Wings Over Scotland

Speaking as a professional journalist, the most flattering thing that can happen in your career is when major publishers pay you to write features. The second-best form of flattery is imitation, and at Wings Over Scotland we’re getting increasingly used to it.

Our more seasoned readers will recall examples such as the New Statesman’s enthusiastic “borrowing” of our popular Alex Salmond Dictator-Comparison Bingo piece, which they at least had the courtesy to acknowledge in print, albeit belatedly and after quite a lot of people shouting at them on Twitter. (It was such a good idea the Caledonian Mercury did its own tribute too.)

We’ve also been gratified to see other people finally picking up on the core and crucial observation about the nature of the independence referendum that we’ve been pushing since November 2011. (We won’t claim the credit for it being at the heart of the Yes Scotland campaign itself – we’re sure they knew it all along.)

Today, though, the thing we’re finding oddly familiar is a piece in Scotland on Sunday called “Will the SPL survive without Rangers?” The title and theme will ring an obvious bell with the over 20,000 viewers who’ve read our all-time most popular post, but the specifics are the really intriguing part, focusing as they do on the fact that several teams in particular wouldn’t be as badly damaged by the possible demise of Rangers as most of the media commentariat insists.

If we mention that the teams in question are Dundee United, Dundee, Hearts and Hibs, you’ll perhaps catch our drift. It’s nice to get paid for your analytical insight and research (and tracking down Dundee’s attendances from over half a decade ago was a tougher task than you might think) rather than just having other people take advantage of it, but setting the mainstream media’s agenda is at least some modest consolation.

There’s a famous scene in the first Indiana Jones film where our hero, faced with a swordsman performing an elaborate duelling ritual prior to an anticipated bout of formal combat, simply pulls out a gun and wearily shoots him. (Inspired, no doubt, by the legend of the Gordian Knot.) We’re feeling a bit like that this morning as we peer into the bewildering, constantly-shifting looking-glass that is the affairs of Rangers FC.

Either of yesterday’s events would have been enough to try to untangle by itself, but the two smashed head-on into each other and created a grisly heap of tortured, twisted, smoking metal that’d take half a Scottish fire brigade all day to separate into identifiable components, and with about the same chance of anyone walking away intact. But we’re so stupid we’re going to have a go by ourselves. Read on, if you dare.

Read the rest of this entry →

Well, it’s safe to say it’s all kicked off big-time today, with not one but two massive developments in the Neverending (Rangers) Story. Firstly, you can read the entire CVA document for yourself here. But these are the bullet points:

1. The £8.5m Charles Green and his consortium (“Sevco”) intend to fund their purchase of Rangers with is in fact a loan, to be paid back (with interest) by 2020 [Section 4.20], despite Green’s previous pledge to run the club “debt-free”.

2. According to the BBC, Duff & Phelps’ fees during the period of administration to date are £5.5m, leaving just £3m in the pot for the creditors.

3. Highly unusually, the proposal doesn’t actually specify a percentage creditors will be paid. But Rangers’ current debts are in the region of £55m, meaning the maximum payout to unsecured creditors will be slightly over 5p in the £. The actual figure is impossible to gauge, as the CVA proposal document is full of unknown sums marked “TBC”, such as the amount owed to Craig Whyte. [Schedule 8]

4. Should Rangers lose the Big Tax Case the debt will at least double, but is widely thought likely to increase by even more, taking the total to around £150m. This would reduce the maximum payout to unsecured creditors to 2p in the £.

5. Should the CVA be rejected by creditors, Green has a contractual obligation to purchase the club’s assets for £5.5m (presumably again in the form of a loan, though this isn’t explicitly specified) and liquidate it, saving himself £3m. [Section 4.23] By coincidence the purchase price is exactly the sum quoted by the BBC for Duff & Phelps’ fees, leaving precisely £0 in the pot for creditors.

6. The creditors therefore have a choice between accepting a maximum of 5p in the £ (but likely much less than that), or getting nothing at all.

More coming as we unravel it. All we can say is that in a world where Robert Mugabe is about to be made a UN tourism ambassador and the head of the IMF doesn’t pay any tax, the notion of a bankrupt football club with £50m of unpayable debt and up to £100m more hanging over it BORROWING the money to pay off its creditors – by offering them an unspecified amount somewhere between almost zero and actually zero and expecting them to willingly agree to the deal even when one of them is the nation’s taxman – suddenly doesn’t seem all that insane by comparison.

Read the rest of this entry →

The media has been strangely silent today about the apparent missing of yet another deadline in the Rangers saga – yesterday was supposed to be the day Duff & Phelps actually sent out the mythical CVA proposal, but as yet there’s no public sign of it. Bizarrely, STV News reports that the document sent out to creditors doesn’t actually specify the percentage being offered, so we can’t see how it even counts as one.

It’s relevant because the CVA represents the only chance of Rangers automatically playing in the SPL next season, without having to beg the other 11 clubs to admit them directly as a newco – something that most commentators agree will happen anyway, on the grounds of self-interest. But just how well-founded is that belief?

As the fiasco drags on (and on and on and on), we’re constantly warned that the loss of the travelling Rangers support, among other things, will cripple the SPL’s smaller clubs. Many of the less-considered assertions of this claim centre on an inexplicable belief that should Rangers go out of business or be demoted to the SFL Division Three nobody would replace them, and that what would have been home fixtures for other SPL clubs against Rangers will be replaced by vacant Saturdays in a succession of empty, tumbleweed-strewn stadia.

But a reader comment on one story sent us scurrying off to our Big Book Of Scottish Football Stats again, and produced a surprising result.

Read the rest of this entry →

As lovers of a good stat-wade ourselves, we’re liking this terrific piece by Celtic Quick News detailing the amount of money that Rangers FC’s “financial doping” has cost the other Scottish Premier League clubs over the last decade-and-a-bit. We highly advise reading it all, but the headline is that the Ibrox side has effectively stolen a minimum of £49m, a statistically most-probable £69m and a maximum of £224m from the other 11 teams currently in the SPL, as well as further sums from teams since relegated.

For us, though, the most striking figures can be found in the detailed breakdowns, where you’ll notice certain figures crop up over and over again. The direct immediate cost (in lost SPL sponsorship and TV money) of relegation to the SFL Division 1, for example, can be seen to be £765,000.

But the real eye-opener comes if you look at the sums involved in dropping down one league place. We’ve mentioned it in previous pieces, but laid out in stark black-and-white numbers it shows just what a crooked deal the non-Old-Firm SPL chairmen lumbered their clubs with when, blinded by short-sighted greed, they collaborated with Rangers and Celtic in setting the league up as a cosy permanent duopoly:

Loss from finishing 2nd rather than 1st: £340,000
Loss from finishing 3rd rather than 2nd: £935,000
Loss from finishing 4th rather than 3rd: £170,000
Loss from finishing one place lower, 5th-11th: £85,000

Ouch. Were the premium for a 2nd-place finish to follow the pattern of the rest of the distribution, it would be just £255,000. Or put another way, the SPL is basically an agreement to give Rangers and Celtic £680,000 a year each, on top of the regular prize money, simply for being the Old Firm.

Since all but one SPL season has seen the two Glasgow clubs take the top two places, the league prize-money distribution alone has ensured that the other 10 clubs fall further and further behind every year, by roughly the amount needed to pay the salary of one international-class player.

(It comes out fractionally over £13,000 a week, a sum exceeded by only a couple of Rangers’ biggest stars before their in-administration pay cuts, which are about to end. It’s the same as the average wage for an English Premiership player at the mid-point of the period analysed by CQN.)

Over the 11 seasons of Rangers’ alleged EBT improprieties, that of course adds up to a complete international-class side, which the other SPL teams have in essence paid the wages for (with the additional millions brought in by annual Champions League participation providing the transfer fees), guaranteeing that Rangers continued to beat them, secure one of the two top spots and perpetuate the cycle.

(A grossly-unbalanced state of affairs which makes it all the more astonishing that Rangers STILL felt the need to cheat by robbing the taxpayer, and just about everyone else as well, in order to spend even more money.)

Remarkably, it seems from their comments to the media so far that most of the SPL chairmen will be minded to vote in favour of continuing this slow suicide, out of fear that the alternative could somehow be worse. We hope that New Rangers will at least have the courtesy to pay for the cranberry sauce.

There can surely have been no real doubt that the SFA was going to (at least) uphold the ban on Rangers registering any new players for a year. Having just published a 63-page dossier setting out in meticulous and crushing detail the severity of the club’s crimes, the Association would have set some sort of world record for “All-Time Largest Rod For Your Own Back” had they then backed down on the punishment.

What occurs to us, though, is that the upholding of the ban makes it considerably more likely that a Newco Rangers (which has to be the only plausible future – a CVA is purest delusional fantasy) will be admitted directly to the SPL.

The league’s nightmare scenario is New Rangers winning the title in 2012/13, because then they really will be seen to have gotten away with everything. If the club is forced to field a team of old journeymen and fresh-faced teens that gets a lot less likely, and the gutless SPL chairmen will probably feel that the Ibrox side will be sufficiently humbled by a few seasons of mid-table finishes that their own clubs might just avert a disastrous boycott from angry fans, while still clinging onto the Sky Sports deal.

We’re not sure they’d be right in that assumption, but we suspect it’s one they might make anyway, and that tonight’s events will strengthen their belief in it. Time will tell.

We don’t know if anyone still reads the BBC’s “Blether With Brian” column since the Corporation banned Scottish readers – uniquely in these islands – from posting comments on it, nor can we normally think of a reason why anyone would. It’s generally the blandest-possible summary of events people have already seen for themselves, with no effort to impart any sort of insight or analysis.

However, once in a while the understated approach yields a more profoundly powerful result than screeds of polemic, and we can think of no way to better illustrate the bizarreness of Johann Lamont’s chosen line of attack at yesterday’s First Minister’s Questions than to simply relate the events as they transpired, in the most neutral and factual manner, as the national broadcaster’s Scottish political editor does today.

“How to decide who has won an election? The customary method is to count the ballot papers – and to award victory to the one with the most votes. Now the Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies adds a degree of sophistication to that. But, still, the spoils tend to go to those with evident popular support.

This, apparently, is an old-fashioned outlook. Just so Twentieth Century. At Holyrood, Labour’s Johann Lamont suggested another test might be used instead. The SNP, she said, might have won the council elections “on the arithmetic”. But “on the politics” they “got stuffed.”

It is difficult to be entirely certain, but I suspect that most political leaders would probably settle, on balance, for winning “on the arithmetic”.“

Stranger still was Brian’s citation of Fat Les in support of his assertion, but other than to wistfully dwell for a moment on our long-held dream of Scottish fans repurposing the song in question with the words “Irn Bru” replacing the title, we’ll let that one pass.

Since we’ve already been nice to a journalist today, it seems only fair to also send out a little bit of love to the press corps’ less-celebrated and much-maligned brothers in arms – the photographers. (We don’t know why we’re being so pleasant to everyone all of a sudden. We think someone may have slipped something in our tea.)

Rangers FC has been in administration since Valentine’s Day. That’s three long months in which the story has featured in the news pretty much every single day, and it’s not a situation that lends itself particularly well to illustration. One picture of a Duff & Phelps press conference looks much like another, and once you’ve knocked out the traditional broken-club-crest it starts to get tricky to find a fresh visual angle.

The nation’s photo-journalists have risen heroically to the challenge, though, and we feel irresistibly compelled to take a moment out from our day to offer them a heartfelt and genuine salute, before whatever this stuff is wears off.

Read the rest of this entry →

This article’s about the council elections, but allow us to first digress for a moment. One of the odder little quirks of the online independence movement is that, of those who express a preference when it comes to the subject of Scotland’s national sport, a disproportionately high percentage seem to be Aberdeen supporters. (Possibly partly explained by the North-East, as the First Minister’s political stomping ground and centre of the oil industry, having always been fertile ground for nationalism.)

This blog is among that number, and so for those of us currently living in England and seeking to maintain an interest in the people’s game Manchester United is the logical choice of club to follow, at least for as long as Sir Alex Ferguson is at the helm. (Even if the daft old fool himself has been out of Scotland for so long he still thinks Labour are socialists, and dutifully trots out every time they need a celebrity backer.)

So when we saw the team United put out for the crucial Premiership derby against Manchester City last week, we were concerned. A midfield of Carrick (the English Barry Ferguson, we’ve always thought), the recently un-retired Scholes and the rusty Park (making his first start since January) clearly wasn’t designed to provide a pacy attacking threat, and before the game started we tweeted “That’s an old, slow Man U side lining up tonight. Looks like a chokehold.”

And sure enough, as the match progressed Ferguson’s team showed beyond any reasonable doubt that it had been sent out with the intention of smothering City’s menacing attack and securing the 0-0 draw that would have all but sealed the league for the Old Trafford club. Sluggish and toothless, with Wayne Rooney a lonely and frustrated figure up front, United failed – for the first time in three years, said the statisticians afterwards – to register a single shot on the opposition’s goal, and when a wobbly defence that’s been badly missing Nemanja Vidic all season offered Vincent Kompany a free header from eight yards out, there never looked like being any way back for a side that just a month ago had a commanding eight-point lead at the top of the table and appeared to be a shoo-in for a record-breaking 20th title.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’re not sure how to feel about the continuing prospect/threat (depending on your perspective) of a British Olympic football team with Scottish players in it. Sepp Blatter, the immovable president of FIFA and a man who enjoys the patronage of a great many smaller footballing nations who jealously eye the UK’s anachronistic presence in the game, has made the position on the matter about as clear as he ever makes anything.

“If you start to put together a combined team for the Olympic Games, the question will automatically come up that there are four different associations so how can they play in one team? If this is the case then why the hell do they have four associations and four votes and their own vice-presidency?

“This will put into question all the privileges that the British associations were given by the Congress in 1946.“

In other words, picking players from all four UK nations DOES represent a threat to their continued separate status. There has never been more pressure on qualifying places for the World Cup and European Championship, and Blatter would not find it hard to mobilise enough votes to change the status quo if he thought it might be in any way to his advantage.

Clearly, then, having players like Stephen Fletcher and Barry Bannan conspicuously announcing their willingness to play for such a team places the very existence of the Scottish national side in peril, and as such the reaction of all patriotic Scots would logically be one of horror and anger. We can’t imagine that any but the most fervent diehard Unionist in Scotland wants to see the Scottish team wiped out of existence, and any player prepared to risk that possibility – and it IS a possibility, as Blatter’s words make plain – for the sake of their own tiny personal gain as a second-string player in a third-rate competition ought to expect nothing but justified contempt.

But from a nationalist perspective, perhaps we all ought instead to be urging Barry Bannan and his pals to do everything in their power to pull on the Team GB shirt this summer. Maybe we should all write heartfelt letters to the SFA pleading with them to withdraw their objections to the principle. Because we can think of no single event that would be more likely to push support for a Yes vote in the 2014 referendum past critical mass than for FIFA to forcibly eject Scotland from world football.

Naturally, independence would see the national side restored, this time as of right rather than by a special bending of the rules resented by the rest of the world. Rather than being shunned, despised and booed every time he kicks a ball for the rest of his life, Barry Bannan would become a Scottish national hero on a par with William Wallace, Robert The Bruce and Wee Archie Gemmill. There would be statues of him in every city, and stirring folk songs in his honour would be sung every year on Barry Bannan Day. His money would be no good in any pub in the land.

In an age of cynicism, Scotland is crying out for modern-day heroes. Will Barry Bannan be the man to hear the call and lead a nation to its destiny? (Possibly by way of the nation taking a detour across some fields while running away from a car crash smashed off its nut, in true Scottish style.) Only time will tell.

From the Scottish Football Association rules on Club Licensing (specifically  Part 3, Section 03 – The Club as Licence Applicant and the UEFA Licence). Emphasis ours.

"3.1.1 The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria. This membership must have been in place at the start of the licence season for a minimum period of three consecutive years.

[…]

3.3.1 UEFA Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL)
A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another."

NB: "UEFA Licence" does not denote a licence to compete in UEFA competitions, which are governed by an entirely different set of criteria. As the SFA website explains:

"National Club Licensing applies to Scottish FA member clubs and UEFA Club Licensing applies to Scottish Premier League clubs."

In other words, to play in the SPL you must have a UEFA Club Licence, regardless of whether you actually compete in UEFA competitions or not. (SFL clubs, who in normal circumstances wouldn't be expected to qualify for European tournaments, are dealt with separately via an "extraordinary procedure" in the event that they do.)

So, should Rangers FC be subject to liquidation and then reborn as a "newco", the new company would NOT be eligible for the licence required to play in the SPL, for at least three years. Furthermore, it is plainly and explicitly forbidden under SFA rules for such a licence to be transferred from one legal entity (Rangers FC) to another (New Rangers FC 2012). Well, that's that all sorted out, then. As you were.

…

[Edited for clarity and latest versions of documentation, 13-4-2012]

[EDIT 17-4-2012: We rang the SFA yesterday, and they confirmed our interpretation of the rules above. Half an hour later they rang us back, sounding very nervous, and changed their line, stating that the UEFA Club Licence DID only apply to UEFA competitions, and only a National Club Licence was required to play in the SPL. Later that evening it was revealed that the Association is considering disbanding the SPL and SFL entirely and replacing them with a new National Football League. The SFA did not comment on the possible position of a newco Rangers in such a league.]

The world of Scottish soccer is in a ferment this week, and we use the word "soccer" quite deliberately. The two-part compound word "football" sticks in our throat, because the Scottish game has plenty of the first part but absolutely none of the second.

The reason for the sudden outbreak of sound and fury, which will ultimately signify nothing, is the revelation by the SPL of what the blogosphere is already calling the "Cheat's Charter". In itself it's actually a fairly innocuous document, and indeed could be portrayed as a crackdown. It proposes a raft of new penalties for teams going into administration or liquidation, with sanctions both on and off the field – a 75% reduction in monies paid by the League to the offending team for three years, and a 10-point deduction for two additional years following administration.

Since none of these punishments are currently part of SPL rules, one could not entirely unreasonably depict the changes (should they be agreed by the clubs in the meeting at the end of April) as a tightening-up of procedures. But equally rationally, the supporters of 11 out of the 12 SPL clubs are seeing them as something else entirely. Because what the proposed new rules do is explicitly lay down the route to a possibility which until now was only implicit – the return of a post-liquidation Rangers Football Club directly into the top flight of the Scottish game.

Read the rest of this entry →