It seems I ruffled a few feathers with my blog last week: “No, the SF 49ers Aren’t Buying Rangers”
I got a lot of comments, most of them very kind and supportive of my efforts. Thank you all for that. I’m still finding my feet with this whole daily blogging thing.
But, it Was on the Telly and Everything
I did however, also encounter some polite but firm disagreement with what I said.
“But it’s on the STV news, it’s all over the BBC Website,” read one comment.
“Even Sky Sports are running it now,” said another “so this isn’t just some Daily Record fantasy.
And then came the coup de grace, from one Rangers fan who was sure that he had torpedoed my story. “It’s in The New York Times! So you can’t tell me it’s just Scottish journalists making it up!”
Not content to let it go at that he added: “You’re just bitter because you know The Rangers are coming!”
Now, where have we heard that before?
It’s almost admirable, the supreme confidence with which people like him spout such utter mince.
Digging Deeper
Anyway, this alleged New York Times connection did pique my interest.
So, I looked up the original article. At face value, yes, it does appear that there’s a story, on the New York Times website about a consortium from America, linked to the San Francisco 49ers who want to buy Rangers.
“Check mate, Timmy!” my detractor probably thought. Assuming he has the base level IQ required to understand the game of chess.
But, like almost every arrogant assumption that club and their fans make about their own importance, it didn’t take me long to figure out the reality
Bear with me, (pun fully intended) I’ll get to the point shortly.
Always Check the Source
There’s a rule of thumb I always apply when deciding if a story in the media has any truth to it or not. How many independent and unconnected sources does the story have? If the same story, or a version of it is coming from at least three different people, with no connected interests, then it’s probably true.
Suffice to say, The “New York Times” story, doesn’t pass this test.
Not a Letter from America
First of all, despite appearing on the New York Times website, at least the version I can access from outside the US, this is not a story written by or in any way researched by anyone at that newspaper.
The story comes from The Athletic, an online sports news site. I’ll be generous and say that their hit rate when it comes to exclusives is “somewhat scattershot”.
Now, the Athletic is owned by the New York Times Group, and as such they will do cross-promotion of each other’s content. There’s even a bundle available where you can subscribe to the two sites for a reduced fee. For reasons I won’t go into though, I personally think that 0.50 per week would be better spent relieving yourself next time you’re in Queen Street Station.
So, not a New York Times story, but a story from one of their dozens of global affiliates, with whom the paper has only the loosest of commercial connections.
Who Wrote it?
So, who at The Athletic would have the inside knowledge to know both the inner workings of North American business circles and the Ibrox Boardroom Ludge?
Perhaps someone who built their career as an obedient Rangers sycophant?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Jordan Campbell. His official title at The Athletic is Arsenal Correspondent. However, his bio also ads that he was “twice nominated for the young Scottish journalist of the year” for his coverage of, you’ve guessed it, Glasgow Rangers.
The lack of any reference to liquidation amidst the article’s 2012 background info and continual allusion to Rangers “Old Firm” rivalry was probably evidence enough. However, it was when he started going on about Rangers directors being “happy” to help the deal go through, that I began to seriously question his journalistic neutrality.
So, not a New York Times exclusive at all, just another member of the laptop loyal who thinks that if he repeats it often enough, his dream will magically come true.
Plausible Deniability
Mr Campbell isn’t stupid though. Much like the Daily Record and Sun fluff pieces from last week, there’s just enough crumbs of reality in there to allow him a get out when it all comes crashing down.
As was pointed out on Wednesday’s ACSOM Bulletin: “The words due diligence are doing a lot of heavy lifting here.”
The article, and many like it in the Scottish press try to present due diligence as some kind of formality, a rubber stamping of the deal.
That is not the case.
Due Diligence Usually Doesn’t End Well
There is a simple statistic that would put this story in its real context. And yet, not one single story I’ve read on this alleged takeover thus far has bothered to point it out.
Research shows that around 70% of corporate takeovers, acquisitions and mergers fall apart at the due diligence stage.
Even if we assumed that these American investors have expressed an initial interest, and remember the only concrete evidence we’ve seen for this thus far is photos of one of them at a couple of Rangers games with his pal, the biggest hurdle has yet to come.
And given how, erm, economical with the truth some of the moneymen around Ibrox have been in recent years, I’ll wager there’s more than a few shocks in store for these guys IF any takeover talk did progress to the due diligence stage.
It’s Still Not Happening
Even if due diligence did come through somehow, UEFA will still have their say with regards any financial investment over and above Rangers’ pitiful current levels of income. No amount of staunchness or dodgy handshakes will get around that one.
So in short, I stand by my initial story. This takeover won’t happen. Is there a slight chance someone might be gullible enough to invest some money into Rangers? Maybe. But they cannot, and indeed no sensible business brain would want to, invest money at the levels required to even bring them close to Celtic, let alone surpass them.