From the TSFM Manifesto đ
A spectre is haunting Scottish Football â 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.
Having read all the opinions on the Tonev decision..which I will not comment on…it dawned on me what action did the SFA actually take in respect of the Northumbria Police report they received regarding Racist chanting that took place at an SFA approved match at Berwick FC 2 years ago?
The SFA is not fit for purpose…it continues to display an astonishing level of inconsistancy depending on who is sitting on the other side of the desk
The same SFA who decided to apply a punishment that didn’t exist to a club they didn’t want to punish with the only punishment their rules dictated should be applied (expulsion)…which the CoS ruled the SFA could not make up punishments that didn’t exist in their rules and that they had to apply the punishment their rules did allow for…only for the club in question to have to accept the original decision…
They are not fit for purpose.
I am still of the opinion (a few pages back) the reason MA puts money anywhere in the Sevco sphere is to lay his hands on extra Nike Addidas goods for his shops. Absolutely utterly nothing to do with the fitba club.
In light of the TRFC website retraction . . What exactly WAS the Livingston programme editor chap guilty OF ?
And on the subject of programmes . .Is it safe to assume that on Feb 1st one half of Hampden will be boycotting “The Official League Cup semi-final Programme” ?
You know . . The one full of dubious and/or questionable statements regarding the status + history of one of the participants ? A grand opporchancity for an “Alternative Programme” to rack up a few sales on the approaches to the N.C.C.I. ( National Centre for Confliction and Incompetence ) methinks . .
I’ve refrained from commenting on the Tonev case but I do think it’s the type of case that will come back and bite the SFA firmly on the backside. It is inevitable in the future there will be something similar to deal with and there is a fair chance it will be an alleged sectarian comment rather than an alleged racist one they are considering. Many people feel the SFA simply don’t want to properly address sectarian issues.
Kevin Kyle:
Kyle recalled the high spending at Ibrox during that season in Scotland’s bottom tier.
“It’s not the players’ fault, because somebody stupid somewhere along the line offered them that money,” he said.
“I go back to my situation where I went in there having been injured for 18 months and the wife said to me: what do you expect to get out of Rangers if they offer you a deal?”
Kyle estimates his total earnings in a year at Rangers to have been about ÂŁ100,000. He made four starts and nine appearances as a sub, scoring three times
“I said about ÂŁ500-ÂŁ600 per week, I would be quite happy with that as I had been out of the game and just wanted back in.
“I sat down with the manager and he asked what I was looking for and I just said a crazy figure and I almost got what I wanted.
“Looking back now, maybe he would want to do things differently. Over the course of a year, it was something about ÂŁ100,000 with various bonuses.”
Kyle said there were other players earning even more than himself.
“I know some of the figures some of the guys were getting and it was just stupid – it was laughable at times,” he added.
“A few of the guys I used to play with, you’re talking about ÂŁ300,000 to ÂŁ400,000 per year playing in the Third Division of Scottish football with money rising depending on appearances and bonuses.”
While doing a wee bit late night admin had a listen to SSB to see what some posters were gong on about.
One thing that got me on a general note was a caller who in having a go at McCoist who noted that, in his opinion, last week Simmonsen punted the ball up the park nearly every time he had ball in hand thus totally missing out the midfeild. The high ball to Daly and others seems to be a constant criticism of McCoists limited tactics.
Now during my visits to Tynecastle this season I have been most impressed that the various goalkeepers I have seen nearly always try to roll or throw to a defender and the build up is from the back.
It is also the case many other Championship teams I’ve seen play in a similar manner.
While I appreciate the ability to do this can be stifled by a heavy press up the park by the opposition, given that all manner of statistics are held these days I was wondering if Goalkeeper throwing/kicking from hand and was one that was kept as it would be a rough indicator of how teams were approaching the game.
What I fail to understand about the Tonev case is the previous use by the SFA panel of the “Not Proven” verdict as recently as October in the case of Boyd. I was absolutely gobsmacked by that at the time, since up until then I believed that “Not Proven” was a decision only available to the Scottish criminal courts. A civil court or tribunal makes its decisions on the balance of probabilities, and no matter how finely balanced the case is, must come to a decision one way or another. Well that’s my experience, and I don’t think Scotland and England differ in that approach to Civil law.
Let’s concede, though, as I suppose we must, that “Not Proven” was an available outcome in the Tonev case. That can only mean, surely, that where the evidence is not conclusive either way, but the demeanour or whatever of the defendant does not merit a “Not Guilty” verdict, then “Not Proven” would be the obvious result.
I have no comment worth making on the actual merits of the case, I would have to have been present at the hearing and heard both parties first hand to have an opinion worth airing, but I am mightily confused by the apparently inconsistent use of “Not Proven” by the SFA in such matters.
andygraham.66 says:
December 18, 2014 at 8:24 am
17 0 Rate This
Kevin Kyle:
———-
Best bit of the programme for me was Kyle â honesty and plain speaking, ye cannae beat it. Good on him.
As for the majority of pundits continuing the line about how Scottish football will suffer without one out of forty-two, well, it’s all sounding a bit partisan, a bit worn and rather pathetic. Kevin Kyle’s interview should have convinced everyone that Scottish football would be better without a club like that.
And the loss of 50,000 fans to the game is another myth, especially since attendances are hovering around 20,000 and less. I’m guessing a few other clubs are actually benefitting from lapsed bluenoses now supporting their local teams. A far healthier situation, imo.
Ashley may be facing the biggest challenge of his business career. Has he got the stomach for it? (No tittering, I didn’t mean it like that.)
neepheid says:
December 18, 2014 at 9:40 am
Good point and once again it comes down to the apparent lack of consistency and a lack of transparency on where decisions come from when the SFA are involved.
There may be an obvious answer but as usual it will take the bampots many man hours to unveil the process when such matters could be resolved by the SFA being more open about their practices.
highfibre says:
December 18, 2014 at 9:49 am
I know people hate to hear this but the SFA tribunal is NOT in any way part of the Scottish legal system. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Civil or Criminal Law.
There are no rules of evidence or restriction on the available decisions, except as set out in the SFA rulebook. As we all know, the SFA rulebook allows so much âdiscretionâ that is really more of a guidebook.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Well
If thatâs the case …and I have no reason to doubt it
The implication is
All this stuff about comparing football misdemeanours with breaking the civil or criminal law is just misguided confusion
Breaking SFA rules = Breaking SFA rules
Nothing more nothing less.
It has no significance in the outside world if the outside world did not raise or process the complaint
They can have a rule that says black pudding rolls is a racist offence or calling someone a Martian is sectarian abuse
It`s all irrelevant
Or put another way
Any similarity between an SFA Rule and a civil or criminal offence is purely coincidental
It isnât and never was intended to mean that the governing bodies have any responsibility to act on behalf of the Police
Yet more linguistic gymnastics from Chris McLaughlin đŻ
âAdministration and subsequent liquidation of the former company that ran the club resulted in Rangers playing in the fourth tier of Scottish footballâ
………………………………………………………
C’mon Chris almost there, let me help you;
âAdministration and subsequent liquidation of the company that was the club resulted in Newco Rangers playing in the fourth tier of Scottish footballâ
One word out, one word changed and one word in and you’re bang on the money!!!!
highfibre says:
December 18, 2014 at 9:49 am
1 0 Rate This
I know people hate to hear this but the SFA tribunal is NOT in any way part of the Scottish legal system. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Civil or Criminal Law.
There are no rules of evidence or restriction on the available decisions, except as set out in the SFA rulebook. As we all know, the SFA rulebook allows so much âdiscretionâ that it is really more of a guidebook.
=====================
That is correct, and the SFA can, in effect, do as they please, within the law. However consistency is surely essential in the context of disciplinary proceedings. I know that the SFA articles prevent anyone involved in football appealing to the courts (apart from Rangers, apparently- what happened about that?) but I would suggest that if an aggrieved party did appeal to the courts, any disciplinary process seen to be arbitrary and inconsistent simply could not stand up to scrutiny.
Been thinking on this dual ownership thing re TRFC and Mike Ashley and why it might well be considered wrong, and therefore against the rules.
We know from the LNS tribunal that ‘unfair sporting advantage’ really matters – so much so, that you can get away with murder if your scam doesn’t create this ‘unfair sporting advantage’.
The opposite must therefor be true if it (unfair sporting advantage) is created.
LNS basically stated that an ‘unfair’ sporting advantage was created when one club gained a financial (or other, I’d imagine) advantage not available to the other clubs. So if a club gains an advantage, financial, and probably otherwise, that is not open to the other clubs, it follows that it is ‘unfair’.
So, would/could dual ownership create an unfair advantage over the other clubs in the SPFL? I’d say it definitely could, and there’s history between the two clubs involved, TRFC and NUFC, to suggest it could and just how easily it would be done.
Ashley is believed (by the MSM hacks) to intend spending vast sums of money to take TRFC into the Champions League where his brand will gain massive exposure. Regardless of his motivation, the possibility exists that MA will pump money into TRFC. It is highly likely, in the way of business, that MA would rather pump NU’s money into TRFC than his own. He could do this using what we might call the ‘Boumsong Principal’, selling a player, after building up a player’s reputation using a compliant press, to Newcastle at a vastly over-inflated price (and all that took was a friendly ex-manager who later got an EBT).
We already have the rumours flying that this is what’s about to happen with Lewis McLeod (sans EBT).
Add in the likelihood of cheap loan deals and TRFC would undoubtedly gain a massive advantage with increased income, and players on the park, in a manner not available to any other club. This, I think, comes very close, might even hit the proverbial nail’s head, to the LNS enquiry’s definition of an ‘unfair sporting advantage’. And this is only one possible method of stealth financing.
Of course, it could go the other way, with NU gaining some advantage, but this is unlikely unless TRFC unearth some gem and NU get him for peanuts. So the ‘unfair advantage’ is likely to only be in TRFC’s direction.
Now the rules aren’t just about preventing something definitely happening, or to give grounds for punishment should they be broken; they are there to prevent the ‘possibility’ of it happening, and most importantly to protect the integrity of the game (I know, all things RFC/TRFC have conspired to make that no more than a pipe dream, but at some point we must hope for it’s return). The policing of this, should Ashley be allowed to continue to gain more and more control at Ibrox, would be almost impossible, and Ashley has already shown how much respect he has for any agreements with his 10% maximum ownership and no influence farce.
For any football authority to allow dual ownership they would have to be satisfied that the person they are dealing with will stick to whatever agreement is put in place to limit any possibility of an unfair sporting advantage being gained. It only took Mike Ashley a matter of weeks (or was it days?) after reaching an agreement with the SFA, to show that, beyond doubt, he is not that person!
GoosyGoosy says:
December 18, 2014 at 10:06 am
The implication is – All this stuff about comparing football misdemeanours with breaking the civil or criminal law is just misguided confusion.
Breaking SFA rules = Breaking SFA rules. Nothing more nothing less.
It has no significance in the outside world if the outside world did not raise or process the complaint.
=========================================================
I think you are part-way to the answer. However I am possibly more cynical than yourself as I don’t believe for one second it’s ‘just misguided confusion’.
I think its a cynical decision and policy enacted by the SFA to cloak itself and its agendas with some kind of quasi-legalistic justification so that the casual observer is deceived into believing a ‘proper’ system is in place to correctly administer football governance within a legal framework based on civil law.
I have no intention of returning to Tonev/Logan other than to say that it is worth reading and re-reading the grounds that the first tribunal established credibility on.
And I will repeat I don’t know what happened and I am not accusing Logan of anything untoward.
However if Tonev had been coached to present his case in a joined-up manner and present it clearly and confidently what would have been the decision then?
There was no direct evidence going to the heart of the matter – it was based mainly on credibility in the way that the evidence was given by Logan and Tonev to the hearing. There was also the reference to the fact that Logan’s actions after the alleged incident reinforced his claim.
Conversely I would imagine that Tonev’s non-reaction must have counted against him although if he genuinely didn’t make the comment why would he react?
And this is the knub of the problem we only have a fragment of the evidence as seen through the panel’s eyes. We don’t have a full transcript just like the LNS tribunal.
If this case had been heard in a civil court the public would have been entitled to see and hear all the witnesses and come to their own decision. So I’m afraid the SFA system is little more than a Court of Star Chamber with all the inherent dangers to justice of that system.
However whether Tonev pursues the matter or ‘moves on’ this issue won’t go away because we will see similar decisions coming from the SFA down the line.
Personally I would like to see Celtic take the decision to press for all alleged racist incidents on the field of play to be investigated by the police and prosecuted in our criminal courts if the evidence merits.
After all that’s what happens to the paying customers if they are arrested for a racist offence. Why should the football players be treated any differently?
Let’s show that we are serious about eradicating racism from our sport – it would actually be nice to have something positive emerge from the Logan/Tonev shambles.
RIFC Plc total shares now “valued” at ÂŁ14.5 millions
Would Dave King not be better just buying the lot now, instead of wanting to hand over ÂŁ16millions ???
Ecobhoy says
I think its a cynical decision and policy enacted by the SFA to cloak itself and its agendas with some kind of quasi-legalistic justification so that the casual observer is deceived into believing a âproperâ system is in place to correctly administer football governance within a legal framework based on civil law.
—————————————————————-
Forgive me for asking, but what agendas?
neepheid says:
December 18, 2014 at 9:40 am
================================
re. SFA tribunal determinations – there are only two possible outcomes. The case referred by the Compliance Officer is either proven or not proven.
Allyjambo says:
December 18, 2014 at 10:28 am
Totally agree with most of what you say but a few points:
Bigger more profitable football clubs invariable have a ‘sporting advantage’ over many other smaller clubs they play quite simply because they can pay more to buy and pay players.
That one will never go away even if FFP regs are ever introduced in Scotland if the club lives within its means. And tbh that’s always been a bit of a problem for me because basically at the heart of our game there will always be a ‘sporting advantage’ in play.
I’m probably not articulating that very well but I hope you get my drift which is the bigger clubs tend to stay bigger which means they retain this advanatge in perpetuity.
What happened in Scotland wrt Rangers is the classic example of a club financially out of control propped-up by a rogue Bank and a holding company built on a worldwide speculative bubble.
Sometimes I wonder where we would be if the worldwide recession had never happened – I could also wonder where Rangers would be but I don’t because I am sure they would remain in their ‘Rightful Place’.
What I really wonder about is where my club Celtic would be and all the other clubs who had pawned everything in an impossible attempt not to be financially ground underfoot by the external ‘wealth’ lavished on Rangers.
I agree that the rules shouldn’t simply be reactive to punish after the event but proactive to prevent – as far as possible – the event taking place and that’s why The Bryson affair sticks in my craw as well as all the other fudges.
And perhaps that’s where I disagree with you on ‘any football authority to allow dual ownership they would have to be satisfied that the person they are dealing with will stick to whatever agreement is put in place to limit any possibility of an unfair sporting advantage being gained’.
I don’t agree because people can sell their interests and once you have opened the floodgates it’s often impossible to close them. I simply believe no individual should get any dispensation from the rules on ‘dual ownership’ as they are there for very good reasons.
I totally agree on your estimation of Ashley – if I was ever in a negotiating position with him I would give him nothing because he wants the lot. All that will stop his blitzkreig is his attention being diverted or a decision that what you have isn’t worth expending any energy on.
If I got any of those ‘get out of jail’ cards I would dispose of the interest I had pronto because when the predator came calling the next time I would expect to be skinned alive and hung out to dry.
Jim, the Market Capitalisation figure published by LSE is a bit random (at ÂŁ15.25m when I looked) and doesn’t mean much – you have to deal with people to buy the shares and if you’ve got cash the price goes up. For example, would Mike Ashley sell 29.9% at 17.95p per share to King?
The question re. King stands up though – if he has the means, why didn’t he cough up and buy from Admin at better price than Green? Either he can’t due to SA Revenue Service beady eyes still being on him, he doesn’t have the readies or he’s holding out to pick up the shell after the next insolvency event.
andygraham.66 says:
December 18, 2014 at 8:24 am
âI sat down with the manager and he asked what I was looking for and I just said a crazy figure and I almost got what I wanted.
Is Kyle saying that Ally was in on negotiations?
blu says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:07 am
re. SFA tribunal determinations â there are only two possible outcomes. The case referred by the Compliance Officer is either proven or not proven.
===============
Thanks, Blu, that makes sense.
I’ve had a look through this season’s decisions on the SFA website, and Boyd’s case is the only “not proven” I can find, which possibly accounts for my surprise at seeing the term used for the first time.
blu says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:17 am
For example, would Mike Ashley sell 29.9% at 17.95p per share to King?
===========================================
The problem for King, Blue Knights etc is that even owning 100% of the shares no longer gets you the whole business they think of as âRangersâ. Important rights are held outside the company, onerous contracts dictate how the business is run and stored up problems (maintenance, dysfunctional squad, fraud cases) devalue the business.
All the above make a capitalisation of ÂŁ15mil pie in the sky. The price is artificial because of the non-existent liquidity. If someone tried to sell ÂŁ500k worth of shares over a week the price would fall faster than the rouble.
Also, could King really have bought the “business” out of administration even if he had offered ÂŁ5.5m/ÂŁ10m/ÂŁ15m? Was the deal not sewn up by Charlie boy before Administration. The ultimate pre-pack.
John Clark says:
December 17, 2014 at 10:58 pm
StevieBC says:
December 17, 2014 at 9:40 pm
âCan anyone provide an opinion on the new newspaper âThe Nationalâ ?â
âââ
I havenât bought a copy since the first issue- simply because in that issue reference was made by Peter Geoghegan to the âOld Firmâ.
That puts him firmly in the same stable as the other SMSM editors and hacks. In my opinion.
========================================================
The paper was launched on the back of a cynical marketing ploy based on the Independence fervour.
Meanwhile the owners were busy transferring Scottish production jobs to Wales and their existing titles are starved of staff and stuffed with childish attempts at grown-up journalism.
A guy in my local pub has been buying it and I’ve had a look at a few and can’t see it surviving at least not in the printed version and the filling acres of space with pretty landscapes or arty pics doesn’t translate too well onto mobile phones.
But as I say it’s there purely for financial reasons and because of the number of blogs on Scottish politics about to switch to providing a full range of daily news and comment. Sadly these will tend to come from a fairly narrow political perspective but it’s an interesting development.
It raises the prospect that training will be required of the ‘citizen journalists’ employed and the wage they are paid and I await with interest to see if that is above or below a ‘living wage’.
That might be a factor wrt to the NUJ in view of the amount of journos who have been made redundant and the freelance NUJ members who simply can no longer make a living.
Sadly so many people want to be ‘journos’ and will work for nothing to provide copy and pics just to get tickets to openings and events, Sad but true.
I also have the age to be able to compare ‘The National’ with the ‘The Sunday Standard’ and quite simply the new kid on the block is only fit for toilet paper against the Standard which failed after 2 years and is still recognised as one of the best in journalistic terms.
It’s biggest problem was that it didn’t have its own advertising department IIRC and therefor ads in it were thrown in as freebies if you took an ad in The Glasgow Herald or Evening Times. It cheapened the publication and meant it just couldn’t attract the quality advertising it needed.
I don’t know what the position is with The National but as it will be getting put together on the cheap I hae ma doots it’s got its own ad department.
I predict the paper will become boring because it has to fulfill a fairly narrow audience expectation but who knows – look how long the Sunday Post did OK peddling its version of Scotland đ
Fairways says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:47 am
1 0 Rate This
Also, could King really have bought the âbusinessâ out of administration even if he had offered ÂŁ5.5m/ÂŁ10m/ÂŁ15m? Was the deal not sewn up by Charlie boy before Administration. The ultimate pre-pack.
///////////////////////
The preferred bidder status was sold b Duff&Phelps to Sevco 5088
Charlie boy was apparently part of Sevco 5088 but some how managed to purchase the assets under Sevco Scotland who had no right to do so
ecobhoy @ 10.43
I wasn’t suggesting it’s ok to have dual ownership if an agreement was in place, I am totally against it, but was only trying to show how, with Ashley, at least, it would be doomed to fail. I suspect that, should Ashley be allowed to proceed as he wishes, then some doomed to fail agreement would be put in place to make it look like the SFA were in control.
On the ‘sporting advantage’ aspect, I was in fact talking about what LNS spoke of as UNFAIR sporting advantage and how this dual ownership should be deemed as unfair. It is a fact of life in competition that sporting advantage will exist, perhaps even talent could be described as such, but it’s when it is unfair that it must be prevented or punished.
I suppose the point of my post is that there’s much more to dual ownership being prohibited than whether or not the two teams might end up in the same competition.
PW1874 says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:02 am
Ecobhoy says
I think its a cynical decision and policy enacted by the SFA to cloak itself and its agendas with some kind of quasi-legalistic justification so that the casual observer is deceived into believing a âproperâ system is in place to correctly administer football governance within a legal framework based on civil law.
âââââââââââââââââââââ-
Forgive me for asking, but what agendas?
=================================================
You are forgiven đ
The SFA describes its agendas as follows:
I seem to detect a nuance in your question that perhaps the SFA have secret agendas? If so please tell all. If not then perhaps you could provide your opinion as to how it’s doing so far on its published agendas.
Eco – I think PW1874 was of a similar mind to me in reading your comment that in fact you believe the SFA has secret agendas?
I hope I didn’t misunderstand you PW1874.
StevieBC says:
December 17, 2014 at 11:34 pm
And I havenât seen any SMSM reporting on Philâs revelations of McCoistâs expenses and bonuses which are incredible, IMO.
=============================================
I know at first sight that McCoist’s ÂŁ750k looks high but then we have Kevin Kyle stating something almost as incredible:
You know when I look at McCoist’s money compared to pretty poor quality players on ÂŁ400k it points to an Alice in Wonderland scenario at Rangers especially as these players apparently had buil-in escalator clauses for each promotion right up to the Premiership.
It’s simply madness although I can’t quite decide whether it was just another way of keeping McCoist on-side and sweet to play out the fan fantasy of still being in their Rightful Place.
But I have always found it hard to shake my original conclusion that this venture was intended to be very short-term in nature and never meant to last as long.
StevieBC says:
December 17, 2014 at 9:40 pm
âCan anyone provide an opinion on the new newspaper âThe Nationalâ ?â
===========
Today’s edition has an interesting article on Steaua Bucharest,and how they have had their IP reclaimed by the Romanian Army, leaving them nameless, badgeless, and just about everything elseless. A well written and informative piece, in my opinion.
In general, I find the sports coverage much less focused on Glasgow than the other papers- although in recent days “Rangers” issues have obviously claimed a lot of space. It’s much better than the Daily Record. But then that really is shining against a dark background.
tayred says:
December 18, 2014 at 12:29 pm
Eco â I think PW1874 was of a similar mind to me in reading your comment that in fact you believe the SFA has secret agendas?
=======================================================
Shirly not đ That is a terrible slur on the greatest administrator in the game – jeesuz allegations like that could lead to the threat of a cyber attack from the Hampden Bunker.
I wonder why posters think the SFA have secret agendas? Beats me đ
However I have given my response to PW1874 at 11.02am. Please feel free to also respond to my post as I suggested to PW1874.
neepheid says:
December 18, 2014 at 12:46 pm
StevieBC says:
December 17, 2014 at 9:40 pm
âCan anyone provide an opinion on the new newspaper âThe Nationalâ ?â
===========
Todayâs edition has an interesting article on Steaua Bucharest,and how they have had their IP reclaimed by the Romanian Army, leaving them nameless, badgeless, and just about everything elseless. A well written and informative piece, in my opinion.
In general, I find the sports coverage much less focused on Glasgow than the other papers- although in recent days âRangersâ issues have obviously claimed a lot of space. Itâs much better than the Daily Record. But then that really is shining against a dark background.
=====================================================
Steaua Bucharest was covered by all UK MSM 10 days ago and earlier on the internet IIRC. So I’m afraid its not News and looks simply like a cut and paste from the wires or other papers paying the money to give their readers News.
Poor show I’m afraid.
ecobhoy says:
December 18, 2014 at 12:49 pm
I wonder why posters think the SFA have secret agendas? Beats me đ
===================================================
The SFA (and friends) may have unpublished agendas – but to describe them as “secret” is clearly inaccurate. Maybe “empirically discernible to canines in the street” would be a better term.
upthehoops says:
December 17, 2014 at 8:18 pm
58
2
Rate This
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/sfa-rangers-verdict-could-hurt-scottish-football-1-3636349
If anyone wants a laugh have a read at the absolute tripe spouted by Craig Paterson in this Scotsman article from today. Yet another pundit paid by the BBC public purse who seems to regard facts in the same way a vampire regards a cross.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Although I fully endorse the vast majority of the concerns raised on here (particularly in relation to the continued attempts to perpetuate the âsame club, different companyâ and the âScottish football needs Rangersâ myths) the absence of any information about readership/contributor numbers, and the preponderance of only a few (relative to the hundreds of thousands of Scottish football fans) contributors and ‘thumbers’, have often made me question whether the views expressed here are truly representative of the majority of Scottish fans.
Are we only “preaching to the converted”?
Despite the many excellent contributions from a few fans of a few other clubs, are we really a wee bit Celtic-centric?
My doubts have been allayed to some degree by the readers’ comments on Craig Paterson’s âarticleâ in The Scotsman (the readership of which is presumably not predominantly Glasgow based) with evidence that fans beyond west-central Scotland are just as determined to expose, challenge and condemn the nonsense perpetuated by the clumpany and its compliant media.
It appears that any attempts to either:
a) facilitate the construction of…
b) legitimise the existence of…, or
c) smooth the path of …
…another manifestation of âThe Ghost of Rangers Pastâ will be met with fierce resistance by fans throughout Scotland.
Club chairmen, the SFA, and the SPFL would be well advised to take heed of the prevailing and growing sense of outrage before making any plans to do so.
IMO
ecobhoy says:
December 18, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Steaua Bucharest was covered by all UK MSM 10 days ago and earlier on the internet IIRC. So Iâm afraid its not News and looks simply like a cut and paste from the wires or other papers paying the money to give their readers News.
Poor show Iâm afraid.
================
I can’t find the relevant articles on either the Record or Herald websites. Can you link me to them?
tcup 2012 says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:55 am
Fairways says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:47 am
Also, could King really have bought the âbusinessâ out of administration even if he had offered ÂŁ5.5m/ÂŁ10m/ÂŁ15m? Was the deal not sewn up by Charlie boy before Administration. The ultimate pre-pack.
///////////////////////
The preferred bidder status was sold by Duff&Phelps to Sevco 5088. Charlie boy was apparently part of Sevco 5088 but some how managed to purchase the assets under Sevco Scotland who had no right to do so
===============================================================
I won’t comment on whether anything was sold before Administration or not as that issue could well form part of a future criminal trial.
A piece I did on Scotslawthoughts back in November 2012 is still quite useful for background – although dated and pre-CF. See link: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/who-was-spartacus-when-duff-phelps-sold-rangers-football-club-by-ecojon/
However Sevco 5088 had purchased preferred bidder status from D&P and the members of the original investor consortium had an agreement that Sevco 5088 would be the purchasing vehicle for the assets.
As we know Sevco Scotland eventually purchased the assets and the Ocober 2012 Board meeting of TRFCL noted that the original investors in Sevco 5088 had been approached by ‘directors’ (IIRC it didn’t specify if that was TRFCL or Sevco 5088 directors) and had given permission for Sevco Scotland to become the purchasing vehicle instead of Sevco 5088.
Afaik there has been no published documentation wrt this ‘permission’ and it may only have been a verbal one. Another one of the little mysteries which may or may not be resolved in due course.
ecobhoy says:
December 18, 2014 at 10:43 am
‘.. policy enacted by the SFA to cloak itself and its agendas ‘
PW1874 says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:02 am
‘..Forgive me for asking, but what agendas?’
———–
Whatever about ‘agendas’ in the plural, the SFA had only one agenda at the time of the signing of the 5-way agreement.
And that was to ensure, even at the price of any kind of notion of ‘Sporting Integrity,’ that a ‘Charlietan’ brand new club was treated as if it were in all respects the same club that had legally ceased to exist ( except , of course, in the matter of being required to honour ALL the debts of that deceased club, rather than just the football debts).
That whole deceitful ‘accommodation’ was overseen by the most senior officer of the SFA-who had previously been personally involved in the running of the deceased club and had had a substantial loan ( possibly still not repaid) from that dead club and who could therefore, quite properly, be considered to have been ‘conflicted’.
Whatever the reasons, the agenda was driven not by notions of justice, fairness,true professional integrity, but by base reasons ( basely expressed by such crap as ‘civic disorder’, ‘armageddon” meltdown’) proferred by base, unprincipled and decidedly shifty individuals.
Individuals who now see that their collective a.se is about to be kicked very hard by the ungrateful successor charlatans in charge of the new entity.
And who, having breached the trust of the general run of football, can expect nothing other than to be forever distrusted by the general run football supporters in any further dealings they may have with the new club in its manifold ( karma delivered)difficulties.
In my opinion, of course.
Perhaps I read too much into Eco’s statement, but I think I can spot a hint at ulterior motivations when I see one. When I see the words deceived and agenda in the same sentence, it does tend to lead me down that road. So Iâll stick my head above the parapet over Tonev.
On Tonev, it’s probably the only time I’ve had some real sympathy for the SFA. Once the complaint was made they were placed into an impossible position, one that had to be followed through and one that was never going to satisfy all parties. Given the rules at their disposal, I believe (having read both the panel and appeal documents) they did the best they could in this situation and reached a fair and reasonable outcome. As I say, this is only time I can say this of our football authorities.
I would add, in this regard and as with the nature of things, the winning complainant and his Club are happy with both the rules and process, feeling vindicated by the decision. It is only the guilty party and his Club that are questioning the rules, process and the outcome.
I have to say as a neutral, and I cannot speak for any other neutral, I find Celticâs stance rather bemusing over Tonev. Not insomuch in the defence of their player as any employer would do, but rather that while they do not feel Loganâs word is enough to find guilt in Tonev, Tonevâs word is more than good enough to claim his innocence. Thereâs a certain incongruity, indeed hypocrisy in this. Celtic may also look to their own handling of Tonevâs case which seemed to be as much about casting doubt on Loganâs ability to hear and Tonevâs ability to comprehend rather than the simple, straight forward assertion their player did not speak those words.
Iâm also completely convinced had the same process been used and decision reached in a hypothetical case of Virgil Van Dijk being racially abused then there would not be the same angst over the competency of the SFA to have jurisdiction over the matter of racism. Nor would the outcome, process or decision making of the disciplinary tribunals be seen as defective.
Have the SFA taken racism cases seriously and treated them consistently in the past? No, but that does not mean they are now wrong over the Tonev case. Do our tribunal rules need tweaking? Again possibly, but itâs the Clubs who voted without one iota of dissent for their current incarnation, so perhaps the Clubs can now address disciplinary rule adequacy in light of their views on the Tonev case. I rather suspect 41 out of 42 league clubs would not see the need to revisit the disciplinary system at this time.
As to the question, do the SFA have secret agendas? I’m absolutely convinced of it, but Iâd rather turn that around and suggest Scottish football has the administrators it currently deserves. If there have been agendas within the corridors of power thatâs because its member clubs tolerate them through action, inaction or vested interest. If we truly want to see an honest, transparent and accountable governing body we should be asking the Chairman and boards of every Club in the country why this is not the case. Clubs are just as culpable for the dysfunctional nature of football governance in Scotland as much as the officials they employ or elect to govern it.
ecobhoy says:
December 18, 2014 at 1:33 pm
0 0 Rate This
tcup 2012 says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:55 am
Fairways says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:47 am
//////////////////////
As far as I remember (maybe wrong) but part of CW claim was that he never gave permission
And according to CG he duped CW
neepheid says:
December 18, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Colour me cynical, but, if Scotland’s newest newspaper had elected to support the labour party, it would be hailed as the best thing to have happened to to the Scottish Media in years, alas, it did not, and will, as a consequence, be forever derided as a poor show!
neepheid says:
December 18, 2014 at 1:14 pm
ecobhoy says:
December 18, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Steaua Bucharest was covered by all UK MSM 10 days ago and earlier on the internet IIRC. So Iâm afraid its not News and looks simply like a cut and paste from the wires or other papers paying the money to give their readers News.
Poor show Iâm afraid.
================
I canât find the relevant articles on either the Record or Herald websites. Can you link me to them?
================================================
I actually don’t tend to include Scottish only titles in UK MSM. However if you type ‘Steaua Bucharest’ into Google you’ll get a large selection of hits on the ‘branding’ story from 10 days ago when the court judgement was announced IIRC although the dispute between the club and the army has been kicking about for some time before that.
It was even dealt with here on TSFM on 12 December so perhaps the National – like the rest of the SMSM – are keeping an eye on what we are up to đ
I normally group the Record/Herald as part of SMSM – because of the way in which Google operates from my experience they often don’t show so if I want to check anything I go to their individual sites and do a search there.
The matter was also widely discussed on twitter because of the passing similarities with Ashley and Rangers.
cup 2012 says:
December 18, 2014 at 1:56 pm
ecobhoy says:
December 18, 2014 at 1:33 pm
tcup 2012 says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:55 am
Fairways says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:47 am
//////////////////////
As far as I remember (maybe wrong) but part of CW claim was that he never gave permission. And according to CG he duped CW.
=============================================================
I have no intention of straying into legally sensitive matters so I will pass on making any comment.
tcup 2012 says:
December 18, 2014 at 1:56 pm
As far as I remember (maybe wrong) but part of CW claim was that he never gave permission
And according to CG he duped CW
===========================================================
Aren’t there also documents that are said to give permission for transfer/sale between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland that are a matter of disputed. I believe the word “forged” has been used in that dispute. A few simple questions under oath (and threat of perjury) should soon clear that up though.
ecobhoy says:
December 18, 2014 at 2:02 pm
I actually donât tend to include Scottish only titles in UK MSM. However if you type âSteaua Bucharestâ into Google youâll get a large selection of hits on the âbrandingâ story from 10 days ago when the court judgement was announced IIRC although the dispute between the club and the army has been kicking about for some time before that.
It was even dealt with here on TSFM on 12 December so perhaps the National â like the rest of the SMSM â are keeping an eye on what we are up to đ
=====================
So it’s a “poor show” for the “National” to publish an article late, but it’s not worth a comment that the rest of the Scottish press don’t cover it at all? Well, if it’s “poor show” from the “National”, then it’s surely a truly crap show from the rest of the Scottish press?
I would guess that the Herald and Record didn’t cover the story at all for reasons that are obvious, i.e it doesn’t fit with their “continuity” agenda, so to me it is a refreshing change that at least one Scottish newspaper covers it. And if they picked it up from this forum, so what, that’s a good thing, isn’t it?
As for the article itself, I stand by my comment that it is informative and well written- certainly compared to the daily garbage in the Record.
IMO
Any ex Ibrox player offered the job would want Ally off the premises at the very least
However
There may well be a Mexican standoff in the package negotiations
On the park TRFC need a new manager more that Ally needs to leave.
Off the park the Spivs need Allyâs silence more than they need a new manager. The status quo satisfies both parties and may well be the outcome of current discussions
The key element in these negotiations is the confidentiality clause. Without that it is unlikely that the RIFC Board would sanction any deal
Ally is unlikely to accept being gagged if the deal can`t offset the loss of income from book sales
Without this incentive I doubt whether Ally would sign up to any deal. Particularly if he has other reasons for the book like rehabilitating his image
If he has no confidentiality clause in his current contract, writing a book in his spare time could hardly be construed as a dismissible offence even for someone like Mike Ashley
So without a Jan liquidation, the saga may continue for another 12 months. If so, the book could contain some tasty chapters on life at Ibrox under Mike Ashley. It could also include the upcoming court cases
Indeed there could well be enough material for a second book.
All Ally needs is the ability to stick it out if the fans turn against him big time. The Spivs may well settle for letting him work his notice while making his day to day life as difficult as possible
Iâm getting bored with the idea that King, Blue Knights, Rangers Men, Kieran Prior etc could have / should have / would have bought assets from Duff and Phelps. The fact is that while others were talking and posturing and PRing and dancing around the issue, Green agreed a price and paid for preferential status. So we need to either accept that no serious, better offer was on the table, or that D&P acted unlawfully in accepting a mates rates bid. If you believe the latter, please provide a dossier to Police Scotland and share what details you can here. Otherwise, please letâs give this particular dead horse a rest.
PW1874 1:51 pm
Several fair points. I do applaud the SFA appeal panel publishing the reasoning behind their decision. They cannot be faulted for lacking transparency.
You are correct that Celtic fans would not have had the same angst if Van Dyke had accused an opponent of making a racist remark; that is human nature and absolutely not specific to Celtic however. This Celtic fan, however, and I believe most of my fellow fans would have been troubled by a proven verdict based solely on Van Dyke’s word.
We don’t know what Celtic officials privately believe is likely to have taken place. We can reasonably assume, however, that they came to the conclusion that on the basis of the evidence available that only two people could ever know and rather than sit on the fence unequivocally supported their player. I believe they were correct to do so but could probably have gone about it in a better way. I suspect that, like many on this blog, they expected a not proven outcome.
As for the disciplinary tribunal process it was probably not set up with such a case in mind. The mistake of comparing the process to courts of law has already been discussed and I totally agree with the comments made. The fundamental problem is that the allegations made were the equivalent of a criminal offence even if they were not made to the police, and to find an individual guilty of the equivalent of a criminal offence on the basis of one person’s word troubles me. The Sun are certainly not making any distinctions.
scapaflow says:
December 18, 2014 at 2:01 pm
neepheid says:
December 18, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Colour me cynical, but, if Scotlandâs newest newspaper had elected to support the labour party, it would be hailed as the best thing to have happened to to the Scottish Media in years, alas, it did not, and will, as a consequence, be forever derided as a poor show!
========================================================================
If the new paper had made the commercial mistake of stating it supported the Labour Party or even the Scottish Labour Party then it would go bust even more quickly IMO than by following the stance it took.
However this has nothing to do with politics and it would be a mistake to believe it is. It was simply a business decision – I believe cynical but then given the collapse of the Herald and Times’ circulation figures desperate times call for desperate measures.
The Herald and Times simply have displayed their inability to come to terms with making money out of the internet to replace the revenue it las lost on its print media activities.
If I was news editor at The Nation then I would be hanging my head in despair at having to run a football story 10 days behind the opposition and if I was his boss I would be wanting to know why it hadn’t been run 10 days earlier.
All in all a POOR show. Just what it has to do with the Labour Party I haven’t a clue. And just for the record I’m not a LP member and tore my party card up when Blair was elected Leader because he wasn’t a socialist and I was and remain so.
My view on The Nation is purely down to its financial viability and I don’t think it has any particularly as a printed product. As to its online viability well you can get away with printing dated material on a Saturday and Sunday as fillers. But 10 days later it cannot survive as Daily News – that is the ecomomic reality.
And as I mentioned in an earlier post today the Scottish marketplace is about to be swamped with variations on the theme of The Nation.
How many will survive is debatable as it depends on whether they can carve-out new subscribers beyond the individual core groups of followers to match the much increased costs which will result.
Still it’s an exciting move and I will reserve judgement until I see what kind of journalism they serve-up. However I fear they might end-up treading the path to schisms and discord which so often happens on the Scottish left.
GoosyGoosy says:
December 18, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Ally is unlikely to accept being gagged if the deal can`t offset the loss of income from book sales
========================================================
GG, in my opinion, the whole McC book deal is overplayed. By the time the lawyers have removed anything inflammatory, libellous and prejudicial from a version of events that paints McC as a blend of Pele, Mourinho and Mandela it will read like “what I did on my holidays”. That is, if it ever sees the light of day. If I was McC I’d get myself some proper, expensive advisors before I start fires that might encircle and engulf me. If he really is foolish enough to have Traynor and Smith as key advisors then he deserves everything he gets.
mcfc says:
December 18, 2014 at 2:24 pm
1 0 Rate This
//////////////////
I agree with everything you say except ” Green agreed a price and paid for preferential status”
It was Sevco 5088 who paid for preferential status Not Green
mcfc says:
December 18, 2014 at 12:38 pm
==========================
The fact [McCoist] is being advised to stand his ground and fight for what he is owed becomes easier to do when the club in question is only 2 years old and in the words of a high profile QC not the same club as the one liquidated…
Once you think of it in that context…it becomes understandable why he is willing to drain every last penny out of TRFC.
mcfc says:
December 18, 2014 at 2:35 pm
‘… If I was McC Iâd get myself some proper, expensive advisors ‘
——–
Yep, I would go for an experienced author/journalist who may have written well-researched and fact-based books about a club that died an ignominious death.There’s bound to one, somewhere?
ecobhoy says:
December 18, 2014 at 2:06 pm
2 0 Rate This
cup 2012 says:
December 18, 2014 at 1:56 pm
ecobhoy says:
December 18, 2014 at 1:33 pm
tcup 2012 says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:55 am
Fairways says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:47 am
//////////////////////
As far as I remember (maybe wrong) but part of CW claim was that he never gave permission. And according to CG he duped CW.
=============================================================
I have no intention of straying into legally sensitive matters so I will pass on making any comment.
////////////////
Thank god for the that
Getting torn a new 1 by yourself wouldn’t exactly be th highlight of my day
Don’t think this has been mentioned yet – assuming it’s true of course…
Appears that the Board was fishing to see if ;
– McCoist was performing his contracted tasks and responsibilities
and/or
– either Durranty or McDowelly could take over the reigns from McCoist
Either way, it’s a rather seedy story planted in the DR.
“…A report claimed there was a telephone conversation between Hateley and a former Ibrox star that enraged McCoist.
Itâs said Hateley probed him on the role McCoist took at training and whether first team coach Ian Durrant led sessions. Hateley was also alleged to have even questioned whether McCoist was present during some sessions…”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mark-hateley-never-knifed-rangers-4832263
tcup 2012 says:
December 18, 2014 at 2:52 pm
It was Sevco 5088 who paid for preferential status Not Green
================================================
Who signed the cheque and which Sevco was really on the cheque – will we ever know ? đ
The whole 5088 vs Scotland “case” may boil down to “an honest clerical error” in D&P announcements.
mcfc says:
December 18, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Excuse me if I speak out of turn, but when and how did Ally ever become Super Ally and is the title valid outside G51? Heâs won nothing in Europe, heâs played for no significant team outside Scotland (sorry Machems), most of his Rangersâ goals were scored against non-stellar opposition (sorry diddies) and heâs won nothing on the international stage (yes, I am English). This is no Baggio, Figo, Zidane or Ronanldo we are talking about here. Seems more like a good local boy who lacked the ambition to test himself against the best out in the big bad world â beyond the bosom of The People.
========================
Some could make a similar comparison to “The King”, aka City legend Colin Bell…but I certainly wouldn’t make any such comment ! đ
Maybe partially as a result of his media friendly, cheeky chappy routine which endeared him to fans of many other teams as well?
And I’m not trying to defend sleekit: you’re right that his reputation is significantly higher than his footballing ability and achievements.
And to cheer you up: he’s a bit like Beckham in that regard, IMO. đ
StevieBC says:
December 17, 2014 at 11:34 pm
50 1 Rate This
McCoist handed in his notice â allegedly â because he didnât agree with the Board decisions re: staff redundancies.
So McCoist wouldnât sit alongside the Board at the AGM, would he?
But to show his Rangersness he should still attend â courtesy of his freebie shares.
Maybe he could ask a questionâŚ? đ
And I havenât seen any SMSM reporting on Philâs revelations of McCoistâs expenses and bonuses which are incredible, IMO.
Sleekit still has friends in the media thenâŚ
______________
Gary Ralston has embarrassed himself with his defence of McCoist in several articles in the last week
neepheid says:
December 18, 2014 at 2:17 pm
I would guess that the Herald and Record didnât cover the story at all for reasons that are obvious, i.e it doesnât fit with their âcontinuityâ agenda.
As for the article itself, I stand by my comment that it is informative and well written- certainly compared to the daily garbage in the Record.
==========================================================
Well the The National has the same owner as The Herald so I would very much doubt that their agendas will be that different.
I personally think the truth lies more with not having the money to be able to pay for on-the-day ‘live’ wire feeds from the various agencies which serve the media industry.
As to whether The National’s piece was better written it may well have been. But I would expect any story written 10 days after everyone else who carried it to be polished to perfection. However I would not accept it as current news.
However I think you are missing a very important point here wrt the outdated mindset employed by papers like The Herald which has been overwhelmed by the internet information age.
Its competitors aren’t simply local Scottish papers but media outlets from anywhere in the world and many are brilliant about how they present news and create real interactivity with readers. And the Number 1 priority is that the news has got to be NEWS!
The Herald is one of the many publications that think to be an internet success all you have to do is put the printed version online. WRONG! Please take my word on that. I doubt if The Nation will be able to move far from that corporate and cultural in-house mode.
It appears that the detailed story broke on 7 December on the internet via twitter as well as media and sports blogs.
The following day at least The Guardian, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail ran the story. See: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/08/steaua-bucharest-romania-lose-name-colours-emblem-court-ruling-defence-ministry
It would appear that possibly The Nation isn’t checking MSM stories or it would have caught-up with the story on 8 December – possibly 7 December on online versions.
It would be worrying indeed if the new paper was just sitting back waiting for Scottish rivals who might – as you suggested have their own agendas for not running stories – to print the news and then lift it.
However it all depends on the finances available to the new enterprise and I suppose that might be revealed sooner or later as the case may be.
http://www.therst.co.uk/news/agm-resolutions-8-and-9/
The fans’ (well, one lot of them, anyway) position on AGM resolutions 8 and 9.
mcfc says:
December 18, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Excuse me if I speak out of turn, but when and how did Ally ever become Super Ally and is the title valid outside G51? Heâs won nothing in Europe, heâs played for no significant team outside Scotland (sorry Machems), most of his Rangersâ goals were scored against non-stellar opposition (sorry diddies) and heâs won nothing on the international stage (yes, I am English). This is no Baggio, Figo, Zidane or Ronanldo we are talking about here. Seems more like a good local boy who lacked the ambition to test himself against the best out in the big bad world â beyond the bosom of The People.
_____________
McCoist won the European golden boot award 2 years running 92 and 93
mcfc says:
December 18, 2014 at 3:21 pm
0 0 Rate This
///////////////
D&P announced Live on national TV who won the bid as preferential bidder
Sevco 5088
ecobhoy says:
December 18, 2014 at 3:34 pm
However it all depends on the finances available to the new enterprise and I suppose that might be revealed sooner or later as the case may be.
=================
Any printed newspaper which needs financing in this day and age might as well give up now. It ain’t going to get any better. Either the books balance, based on circulation, or they don’t. Why should the Herald publishers keep yet another loss-maker afloat? I am amazed that they started up a new daily paper, instead of simply relaunching the Herald.
Personally, I think the publishers will do their sums in 6 months time, and close whichever daily is losing the most money. I guess that the Herald is carrying a much higher cost base, but then they must surely have a much higher readership. It will be Interesting to see how it works out.
mcfc says:
December 18, 2014 at 2:35 pm
GoosyGoosy says:
December 18, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Ally is unlikely to accept being gagged if the deal can`t offset the loss of income from book sales
========================================================
GG, in my opinion, the whole McC book deal is overplayed. By the time the lawyers have removed anything inflammatory, libellous and prejudicial from a version of events that paints McC as a blend of Pele, Mourinho and Mandela it will read like âwhat I did on my holidaysâ.
================================================================
I would be very interested in White Water Rafting Holidays đ
Major book companies would be interested in publishing McCoist’s book and they have plenty of in-house expertise to avoid obvious pitfalls. It’s the way that you write it that keeps you out of trouble – you can still get the message across.
In any case if all of the expected court cases go ahead no matter the outcome I’m sure the evidence given in public could well tie-in with personal experiences of McCoist which really gives him carte blanche to let loose with all guns blazing.
There are a helluva lot of people I reckon that McCoist could do a number on who will never retaliate and end-up in court to be questioned. So they’ll take the reputational hit IMO and move on if they haven’t already done so before the book’s release date.
StevieBC says:
December 18, 2014 at 3:27 pm
Some could make a similar comparison to âThe Kingâ, aka City legend Colin BellâŚbut I certainly wouldnât make any such comment !
===============================
How very dare you sir! The King of the Kippax may have scored fewer goals but they were against top opposition and he was playing alongside Summerbee and Lee who notched up a few â those were the days – oh and he has a European Cup Winners Cup winners medal (1970). And a stand named after him at the Etihad â affectionately known to one and all as the Bell End. Beat that Super đ
John Clark says:
December 17, 2014 at 10:58 pm
http://www.tsfm.scot/a-spectre-is-haunting-scottish-football/comment-page-53/#comment-38874
StevieBC says:
December 17, 2014 at 9:40 pm
â.Can anyone provide an opinion on the new newspaper âThe Nationalâ ?â
âââ
I havenât bought a copy since the first issue- simply because in that issue reference was made by Peter Geoghegan to the âOld Firmâ.
That puts him firmly in the same stable as the other SMSM editors and hacks.
In my opinion.
********************************************************************
A bit of a rush to judgement there, John, I might suggest?
I could easily round up a few dozen Celtic diehards of my own acquaintance who still use the Old Firm term. Likewise, there’s no shortage of Celtic players, past and present, who use it regularly.
FWIW, I’ve taken The National every day since it first appeared. As far as I’m concerned, it’s “so far, so good.”
andy says:
December 18, 2014 at 3:38 pm
McCoist won the European golden boot award 2 years running 92 and 93
==============================================================
Yeah â total number of goals with no regard to the quality of opposition. Look who won it before and after McCoist:
1989â90 Bulgaria Hristo Stoichkov CSKA Sofia Bulgaria Bulgarian A PFG
1990â91 Yugoslavia Darko PanÄev Red Star Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Yugoslav First League
1991â92 Scotland Ally McCoist Rangers Scotland Scottish Premier Division
1992â93 Scotland Ally McCoist Rangers Scotland Scottish Premier Division
1993â94 Wales David Taylor Porthmadog Wales League of Wales
1994â95 Armenia Arsen Avetisyan Homenetmen Armenia Armenian Premier League
1995â96 Georgia Zviad Endeladze Margveti Georgia (country) Georgian Umaglesi Liga
mcfc says:
December 18, 2014 at 3:57 pm
1 0 Rate This
StevieBC says:
December 18, 2014 at 3:27 pm
Some could make a similar comparison to âThe Kingâ, aka City legend Colin BellâŚbut I certainly wouldnât make any such comment !
===============================
How very dare you sir!…
===============================
Yes, I was doing a bit of fishing myself there, and pleased you bit ! đ
I suppose it’s all relative:
A great player for a part-time club, will be at a somewhat different level to a great player at a top Scottish/English club…and a great player at a club like Real, Barca, or Milan etc. might be at a somewhat different level yet again.
Or maybe football ‘superness’ / greatness simply ‘lies in the eye of the beholder’ ?
Kevin Kyle in the Scotsman today.
âI sat down with the manager and he asked what I was looking for and I just said a crazy figure and I almost got what I wanted.â Kyle recalled.
Ally stated regularly that he was not involved in the money matters at the club???
justshatered says:
December 17, 2014 at 9:42 pm
“Will they revoke their membership to halt Ashley?”
———————————-
Insightful analysis justshatered. There won’t be any or any substantial precedent concerning dual ownership rule infringement therefore the punishment tariff will have to be ‘innovated’.
The points deduction for Livingston has logic since avoidance of due tax by any club provides them with a commercial and potential sporting advantage (oh no it doesn’t). Therefore a sporting sanction seems appropriate.
The dual ownership issue infers a more profound infringement of the concept of fair play. Although the Rangers/Newcastle impasse may never arise since their meeting in competition requires many circumstantial occurrences, rules are not framed to account for such nuanced outcomes; they exist to prohibit them. If dual ownership were to be allowed in these circumstances (which under the rules posted by others, they are not), then this would create room for interpretation thereafter.
So if the dual ownership criteria is strictly applied, what would be an appropriate sanction?
Should Mr. Ashley increase his shareholding on top of having undue influence on Rangers then he might be ordered/requested to divest himself of the additional shareholding and influence. However this sanction would fail to recognise that an existing rule had been infringed. I’d imagine that any divestment would need to be coupled with a further sanction to recognise the rule infringement.
I have to agree with you that the revoking of the license to play football is one of the few viable options that is available. In the extreme scenario where dual ownership concerned two clubs in direct competition then logically removing one or both of them from that competition would appear sensible. This would act as a compelling instrument against dual ownership.
However, given Rangers current circumstances, the suspension of their football playing credentials could and probably would have devastating effects. The newspaper article by Craig Paterson posted earlier might be seen as a warning shot in this potential battle. Would the football authorities have the nerve to follow through on such a threat? Many would doubt this and this in itself will weaken their position.
However a failure to act decisively could fatally undermine the already seemingly weak authority of the sport’s governing bodies.
Perhaps Mr. Ashley recognises this precarious state and is willing to gamble on pushing his agenda ahead. If, to everyone’s surprise and to some consternation, the authorities were to apply this ultimate sanction, will Mr. Ashley see this as a survivable scenario. After all he has no compelling stake in Rangers thus far and may be content to see the authorities put the skids under Rangers as it might save him the same trouble. It might be quite a comfortable outcome for him despite any representation he might make in the media. As this would be an unprecedented action it might conceivably be open to legal challenge which the authorities can ill afford.
If Mike’s tanks can win this battle then perhaps the whole regulatory landscape would be opened up for him.
mcfc 3:42 pm
The ‘Super’ references from non-Rangers and non-Sevco fans are obviously 100% ironic and relate to his managerial credentials.
I believe that most fans of other clubs have grudging respect for his playing career. He was at least decent with the caveat that he was playing against ‘the sieve’ (the Celtic defence of the time) and relatively under delivered on the European and international stages.
mcfc 4:14
You’ve equally lost me with that one. The players that won it after McCoist may not be household names to us (doesn’t mean they weren’t excellent footballers) but Pancev and Stoichkov in particular were magnificent players. I hope I’m not sensing any premierleagueisthebestandonlyintheworlditis đ .
Maybe pedantic but Ally McCoist never win the Golden Boot for one good reason:
None were awarded between 1991-1996.
He may have finished top scorer but didn’t receive the award for the simple reason there wasn’t one.
I believe though,that RFC recognised his exploits and had one made for him.It’s not the genuine article though.
Bryce Curdy says:
December 18, 2014 at 4:29 pm
mcfc 4:14
Youâve equally lost me with that one. The players that won it after McCoist may not be household names to us (doesnât mean they werenât excellent footballers) but Pancev and Stoichkov in particular were magnificent players. I hope Iâm not sensing any premierleagueisthebestandonlyintheworlditis đ .
===========================================
Bryce, I hope Iâm not sensing any “never mind the quality feel the widthness” đ
Good players in top teams in two-team leagues will always score more goals – especially with more games and two cup competitions – than world class players in bigger leagues. That’s why the Golden Boot/Shoe is a bit random and no where near the gold standard of acheivement for strikers.
mcfc says:
December 18, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Me too as a Hammer..but then his DAD was better so thats ok đ
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
December 18, 2014 at 4:36 pm
1
0
Rate This
Maybe pedantic but Ally McCoist never win the Golden Boot for one good reason:
None were awarded between 1991-1996.
He may have finished top scorer but didnât receive the award for the simple reason there wasnât one.
I believe though,that RFC recognised his exploits and had one made for him.Itâs not the genuine article though.
==========================================================
johnbhoy – may be confusion between boot and shoe – unless you know more – check out here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Golden_Shoe