicit. You are in breach if you have a going concern warning .
Both RIFC and TRFC have going concern warnings . They have had these warnings in previous years yet, were still awarded a Uefa licence by the SFA , despite being in breach of both the allowable losses rule and the going concern rule
On the face of it Rangers fail to qualify for a Uefa Licence as they :
1 ) exceed the allowable losses
2) Their contributions are liabilities and as such are not allowed to reduce losses
3) They have a going concern warning on both RIFC and TRFC
Over to Ian Maxwell
First and foremost, that is fantastic work from Barcabhoy, and I’m quite sure the mainstream media will pick up on it and ask questions about it.
Well, maybe one of them will..
Ian Maxwell, however, has a chance to pick the ball up and run with it.
We are at a crossroads, and the new man at the SFA can choose an entirely different route from his predecessors if he wants to…
All he has to do is pick up the phone and get someone from UEFA to assess the application.
Perhaps now we see why King is adopting his scattergun approach to the SFA, deflecting from the bombshell that could be dropped.
Is he applying pressure so that they will ignore the fact that his club is ineleigible for Europe ?
No European football means his financial forecast is a bit off.
He’s already knee deep in the doo doo, which is not what that lot like to be knee deep in. ( there goes my SFA job )
Before our game is completely fucked, can someone put their foot on his head ?