.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers

By

Just to quickly say apologies to all, I had missed …

Comment on .. and they wonder why nobody buys papers by Smugas.

Just to quickly say apologies to all, I had missed the inaccuracy of “new” (rangers) part in Greenslade’s article with Res 12 being solely focussed on “old Rangers” licence.  I’ll still give him the benefit of the doubt though.  He had no need to say “new” at all.  There are several others who wouldn’t have bothered and a significant percentage who would have deliberately made no effort to make any distinction at all (per instruction).  I’ll bet anything you like Roy was so tied up thinking of his weasel words to say something other than just “Rangers”, knowing the flak he would then take that he missed (as I did) that of course the Rangers in question was, well, “Rangers.”  Whats that saying about tangled webs?  It all seems to be so simple when you’re dealing with debt too!  

Smugas Also Commented

.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
”We shall always be here with our roots.”

oops.  He was doing so well too!

i also like (I paraphrase) “We’re going to use our unmatchable £50m to repay our £40m debt, build a £10m football academy AND buy international players. ”

Well with a robust business plan like that and critical press what could possibly go wrong?

i wonder if the follow up article the next week was the Lawell of his day saying don’t panic bhoys, we’ll borrow £160m, ignore the rules and stop them in their tracks that way.


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
Not that I wish in any way to reopen OC/NC but it is worth remembering that the SFA’s condition (as I understand it) does not ban a club transferring its membership from a position of “in Liquidation,” it prevents it occurring from a position of insolvency for what, prior to 2012 at least, were fairly obvious reasons.

I agree though that Lord Hodge’s delay was still very convenient and I suspect had more to do with the perceived state of health of “The membership” if a club did enter liquidation (I’m certain I recall that a membership ‘disappeared’ if such conditions pertained), as opposed to the ability of the various parties to transfer it per se.

Just saying. 


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
PL Glen @ 19.53

Tam Cowan referring to the grandising of any statement from Warburton (but for what it’s worth could just as easily be applied to Rodgers)

“…Warburton says there’s nothing to see here (and he says it on pages 6,7,12, 35,36,37 and 38 plus a pullout colour supplement)…”


Recent Comments by Smugas

Fergus McCann v David Murray

reasonablechap 5th November 2020 at 08:24

I think that certainly in recent years, it would be much more accurate for it to read…

"When you pull on that jersey you are not just playing for a football club, you're playing for a PLC"

Sorry, me no understandy…

I thought the separation was an accepted given now no…?


Fergus McCann v David Murray
You have to remember Menace the “being out” and the positive test are not necessarily related.  As I understand it, Players 1-4 can be out and player 5, who is within just one of 1-4’s training bubble can test positive for the fan to struggle. 


Fergus McCann v David Murray
Agreed wottpi.  Aberdeen in a way actually called their bluff and said ok we’ll play.  The approach now seems to be that we’ll all simply avoid there being a repeat rather than address what I personally think is inevitable at some point.

and FWIW I still wouldn’t agree with giving “them upstairs“ executive powers to do what they deem fair.  They negated that possibility a long time ago.


Fergus McCann v David Murray
The issue would have been (I think) how does the SPFL order a game to be forfeit if “the offending side” is standing there ready to play? 

What will happen if for instance in the hypothetical match City versus Utd, 4 of City’s players and families are pictured in Dobbies having lunch in close proximity and the pictures hit the Rags websites?  Or, as is perfectly possible, 2 from each side?

i assume that’s the purpose of tomorrow’s zoom call with managers and captains.
 

Similarly I’m not sure on what grounds the SG could act.  They can order the postponement, as they did, not the forfeit.

and of course, if City happen to be top 5 premiership and Utd are part time, is it even fair to apply the play or forfeit rule?
 


Fergus McCann v David Murray
Absolutely Homunculus, particularly the last line. Which is what I suspect will make it completely unworkable.


About the author