.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers

Avatar By

HOMUNCULUS, That’s interesting information. The legalities of such arrangements are …

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

HOMUNCULUS, That’s interesting information. The legalities of such arrangements are above my head but I’m still happy to say he is calling the shots at Ibrox and therefore ‘in charge’ of things. A Symantec argument on my part but I’d guess many on SFM might think the same. 

incredibleadamspark Also Commented

.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
JOCKYBHOY, I appreciate a good pedant. Using Symantec is an in joke that me and some of my friends have. It’s not particularly funny and I didn’t realise I used it on here. 

Not all of the millions were used on Lithuanian loans and I never said anywhere it was the same as Rangers liquidation. I make that distinction clearly at the end.

I believe the Lithuanian authorities think that circa £300m is missing and would like to talk to Romanov about this but can’t get him back from Russia. David Murray business also lost hundreds of millions.

I think both used their companies to help their clubs. That was the comparison I was making. Both terrible owners. 


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
ALLYJAMBO, I suppose it’s a tricky one to get right. Fit and proper person tests in addition to strict financial fair play rules would possibly help the situation, although I’m sure the political influence of George Foulkes was appreciated at the time. 

Hearts certainly are in honest hands now. But back then with Romanovs millions, wherever they came from and subsequently went to, Hearts were able to buy players they otherwise couldn’t afford and as financially unfair as this may seem no rules were broken because none existed.
 
On this scenario the parallels with David Murray and Rangers are striking. Would that make Murray the Romanov of Rangers? It has a certain alliterative quality to it but I digress. We now know where Murray got ‘his’ money from and what a scandal it is. Perhaps similar discussions are taking place on football websites in Lithuania or Russia, who knows?

Murray was a disaster for the club, and Scottish football, but there was no reason to refuse him ownership either. The side letters and EBTs were the rotten cherry on a rancid cake.

One club managed to survive the largesse of its owner, the other did not. Silver lining at Hearts is greater fan involvement and Ann Budge. Dave King is now in charge of the new club and I don’t necessarily make him the conscience of it, although I know what you’re saying. I’d rather he wasn’t anywhere near it but the rules allow it. The rules need changing.         


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
ALLYJAMBO, Dave King is a dodgy fellow no doubt, and Rangers have had a few of them. It’s great that you have Anne Budge in charge now but as a Hearts fan you’ll also have experience of people that ideally would get nowhere near Scottish football. 

How does that happen? Lack of rules in place to protect the clubs. These people are always worth keeping an eye on. 


Recent Comments by incredibleadamspark

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DARKBEFOREDAWN, again a very sensible post and a good read. I don’t think looking abroad for examples is particularly informative. Different countries will have their own set of rules and it’s probably not a one size fits all situation.

Why not keep it in Scotland and use Airdrionians as an example? They may have got their name back but they were founded in 2002 as Airdrie Utd after the original club went into liquidation. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DARKBEFOREDAWN, that’s a good post. What I would say is that this Rangers are the same but different. They are a result of the old one being liquidated. An emotional connection is obvious but surely there can be no claim to any titles previously won by the old club? 

As for the EBTs was it not the incorrect use of them that was the problem? It’s the side letters, not regestering payments with the SFA, not supplying information and lying to authorities that is the issue.

An emotional response is understandable and when all is said and done it’s only a football club. I sat in the rear of the Govan stand for years with my family. For me this is the second version of the club and I don’t think that’s a big deal. They still play at Ibrox, play in blue strips….


Who Is Conning Whom?
I personally haven’t read anything that has made me think anyone should be removed from this site. From what I’ve read, the debate has been pretty civilised. I really dont see a problem. I think sometimes the terms ‘troll’ and ‘squirrel’ can be misused to shut down conversations. 

No one has to read every post and if anyone wants to raise other issues for discussion then they are free to do so. I’m sure the Mods will step in if they feel things are getting out of hand. 

The discussions this last week or so have improved my understanding of certain issues and I think that’s a really positive thing. 

I read, and occasionally post, on SFM because I’m broadly in agreement with what is discussed on here. We shouldn’t exist in a self-congratulatory bubble or be unwelcoming to posters who have a different take on things. 


Who Is Conning Whom?
UTH

Specifically who has this vice like grip on the football authorities and media? It seems everybody, whichever team they support, is unhappy with the authorities and media. Reading, listening and interpreting the exact same things but coming to completely different conclusions. 

On on that note, whilst I don’t agree with our new poster, I have enjoyed reading his posts and the responses from the more clued up on here. 

As for JJ, it seems to me he is just offering his readers an updated version of succulent lamb. Let’s call it cyber lamb. I think he knows his audience well and has no problem playing to it. 

I think everyone has been poorly served and continues to be poorly served by the SMSM. Is that because of an agenda, finances, a lack of journalistic talent or just the media doing what the media do? Take your pick, I guess. 


Time to Ditch the Geek Show
Nice picture at the top from Nightmare Alley. I do like a good Film Noir. For the purists these are low budget affairs with no major stars (Rangers) that may or may not involve a death (Rangers, again), a double cross (Greene/Whyte), a private detective, also known as a ‘dick’, trying to work out what the hell is going on but is hopelessly behind the curve and manipulated by others (Keith Jackson), a collection of chancers, charlatans and criminals (Rangers boardroom) and with a narrative and worldview that’s undeniably pessimistic (armageddon). Have we been watching one these past few years?

In the 1940s when loads of these classic movies were made the term Film Noir wasn’t around in Hollywood. It was coined by a French critic who noticed the similarities within these movies and the term stuck. Some argue that Film Noir is not a genre but a state of mind. What’s the state of mind of many in the Rangers saga? Cognitive dissonance?

So Film Noir is seen as an accurate and widely used description these days. Seems like the opposite is true of the Old Firm.       


About the author

Avatar