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.
iceman63 says:
December 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm
9 7 Rate This
Re: Tonev and SFA racism investigation.
FWIW I do not believe that the SFA is a remotely appropriate body to deal with such behaviour.
This is a criminal act that Tonev has been accused of. All evidence should be gathered and investigated by prosecuting authorities.
Only once that legal process has delivered a verdict and the facts are then in the public domain should any disciplinary action be taken by the footballing authorities.
It is fundamentally beyond the powers of the SFA to adjudicate on matters which of themselves are breaches of the law, solely because they take place on a football pitch.
Racist behaviour is not a footballing offence, therefore it cannot be tried as such. Anyone, however found guilty of breaching laws governing racist abuse on a football ground can then be dealt with by the footballing authorities.
The accusation is a grave one. If found guilty on this charge, a player’s reputation and future livelihood is imperilled. It seems to me that the only body fit to adjudicate on any such action is a court of Law. For all concerned and in the interests of justice nothing less can do.
If Tonev has committed no criminal offence of racism or had no criminal complaint of racism levelled against him, then the SFA, IMHO, has no business investigating the allegation at all.
===================================
That seems like quite a sensible approach to me. Pity the SFA didn’t direct Shay Logan to make a complaint to the police rather than let them deal with it.
In that case if the police/CPS or whoever didn’t feel there was enough evidence to bring a charge or case in court they could have informed Logan of this and avoided the unholy mess and all the PR we know have instead.
iceman63 says: December 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm
It is fundamentally beyond the powers of the SFA to adjudicate on matters which of themselves are breaches of the law, solely because they take place on a football pitch.
================================
By that argument, are you suggesting that the police should intervene if there is a head butt, elbow in the face or any other instances of “violent conduct” (trips, kicks, taking someone out with a knee high tackle) on the football pitch? All these offences would be considered criminal assaults if they occurred in the street.
Football in the community.
============================
Like maybe many others, I don’t really appreciate what it means to support a ‘small’ local team, playing in a lowly league.
Just read this uplifting story about a Spartans supporter, [English team], and what football in the community actually means to him.
Amazing, IMO.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30240084
easyJambo says:
December 5, 2014 at 3:05 pm
1 1 Rate This
iceman63 says: December 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm
It is fundamentally beyond the powers of the SFA to adjudicate on matters which of themselves are breaches of the law, solely because they take place on a football pitch.
================================
By that argument, are you suggesting that the police should intervene if there is a head butt, elbow in the face or any other instances of “violent conduct” (trips, kicks, taking someone out with a knee high tackle) on the football pitch? All these offences would be considered criminal assaults if they occurred in the street.
====================
If there is a complaint perhaps they should. If not then no.
But there was an opportunity for Logan to be respectfully asked to formalise his complaint with the police. This would have saved Logan quite a lot of hassle as well I think.
SFA probably would have done well to advise him they are not capable of dealing with the complaint or any possible legal action brought against them.
From the DR article on Regan :
“And the SFA chief executive has vowed to team up with SPFL counterpart Neil Doncaster in a bid to sort out the problems.”
“Regan now wants to devise an action plan and vowed to:
● Persuade the government and police to end the 34-year alcohol ban.
● Join forces with Doncaster to agree a strategy to take the game forward.
● Market Scottish football better to get punters back.
● Improve the matchday experience the way Hearn has done with darts.”
““I know there are changes required and things we need to do differently. Probably the biggest home truth that came out for me is the leadership of Scottish football needs to take responsibility for sorting the game out.”
Etc…..
—————————————————————
I read this article with growing incredulity that a CE would say such things.
I’d be embarrassed if a young junior manager talked like this. Basically he is saying “Scottish Football is in a mess and I didn’t have a clue about that or what to do until Barry Hearn spoke up.”
Regan is employed to be a leader and manage his organisation for the greater good of Scottish Football. He is supposed to be a master of that brief. An expert. Clearly he is none of these things by his own admission.
What the heck HAS he been doing these past few years?
The fact that his organisation appears to have set Doncaster up as the fall guy for Barry’s speech also stinks. How can Doncaster trust Regan when he comes to him to “Join forces…..to agree a strategy to take the game forward.”
Many of our clubs have successful businessmen on their Boards. They too can see through this lightweight CE.
Time to get rid of BOTH Regan and Doncaster before they do any more damage to our game. They are not just poor managers they are embarrassing.
Scottish Football needs a right good early Spring clean….
I would like to maybe add a little (or maybe a lot considering the key contacts I have within both clubs) to the Logan / Tonev situation.
Here’s a summary of what I, the management teams of both Clubs, The SFA, SPFL, the police and basically everyone else except the 2 players know about it:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
easyJambo says:
December 5, 2014 at 3:05 pm
iceman63 says:
December 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm
It is fundamentally beyond the powers of the SFA to adjudicate on matters which of themselves are breaches of the law, solely because they take place on a football pitch.
================================
By that argument, are you suggesting that the police should intervene if there is a head butt, elbow in the face or any other instances of “violent conduct” (trips, kicks, taking someone out with a knee high tackle) on the football pitch? All these offences would be considered criminal assaults if they occurred in the street.
====================================================
Well anyone that doubts that police can act should read the appeal case of Duncan Ferguson who got three months for head-butting an opponent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/soccer-player-jailed-for-foul-play-1577101.html
Police have the power to act within a football stadium and it matters not if it’s a couple of fans off the field or a couple of players on it.
Obviously any action the police are contemplating has to be judged in terms of the disorder it might cause during or directly after a match. So often arrests are made days after the game.
However, if an out-and-out assault is taking place on a football field and no one intervenes then the police have a duty to act.
And in Scotland they don’t need to have received a complaint from a victim or witness – they have the power to act if they deem an offence has taken place.
Obviously there is a fine balancing act which they have to carry-out but the power is there.
They have the power to investigate the allegation against Tonev but I doubt they would in view of the lack of corroboration and I honestly doubt if the Prosecution authorities would act. But they might and have the legal right to bring a prosecution in the public interest.
Football tackles can cause serious injuries and not be classed as an assault and I would think the main difficulty which police face is proving the ‘intent’ to injure or proving the behaviour was reckless enough to be classed as ‘criminal’.
I think there are many borderline cases that the football authorities don’t deal with anywhere near severely enough. And this attitude will continue until someone is killed or permanently crippled and then there will be a change either by the SFA or more proactive policing IMO.
Madbhoy, I take your point that most of what has been posted here on TSFM on the subject is speculation but both the original tribunal and the appellate tribunal have heard from the parties concerned. The first arrived at a conclusion on the basis of what it heard and applied the rules as it saw fit. The jury is out, as it were, on the appeal.
Martin covers it very well in his post at 12:28, which two (edit – now 3!) short-sighted, fat-fingered people posting on their phones seem to have managed to TD.
iceman63 says:
December 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm
If Tonev has committed no criminal offence of racism or had no criminal complaint of racism levelled against him, then the SFA, IMHO, has no business investigating the allegation at all.
====================================================================
I think we have to remember that the referee’s report of the game is bound to have contained details of the complaint made to him or possibly another official at half-time or full-time by the Aberdeen management.
That would have brought the matter to the attention of the SFA who I would reckon from almost the beginning were probably aware there was no ‘independent’ corroboration of what allegedly took place between Logan and Tonev.
I think they made a critical mistake at that point by deciding to handle it in-house – I would imagine to show how macho they could be. The allegation concerned a serious and despicable criminal offence and was far too serious to be dealt with as merely a footballing matter.
And the only real hope of establishing any corroboration for either of the players was for police to question everyone within earshot of the pair.
That opportunity has been lost IMO and the issue has become too muddied with too many discussions on the issue having taken place. For me it was important – even if a prosecution didn’t take place – for the SFA to demonstrate how seriously this kind of allegation was taken by calling in the cops.
They missed the opportunity and could well end-up in another self-made quagmire with both players damaged and an enduring division as to what actually happened and what was said or heard and they may well not be the same thing.
Now I know this may come as “whataboutery” but the mention of Duncan Ferguson piqued me. He got 3 months. The referee didn’t book him or speak to him. This would go with the “not proven” outcome re a recent headbutt. Add to that manhandling of referees, a manager setting the dogs on responsible citizens etc. A CEO who basically and repeatedly insulted people in charge of football in a European country. A manager who whispers something in the ear of another manager who goes off on one at what he hears. I could go on until midnight on this topic but my fingers are not up to it. Can anyone find the thread linking all of the above?
blu says:
December 5, 2014 at 3:54 pm
both the original tribunal and the appellate tribunal have heard from the parties concerned
========================================
I didn’t actually realise the appeal hearing reheard evidence from Tonev and Logan.
I thought they would have looked at a transcript of the evidence and the reasons for the initial tribunal’s decision and had a written submission from Tonev challenging the decision on the various allowable grounds which IIRC Martin listed in his excellent post earlier.
If the appeal tribunal re-heard the evidence then that opens-up a whole fresh can of worms IMO.
@MattyRoth – the thumbs down may have been becuse of the tone your post too. You say “I don’t think I’ve seen any acceptance of the strong possibility that Tonev might in fact be a racist.” Out of curiousity, why is it that there a stronger possbility that Tonev might be a racist than not?
“Personally, I can think of no reason whatsoever for Logan to make up a false accusation nor can have I seen any evidence to question his testimony” oh, fair enough. Ban Tonev on your lack of reasoning. Q: What reason could Tonev have had?
“I would not be surprised to see Logan requiring to exit Scottish Football at the nearest opportunity and who could blame him if he has been victim of a racist attack and indeed given such an underwhelming level of support from the media and fans in our game.”
I didn’t see Ferdinand Jnr leaving the EPL for the racist attack by John Terry, enough with the hyperbole.
And as for anyone having the temerity to question the footballing authorities’ decision – Celtic exposed collusion in “Dougie Dougie Gate” and I note that McCoist appealed his discplinary action in “Whispergate”, in which, incodnetally Lennon made no complaint and offered no testimony (that I am aware of). Lennon didn’t appeal his punishment, he carried the can for the whole thing.
“If the SFA are forced to overturn this decision as a result of the pressure brought to bear I do wonder if Celtic and Celtic fans may regret this in future” – I don’t know why Celtic or its fans wouild regret any decisison being overturned. Isn’t this sit about fair and equal rules being applied to everyone?
Telegraph implying this afternoon that McCoist is maybe saying a little too much
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/11275258/Mike-Ashleys-dual-control-of-Newcastle-United-and-Rangers-the-facts.html
As regards the police investingating this:
Police uphold just 1% of 7,963 public complaints of racism AGAINST THEMSELVES.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/police-uphold-just-one-percent-of-public-complaints-of-racism
Raymac says:
December 5, 2014 at 4:20 pm
0
0
Rate This
Now I know this may come as “whataboutery” but the mention of Duncan Ferguson piqued me.
——————————————————————–
I included the Ferguson link in my post simply to dispel the impression that some posters had that the police couldn’t bring criminal charges against players who broke the criminal law on the field of play.
I also saw the Ferguson case as proof that there was no legal bar to the police dealing with the current matter as a possible breach of criminal law.
As to all the other issues you raised although I might agree with your position on some of them they are of no relevance IMO to the Tonev/Logan issue where action was taken although personally I think it was the wrong action.
As to the thread you refer to linking all of the issues you mentioned then I’m afraid IMO there is no actual proof that such a thread exists. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t but without proof it remains conjecture and possibly whataboutery.
jockybhoy says:
December 5, 2014 at 4:43 pm
As regards the police investingating this: Police uphold just 1% of 7,963 public complaints of racism AGAINST THEMSELVES.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/police-uphold-just-one-percent-of-public-complaints-of-racism
===============================================
These are figures for England & Wales and would be interesting to see the Scottish figures if compiled.
But not sure how relevant they would be to this issue which wouldn’t involve a complaint of racism against the police.
andygraham.66 says:
December 5, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Telegraph implying this afternoon that McCoist is maybe saying a little too much
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/11275258/Mike-Ashleys-dual-control-of-Newcastle-United-and-Rangers-the-facts.html
====================================================================
Oh Dear! Perhaps McCoist has just talked Ashley into funding his golden cheerio 😆
Nah – it’s Uncle Mike I’m talking about – he just won’t provide any loan players and let the Bears rip McCoist apart.
Enough Rope?
Has Mike Ashley just given The Rangers enough rope to hang themselves? A giftedly useless manager, expensive has-been players, a crumbling stadium, a millstone training ground, Greek tragedy finances and mystery spiv owners, not to mention fans beyond gullible and the bend-over-and-say-ah MSM. It makes The Producers look like a NASA mission – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063462/?ref_=tttr_tr_tt
To me the inescapable answer is “yes, Mike is waiting for them to hang themmsleves”. So what’s in it for Mike? Americans call it a tear-down. A house you buy for its location, plot and planning permission. The objective is to demolished the old house and build a new, bigger, better one. If you have the vision, skill and money the project gets you a property worth much more than the purchase price plus build cost.
For “location, plot and planning permission“, think:
• Most of the revenue streams: merchandising, IP rights, maybe some strategic bricks and mortar.
• An easier route to European football than any other league
• A traumatized support wiling to undergo further humiliation at the feet of a real billionaire
• SFA/SPFL’s memberships and licenses plus their eternal, fawning gratitude for solving their biggest ever f**k-up
• Low friends in high places.
For “demolish the old house” think:
• Liquidation, timing not crucial
• The toxic financial record.
• Onerous contracts – pay-off or see you in court or just move to other premises
• No more WATP ethos, this is business
For “build a new, bigger, better one” think:
• An achievable, believable, investable 20 year plan
• Professional business management: sponsorship, TV, multi-media
• Professional football management. manager, director of football, players, scouting, coaching, youth development
• Premium prices to maximise revenue and to exclude undesirables
• Hard line against anyone not contributing to the project
• Attract serious investment because of Mike’s involvement
For “worth much more than the purchase price” think
• How long into the 20 year project before it is in the black and saleable. Or Mike might choose to stay and enjoy the journey.
Now I can hear some of you say that Mike is no sugar daddy and why would he bother with such a shambles. Well, the bigger the shambles the bigger the profit potential. Every billionaire likes a challenge – so why not rebuilding a great football club from rock bottom for a tidy profit. It beats middle-table obscurity with NUFC with only an outside chance of Europa League.
Mike may be the fresh start that so many speak of – or he might just walk away because he’s got other projects lined-up. I guess we’ll all know at the same time no later than May – not the end of the season – not ST time – but when Mike’s loans are due for re-payment
@MattyRoth – the thumbs down may have been becuse of the tone your post too. You say “I don’t think I’ve seen any acceptance of the strong possibility that Tonev might in fact be a racist.” Out of curiousity, why is it that there a stronger possbility that Tonev might be a racist than not?
===============
There isn’t a stronger possibility.
Perhaps strong is the wrong word, but i’m not that fussed about splitting hairs too much.
Its possible Tonev did what he is accused of and possible he did not. The evidence and any defence have not been made public.
But I am glad you have pulled me up on tone as you are quite right, my tone reflected exactly the sort of thing I was reading but when the boot was on the other foot people didn’t seem to like it.
@ecobhoy
I would agree Scotland’s issues with racism are likely to be different, given the markedly lower numbers of immigrants, certainly on an ethnic basis.
It was posting merely as an example of the police attitude to reported racial crimes – what I was actually looking for were statistics for reported crmes against those which were recorded by the police, I thijnk I have seen some of those, but I don’t have the time to look for those right now. Dirty Martini’s in Monument beckons for a colleague’s birthday drinks. He’s stuck £350 behind the bar so as a good Scotsman, time is a-wasting (funny how we get to slur our own eh?).
Have a good one everybody 😆
Sorry I missed this bit >
I didn’t see Ferdinand Jnr leaving the EPL for the racist attack by John Terry, enough with the hyperbole.
– “enough with the hyperbole”. Ouch, that’s as smarting as the squirrel remark from Eco earlier.
Plenty of players feel a need to move on when they feel public mood or mood within the game against them. Indeed this might be a problem for Tonev as well.
And as for anyone having the temerity to question the footballing authorities’ decision – Celtic exposed collusion in “Dougie Dougie Gate” and I note that McCoist appealed his discplinary action in “Whispergate”, in which, incodnetally Lennon made no complaint and offered no testimony (that I am aware of). Lennon didn’t appeal his punishment, he carried the can for the whole thing.
– I’m not sure what you mean by this, i don’t think i raised any issue with anyone questioning the authorities so not sure what that is about.
“If the SFA are forced to overturn this decision as a result of the pressure brought to bear I do wonder if Celtic and Celtic fans may regret this in future” – I don’t know why Celtic or its fans wouild regret any decisison being overturned. Isn’t this sit about fair and equal rules being applied to everyone?
– well I would hope it is about exactly that. but i fear in a some people’s minds thats not really the case. hence my post earlier.
Maybe I am reading between the lines too much in some posts, much as I think people have today with mine.
I’m not the most eloquent or clear that’s for sure. Something just didn’t site right with me and I’ve tried to explain the other side of the coin that might be well to keep in mind but I’ve clearly failed pretty badly at that!
Ecoboy, I wasn’t referring to the Tonev issue, but the fact that the few things I listed had old/new “Rangers” running through it. From CEO’s down they just simply get away with whatever they want. If Charles of Normandy had spoken as he did in another football jurisdiction he would have had short shrift. As regards Tonev, if guiltyas charged he should have the book thrown at him. But then, this is the SFA, who banned Neil Lennon for swearing. If a law is to be applied it must be seen to be applied equally. Neil McCann, for instance, was involved in a stramash recently–a much more serious thing than swearing. Nothing happened. Meanwhile, as far as I can see, it’s one man’s word against another’s regarding Tonev. The SFA have painted themselves into a corner on this one.
@Blu 3.45 pm
I agree@Martin‘s post was well put. Could it be that the Td’s were for this line :
“To be clear Shay Logan is not facing a disciplinary hearing and has not been accused of anything by any authority. HE IS THE VICTIM and it’s important to remember that.”
(my uppercase )
Isn’t this the whole point in question?
mungoboy says:
December 5, 2014 at 2:22 pm
———————————————————————–
@Mungobhoy – hope you’re not still under the duvet because there’s incoming feather pillows 😆
The law on Judicial Review which you have stated is how it applies in England & Wales. Possibly the text book you referred to is for English Law.
The BIG difference wrt to JRs in Scotland is that as well as public bodies it also applies to private bodies such as the SFA. The test case afaik is still West v. Secretary of State for Scotland.
My understanding – although I am not bang up-to-date as there has been a lot of legislative changes and proposed changes wrt JRs and in European Human Rights Law – is that a JR is part of the process of securing a pursuer’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 although I believe the JR if used for that purpose is more onerous than most.
However Tonev needn’t go down the Human Rights route but just opt for a more simple attack on the decision reached.
Tbh when I used JR I was thinking sloppily with regard to the functions of the CAS which, where a case has been appealed to it, primarily rules on how the rules of the specific organisation (SFA) were applied in the case under appeal. But as part of the process they also take into account the various applicable laws in the country where the organisation is based which in this case is Scotland.
Btw: A Practical Approach to Evidence by Peter Murphy when first published covered English Law and was a standard text for students. I think it’s now known as: Murphy’s Law or similar and afaik is still based on English Law but I wouldn’t swear to it although I might affirm 🙄
So what does an ‘on the balance of probabilities burden of proof’ actually mean?
If I was to hypothetically ignore the very real possibility that any comment in question was misheard or misinterpreted, it suggests that even a 51-49% suspicion of guilt suffices for a ‘guilty’ verdict. While I agree that a lesser burden of proof than a criminal ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ should be required, if this does boil down to one person’s word against another, then unless Tonev’s general demeanor and attitude in the hearing implied racism then a ‘not proven’ verdict is the only one a civilised society can deliver. This in no way implies that Logan is a mendacious liar.
Raymac says:
December 5, 2014 at 5:45 pm
Ecoboy, I wasn’t referring to the Tonev issue, but the fact that the few things I listed had old/new “Rangers” running through it.
=============================================================
I know exactly what you were referring to and my original comments stand. I didn’t come up the Clyde in a banana boat or even a watter biscuit ye know 😆
Eco,
Just stuck ma heid oot fae under the duvet, or, as you would more probably recognise it, got in fae an early doors in the pub.
Got me bang tae rights.
Southern Softie, having lived in that there Englandshire for more years than I care to admit.
So JR applies to private limited companies in Scotland?
Murphy never telt me that.
All I can say is snofairsoitizz.
Something new everyday but more than happy to be educated, even at my age.
At least Donahue v Stephenson was about a bottle of ginger in Glasgow and we all know about that one.
Bryce,
The Burden of Proof has nothing to do with ‘on the balance of probabilities. (OK, Eco?)
That goes to the Standard of Proof, ie the level by which those who have to decide a particular case have to come to a decision.
I would suggest more than 50% would be required to decide on the balance of probabilities whereas the more serious ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ would be nothing less than 100%.
Hope that might explain it.
ecobhoy said
‘Well anyone that doubts that police can act should read the appeal case of Duncan Ferguson who got three months for head-butting an opponent’
Not sure this is the correct example to use. Wasn’t Ferguson on a final warning due to several assaults outwith football.
Ssb at its best. Keevins stated that Scottish football needs Rangers in the top league to survive financially. I for one are absolutely fed up of hearing this P***. Scottish football just needs clubs to be run correctly and not run like the Govan club wee all need in the top league.
mungoboy says:
December 5, 2014 at 6:25 pm
0 0 Rate This
Eco,
Just stuck ma heid oot fae under the duvet, or, as you would more probably recognise it, got in fae an early doors in the pub.
Got me bang tae rights.
Southern Softie, having lived in that there Englandshire for more years than I care to admit.
So JR applies to private limited companies in Scotland?
Murphy never telt me that.
All I can say is snofairsoitizz.
Something new everyday but more than happy to be educated, even at my age.
At least Donahue v Stephenson was about a bottle of ginger in Glasgow and we all know about that one.
===================================================================================
Mungobhoy…pure dead brilliant…I am off upstairs to dig out Campbell Burns’ tome “The Commercial Law of Scotland”…first time in 40 odd years I have heard that glorious “crustachean in a bottle” case…sadly more used to dry tax cases…!
Essex,
and IIRC nobody ever saw that there was a snail in the said bottle of ginger in the first place.
Bit like naebody heard anything on the pitch between L & T.
Only out of curiosity did I read Keef’s latest effort… 🙄
I was interested in the ‘angle’ he was given re: encouraging McCoist to do walking away.
I skimmed over the usual nonsense he spouts, such as this beauty;
“…the ongoing financial difficulties which threaten Rangers survival are not McCoist’s doing. On the contrary, by keeping the total at less than 30 per cent of the club’s annual turnover, McCoist is running one of the most sustainable wage bills at any football club in Britain…” :slamb:
Keef’s piece promotes the idea that to ‘protect’ his legacy, McCoist has to decide himself to go now.
[…and would his legacy be permanently tarnished with damaging leaks from the Blue Room if he doesn’t go now ?]
Keef, interestingly, also suggests that McCoist should leave without a payoff – and thus without a gagging clause – as he has a great story to tell from the Whyte regime onwards. I inferred that McCoist could instead make a bucket load of cash from selling his story, and a story from McCoist’s perspective.
Decisions, decisions…
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-ally-mccoist-wont-4750781
Oh and BTW Essex, nae ‘h’ in ‘boy’.
Don’t want anyone to think I might be biased!
My credibility is everything.
Just switched on to BT Sport in time to catch Gary McAllister say that no other manager in WORLD FOOTBALL could have done what Ally McCoist has done at Rangers(sic).
Could well be right on that one for once.
essexbeancounter says:
December 5, 2014 at 7:11 pm
mungoboy says:
December 5, 2014 at 6:25 pm
=====================================
@essex
I’m sure I must have a copy of Wee Campbell’s tome buried somewhere. Meant to ask if you remembered an economic lecturer called Davies and Welsh as well (can’t remember his first name). He was really young – well back then – hardly much older than the students and loved a bevvy and a sing song.
mungoboy says:
December 5, 2014 at 7:28 pm
Just switched on to BT Sport in time to catch Gary McAllister say that no other manager in WORLD FOOTBALL could have done what Ally McCoist has done at Rangers(sic).
Could well be right on that one for once.
—————-
Persuading tens of thousands of fans of one club to buy season tickets for another club. Another world record!
Re Keevins ‘Lillian Gish’, he is simply reiterating what was in that document encouraging SFL clubs to be kind to Sevco. The game will, seemingly, collapse without a version of Rangers. They could not be suspended or expelled. Just as well the game doesn’t attract the kind of vultures that could take advantage of such bullet-proof protection for their own personal gain and to the detriment of others, sporting and financial. How lucky we are to have a completely clean game.
Yes, I’ve been drinking.
mungoboy 14 at 7:28 pm
Gary McCoist and Allister McAllister… never seen in the same room…
mungoboy says:
December 5, 2014 at 7:28 pm
2 0 Rate This
Just switched on to BT Sport in time to catch Gary McAllister say that no other manager in WORLD FOOTBALL could have done what Ally McCoist has done at Rangers(sic).
Could well be right on that one for once.
————
Just as well you didn’t hear Keevins’ sooking up on the first hour of SSB and his, ‘Scottish football cannot afford not to to have ‘Rangers’ in the top league next season.’ A bunkrupt club with no financial plan, or any particular interest in FFP, is apparently essential! Fans actually pointing out the money that the management trio is on with some irritation. Beginning to make more sense, some of them.
The English pundit on BT got it right when stated McCoist should have left with Jelavic and the others and a manager suited to bringing through young players in the lowers divisions been found — but he was Charlie’s essential friend.
Legend to legned.
valentinesclown says:
December 5, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Ssb at its best. Keevins stated that Scottish football needs Rangers in the top league to survive financially. ______________________________________
I think this was just a case of on-air nerves and what he meant to say was:
‘The Rangers need to be in the top league of Scottish football to survive financially.’
After all, that is what the top boys at the club have told us, confirmed by their balance sheet (and I don’t think I’ve read any club chairman say that they NEED The Rangers in the top league to survive financially themselves, well, not since the build up to the first season without them). In fact they actually need to be in the Champions League, and doing rather well, to survive financially, so this is maybe why he gets a bit mixed up, mistaking the Premiership for the Champions League.
What a guy, don’t you just love him?
Danish,
Being ambidextrous, I did hear Keevins spouting his usual bit about Scottish Football needing Rangers in the top flight,
I always think that the statement should be Rangers need Scottish Football’s top flight.
Slight but important difference.
Apologies for my last post. No excuses.
There should have been a possessive apostrophe after “Keevins”
Lagerbeer,
Hate to go over old ground here, but old age seems to be catching up with me as I don’t seem to be able to recall a dignified silence from Derek McInness or others re this unfortunate incident.
I rather think one or two things were said on both sides of the argument and Mr McInnes and his club were not shy in coming forward, especially prior to the recent fixture at Pittodrie.
Only saying, like.
mungoboy says:
December 5, 2014 at 8:00 pm
1 0 Rate This
Danish,
Being ambidextrous, I did hear Keevins spouting his usual bit about Scottish Football needing Rangers in the top flight,
I always think that the statement should be Rangers need Scottish Football’s top flight.
Slight but important difference.
———–
Indeed, as do the unimaginative dinosaurs who cannot comprehend Scottish football as anything other than the big two. Yawn. As Stuart and Tam never tire of pointing out, the big two would aff in a flash given the chance.
Credit though to the Ibrox fans who gave Keevins and the pundits pelters by stating the obvious. To be fair, they really haven’t been helped along the way by the media myth spinners. Still, too many continue to think Ibrox needs a Rangers-minded man at the helm. It’s like a cult belief.
lagerbeer at 8:11 pm
Another viewpoint (there are certainly others…):
“For such a sensitive issue as this, Evra and Logan had the dignity to report comments that offended them and the “accused” clubs had the courage to challenge it.”
Flocculent Apoidea says:
December 5, 2014 at 7:42 pm
8 0 Rate This
…Yes, I’ve been drinking.
———-
Is this a good time mention today’s newspaper column by your club’s manager?
😮
valentinesclown says:
December 5, 2014 at 7:02 pm
21 0 Rate This
Ssb at its best. Keevins stated that Scottish football needs Rangers in the top league to survive financially. I for one are absolutely fed up of hearing this P***. Scottish football just needs clubs to be run correctly and not run like the Govan club wee all need in the top league.
*********
Had Keevins said that Radio Clyde needed Rangers in the top league for financial survival, then he may have a point.
Am I the only one sick of this “Scottish football needs a strong Rangers” crap? For “competition?” Aye, right!
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-need-for-competition/
essexbeancounter says:
December 5, 2014 at 7:11 pm
mungoboy says:
December 5, 2014 at 6:25 pm
Just taken a trip down memory land with the snail 😆 I don’t think I ever knew or if I did I forgot a long time ago . . . But the actual trial on the facts never took place after it was sent back to the Court of Session from the House of Lords who ruled by a 3-2 majority that Donoughue had a cause for action.
The date had been set for trial but Stevenson died beforehand and his executors later settled out of court.
So we’ll never know whether the snail was ever in the bottle legally 🙄 Amazing for such a famous English and Scots case with its enormous influence on the duty of care and negligence.
The auld memory cells have been sparked with another classic which dealt with liability arising from the escape of something dangerous from someone’s land. I remember thinking back in 19 canteen: ‘Oh that’ll be good maybe a Bengal Tiger that’s eaten a few neighbours’. Silly me it was a reservoir 🙂 Can’t remember the name though.
@ mungoboy: Yea a limited company is included under the ‘private body’ description as opposed to a public one (meaning government, councils, certain agencies) which is also included in Scottish JRs as with English & Welsh ones.
“Is this a good time mention today’s newspaper column by your club’s manager?”
————————-
Absolutely. However, my board have not approached me to confirm that such a column has actually been printed so I couldn’t possibly comment on it at this time. Having said that, if it has been printed (and I’m not saying it has) I’m sure it would have been entirely accurate. Apart from any bits that weren’t.
Eco,
Rylands v Fletcher
Enough of legal boring, let’s get back to the really important things like has the Horseshoe bar gone back to using steeped peas?
Ecobhoy…you have PM
mungoboy says:
December 5, 2014 at 8:46 pm
0
0
Rate This
Eco,
Rylands v Fletcher
Enough of legal boring, let’s get back to the really important things like has the Horseshoe bar gone back to using steeped peas?
======================================
Peas man Peas was up for the Eire game you cannie even get a pie!
What’s the betting that TRFC are about to announce a new sponsorship with Tennents new product. Expect an anouncement shortly
http://www.thedrum.com/uploads/news/tmp/1086/tennents_heehaw.jpg
” We will see out the rest of this season with Hee-Haw!”
Ian,
Depends what time you were in there.
Leave it late with an evening kick off etc and all the pies will have well gone.
Very hungry lunchtime clientele.
In so many crimes involving abuse of one kind or another there is a reluctance of among victims to come forward and report the matter to the authorities.
Partly this is due to the belief that firstly the victim will simply not be believed and secondly that even if they are, securing proof and a criminal conviction is notoriously difficult as it often comes down one person’s word against that of another.
There is also insidious tendency toward ‘victim blaming’ that sees the case replayed in the popular press and on social media even after a conviction has been secured.
Often victims of crimes which in themselves are horrifying have to endure a character assassination in which opinion makers openly question their morals and behaviour.
We see this repeated time and again particularly in cases of rape were the press highlight that the victim was intoxicated or wearing a short skirt as if these were responsible for the crime occurring.
We see it in cases of racial abuse in which the cry is sadly inevitable – it was just banter, the words used were not meant to cause offence.
Faced with all of these challenges it takes a brave individual to step forward and make a report and anyone who does deserves respect and support.
For anyone who cares to look at the Police Scotland website you will find that racial abuse is regarded as a ‘hate crime’ and defined in a way which simplifies the legal position rather well:
“Did you know that Hate Crime is any criminal offence committed against an individual or property that is motivated by a person’s hatred of someone because of his or her actual or perceived race, religion, transgender identity, sexual orientation or disability?
Hate Crime is wrong, it is against the law, and everyone has the right to live safely and without fear. No two individuals are ever the same – embrace individuality and help put an end to Hate crime by reporting it.”
There is also helpful advice on reporting hate crime through a third party for reasons which should be obvious and many helpful organisations are listed on the website.
“In some cases victims/witnesses of Hate Crime do not feel comfortable reporting the matter directly to the Police and may be more comfortable reporting it to someone they are familiar with.
To ensure all victims/witnesses are able to report Hate Crimes, Police Scotland works in partnership with a wide variety of partners who perform the role of 3rd Party Reporting Centres. Staff within 3rd Party Reporting Centres have been trained to assist a victim or witness in submitting a report to the police and can make such a report on the victim/witnesses behalf.”
I am not aware of any criminal proceedings in the case of Aleksander Tonev it may be that none will follow.
There is no possibility that I can see of the police acting in this case without a complaint being raised. That would require officers directly hearing an offence being committed and in the confines of a football stadium that would seem to be unlikely.
As it stands a complaint was made to a match official which resulted in the matter being pursued by the compliance officer as a case which merited an SFA hearing.
The result of that hearing which is now subject to an appeal is publicly available.
“Disciplinary Rule 202: Excessive Misconduct by the use of offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature.
Outcome: Complaint established.”
A hearing has also been conducted in the form of an appeal against the initial judgement. The basis for the appeal, the evidence provided in support of it and the outcome remain unknown.
For those who question the validity of an SFA hearing or suggest that they have no meaningful authority in the matter and should simply abdicate responsibility by calling the police. I can only respond by saying that the SFA protocols for disciplinary hearings are enshrined in their articles of association.
A complaint has been made, they are responding exactly as players and clubs would expect.
I have no idea where this case may ultimately lead, but I fully support Shay Logan in standing up and bringing his case forward. He and he alone gets to decide where he places his complaint and he may change his mind.
If anyone has an issue with that – you’re wrong
mungoboy says:
December 5, 2014 at 7:20 pm
7 0 Rate This
Oh and BTW Essex, nae ‘h’ in ‘boy’.
Don’t want anyone to think I might be biased!
My credibility is everything.
======================================================
Mungo”boy”…mea culpa!
What little credibility I may ever have possessed has been totally destroyed by my fellow CAs and their antics over this whole RFC(IL)/RIFC/TRFC omnishambles…it would have made ma wee maw (RIP) greet her heart out!
Is loaning players to Rangers the best thing for Newcastle United?
OPINION BY NEILCAMERON – Rangers are a basket case of a football club and it’s going to be tough for anyone to thrive up there.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport…-thing-8219623
mungoboy says:
December 5, 2014 at 8:56 pm
0
0
Rate This
Ian,
Depends what time you were in there.
Leave it late with an evening kick off etc and all the pies will have well gone.
Very hungry lunchtime clientele.
=========================================
M
I’m sure they’ve got it in for me. The last 6 times I mean come on six! I’ve been in admittedly about 7 ish (Train or plane arrival dictates)- nothing.
Next time Im going to sneak in at opening time. Pay someone to order one and see what happens.
The great Horseshoe Pie Conspiracy will be born if no success.
lagerbeer says:
December 5, 2014 at 8:11 pm
Vincent Lunny gave on Reporting Scotland the other night. Lunny explained in detail the compliance process that is followed is applicable to ALL clubs that signed up to it. Due process was followed and a 7 match ban allotted to the Celtic player. Lunny explained that all the clubs agreed that “…on the balance of probability” was acceptable to all clubs.
My despair on this is that Celtic cannot accept to play by the rules they signed up to and have their manager and players making comments in the media. Derek McInnes and Aberdeen have maintained a dignified silence – why can’t Celtic.
The parallels with Liverpool and Suarez are all to clear; and in that case, if you step back and think about it then it really doesn’t matter at all about the “he said, he said” argument.
===========================================================
Well IMO it’s quite clear you have a closed mind on the issue. There are many issues I could take odds with when it comes to Lunney however he’s gone and of no longer of any relevance.
However I have a healthy scepticism of his judgements from his relatively short spell as compliance officer.
I don’t think that any of the clubs who signed-up for the code have any problems with footballing decisions being made ‘on the balance of probability’ and they still afaik accept that is the basis for coming to a decision based on the evidence presented. So despair not!
I think the problem on this one is whether – in a footballing context – it was ever envisaged that where only two players are involved and both totally reject each other’s version of events and there are no other witnesses how safe is any decision.
There is also the rather important side issue that the conduct alleged – if true – is a criminal offence for which a far higher standard of proof is required beyond a reasonable doubt. I simply don’t believe the SFA should have ‘tried’ this issue and I have posted my reasons in detail earlier.
My understanding also is that the decision to appeal is Tonev’s and not Celtic’s. the player is entitled to use the appeal process and has done so and I’m sure Lunney would agree he has the legal right under SFA rules to so do. He also has further options and if he wishes to pursue them then that is also his legal right.
As to dignified silences I really have no comment but Celtic, its manager and fellow players have every right to state their public support for Tonev and it’s obvious they don’t believe he is a racist. I doubt if he would have got that support if there was any hint that he was. IMO it could easily be taken as an admission of guilt if no support was given and I have no doubt that some would have happily trodden this path for their own purposes.
As to Liverpool and Suarez I think that’s a poor comparison for a number of reasons and if you think it really doesn’t matter what either player said well I doubt if there’s any point in further discussion as I doubt it would be productive.
iceman63 says:
December 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm
“This is a criminal act that Tonev has been accused of. All evidence should be gathered and investigated by prosecuting authorities.”
——————————
With greatest respect iceman, I can’t agree with your conclusion. There are all sorts of minor assaults that occur in sport that might be deemed actionable in a civil environment but which nevertheless are routinely considered by sports disciplinary bodies. If ant particular infringement were so serious that legal authorities felt it necessary to get involved then that is their prerogative. However sport’s disciplinary bodies have a primary responsibility for their sport and must police it as they see fit.
ianagain says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:05 pm
I’m sure they’ve got it in for me. The last 6 times I mean come on six! I’ve been in admittedly about 7 ish (Train or plane arrival dictates)- nothing.
Next time Im going to sneak in at opening time. Pay someone to order one and see what happens.
The great Horseshoe Pie Conspiracy will be born if no success.
=================
I’ve been in a few times recently, always early afternoon, admittedly, and I can confirm that pies are still available at that sort of time. Which is more than can be said for most pubs these days. If you ask for a pie and a pint, they look at you as if you’re speaking Chinese, then offer you pork scratchings 🙁 🙁 if you persist.
Following on from Barry Hearn, surely we can provide the UK with equal or better of Hartlepool v Blythe Spartans on prime time Friday night TV?
Personally I’m watching County v Utd and so far 5 goals between them, end to end not a belter but pretty good fare.
paulsatim says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:02 pm
2 0 Rate This
OPINION BY NEILCAMERON – Rangers are a basket case of a football club and it’s going to be tough for anyone to thrive up there.
=====================================================================
…unless to you are a spiv with an “onerous contract” in your back pocket…or safe!
Matty Roth says:
December 5, 2014 at 5:34 pm
“I’m not the most eloquent or clear that’s for sure. Something just didn’t site right with me and I’ve tried to explain the other side of the coin that might be well to keep in mind but I’ve clearly failed pretty badly at that!”
————————–
I thought your earlier contribution added greatly to the debate.
ianagain says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:46 pm
2 0 Rate This
Personally I’m watching County v Utd and so far 5 goals between them, end to end not a belter but pretty good fare.
———-
How difficult would it have been to arrange an overview camera high up? This side-on, low elevation football coverage is in need of a few higher angles. I mean it could just be a static GoPro on one of the floodlights. A wee bit of image imagnation from the producers would go a long way.
Danish
Too true. However not a bad wee game. If they also added the “enhanced” crowd noise as is evident they do to EPL guff you could actually think. Well that would be worth going to.
Martin says:
December 5, 2014 at 8:56 pm
For those who question the validity of an SFA hearing or suggest that they have no meaningful authority in the matter and should simply abdicate responsibility by calling the police. I can only respond by saying that the SFA protocols for disciplinary hearings are enshrined in their articles of association.
========================================================
The SFA do have authority to hold a hearing and that isn’t an issue in my book. What I think is wrong with their decision is that it would be clear from very early that no witnesses were coming forward.
That of course doesn’t mean that no witnesses existed.
That’s where the SFA should have realised that the best way to gather evidence was to ask the police to investigate – that may well have shaken-out one or more witnesses.
And if didn’t OK it’s very doubtful the police would have taken it further but it leaves the SFA still able to conduct a tribunal. At least they would have tried to ensure that all potential witnsesses were interviewed and I believe the police would have stood more chance of success than the SFA compliance officer.
I also happen to believe that racism is a serious and unacceptable act which should be prosecuted under criminal law rather than as a footballing offence. And I believe in the first instance such allegations should always be reported to the police for investigation.
I accept how difficult it can be for victims of any hate crime to actually deal with it by making an official complaint. However it is a fact that people do make false accusations and therefore anyone sitting in judgement IMO has to be very careful if they automatically assume that the difficulties faced in making a complaint should automatically be added to the credibility of the complaint.
Obviously I can’t comment as to whether this applied in the Logan/Tonev case as I don’t know why the first tribunal preferred Logan’s credibility over that of Tonev.
This truly is a very difficult case and I have little faith in the SFA to start with and that’s another reason why I regard the police route as preferable.
But that didn’t happen and we are locked into a process that cannot now be altered. As I said to another poster I very much doubt if the football rules were designed to deal with racist allegations which had no witnesses other than the two players allegedly involved.
I see that as a flaw in the regulations which probably couldn’t have been previously envisaged. It’s created a problem and I fear that the SFA approach will be to ensure next time it doesn’t get to a tribunal which will do nothing to effectively tackle racism.
ianagain says:
December 5, 2014 at 9:46 pm
Personally I’m watching County v Utd and so far 5 goals between them, end to end not a belter but pretty good fare.
——————————————–
Yea good game just sitting with a few glass of wine and taking it easy in preparation for tomorrow’s match
ianagain says:
December 5, 2014 at 10:04 pm
1 0 Rate This
Danish
Too true. However not a bad wee game. If they also added the “enhanced” crowd noise as is evident they do to EPL guff you could actually think. Well that would be worth going to.
—–
It was a good match. Felt a bit sorry for County who seemed to have more of the play. I was thinking about the discussion this week at Hampden. That empty side behind the one goal was crying out for schoolkids, scouts, two for one offers or a family ticket. Got one at Malmö once (two adults & two juveniles in a family stand for about £24. But we all ate pre-match at the club sports bar, so not too daft a price by the club).
Also, it must be an idea for a wee enterprising start-up with a drone and a GoPro to offer high-angle stream images for a fraction of the cost of the famous gantries built to show a certain lower-division club 💡
Can anyone help.
Took a stroll through Oatlands (or more correctly, Whats left of Oatlands) last week.
My grandparents lived in Cramond Street (now gone) and I remember a football ground situated in the
street that ran parallel, just off Polmadie Road.
I cant for the life of me remember what it was called.
Something tells me it was owned by Glasgow Council.
It looked like a junior ground (but wasnt). So who played there?
When was it last used? I seem to remember it becoming derelict late 70s early 80s.
Thanks in anticipation
Crawford,
Was it Roseberry (Sp?)
Park?
Seem to remember going there in the 60s to cheer on the school team in one of their frequent cup final appearances.
No idea who actually played there full time but it was a tidy wee stadium.
Joking apart, and I promise this isn’t yet another rangers bashing thing but I genuinely said to a pal when we watched some of the rangers Kilmarnock match (we were painting and this filled the vital Tbreak gap) and commenting on the low crowd I genuinely said its as if they’ve overdubbed some atmosphere! Do they actually do that Danish?
I think youre right.
Rosebury Park……in Rosebury Street?
Ta