From the TSFM Manifesto 🙂
A spectre is haunting Scottish Football — the spectre of Sporting Integrity. All the powers of the old firms have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Billy and Dan, Blazer and Cassock, Record and Sun, Balance Sheet and P&L.
Where is the football fan in opposition to these that has not been decried as a “sporting integrity bampot” by his opponents in power?Two things result from this fact:
I. Sporting Integrity is already widely acknowledged to be itself a power for good.
II. It is high time that Lovers of Sport should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Sporting Integrity with a manifesto of fair play.
To this end, Lovers of Sport of various partisanship have assembled on TSFM and sketched their manifesto, to be published on tsfm.scot.
Those who love sport though are challenged not just by the taunts of the monosyllabic automatons in the MSM, but by the owners of our football clubs who have displayed an almost total disregard to our wish to have a fair competition played out in the spirit of friendly rivalry. In fact the clubs, who speak those fine words, are not nearly as outraged as we are by the damage done to the integrity of the sport in the past few years .
In fact the term Sporting Integrity has become, since the latter stages of the Rangers era, a term of abuse; a mocking soubriquet attached to those who want sport to be just that – sport.
Sporting integrity now lives in the same media pigeon-hole as words like Islam, left-wing, militant, Muslim – and a host of others; words which are threats to the established order now set up as in-jokes, in order to reduce the effectiveness of the idea.
In fact, a new terminology has evolved in the reporting of football by both club officials and The Succulent Lamb Chapel alike;
“.. Sporting Integrity but …”.
For example
“We all want sporting integrity, but finance is more important”
Says who exactly?
Stated in such a matter of fact way that the obvious question is headed off at the pass, it is sometimes difficult to re-frame the discussion – perhaps because crayon is so hard to erase?
This is the backdrop to The Scottish Football Monitor and the world in which we live. Often the levels of scrutiny employed by our contributors are far in excess of any scrutiny employed by the MSM. Indeed our ideas and theories are regularly plagiarised by those very same lazy journalists who lurk here, and cherry-pick material to suit their own agendas; regularly claiming exclusives for stories that TSFM and RTC before us had placed in the public domain weeks earlier.
This was going to lead into a discourse about the love of money versus the love of sport – of how the sacred cows of acquisitiveness, gate- retention and turnstile spinning is far more important to the heads of our football clubs (the Billys, Dans and Blazers of the intro) than maintaining the traditions of our sport.
However events of Friday 14th November have given me cause to leave that for another day. The biggest squirrel of all in this sorry saga has always been the sleight of hand employed instil a siege mentality in the Rangers fans. The press have time and again assisted people (with no love of football in general or Rangers in particular) to enrich themselves – legally or otherwise – and feed on the loyalty of Rangers fans.
A matter for Rangers fans may also be the identity of some of those who had their trust, but who also assisted the Whytes and Greens by their public statements of support.
Our contention has been that rules have been bent twisted or broken to accommodate those people, the real enemies of the Rangers fans – and fans everywhere.
Through our collective research and group-analysis of events, we have also wondered out loud about the legality of many aspects of the operating style of some of the main players in the affair. That suspicion has been shared most notably by Mark Daly and Alex Thompson, but crucially now appears to be shared by Law Enforcement.
I confess I am fed up with the self-styled “bampot” epithet. For the avoidance of doubt, the “bampots” in this affair are those who have greater resources than us, and access to the truth, but who have lacked either the will or the courage or the imagination to follow it through.
We are anything but bampots. Rather, we have demonstrated that the wisdom of the crowd is more effective by far than any remnants of wisdom in the press.
I have no doubt that the police investigation into this matter is proceeding in spite of great opposition in the MSM and the Scottish Football Authorities – all of whom conspired to expose Rangers to the custodianship of those for whom football is a foreign language.
I have no doubt that the constant exposition of wrong-doing on this blog, in particular the questions we have constantly raised, and anomalies we have pointed out, has assisted and enabled the law enforcement agencies in this process.
If we are to be consistent in this, our enabling of the authorities, we MUST show restraint at all times as this process is followed through. People who are charged with a crime deserve to be given a fair trial in the absence of rumour or innuendo. We must also, if we are to continue as the spectre which haunts the avaricious – and the real bampots – be seen to be better than they, and give them no cause to accuse us of irresponsibility.
This affair has now evolved way beyond one club gaining unfair advantage over others. For all the understandable Schadenfreude of many among us, the real enemy is not Rangers, it is about those who enabled and continue to enable the farce at Ibrox.
This is now about systematic cheating at the heart of the Scottish game (in the name of cash and in spite of lip service to sporting integrity), and how the greed of a bunch of ethically challenged officials allowed another group of ethically challenged businessmen free rein to enrich themselves at the expense of the fans.
Whether laws were broken or not, the players at Rangers have come and gone and are variables, but the malignant constant at the SFA and SPFL are still there. Last night, even after the news that four men had been arrested in connection with the takeover at Ibrox in 2011, they were gathered together at Celtic Park with their Irish counterparts, tucking into succulent lamb (perhaps) and fine wines, doing some back slapping, making jokes about the vulgarities of their fans, bragging about the ST money they have banked.
The revolution won’t be over until they are gone, and if they remain, it is Scottish Football that will be over.
It has to be addressed.
To understand the CFC CEO position better, and to try to rationalise the thinking of the powers that be entrenched in the belief that Ibrox must be preserved at all costs; it might be worthwhile to consider the problem in a little more detail.
Every City in Britain has `Derbies` that have survived 100 years or more. They`re tolerated as `letting off steam` by the authorities and they had reasons to believe that. It kept the peace overall in a general sense the authorities believed. Maybe that was so in past `factory environments`- it`s debatable, but that`s what they have allowed, for decades.
As note, I witnessed a Liverpool ManU match in the late Eighties where the violence was beyond anything I had ever witnessed at my handful of Old Firm games ( before the game Liv / ManU supporters exchanged golf balls spiked with 6 inch nails)
Liverpool Derbies are generally the exception as the supporters do mix but I wouldn’t recommend seeing West Ham / Chelsea/ QPR mixes – it’s not family entertainment.
Whatever the OF fixtures generated in terms of violence, it has always been lesser than other parts of Britain, and I can assure Britain is well behind World Football in that regard especially Europe. Dutch and German stuff is ferocious – as examples.
Is there a modern way forward in Scotland?
We`re in a new Century, Scotland has evolved and evolving for new generations and positive.
The Old Firm is a dinosaur arguably best left in the last Century IMO.
Maybe it`s time for the Old Firm fixture to go the way of the Dinosaur.
There are money interests for sure, but these are self-serving and I doubt if the real cost are calculated including all the total Police Costs, aggravations and assaults petty and serious.
Alas, there are patrons of the OF that view these fixture as almost a raison d`etre.
Add the SMSM to the mix, who promote and sell needless rivalry for esteem standing plus circulation.
I believe, from experience, this really is a waste of life energy.
In order to satisfy John Clark, who has stated and maybe believes I am some form of `Jack`, I`ll make my position crystal clear; `Rangers` and `Celtic` belong to the last Century and Scots Football would be better off if the OF fixture and the OF ceased to exist.
Thankfully this is de facto happening. `Rangers`, if they can survive (which I doubt) will cause over time CFC to wither on the vine (it’s happening). It will naturally end and I doubt it can be stopped now – which is positive for us who have seen so much senseless aggravation.
Scotland and Scottish Football can move on to a better and developing sporting future.
scapaflow says:
November 21, 2014 at 6:03 pm
=========================
Agree up to a point. However, when considering falling attendances, at a time when ordinary peoples incomes are being squeezed like never before, ticket/st price is by far the most likely explanation IMO.
===========================================]
I’m sure pricing is a problem – as are other factors outwith control such as weather, time of year (hols, xmas shopping) but there’s something of a vicious circle. AS the bulk of money comes through STs the lower prices mean fewer good players – because frankly for week clubs a drop of say a fiver won’t guarantee more money, you might be lucky to make the same as before. Let’s face it the lower you go in the leagues the cheaper it gets but the lower the crowds. The only exceptions are a few Junior clubs and there are historical reasons for the support – plus they tend to be successful at their level.
We need somehow to get more money into the game but in a sustainable way; how to do it I don’t know.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/1378.html
Full case judgement for legals of a PBW investigatory mindset.
One day (sooneish) we will be copying one of these containing some more prescient names I believe.
If you borrow money with no intention to pay it back, it’s not really borrowing, is it.
It’s stealing.
Just a thought wrt “liquidation 2.0” and re-injection into football – we now have the Lowland league and with it the opportunity to win a play-off into league two. Therefore, I would argue that it and the Highland league are the de-facto starting points for senior football and disruption would be at a minimum as you would not need to shuffle clubs up/down divisions after they have budgeted for the division they expect to be in.
Also, on the junkie analogy earlier, I have often used in conversation over the years to describe the SPL and the chasing of TV money and having to “compete” which was the be all and end all to the clubs. Only now are Motherwell, Aberdeen, Dundee Utd etc. recovering from that addiction.
Re Directors of fitba clubs:
I need to get this down while in a moment of clarity after visiting old friends at the Eire game I remembered my fitba childhood.
Hugh Keenan – Director Celtic – Plumber
Tommy Simpson – Director Rangers = Plumber/Builder
Jimmy Crorie – Director Clyde – Surgeon
Jim Holmes – Director Third Lanark – Teacher
When I was wee all of these guys regularly took me and the local weans to their games at their clubs, hence my later teenage wanderings to Parkhead/Ibrox/Fir Park for European Texaco cup games with my mates and finally to be stuck on the ‘Well by the local dad who actually was an ex footballer. Charlie Cox of Motherwell (previously Hearts).
Changed days in terms of Directors finances etc.
Couldn’t see any of the above even knowing what a press conference was.
shawfieldtoteboard says:
November 21, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Just a thought wrt “liquidation 2.0″ and re-injection into football – we now have the Lowland league and with it the opportunity to win a play-off into league two. Therefore, I would argue that it and the Highland league are the de-facto starting points for senior football
==========================================
IIRC a number of lowland league clubs currently play at grounds without exterior walls/fencing nor are the pitches fenced/walled off from the crowd, so that’s a non starter.
“Clean Up Scotland Campaign recieves [sic] Scottish FA backing”
==================================================================
How did we miss this ?!
The SFA does have a sense of humour after all, [and Darryl can’t spell !]
“…Declaring the Scottish FA’s support, Campbell Ogilvie, the President of the Scottish Football Association said:
“We are delighted to help support…their Clean Up Scotland campaign…”
😯
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=14007
Big Pink says:
November 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm
===================
I think you are spot on BP.
Forgive me for drawing the conclusion therefore that as a fan of a smaller team I’d be rather happy not to see Rangers return at all, ergo there can be no return to the duopoly, ergo there would be no return to quite the level of strength Celtic enjoyed during the duopoly.
Thats not to spite Rangers or Celtic but from my perspective the best thing for Scottish Football is to close the gap between the top clubs and if the only way to do that is for Rangers replacement to never gain their “rightful place” and as a result for Celtic to require a little downsizing then all the better for the good of the rest of us.
Probably sounds pretty awful of me to say and yes its selfish but I don’t think i’d find much sympathy for the big 2 given what has transpired.
ecobhoy 7:12 pm
It’s a pity you couldn’t apply the same forensic analysis that you were able to apply to the state aid accusations (for the record genuinely one of the best examples of why I contribute to this blog). But perhaps time to reflect you made an ill-judged or worded comment that was entirely against the entire ethos of TSFM and indeed Celtic. Rangers defrauded Scottish football and UK society of £90-160 million pounds (BTC appeal pending). I could not for a nano-second care less that the continuing participation of these cheats cost my club an alleged £10 million. If we are genuinely ‘like no other club’ then the much mocked ‘sporting integrity’ trumps everything.
Does not everyone recall Saintinasias many posts and tables proving without doubt that Rangers (not here) was absolutely or mildly worse or the same as(are here)?
Have we all lost our marbles?
Though the ‘Well blamed a tiny proportion of last years loss (one of the few to make one)on the gers thing. The main losses were due to the SPLs failure to get a sponsor. Cup failure and our own redistribution of prize money to our players.
Im sure in reality anyone suffering down turns in income in the SPL would come to the same conclusion.
BTW Peter I contributed last Friday. 2 Pies 2 Bovril’s nice atmosphere. Keep the 4.60 till the gers are back.
I will allow any bloggers to read my post at 8:58 and decide for themselves whether they feel it was in any way ‘personalised’. A completely bizarre accusation given that I congratualted ecobhoy on his state aid accusation investigations. Equally, I refuse to apologise that his profit is all that counts comment was an insult to my understanding of what my club stands for.
Bryce Curdy says:
November 21, 2014 at 8:58 pm (Edit)
12 0 Rate This
ecobhoy 7:12 pm
It’s a pity you couldn’t apply the same forensic analysis that you were able to apply to the state aid accusations (for the record genuinely one of the best examples of why I contribute to this blog). But perhaps time to reflect you made an ill-judged or worded comment that was entirely against the entire ethos of TSFM and indeed Celtic. Rangers defrauded Scottish football and UK society of £90-160 million pounds (BTC appeal pending). I could not for a nano-second care less that the continuing participation of these cheats cost my club an alleged £10 million. If we are genuinely ‘like no other club’ then the much mocked ‘sporting integrity’ trumps everything.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bryce
I agree.
I am a bit perturbed at how this has developed so quickly (and surprisingly) into insulting language. I am not perturbed, but rather disappointed that our long held desire to see sporting integrity as a higher priority than the maximisation of profit seems to have been set aside for some purposes – which as I infer is the reason the discussion got so heated.
Opinions are of course free for anyone to hold – but disrespect is against the ethos of the blog. Easily repaired of course.
I said long before the season started that there was simply too much risk to expect McCoist to secure promotion to the SPL at the first attempt.
Even assuming that TRFC easily achieves the play-offs – again there is too much risk involved…for those who insist that the top league must have a Govan club.
And what odds could you get for a penalty and sending off at the crucial Hearts game tomorrow ? If there is any controversy – to TRFC’s benefit – what will the average Scottish football fan think, again ?
But ‘they’ have to announce another league construction soon, IMO, and maybe it has to be announced BEFORE TRFC has an insolvency event ?
But then there could be a lot more walking away from the game…? 😥
StevieBC says:
November 21, 2014 at 9:46 pm
8 0 Rate This
I said long before the season started that there was simply too much risk to expect McCoist to secure promotion to the SPL at the first attempt.
Even assuming that TRFC easily achieves the play-offs – again there is too much risk involved…for those who insist that the top league must have a Govan club.
And what odds could you get for a penalty and sending off at the crucial Hearts game tomorrow ? If there is any controversy – to TRFC’s benefit – what will the average Scottish football fan think, again ?
But ‘they’ have to announce another league construction soon, IMO, and maybe it has to be announced BEFORE TRFC has an insolvency event ?
But then there could be a lot more walking away from the game…? 😥
==================
Since Peter Lawell’s comments at the AGM have formed a fair part of discussion today I may as well continue the theme.
When asked to comment on Strachan “manipulation” suggestions Lawell seems to have disagreed quite strongly with this idea:
“I love Gordon dearly, he’s a pal, but he’s way off the mark there and we would never support that.”
So I take that as a sign that Celtic would not support any reconstruction at this stage.
Matty Roth says:
November 21, 2014 at 10:07 pm
Given PL’s position at the SFA, I took it as an indication that a league re-organisation may be some way off yet.
£Events, Dear Boy, Events”, notwithstanding, I hope that the authorities will be carefully considering the current situation, before launching anyone’s pet schemes 😉
StevieBC says:
November 21, 2014 at 9:46 pm
But ‘they’ have to announce another league construction soon, IMO, and maybe it has to be announced BEFORE TRFC has an insolvency event ?
But then there could be a lot more walking away from the game…?
=============================
Can’t see it myself – timing wise it would be too fresh in the mind come ST renewal time – too many chairmen would face their teams playing in empty stadia.
Mind you I can’t help but chuckle at the thought that they might attempt to reconstruct to a bigger top tier and teams playing twice and then find TRFC don’t go bust and make it up under their own steam and fairly.
That would almost make it worth it….almost… 😈
ianagain says:
November 21, 2014 at 9:26 pm
10 0 Rate This
Does not everyone recall Saintinasias many posts and tables proving without doubt that Rangers (not here) was absolutely or mildly worse or the same as(are here)?
Have we all lost our marbles?
Though the ‘Well blamed a tiny proportion of last years loss (one of the few to make one)on the gers thing. The main losses were due to the SPLs failure to get a sponsor. Cup failure and our own redistribution of prize money to our players.
Im sure in reality anyone suffering down turns in income in the SPL would come to the same conclusion.
BTW Peter I contributed last Friday. 2 Pies 2 Bovril’s nice atmosphere. Keep the 4.60 till the gers are back.
================
I recall this as well Ianagain and its one of the reasons I’m rather sceptical about such a bold statement as Lawell has made about the losses Celtic face without Rangers in the top league.
However (like you) I’m not getting my knickers in a twist about it – its just seems a little odd and I find the motivation behind the remarks a bit mysterious. Why bother?
Anyway, I am fairly confident that my own club has not lost out near as much, if at all by the current lack of Rangersness so I suppose there are going to be winners and losers all around..
Well Peter Lawell says no reconstruction. Aberdeen their voting pals say no.
So that’s it aint happening.
So anyone got a favourite court reporter. (John Clark pencils script pads ready please) and where’s the first venue?
ianagain says:
November 21, 2014 at 10:27 pm
0 0 Rate This
Well Peter Lawell says no reconstruction. Aberdeen their voting pals say no.
So that’s it aint happening.
==================
Lol. Nippy!! But probably not entirely undeserved!
Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 2 mins2 minutes ago
Peter Lawwell reiterates the point that no Rangers in top league costs them around £10m a year.
,,,,,,,,,,,,
How much physical injury, pain and grief were saved Peter?
Was that worth £10m?
I bet Bro Walfrid would think so
Matty
Yup. Maybe just a guy defending his lower profits. Couldn’t care less to be honest. (Now he’s firmly behind no reconstruction).
ianagain says:
November 21, 2014 at 10:33 pm
0 0 Rate This
Matty
Yup. Maybe just a guy defending his lower profits. Couldn’t care less to be honest. (Now he’s firmly behind no reconstruction).
===========
Maybe I missed it, has someone from Afc made a statement or passed comment on reconstruction again?
I had actually assumed you were referring to the Afc and Celtic votes working together to block change a year or 2 ago before the last reconstruction was finally achieved.
I would hate to think that anyone believes I have any personal issue with ecobhoy who I genuine think is one of the best contributors to the site and certainly far better recognised than I will ever be. But in the same way Celtic had an off night against Morton a couple of seasons ago, even the best of us can be guilty of a crass moment.
Matty
No just assumed Afc still agin. Am I wrong?
ianagain says:
November 21, 2014 at 10:45 pm
0 0 Rate This
Matty
No just assumed Afc still agin. Am I wrong?
===========
Not that I’ve seen, just a quote from Peter Lawell and I think what he said was right enough.
I actually don’t think reconstruction is seriously on the cards right now, even if there is another insolvency event at a major club.
Personally I’m actually all for a larger league 16/18 teams. And I believe it can be made to work and to be interested with clever use of play-offs. Perhaps something similar to the model used in the netherlands (I think).
However I don’t think it will happen tbh, too many vested interests appear to be pushing for the return to a duopoly approach. And if the agenda is to get OF games back on the menu then why expand the league and reduce the number of OF games each year.
Time for a chill pill methinks
Oh dear lord!
Eco says profit is quite important
Bryce says I thought integrity was everything
Eco says not if you’re losing a sh!tload, no
Bryce says but you’re minted so integrity is everything
And big Pete says something and tsfm says something trying to help and somehow my auntie’s balls got a mention and then we all got over it and got back to the job in hand.
The end. Hopefully.
For those who are interested Roddy F has fuller details vis DK SE e-mails…others may wish to ignore…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11247379/Sandy-Easdales-true-role-in-Rangers-takeover-talks-thrown-into-question-by-release-of-emails.html
Record reporting (courtesy of Jack) that SE’s brief has contacted DK seeking “clarification”
GoosyGoosy says:
November 21, 2014 at 10:32 pm
—
How much physical injury, pain and grief were saved Peter?
Was that worth £10m?
I bet Bro Walfrid would think so
—
Me too, but Peter Lawwell didn’t say it wasn’t worth it. All he did, in response to a question from the floor, was provide what TSFM refers to as a quantum.
You clearly move in quite high orbits, Goosy. Ask a high-up at Celtic if the board wants a Sevco derby at any cost. I’ve done that and was left with no doubt that there is a split. The director I asked said he was “inclined to agree” with the notion that shoe-horning a ‘big’ derby onto the calendar at the expense of sporting integrity and truth was a price too high to pay, but no one listening would have thought it was a unanimous view around the boardroom table. Peter Lawwell’s view didn’t come up as I didn’t think to ask and think, even now, that it probably wouldn’t have been fair to do so under the circumstances.
Curdy sorry to butt-in
But Peter Lawells job For CFC Plc
Is to maxamise profits
Pure and simple
His job in the board of the SPFL (or SFA can’t remember off hand which) is the Integrity of the game
PL made the statement as a CFC director not a SPFL representative
I should add that I definitely don’t move in high orbits, but chanced to meet a Celtic director at a business event last month.
I know it’s a knee jerk and being suspicious of all communications in this saga, particularly from sources with ‘istry, but that email just doesn’t read well does it? I’m immediately drawn to the reference to “both” points which then turns into three, one of which being the controversial one.
@ecobhoy and @Bryce Curdy
Get your own thread.
@TwoPanda
Genuine question. Whilst (along with others it seems) I struggle sometimes to understand your intended meaning, you come across to me as someone who feels very strongly that the current bunch of spivs controlling the club playing out of Ibrox deserve some jail time for their behaviour since 2012.
Apologies if I’ve got this wrong, but I assume you are/were a fan of ‘Rangers’.
I was wondering how you feel about the role of Murray, Ogilvie, Johnstone, King, Bain, McLelland et al in the demise of Rangers Football Club. Do you perceive them to be spivs deserving of jail time?
Personally, I believe there’s more of a case for seeking retribution from them than from the current gang who appear to be on course for achieving the same end without having denied any other team of a major trophy.
Smugas says:
November 21, 2014 at 11:33 pm
0 0 Rate This
I know it’s a knee jerk and being suspicious of all communications in this saga, particularly from sources with ‘istry, but that email just doesn’t read well does it? I’m immediately drawn to the reference to “both” points which then turns into three, one of which being the controversial one.
===================
You may also have noticed that the e-mail is to SE and doesn’t prove that SE said anything….I’m guessing that Mr Easdales legal representative may have noticed this too…
Could we all please get off the PL thing and get our ire firmly on the absolutely useless commercial end of the SPFL and their inability
A. To get their fare share of TV dosh
B. Lack of sponsor.
Its killing some of the clubs they claim to support.
Total disgrace.
Regan should have a salary deduction.
ianagain says:
November 21, 2014 at 11:44 pm
Appreciate the sentiment, tiny problem, I’ll give you three guesses who has been intimately involved in seeking TV deals
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24806788
Whether we like it or not, Celtic is an establishment club, and has been for a long time.
Regan is SFA, the SPFL is Doncaster. You are correct though, about getting ‘off the PL thing’ as that is surely for a Celtic minded blog/forum.
There have been a few fallings out here recently, which will tend to drive interested and interesting parties away. The arrogance of some posters appears to mask their judgement.
There must be a reason that Doncaster has refused sponsorship of his product, but for the life of me I can’t begin to imagine what. Is he wanting the boot?
borussiabeefburg says:
November 21, 2014 at 11:56 pm
the only thing I can think of is that given their fixation on the Rangers/Celtic as USP model, that they have been holding out for Rangers return, in the expectation that a better deal would make up for the lost income during the Old Firm interregnum.
Whatever the real position, I very much doubt that Mr Doncaster will be acting on anything other than the instructions of his board. He doesn’t appear to have the intestinal fortitude or the imagination to do anything else.
Partimearab
I’m sure I read in the text that SE had sent back an acknowledgement with the inference that it ‘approved the minute.’
Of course in this den of thieves I just immediately thought a (not too elaborate) stinger!
Scapa,
No, the clear inference from Doncaster is that the product is completely unsaleable which I would be extremely surprised were that the case particularly now that the two bodies have merged so the old boycott threat is removed.
I would speculate that the board have ‘agreed’ to accept that position on the basis, as you say, that next seasons back where they belong tour should attract a higher sum. It would be interesting to see the response if something (eh EJ 😀 ) puts a spanner in that. Who will be the first chairman to break ranks and say hang on, so we could have had little and often but you promised ‘large’ a promise that at best you could not make and, in fact, it may yet transpire that you had info to confirm that an event was going to knacker the very thing you were selling.
Borrousia
Aye got the mug wrong.
Different mug.
Normally no difference in attitude or performance, hence confusion. Not normally mis directed. sorry
tcup 2012 says:
November 21, 2014 at 11:25 pm
Curdy sorry to butt-in
But Peter Lawells job For CFC Plc
Is to maxamise profits
Pure and simple
His job in the board of the SPFL (or SFA can’t remember off hand which) is the Integrity of the game
PL made the statement as a CFC director not a SPFL representative
___________________________________________________________
I think Bryce’s point – and one with which I have some sympathy – is that he thinks that a Celtic Chief Executive’s role should include responsibility for sporting integrity and not only be concerned with the maximisation of profit. “The Celtic Way” and all that.
Of course, Lawwell did not make that singular claim himself – that was something that Ecobhoy – and not PL – said in the course of the discussion.
Whatever PL’s views on the matter, I really don’t care although I certainly have my suspicions that Ecobhoy is correct in his inference. What I am a bit troubled by is that our consensus seems to be under some pressure here.
If we agree that sporting integrity is paramount, I don’t see how we could defend ANY club official who thought it secondary to finance just because it’s his job to do so. A tricky one for me because PL has definitely not said those words – and I don’t know the exact context of what he did say about the £10m.
Conjecturing, my first reaction is that PL is smart enough, and the AGM managed well enough (think post Blair Labour Party conference) to avoid making statements he doesn’t need to. Therefore he probably wanted that remark about the £10m out there as Saturday morning headlines.
For background, I have asked people at Celtic about their attitude to “Rangers at all costs”, and (whilst one can never at any time accept at face value something a football person tells you) the response has been a unanimous, unqualified “we need these games – period”.
Others’ mileage may differ of course, but that is my experience and those are my conclusions.
I don’t think anyone here really believes that there is an earnest wish amongst the clubs for justice to be done. The work done by Auldheid and his team on the licence issue has definitely not mobilised any of the clubs to seek answers or redress, so I think I can safely say that the outrage and sense of injustice felt here is not shared by our clubs. Worse than that, I think it is scoffed at.
This all started as a movement to get justice for wrongs done by one club. In the course of that we have seen evidence of what we would call corruption of the rules and spirit of sport (and what the club financial people may justify as survival measures and call survivalism).
At the very best, Scottish Football is riddled with survivalism practiced by officials at club and national association levels. We can’t stand back and sneer at Rangers when our clubs will do nothing about it. I think we all have to look closer to home for explanations as to why this omnishambles has been uncontaminated with men of honour or integrity.
Maybe we also have to be realistic in terms of our own expectations.
Smugas says:
November 22, 2014 at 12:08 am
Partimearab
I’m sure I read in the text that SE had sent back an acknowledgement with the inference that it ‘approved the minute.’
Of course in this den of thieves I just immediately thought a (not too elaborate) stinger!
—————————————-
You’re right…it’s in the statement…
“As a result of his request, we have released an email which minutes a conversation between Dave King and Mr Easdale and includes Mr Easdale’s request for assurances over his and his brother’s board positions. It also includes Mr Easdale’s confirmation that this is an accurate account of that conversation and his undertaking to discuss the detailed proposal and those answers with the shareholders he represents.”
….however the “confirmation” does not appear in the e-mails detailed in the article….which is not to say that it doesn’t exist…will keep an eye on tomorrow’s papers to see if it surfaces.
Smugas says:
November 22, 2014 at 12:16 am
That makes sense too
So Big Pink all I can say is well tried and on we go. FT as we say in the forum.
Never say dye, as we can see several persons nearing the bar.
Onwards. Upwards.
“Celtic Chief Executive’s role should include responsibility for sporting integrity.”
Football is a sport & a business, if the fans/customers lose faith in the integrity of the sport, they will spend their cash elsewhere. Therefore, I would argue that maintaining the integrity of the sport, should be a key CSF for any football executive.
parttimearab says:
November 21, 2014 at 11:20 pm
5 0 Rate This
For those who are interested Roddy F has fuller details vis DK SE e-mails…others may wish to ignore…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11247379/Sandy-Easdales-true-role-in-Rangers-takeover-talks-thrown-into-question-by-release-of-emails.html
Record reporting (courtesy of Jack) that SE’s brief has contacted DK seeking “clarification”
———–
That soap opera is so well past its sell by date. Hard to believe these are businessmen communicating. Juvenile in the extreme. No doubt the SFA will dealing a severe slap on the wrist wae a wet teabag soon, especially tae thon Mike Ashley.
Mind you, juvenile can be fun. All those references to ‘auntie’s baws’ earlier reminded me of a cracking Off the Ball where the theme was, ‘Things your mother used to say.’There was one belter that might suit SE & DK — ‘Ur you talkin aboot me behind ma back right in front af ma face?’ And one MA might use on the SoS, ‘Ah’ll gie yez sumthin tae greet aboot!’ This one was a bit mean since it was usually said when ye wur already greetin : 😀
Auch weel, ah better get tae ma scratcher. Dear old Shir Shean kept me up on ITV. Big game ra morra annaw, match of the new millenium, apparently — Jam Tarts v The Jammy [Tax] Dodgers, or ‘El Insolvencio’.
parttimearab says:
November 22, 2014 at 12:25 am
“As a result of his request, we have released an email which minutes a conversation between Dave King and Mr Easdale and includes Mr Easdale’s request for assurances over his and his brother’s board positions. It also includes Mr Easdale’s confirmation that this is an accurate account of that conversation and his undertaking to discuss the detailed proposal and those answers with the shareholders he represents.”
….however the “confirmation” does not appear in the e-mails detailed in the article….which is not to say that it doesn’t exist…will keep an eye on tomorrow’s papers to see if it surfaces.
______________________________________________
My thoughts too. Maybe the “confirmation” is a read-receipt?
If it is that flimsy, it seems a fairly amateur game of three card monty that RF is getting roped into.
Unless they can produce the confirmation, my feeling is that (and I can’t believe I am saying this – Easdale is telling the truthier version 🙂
Big Pink says:
November 22, 2014 at 12:21 am
At the very best, Scottish Football is riddled with survivalism practiced by officials at club and national association levels.
==========================
Agree and yet there seems little need for this survivalist mentality as, while it would be wrong to describe most clubs as being in rude financial health, they’re getting by.
You might think that this would give them some confidence yet it seems that the clubs either buy into the ###### without the ‘old firm’ trope or are too cowed to rock the boat.
Do chairmen really believe that their clubs have a future as a backing chorus for a duetting Celtic and Rangers for all eternity?
Worryingly I’ve never heard a single one of them suggest otherwise.
Who do they think will still be watching?
Big Pink says:
November 22, 2014 at 12:21 am
If we agree that sporting integrity is paramount, I don’t see how we could defend ANY club official who thought it secondary to finance just because it’s his job to do so.
============================================
I think the problem we have, in a sense, with PL is that he is a member of the Celtic Board whose primary responsibility is to the Celtic shareholders who legally are the owners of the Plc.
OK so football clubs – especially at fan level – have different motivations from a simple commercial company where the main interest of the shareholders is probably dividends payable and the share price.
I would think there has to be a bit of a split-personality at work with football club officials because obviously sporting integrity in a club I want to support would be of extreme importance.
But I think we would be very naieve to believe that all football fans think the same because we all want our club to win and if some want it badly enough Sporting Integrity goes out the window.
And the football club officials have to meet the legal requirements of company law and the financial duty owed to shareholders to maximise profits obviously with certain caveats applied.
Resolutions can be raised at the agm by fans on issues of sporting integrity but they will often be defeated through lack of voting power usually on cost grounds or commercially sensitive things happening behind the scenes which cannot be released at that time.
But and this is where the issue gets complex IMO because the likes of PL and other club officials have governance roles on the SFA, SPL and UEFA. They have a duty to represent the wishes of their club but I would think they should have an overarching duty to sporting intergrity.
But I haven’t actually looked at how their duties/roles are defined and I would assume it must be quite different from the SPFL to the SFA. The SPFL being basically a trade organisation for the financial benefit of the member clubs.
But the SFA is a different kettle of fish. But as an old cynic I really doubt if every club official would put sporting integrity before the ‘good’ of their club during SFA votes or ‘understandings’.
Under the present set-up there is no transparency so it becomes virtually impossible to monitor what is happening.
In many way we end-up placing blind trust in various club officials to do what is best for Scottish Football rather than their individual clubs. The biggest problem with this approach is it takes a long time to decipher what the priorities are of the club officials serving especially with an SFA role.
I actually asked you earlier IIRC if you had any ideas how this realistically could be achieved. I don’t have a clue and it’s easy to declare that Sporting Integrity should be paramount.
But how do we actually achieve that and how do we know – from outside – whether it actually is being achieved in practice.
I would also say that most club officials will do as instructed by their club. They have mortgages, families and all the rest. So if they put Sporting Integrity before profit they will end-up – at many clubs I suspect – looking for a new job.
scapaflow says:
November 22, 2014 at 12:36 am
“Celtic Chief Executive’s role should include responsibility for sporting integrity.”
Football is a sport & a business, if the fans/customers lose faith in the integrity of the sport, they will spend their cash elsewhere. Therefore, I would argue that maintaining the integrity of the sport, should be a key CSF for any football executive.
———————————————
Have a read at my post above. If part of the chief executive’s role is to advance and defend Sporting Integrity in priority to the bottom line then it’s obvious there might be a cost consideration.
I would think that it’s probably not enough just to put it in the contract of employment but alsoto spell it out in the company’s Mem & Arts which might require a sgareholders’ vote at the agm.
And there’s no point in it just applying to the Chief Ex – it has to be all directors or they could just outvote him at Board Meetings.
Big Pink
On the licence issue only Celtic are involved as they may have lost out a CL place as result of deception/lack of diligence or a mix of both.
Kilmarnock may have got a UEFA place if Celtic went to top of the queue but I would hardly expect them to be shouting from the rooftops given the smaller reward potential.
However in the matter of not providing all the information to LNS, that is a matter for all clubs as rectification would mean a redistribution of money paid out on league placings.
The SFA have been sent by SPFL lawyers the evidence we have all seen on TSFM of documents that tell us LNS was misled and as a result got his conclusion wrong and if it were applied using the missing evidence there would be no alternative but to recognise a sporting advantage had been gained and question the SFA President about his testimony to LNS, Howeve so far they have said nothing as have the SPFL, which tells us that they feel safe simply to ignore us to save their own skins.
Back on the licence: that issue cannot be ignored based on what earlier enquiries turned up. The upcoming court case might also place focus back on the SFA role.
In the next couple of weeks it will be possible to state as a fact that SFA have had presented to them from reliable sources information that demands an answer with a common link – the early ebts that are subject of the licence issue with one man at the SFA involved from the beginning.
It may have to wait until after the court case until the full narrative comes out but it will.
The punt the football authorities will be taking is do supporters care enough even when evidence of malpractice is clear to withdraw support from their clubs.
In short how many don’t care if they are watching a bent game if caring means they have to stop supporting?
Even shorter. How addicted to football are we?
I think it could be convincingly argued that the greatest losers in Rangers demise, other than Rangers themselves, is Celtic. It wasn’t called the Auld Firm for nothing. However from a sporting perspective it is understandable that a number of contributors will be perturbed by this comment made by Celtic’s Executive Director.
What is being inferred is that the rules of the sport can be distorted and that those disadvantaged by that distortion will be acquiescent in it taking place. This seems to me to indicate that there is a fundamental lack of balance in the integrity of the game.
A potential ruling against Real Madrid was mentioned earlier. If Madrid were found against and the result was that for a season or two there was no ‘El Clasico’, would Barcelona militate against such an outcome? Quite possibly they would since this fixture brings huge publicity to both clubs and the Spanish top tier in general. However, if I might be as coarse to draw the analogy (and please forgive me if I appear to trivialise an acute human trauma), is it not like a beaten wife pleading for clemency for her abusive husband?
If I might be so distasteful to extend the analogy, how do we now view such abusive relationships where in the past such calls for clemency might have been met with a sympathetic hearing? Do we not now recognise that such calls are misplaced since they create the danger of the whole cycle of events repeating themselves?
Discarding that perspective and coming back to the true situation, where Rangers are not as callous as I have suggested, is it not nevertheless true that there seems to be an asymmetry in this old Auld Firm relationship? Do Celtic need Rangers more than they realise is good for them?
As others have said, the realignment of the top tier of the SPFL has had benefits for a number of clubs but not all. Is that not would be expected in the natural course of events in competitive sport? Is mitigating the downside jeopardy really a sensible tactic to employ to maintain the sports health? Surely the moral of the story that has been written is that as soon as you begin to step away from ethics and principles you risk finding yourself in troubled waters.
Peter Lawwell is entitled to his opinion just as others are entitled to disagree with him.
Silent Partner says:
November 21, 2014 at 11:39 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IIRC the TwoPanda household is a split camp. MR tp is (from what I gather) a Green specs wearer, MRS tp is of the blue persuasion.
WRT your comment about other clubs not being denied a trophy… Do the teams who make up the lower divisions not count, or at least not for the last couple of years??! :irony: 😕 :slamb:
I attended the Celtic AGM yesterday and unless I am mistaken I did not hear what Chris McLaughlin of the BBC claims Peter Lawwell said. i.e that he “reiterates the point that no #Rangers in top league costs them around £10m a year”
Several others on Twitter (@LachieMor1, @HarryBradyCU, @biglhist) have challenged McLaughlin about this, but he’s sticking to his guns and maintaining that Lawwell said this at the AGM and at the media conference afterwards.
Interestingly, so far, I haven’t seen any other journalist mention this either.
Surely McLaughlin wouldn’t make this up (and think he’d get away with it)
Castofthousands says:
November 22, 2014 at 1:44 am
==============================
I think it’s important to point out that while Peter Lawwell may indeed think a Rangers in the top league is good for business, he has never at any time been quoted as saying there should be gerrymandering to put them there.
Yerevan, I watch the weekly press conferences from the likes of Mourinho and Van gaal and it’s amazing how, in a bid to be first to reveal on Twitter, journos can get a minute detail so wrong.
On Thursday it broke that Blind of MUFC was out for six months, this took flight and became a yellow flashing breaking news with SSN, when in fact, and I rewinded Sky a no of times to confirm, he said he’s out but it’s not six months, inferring it would be a few weeks.
Has McLaughlin possibly just wanted to beat Grant Russell to an exclusive and realised its difficult to go back on it
andygraham.66 says:
November 22, 2014 at 7:36 am
Has McLaughlin possibly just wanted to beat Grant Russell to an exclusive and realised its difficult to go back on it
======================
Surely there is at least an audio recording of the AGM? I would be quite interested in knowing whether Lawell actually made the £10m comment, and the exact form of words used if he did mention that figure.
Didn’t a recording of some words he used about TRFC (and deemed offensive by those delicate flowers) at the previous AGM surface almost immediately?
In Phil’s latest article, http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-great-british-fake-off/#more-5337 he reports that “[the company] does not have enough money to continue the operations of the football club for the rest of the season.”
A credible journalist is reporting that a club does not have [access to] enough money to meet its footballing commitments between now and the end of the season.
If I were in the SFA that report would be a major concern.
The SFA has responsibilities to all member clubs. I understand that they have a role to ensure that clubs can meet their commitments.
Given Phil’s latest reports perhaps football fans in the name of sporting integrity should write to their club and/or the SFA along the following lines:
It has been reported by a journalist, that a member club of the SFA does not have access to enough money to meet its footballing operations for the rest of the season. Therefore there is significant risk that that club will not be able to meet its footballing obligations.
Are the SFA aware of this situation? If so what steps has it taken to confirm whether the reported financial difficulties are accurate. If these are accurate, what steps may the SFA take to ensure that the club meets the requirements of its footballing licence?
Finally, what steps are the SFA empowered to take if it is established that a member club is in financial difficulties and the level of distress is such that it is unlikely that it can compete until the end of the season?
The reports of financial distress appear to have some traction, as it has been widely reported in the media that the club in questions has sadly made a number of staff redundant.
————————————-
My personal view is, that fans need to ask the clubs and/or the SFA such questions – a subtle reminder that sporting integrity, that the rules should be followed without fear or favour.
Big Pink says:
November 22, 2014 at 12:21 am
scapaflow says:
November 22, 2014 at 12:36 am
parttimearab says:
November 22, 2014 at 12:42 am
An important point here. Is sporting integrity good for business, at least for most clubs?
Of course it’s difficult to quantify. If clubs thought only a few fans would be turned off by a gerrymandered restructuring to ensure the return of TRFC and with it more tv money and sponsorship then maybe they would be prepared to vote for profit before integrity. But they got a shock with “no to newco” when the fans said actually we don’t share your nice profits, shame about the rules perspective.
I won’t be back if there is a blatant attempt to put profit before rules. If others feel the same way then maybe profits will suffer, unless empty stadiums are good for business?
neepheid says:
November 22, 2014 at 8:54 am
6 0 Rate This
———-
Neep, reading Chris McLaughlin’s tweets, and the responses he got, he seems to have taken a bit of a liberty — inferring that PL meant ‘Rangers’ when he actually said ‘lack of competition’. The resulting misquote is misleading. One man’s misquote soon becomes another’s tabloid headline. Poor show from CM if that’s how he ‘reports’.
Although true, there is little or no chance of the authorities answering truthfully, openly or in a manner which many of us would accept.
Cutting to a Scottish football topic, one which perhaps should be scrutinized, does anyone know the reason for delaying announcement of venues, dates and times for the league cup semi finals? With Aberdeen and Dundee United first out of the hat, it might be thought that this would be the match on Saturday 31st January.
Rumour, and it is only that, suggests that the Glasgow clubs would prefer the Saturday, and also that they want higher prices applied to both matches than the north east teams want to accept.
Just to try and bring closure to last nights little fracas.
Lawell has presumably made a quip along the lines of revenues remain down and Sevco’s absence are a contributory factor. CM has then filled in the blanks ‘for’ him using last years quote. Thankfully we can rely on the factual analysis that this site excels in that we can immediately write off the 10m quote for the sound bite it was. I am pleased that to my knowledge no media outlet have majored on it in the way we expected.
What danderred my dander and irked my ire was the desire to relate profit now to profit then (whether the difference is 10p or £10m actually doesn’t matter) when it is an accepted fact that cfc’s profit then was generated from a false economy, one that required, for easy maths, a £10m subsidy from a loan write off from whatever source.
It appears to me that Sevco have done little to address that simple fact ergo why reconstruct to recreate the system that has been shown so palpably to be false (not to mention expensive). For that reason my club(s) should be requiring a bit more than a tv deal to haud their peace, particularly if, as I say, the glorious journey stalls.
As you all know, I’m a Rangers fan, or one of the darkside if you prefer 😆
If there’s any “gerrymandering”, or reconstruction of any kind that even smells slightly like it has been done to get a struggling Rangers team into the top flight, I won’t be back. Just thought I should throw that out there. You’d have thought that the events of 2011-12 would have been what turned off us fans, but it’s been every day since that’s done more damage.
Guys.
Profit does not exist long term without integrity and integrity won’t last long if no one makes a profit. Deal with it and move on!
Smugas 10.11
What is the definition of lunacy?
Keep doing the same thing and expect a different result?
The false economy foundations on which what passed as competition previously seems to have gone unnoticed by those lunatics wanting it’s return.
Smugas says:
November 22, 2014 at 10:20 am
Guys.
Profit does not exist long term without integrity and integrity won’t last long if no one makes a profit. Deal with it and move on!
___________________________________________________
Key phrase is “long term”. There is no – zero – long term thinking in football in my experience. I think that is an historical problem, not solely related to the modern boardroom.
I think the only practitioner of long termism at the top of the Scottish game has been Fergus McCann. Everyone else has displayed a field and depth of view of 1° and 1 cm respectively.
RyanGosling says:
November 22, 2014 at 10:13 am
8 0 Rate This
As you all know, I’m a Rangers fan, or one of the darkside if you prefer 😆
If there’s any “gerrymandering”, or reconstruction of any kind that even smells slightly like it has been done to get a struggling Rangers team into the top flight, I won’t be back. Just thought I should throw that out there. You’d have thought that the events of 2011-12 would have been what turned off us fans, but it’s been every day since that’s done more damage.
———
Noble setiments Ryan. You do sense, though, that the line about the ‘SFA relegating us because of the EBTs which are now proven to be legal’ sits strong in the minds of many. I think it was Charles Green who pushed that idea originally.
I imagined at the time that a group of fans would start a newco on a very modest basis and take it from there. That could have won a lot of respect and support in the broad church of Scottish fitba, and still can if the current Ibrox enterprise collapses.
The attitide of some in my own family is, ‘Rangers are dead to us’. Although they were no longer match day regulars they got off the bus at the liquidation terminus.
I’m in awe of some of the legal etc expertise on here but feel confident enough in my experience within several PLC (including one FTSE 100) at management and board level to share the following on the neoliberal, non challengeable mantra that the sole purpose of a PLC and therefore the directors is to return, and even maximise, profits to the shareholders. Firstly you’ll find that this is not usually the primary objective of the company, in terms of subsequently setting strategy, and that it’s more likely to be survival, expansion, diversification, growth blah blah. All of which should increase financial performance or, more importantly, share price (not the same thing!) of course but not an objective that will deliver on it’s own. The objectives can be non-financial of course.
Second, and most important: customers. In any PLC a board that exists solely to maximise shareholders’ profits will not exist for long. In the fitba business, given it’s community element and the direct correlation between fans and revenue, any board who does so is well and truly plucked.
Of course, there is an element of “not telling the children” here in that a board may well choose to go the maximise returns at all costs route but whatever you do, never tell the customers that.
On PL. Read all the reports and, as usual, he didn’t really say any of the stuff as headlined.
Fair points Goosy Goosy. Without getting into the whole old club new club thing, while acknowledging there is a break, and not buying into the whole holding company scenario, I always have thought of Rangers as something that would go on even after liquidation became inevitable, and thus have put up with a lot while also being as outrage as everyone else here at the likes of the five way agreement. Reconstruction on a Rangers benefit basis though would just be a step too far, final nail in the coffin.
While hindsight is a wonderful thing, I really do wish we’d got together and started the fan based club you mention immediately after liquidation. I don’t really buy into the entitlement scenario often put forward here, but I do think that as a fan base we were conditioned to rely on one “big man” running the place and when liquidation occurred we just waited for the next one to step up. Personally, given everything that’s occurred since then, I’d rather that Mr Ashley had just jumped in with both feet at that point.
Auldheid says:
November 22, 2014 at 1:23 am
The punt the football authorities will be taking is do supporters care enough even when evidence of malpractice is clear to withdraw support from their clubs.
In short how many don’t care if they are watching a bent game if caring means they have to stop supporting?
Even shorter. How addicted to football are we?
_____________________________________________________________
Nail on head Auldheid. And I think that the evidence is that the fans do care, but just not enough. That is a choice everyone is entitled to make, and maybe it is a symptom of my increasingly curmudgeonly bent that I liken it to the enthusiasm in some quarters for WWE.
Perhaps our campaign should continue to have Scottish Football rebranded as “entertainment” (a curious word given the flagship event would not have been out of place in the Coliseum) instead of “sport”. 🙂
Seriously though, there is a clear message from the press and the clubs (who have personal financial interests in play) that sectarianism is good. That enough people don’t care about that is a major cause for concern, and my opinion is that unless the clubs at the centre of that seriously go to war with it, then financial sanctions should be imposed.
The Old Firm may be good for a limited number of pockets, but it is absolutely and unequivocally not good for this country.
Maybe that is what TSFM should continue to highlight – the shameless exploitation of sectarianism and the hypocrisy that goes along with it.
Quiet at the Back
I don’t mean to be boring, but is there any news about the publishing of the accounts of RIFC PLC and timing of the subsequent AGM.
I know the accounts are not technically overdue until 1st Jan, but even if they are published on Monday, and the AGM is called at the earliest opportunity, it will be past the time when even Mr Ashley has explained there will be no money left to continue operations at Ibrox and Murray Park – aka insolvency – aka creditors can line up to force administration.
Is it usual to schedule an AGM to follow administration ?
Maybe the SFA could write another letter to Mr Ashley, for it is he who is in control, and ask for clarification of his plans – oh and ask for a reply to their previous “demands” for information.
Maybe the SPFL should have concerns too, not to mention the sponsors of January’s “New Firm” semi final.
Maybe, a few journalist might ask a few questions – well – now I’m even boring myself….
@BigPink with the start of ‘The National’ on Monday there may be a chance for a new start in journalism. Can but hope. Perhaps it might welcome some contributions along the lines you mention your final paragraph above? Scotland is changing.
I might have missed this but can anyone update on what the10 positions where that where made redundant at the RIFC