.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers

ByTrisidium

.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers

As most of you will be aware, the Guardian recently agreed to and accepted payment from CQN for an advertisement which was intended to raise awareness of the Resolution 12 issue, an issue pursued determinedly by Celtic shareholders for the last three years. Subsequently, and citing the thinnest of excuses, they decided not to run the ad. This developed hard on the heels of the Herald actually soliciting the business from the advertisers for their own paper, and then without even seeing the copy, refusing to move forward. (See CQN story here)

guardianGateA troubling aspect of GuardianGate is that CQN were lied to. They were initially advised that the ad was to be removed after editorial scrutiny. Subsequently they were advised that the decision came from an intervention by senior officials.

 

We are now focused on a media conspiracy to impose censorship in favour of a multi-million pound industry –  to the detriment of its small investors and paying customers.

So which was true – and which was the lie?

Here’s a thing about the truth; it is seldom complicated, which is why the failure by the Guardian and the Herald to deliver a straightforward answer implies that there may be more to this nonsense than any of us first imagined.

At this point, it is worth noting that the Guardian is currently running an ad campaign by Toyota, a company who have admitted lying to environmental regulatory bodies for years about emissions from their cars (the Guardian professes to be a major campaigner on environmental issues), but won’t accept a paying ad that asks some polite and important questions about the conduct of a multi-million pound industry.

The denial  of the Res 12 guys’ right to ask questions (no accusations – just bloody questions) via the once assumed to be pluralist and free press, should be ringing alarm bells all over the country, and the substantive issue has become largely irrelevant as a consequence. We are now focused on a media conspiracy to impose censorship in favour of a multi-million pound industry –  to the detriment of its small investors and paying customers.

Two so-called quality newspapers, have mysteriously, after touting for advertising business, refused that very same business, and have given no good reason for doing so. If  the Guardian refuse to accept an ad, I don’t believe that is censorship in itself, but when the dwindling number of newspaper proprietors in this country conspire to arrange an effective blackout of ideas, that is quite clearly censorship.

And for something so relatively inconsequential as football, I can only assume that we have all stumbled on to something far more serious.

Given the recent media rhetoric about Russia Today and their forthright coverage of Chilcot and Tory Election Fraud, it seems that like so many of the players in this saga, the irony circuit in the collective press brain is now as devolved as a human tail.

There are dark forces at work in our country, and they are running riot with basic freedoms.  However it is important to put the football issue into the proper perspective; if the media can go to these corrupt lengths for a game of football, what will they do to protect the capital interests of arms manufacturers, food producers and media dictatorships?

They may have lost the war, but through fix after fix at the SFA and the SPL, in the press and in the media, the authorities are winning the peace – basically by denying that any peace is possible until we all accept the notion that black is white, right is left, and wrong is right

Support for the SFA © Scotsman

Migrant fruit-pickers
© Scotsman

Back in soccer La-La-Land’s Mount Florida Fruit Factory, the football authorities most definitely lost the recent war. RFC went out of business and failed the fundamental task of any football club – to sustain itself. In allowing that to happen on their watch, the authorities failed in their most fundamental role – to keep RFC alive.

However through fix after fix, at the SFA and the SPL, in the press and in the media, they are winning the peace – basically by denying that any peace is possible until we all accept the notion that black is white, right is left, and wrong is right.

And still, even in this atmosphere, the major shareholders at all of our clubs sit and do nothing. Are they part of the problem, an integral part of the conspiracy? Or are they scared witless of the forces that may line up against them if they dare to grow a pair, like the Resolution 12 guys?

Sporting integrity has taken a back seat recently. Season ticket sales are up all over the place; Celtic provided a marquee manager; the red tops are ablaze about the ‘return’ of the Rangers; Hearts and Aberdeen are newly emerged from financial difficulty, and now enjoy the realistic prospect of new eras of success; and another competitive and exciting year beckons in the Championship.

 

In normal circumstances this would be fantastic news. But all of it is based on a Lie – the Lie that the game is run according to the rules, and for the benefit of all clubs. When the euphoria at Parkhead dies down; when TRFC are reinstalled (actually it will need to be with a shoehorn, but it will be done) as part of the old duopoly that sees the vital contribution made by the likes of Hearts and Aberdeen and others as insignificant; when the next major ‘bending’ of the regulations becomes necessary; all we will be left with is that Big Lie.

The clubs will eventually have to deal with that – and the complicit roles they played in ramming it down each and every one of our throats.

I hope we make them pay.

 

Another thing about the truth though is this;

Everyone with skin in this game, with the exception of the mentally deficient, know exactly what the truth is;

  • RFC cheated;
  • RFC evaded, avoided, and deliberately withheld payment of tax;
  • RFC failed to register players properly over (at least) a decade;
  • RFC lied to the SFA, the SPL and LNS;
  • Whilst all the above was happening, RFC won over a dozen on-field prizes;
  • The SFA rewrote the terms of LNS to better tailor their preferred outcome;
  • RFC were punished by way of a £250k fine. No other penalties were suffered by RFC;
  • RFC entered liquidation and a new club, which co-existed with RFC, began playing in competition BEFORE RFC’s SFA/SPL membership lapsed;
  • That club (TRFC for differentiation purposes) just achieved promotion to the Premiership;

As long as we keep reminding everyone of those truths, as long as we continue to give them a voice, they won’t go away.

And what if, next time, it is Hearts or Aberdeen or Celtic, who make a desperate attempt to get an edge over their rivals (an emergent TRFC perhaps)?

The irony (and I exclude the TRFC fans who frequent this site) is that TRFC, despite having the weight of the football and press establishments behind them, are being done no favours at all.

The increasing pariah status of their club is a sad but inevitable consequence of the wrong-doing by the old club, because the fans (understandably to be fair) seek to side with their own partisan interests in the face of outside hostility.

But think of this. If the initial-ism ‘RFC’ above was replaced by the name of any other club in the country, wouldn’t TRFC fans be complaining as loudly as the rest of us?

And what if, next time, it is Hearts or Aberdeen or Celtic, who make a desperate attempt to get an edge over their rivals (an emergent TRFC perhaps)?

What if they run roughshod over the same rules that were broken before but remain unfixed? What if, as a consequence, a compliant TRFC are denied an opportunity to play in Europe, or compete in a final, or win a league?

Will we then still be ‘Rangers haters’ if we protest about that or merely Hearts or Dons or Celtic haters?

This is not about revenge – it never has been – and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so. For most of us on SFM, there is no RFC to have our revenge on anyway, so the accusation makes no sense.

What we are about, what we are all about, is weeding out the clucken wort in Scotland’s football garden on level six at Hampden.

And it appears that some extraordinarily powerful individual or group, with enough muscle to bend the fourth estate to their will, wants to keep us all away from that garden..

 

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,359 Comments so far

goosygoosyPosted on9:47 pm - Jun 9, 2016


ALLYJAMBO
JUNE 9, 2016 at 16:20
 
What we believe might be the case surrounding the issue of the Rangers’ European Licence surely cannot result in this level of cover-up! Has there been something going on that, should just one improper act be exposed, could bring down someone, or something, of major influence in Scotland or even the UK? 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Well
Dare I say it ???
Maybe UEFA cannot start an investigation into UEFA/SFA/RFC corruption in 2011 without also looking into UEFA/SFA/CFC corruption in 2011?
For fans with short memories
Rangers played in the CL qualifiers in 2011 and lost to Malmo. They subsequently lost to Maribor in the EL qualifier and exited European football Celtic won through to the EL playoff stage and lost to Swiss side Sion
However
According to the press report Celtic protested the result on the grounds that Sion had fielded 5 ineligible players. Their protest was upheld and they progressed to the group stages of the EL
see
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/sep/02/celtic-europa-league-fc-sion
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Question
Has there been on-going corruption between UEFA and both the Scottish SFA and the English FA for years?
Indeed
Was it common knowledge that Sion had fielded 5 ineligible players thus making it easy for Celtic to protest the result?

 
Or
Was the SFA tipped off by UEFA that Sion had broken the rules and that any protest by Celtic would be supported by UEFA ?
And if so
Was this a quid pro quo for Celtic dropping a request for UEFA to investigate the corrupt behaviour of the SFA and UEFA in permitting Rangers to play in the CL despite owing HMRC £2.8m?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on10:09 pm - Jun 9, 2016


John ClarkJune 9, 2016 at 18:07

My response to The Guardians reply  – not as eloquent, more route 1 !

Hi, Helenthanks for your swift and informative reply, but I can’t help thinking that The Guardian is being craven and cowardly on this matter, given the refusal of your sports desk to investigate this alleged sporting corruption .The “hidden hand”, perhaps ?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:10 pm - Jun 9, 2016


goosygoosy
june 9 2016 at 21.47
‘…were the SFA tipped off by UEFA..’
_______
That would be a brilliant theory, goosygoosy-and we now know enough about Scottish Football and UEFA not to to be too surprised if it happened to be true.
It might be true, for all I know.
But I think there would have been no need of a tip-off.
I imagine that every team sheet produced to opposition clubs is carefully scrutinised by that opposition and the registration details of every player thoroughly checked-especially in the event of a bad result! Someone in the Celtic outfit would have had the job of looking for any ground of appeal against Sion. (Indeed, Celtic seem to have got quite good at that in more recent times..)

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on10:25 pm - Jun 9, 2016


Corrupt officialJune 9, 2016 at 11:11

“…but the scenario you are describing would be akin to Tesco telling them to pull their “Gary’s Grocery store” adverts. I think if that was the case, they would all be at it.”
———————————-
That’s exactly how media manipulation works. Not that I have personal experience but Noam Chomsky has written extensively on the matter and provided oodles of references to back up his assertions.

The media is operating in a commercial environment. They rely on advertisers to fund their activities. If a media editorial line strays too far from the status quo it will find itself subject to commercial pressures from advertisers. That this might occur in respect of a campaigning advertisement as much as an editorial is not a huge stretch of the imagination.

Your analogy of competing brands vying for advertising prominence in media titles might at first look farcical but think about it. A large corporation has an advertising budget. It needs to place advertisements in media outlets to publicise its brand.  Media outlets need advertising to fund their activities. If ‘Gary’s Grocery Store’ were muscling in on Tesco profit margins through advertisements in ‘Whopper media inc’ and ‘Whopper’ were simultaneously chasing the Tesco account, do you think it implausible that a conversation might be had? Could Mr. Tesco advise ‘Whopper’ that they’d love to place some advertising with them but unfortunately they appeared to be championing another brand. Would Whopper’s chief executive forego the more lucrative Tesco account on the point of principle that he is some sort of arbiter of fair competition?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:07 pm - Jun 9, 2016


CASTOFTHOUSANDSJUNE 9, 2016 at 22:25  
    Maybe it was a poor analogy, but far from suggesting they were arbiters of fair competition, I was rather suggesting they would take advertisers fees from wherever and whoever, as the would do with, for e.g. BMW, Toyota, Mazda, etc.   All competitors, but able to advertise in the same arena, whether it be print, tv, trackside, or on the side of a bus. 
   I suppose gazumping, could be an explanation, but as they produce a price list and the ad was originally accepted, highly unlikely, and I believe illegal.  I can’t get the Guardian here, so have no idea who or what filled the void.  
   No, I genuinely believe that this is not about covering up what we pretty much are sure of, but of hiding what it may lead to. 
Whether that be an extended ban for Sevco, or something else, I can only guess at, but it is altogether just to smelly. This is the 4th excuse given, from an editorial decision, to not an editorial decision, to the order came from on high, to it was written in French. 
   Only the third, the order came from on high, hasn’t been disproved yet. 
   
 

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on12:51 am - Jun 10, 2016


Just checking in having made a wee donation to the running costs.
The Guardian decision must be the biggest green light imaginable to pursue everything for which we started this site post-RTC. I remember watching All the Presidents Men as a teenager and being bemused by the underwhelming teleprinter ending. I now know exactly why it finished that way. We are now approaching that denouement, and the non-denial denial from the Guardian shows how close we are.

I thought that the 5WA would be what collapsed the castle built on sand due to lack of honour amongst thieves, but Resolution 12 and good old honest stubborn detective work seems to have done the trick. A small tick on an AGM resolution by CFC PLC shareholders, and a tremendous amount of work by the requisitioners has got us to the tipping point.
Ogilvie, Dickson, Regan, Doncaster, Whyte, Green etc. Liddy, Magruder, Dean, Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman etc.
It will make a good film, but the ending will be like All the Presidents Men and not Sunshine Over Leith.

View Comment

cavansamPosted on8:58 am - Jun 10, 2016


Roy Greenslade has replied to the twitter comments in an article in the Guardian online. Not sure how to Link properly:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/10/why-the-guardian-rejected-an-advert-about-scottish-football

For a great journalist, this is a terrible post he hasn’t checked any facts and is now replying to any twitter comments by just posting his own poor article!

View Comment

AlthetimPosted on9:01 am - Jun 10, 2016


The usually reliable Roy Greenslade lets himself down with this nonsense:

“The nub of the shareholders’ allegation is that rules were broken by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) in order to allow the “new” Rangers to obtain a Uefa licence to play in European Champions League.”

His “understanding” of the Guardians’ refusal to run the ad leaves a lot to be desired too.
Full article can be read here:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/10/why-the-guardian-rejected-an-advert-about-scottish-football

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:38 am - Jun 10, 2016


Althetim,
“The nub of the shareholders’ allegation is that rules were broken by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) in order to allow the “new” Rangers to obtain a Uefa licence to play in European Champions League.”

Sorry if I’m missing something here (and I haven’t read the full article yet) but I don’t see the problem with that particular extract.  Not for a non informed reader anyway?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:42 am - Jun 10, 2016


And having now read it – questionable reasons for the rejection aside (French again?) – personally my only issue is the late entrant to the 100 twisty windy ways to say the L word.

“Rangers Football Club having gone into administration in 2012 followed by its re-emergence as a reconstituted entity”

View Comment

AlthetimPosted on9:44 am - Jun 10, 2016


Smugas

It concerned the original Rangers, not “new” Rangers.

Schoolboy error from Roy.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:26 am - Jun 10, 2016


While not a major part of the story Roy Greenslade’s article shows what we are up against with regard to expecting journalists taking a stand.

A supposed Professor of Journalism has, in the main, put out a rushed, inaccurate and poorly researched piece to stave off criticism of those who provide him with income.

In my line of work I know of one particular organisation who put themselves forward as the be all and end all of their particular discipline and offer training to others. However in practice I know for fact they that do not practice what they preach.

If you don’t have the time to devote to the issue then just side step it and say nothing.

 I suppose he did at least provide a link to TOG article.

Maybe when his inbox is full of people highlighting the error of his ways he might take a closer look at the issues involved.

View Comment

tonyPosted on10:26 am - Jun 10, 2016


seems to me as though greenslade didnt even read the ad 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:34 am - Jun 10, 2016


Let’s welcome Roy Greenslade to (dis)honorary membership of the SMSM, shall we?
His  lazy carelessness and/or perversion in checking the basic facts about a matter on which he  comments  puts him right up there with the rest of the deceitful membership of that klan.
How dare he so poisonously misrepresent things , as grossly as  any Goebbels a.se-licking gauleiter of the 1930s?
And how easy it would be for a latter-day Hitler to find willing and compliant pressmen to help propagate untruths.

View Comment

ReiverPosted on10:36 am - Jun 10, 2016


Thanks to J7B and JC for keeping me right, it is of course TTIP. That is the problem when you get older and try to keep up to date with too much. TTIP is the transatlantic agreement and TPP the transPacific one. They have the same intent in that the big corporations want to be responsible for political decisions that affect their profits.
I know what it is like for those who get turned off with the intricacies of business and politics. The summaries from the likes of me, who is known for his paranoia, read like this is some fictional conspiracy novel. Unfortunately it isn’t fiction it is fact, but what relevance does it have on SFM. The tentacles it spreads(I would prefer to see its testicles spread if I am honest) enters into every corner of our lives so, when you see big money being provided for sponsorship, TV coverage and, yes, the media’s reporting then it is very likely that there is a connection to us.
Many of us on here are “mature” in years and we relate more to our experiences of twenty or thirty years ago. At that time the where-with-all to be able to control the huge areas of business and politics was not there so we tend to still feel that it is not possible. And yet we are on here making our feelings known to anyone, anywhere in the world. The very technology that we use to rail against the injustices is the same technology used to organise and control these injustices. The difference is they are not using PCs or Apple Macs, they are using huge water cooled arrays housed in secure buildings. Still sound far fetched? Well I suggest that you check out the sumofus site I mentioned earlier and search on “BT snooper charter”. You probably know of it already as the wish of our government to be able to access any email that any of us sent has been in the press. That is a government issue where the technology is restricted by finance. There is no such restriction in the corporate world and they are now wanting to arrange the world politics and legal systems through TTIP and TPP to give them freedom of action where those that object are the ones breaking the law, even governments.
 So, why am I covering this here on a site about sport that affects so few? Surely I should be out with the anarchists targeting bigger abuses of power? I believe that if we tackle the small issues, and be clear that what we are dealing with on this site is small, we have a chance of success. The stage we are at with regards to corporate influence on our life is too far advanced to reverse so the best we can do is live with it. Afterall, it really is no different than a political party shaping the world that we live in. What we need to ensure is that things that affect our own quality of life are not manipulated to our detriment. Our jobs, our finances, our health and our pastimes. We are seeing in football in Scotland signs that could suggest that manipulation is happening so lets make sure it doesn’t.
This is the reason that I believe this will be resolved by the individual fans hitting the organisers where it hurts. We would have more power with the backing of a bigger body and that was the hope of the Res 12 guys with their belief that CFC would back them. The delays and obstructions from the CFC board are so consistent that I now believe that we can see their stance is not at our side. I know I will get objections from many Celtic supporters who, like their Ibrox counterparts and the staunchest supporters of all clubs, believe that ANY word against their team is not warranted but this is not about the clubs, this is bigger than that.
I am even boring myself these days with my repetitive call for spreading the word but, to succeed, we must do it at a personal level. The Guardian’s response surely must, at last, get that message home.

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:38 am - Jun 10, 2016


Very disappointed with Roy Greenslade, I thought he was one of the good guys.  He has been scathing in the past of SMSM.  Despite a fair few errors in his piece, as Wottpi says at least he provided a link to CQN and one to the TOG report, so if anyone is interested they can see the truth there.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:40 am - Jun 10, 2016


 It is reasonable to assume that Roy Greenslade has looked into matters before publishing his piece. Although it also appears he has done so without speaking to CQN, as they are publicly calling him out demanding an apology and correction. 
   A journalist should be able to stand-up his story should the need arise. However, mistakes can genuinely be made, and Mr Greenslade has the opportunity to do either.
    Stand it up Roy, or issue a correction and apology !.  
   It’s what a journalist would do, and one is either a journalist, or one is not. 

https://twitter.com/CQNMagazine/status/741172268236210176
  

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:43 am - Jun 10, 2016


Here for instance he is mentioned in an article on the treatment in the Scottish press of Angela Haggerty:

http://irishpost.co.uk/scottish-media-accused-ignoring-anti-irish-racism/

View Comment

MONEYBALLPosted on11:03 am - Jun 10, 2016


I agree with other posters. It is a weak article from Roy Greensdale. As well as the lazy inaccuracies Roy misses a point.

“It concerns a situation that has little resonance outside Scotland and, arguably, outside Glasgow”

The problem is that the questions raised by the advert failed to quiver never mind resonate inside Glasgow or Scotland..hence the attempted placing of the adverts in publications out with . The lack of local coverage of big local issues that should be allowed to resonate locally is in itself a story.   

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on11:20 am - Jun 10, 2016


Corrupt officialJune 10, 2016 at 10:40 
 It is reasonable to assume that Roy Greenslade has looked into matters before publishing his piece. Although it also appears he has done so without speaking to CQN, as they are publicly calling him out demanding an apology and correction.     A journalist should be able to stand-up his story should the need arise. However, mistakes can genuinely be made, and Mr Greenslade has the opportunity to do either.     Stand it up Roy, or issue a correction and apology !.      It’s what a journalist would do, and one is either a journalist, or one is not. 
https://twitter.com/CQNMagazine/status/741172268236210176
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m sure when Roy discovers the error of his ways he will issue an apology. Hopefully one as fulsome as the one he gave after many years to Scargill after he printed no end of lies about him whilst Editor of the Mirror.

As for the advert being pulled I chipped off an email to a friend who works at the Guardian asking if they knew anything more about it. As yet no reply but I’ll let youse know if they get back to me.

View Comment

ReiverPosted on11:21 am - Jun 10, 2016


Sorry folks but I feel I need to emphasise my last point with some recent facts so if you are not into the corporation/politics subject just give this post a miss.

Let me put another current event, the US presidential race, into the context of the previous post.

We are pretty well all amazed at Donald Trumps success. The really amazing part of it is that the big money in the Republican party was AGAINST him. He won through using mostly his own fortune but he is swamped in monetary terms by the big boys. The most prominent of these are the Koch brothers who are spending just short of $1Billion to ensure a republican president. Their stated aim is “small” government, in other words all the big decisions transfer from the government to those individuals and organisations that make money. Think about that. Two people will have unprecedented influence over the leader of the free(???) world.
So we should obviously be relieved that Trump has thwarted them because surely it is better to have a nut as president of the USA than a puppet. Ehrr No! Currently Donald Trump is in discussions with the Koch brothers to get their financial backing. So we could end up with a nut that is also a puppet.
But we are not the USA so there is no problem, let them get on with it. Yet again Ehrr No!
Ask yourself this. How come it was the FBI that raided FIFA HQ in Switzerland, a sovereign country? How come, since the Tories got back in power, three British citizens have been extradited to the US for acts performed on British soil that do not break British laws? How come that the people with whom the EU is negotiating in secret over TTIP are representatives of US corporations and the representatives for the EU are not answerable to the electorate? How come the Halliburton Group, whose CEO was Dick Cheney the Vice President of the US when the Iraq war was started, was one of the biggest beneficiaries of contracts to rebuild Iraq?
Disregard me as a conspiracy theorist if you wish but do yourselves a favour and, when you see events like the lack of press coverage on the SFA, don’t concentrate your minds on the “little” reasons because you might miss something.

View Comment

ReiverPosted on11:36 am - Jun 10, 2016


Does anybody fancy a covert night raid?

View Comment

ReiverPosted on11:37 am - Jun 10, 2016


Your on your own with this one though.21

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:54 am - Jun 10, 2016


BOGS DOLLOXJUNE 10, 2016 at 11:20
    Cheers BD.  
   I believe it is always more productive to offer an honourable escape hatch, and Roy Greenslade has been offered one. If he has made a mistake then the honourable thing to do is take it. If he has made an error, no biggee, and honour is restored simply by him saying so. But if he is sure he is correct, then equally he should face his accusers, stand his ground, and sample why he is correct.
   Anyway, the bunker must be jam-packed by now. There is nowhere else for him to go. 21
  Honour or dishonour Roy? 

View Comment

THCPosted on12:09 pm - Jun 10, 2016


It’s a long time since I posted here but that Greenslade piece has brought me to the surface.  The pitch and tone seems quite unlike anything else he has written on and around the subject of Scottish culture (and, by extension, football).  I can’t help but think that he has been directed to write it in this way to discredit and try and shut down the Res 12 campaigners.  The get-out clause in his final sentence only reinforces this.  And the clincher is that, unusually for a Greenslade piece, no comments are allowed.  That has legal rather than commercial fingerprints all over it. 

It is to the credit of the CQN team and the redoubtable posters here at TSFM that this remains a live issue (too many individuals to credit directly).  Please, for the sake of transparent governance and sporting integrity, don’t give up the fight.  Down here in London I’ll continue to spread the word.  Despite Greenslade’s hollow claim that this is just a Scottish issue, it’s far more wide-reaching than that.  And I rather suspect that the Professor himself knows it.  I can’t help but be disappointed by him in consequence but other outlets for the truth will have to be found.  Good luck to all involved.

THC

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:09 pm - Jun 10, 2016


As an aside, but connected to lazy journalism I note that as predicted Dean Shiels is leaving Ibrox. 

So with Clark and Law going that is three down from last years squad (we can discount the injured Templeton who made no contribution).

The transfer rumours is that T’Rangers  are looking for another goalie, so I would expect Cammy Bell and his associated high wages (like the four above and the sacked Durranty) to be heading for the door with a cheaper replacement brought in.

Other than Barton that probably makes Lee Wallace the last of the ‘big earners’ on the Ibrox payroll.

As it stands King is back at Tynecastle, Zelalem at Arsenal and Ball at Spurs, therefore another three down to make it six in total just now.

Only four are in at present to replace them. Barton, Rossiter, Crooks and Windass.

With a week to go until Warburton’s wish to have all permanent deals resolved by 18 June for the start of pre-season training his squad is two down already on last year keeping in mind the desire to add five or six players. 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-boss-mark-warburton-sends-7832622#fJAmflTSqtiB1u6m.97

In making comment on Hearts breaking up their Championship winning squad Warburton seemed keen to state he was looking to supplement his squad – not introduce replacements.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-mark-warburton-surprised-hearts-broke-up-title-team-1-4083361

I still think there is a decent team to be put on the park, maybe along the lines of

Fotheringham, Tarvenier, Wilson, Keirnan, Wallace, Barton, Holt, O’Halloran, Crooks, and say Windass and Waghorn.

Bench
Rossiter, McKay, Forrester, Halliday, Miller,  a Goalie plus assorted youngsters.

As has been rightly stated there is still the chance of the odd loan players to be acquired later on in the summer.

Questions needing to be asked by Journos

Is the above much better than the team Hibs beat in the final?

Will that be enough to see them through a hard SPFL Premiership season and win week in week out?

As far as I can see it is austerity by stealth down Govan way.

If not they need to get their skates on with that over-investment for the 18th.

Now where is Brenda and that clock?

View Comment

ReiverPosted on12:55 pm - Jun 10, 2016


For the past few days I have been looking into advertising on buses throughout Scotland in the hope that perhaps I could afford to fund it myself. So here is what i found out.

First Bus
20 x Bus Rears for 4 weeks = £2,300
100 x Bus Interior Panels for 4 weeks = £2,200
10 x Bus Supersides for 2 weeks = £2,550
 
Needless to say my pension doesn’t stretch that far but if anyone out there has a spare two grand………..

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on1:02 pm - Jun 10, 2016


For those of you who may not know how heinous TTIP is, I would strongly advise that you check this out.

View Comment

SteveplustaxPosted on2:04 pm - Jun 10, 2016


For the avoidance of etc. Does anyone know if the Resolution 12 advert was ever translated into French? As far as I can remember, one of the Rangers supporters’ web sites tried to mock the Res. 12 folk by claiming that their Swiss newspaper ad was in French. I believe CQN responded with a Tweet confirming that the ad was published in English; and explaining exactly why they eschewed the French option. (The specific phrase “journalistic French” was definitely used–because I distinctly remember wondering what what that means!)
I’m asking about the possible existence of an unpublished French-language Res, 12 advert not only because of my own tedious pedantry. When the Guardian’s advertising staff tried to justify their rejection of the ad, they happened to mention that the first version they’d seen was in French. Call me Captain Suspicious, but the paper’s inclusion of that minor, possibly erroneous detail struck me as a potentially sciurine* strategy. I believe that CQN have since denied submitting the wrong version of the advert to the Guardian, but I’m not certain. If that turns out to be the case, the Guardian’s advertising people must be asked to explain exactly why they ended up referring to “Résolution Douze” material, and indeed how they came by the idea of a French version in the first place.
I hope that’s all clear; and that doubt has been successfully avoided.
 * Squirrel-like. All the kids are saying it, dontcha know!

View Comment

CrownStBhoyPosted on2:18 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Why would “a situation that has little resonance outside Scotland and, arguably, outside Glasgow” now be of interest to anyone anywhere outside of Scotland and Glasgow simply because of a refusal to publish an advert?  Bit contradictory that!

“To be honest, the background is much more complicated. A fuller account can be found on a site called the offshore game.”  Indeed it is, that’s better.

“My understanding is” (but haven’t read it myself).  Not my fault guv’.

“I cannot see how this raises issues of press freedom because it was a purely commercial matter. It does not compromise the the paper’s commitment to impartial sports reporting because there is a strict boundary between decisions made by the advertising department and those taken as part of the editorial process.
PS: Personally, I might have reached a different decision, but that’s totally beside the point. GNM’s ad department has rules and it applied them.”
Was this my Greenslade’s real intention or am I giving him undeserved credit for highlighting the issue without the need to place an ad?

The article seems so un-Greenslade like.

View Comment

SouthernExilePosted on2:19 pm - Jun 10, 2016


This is a magnificent tirade by James Forrest on the guardian/Greenslade furore. 

http://thecelticblog.com/2016/06/blogs/roy-greenslade-jumps-the-shark-with-a-fictitious-article-on-resolution-12/

I keep asking myself why, why, what forces are at play?

The guardian lent on commercially? It is hardly a commercial organisation, more a vanity publication for the upper middle class, private school and Oxbridge bien pensants who control and write for it. It is burning through the cash pile from the sale of auto trader (conveniently parked with overweening hypocrisy in the Cayman Islands) at a rate of £50m a year. What’s in it for them?

i don’t know a lot about Roy Greenslade, but he seems to have a reputation as a fearless journalist. This reputation is currently being traduced in the social media. Why can he be so lazy, careless and inaccurate? He makes his living calling out these faults in others. 

Truly the the most mysterious twist in this saga to date. 

View Comment

Winning CaptainsPosted on3:08 pm - Jun 10, 2016


À confirmer. La publicité que j’ai envoyé au quotidien qui s’appelle The Guardian’ était en anglais.

View Comment

SteveplustaxPosted on3:49 pm - Jun 10, 2016


In his current article about Roy Greenslade/the Guardian, James Forrest makes it abundantly clear that no French translation of the Resolution 12 ad had ever been put into circulation. So how did the Guardian end up sharing misinformation with a bilious blogger of Sevconian hue? I can see how the lie about a French version being mistakenly published in Switzerland could have subsequently made the rounds in Sevco circles. But once again: why did the Guardian refer to this same phantom ad in their correspondence with the Resolution 12 chaps?
Somebody has been very sloppy with their cover-story here. One of Resolution 12’s targets has clearly talked to the Guardian, and passed on information intended to discredit James Forrest et al. It might be hard to pin down what sort of pressure was brought to bear on the paper; but this could surely prove that there was contact from an interested party within Scottish football.
As far as Greenslade goes, he’s obviously had to rush something into print due to the sudden on-line backlash against his paper’s advertising staff. The article is a complete mess. I can see why, at first glance, a story about the governance of Scottish football might not seem all that significant to outsiders who have not been following it as obsessively (sic!) as the likes of ourselves–but he should really have done some due diligence before jumping in and making things worse.
(Still curious about whether or not the Res. 12 ad was ever translated into French. But the important question has been definitively answered.)

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:17 pm - Jun 10, 2016


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!  

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on4:21 pm - Jun 10, 2016


I wonder if the Street of Shame editor of Private Eye would be interested in an article exposing the “Grauniad” as being economical with the truth. You never know where it may lead.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on4:33 pm - Jun 10, 2016


STEVEPLUSTAXJUNE 10, 2016 at 15:49  
   Perhaps the response from CQN may answer your queries. 

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/it-doesnt-look-good-guardian-it-doesnt-look-good-at-all/

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on4:55 pm - Jun 10, 2016


I thought there was to be a statement today from Celtic FC re Resolution 12!

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on4:55 pm - Jun 10, 2016


I think the problem for The Granada and The Professor is that they were only shown the original version which was of course written in Swiss (Hilversum) and is only spoken by a handful of people in the remotest Alpine Cantons. N’est pas?

View Comment

tayredPosted on5:09 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Uhm, don’t know if posted already, but Greenslade has a second article up on the Guardian site which includes an image of “the advert” in French.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/10/proof-that-the-original-advert-sent-to-the-guardian-was-in-french

Three conclusions could be drawn – those that drew up the advert and said it was never in French were themselves guilty of telling lies (or Borises as they are now known in the Tayred household), or The Guardian were posted a version in French by some naughty third party, or the Guardian themselves have rapidly drawn up a French version to cover their backs.

I don’t find any of those possible conclusions particularly palatable.

View Comment

shugPosted on5:12 pm - Jun 10, 2016


STEVEPLUSTAX
This what the guys said about that.
The newspaper of choice was carefully selected and a decision was made to place the Resolution 12 newspaper statement in Tribune de Geneve. We did consider translating the Statement into journalist French and again took advice on this. However as the submission is in English, theoffshoregame.net – which is mentioned in the Statement – is in English and the submission itself is in English, it was decided to use English rather than French.
I can see nothing that says it was ever translated into french
Here is the link to it http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/resolution-12-resolution-riddy-really/

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on5:14 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Sorry Ballyargus – couldn’t resist 🙂

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on5:22 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Nice one BP! 03

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on5:32 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Roy Greenslade has reproduced the French ad he says was sent to the Guardian – along with a fairly conciliatory statement on the Res12 issue itself – on his Twitter timeline.

Now I have no doubt that CQN are telling the truth about never having translated the ad into French. So from where did this French version originate?

Really spooky.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:39 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Big Pink June 10, 2016 at 17:32 
Roy Greenslade has reproduced the French ad he says was sent to the Guardian – along with a fairly conciliatory statement on the Res12 issue itself – on his Twitter timeline.
Now I have no doubt that CQN are telling the truth about never having translated the ad into French. So from where did this French version originate?
Really spooky.
================================
This may well be the explanation of the French text from CQN

winning captains on 10th June 2016 4:30 pm Only problem for the Guardian is that is NOT the ad but a designer graphic used to agree on the size sent before the copy was written.
 
Clutching at straws now. Off to do battle!

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on5:46 pm - Jun 10, 2016


BALLYARGUSJUNE 10, 2016 at 16:55 
I thought there was to be a statement today from Celtic FC re Resolution 12!
   ———————————————————————————————–
Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake………In French. 21  

https://twitter.com/paullarkin74/status/741245736147398656
    ===================================================
BIG PINKJUNE 10, 2016 at 17:32
Really spooky.
        ———————————————————————————-
  The photo does look familiar, Wasn’t there a kind of artists impression “mock-up” produced some time ago. 

View Comment

DuplesisIIPosted on6:02 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Meantime, Ashley lost his judicial review (re the fine)

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=ff7f16a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

View Comment

SteveplustaxPosted on6:06 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Thank you, Corrupt O. (And Shug.) I wonder what time the new “It Doesn’t Look Good” post went up. Looks like it was before 14:04 – – which means that I could have saved myself the trouble of poring over the pretzel logic of the Guardian/Res. 12 situation for so long!
I was quite surprised to see confirmation that the Guardian’s ad department had no way of knowing about the mythical French version of the ad except through someone with detailed knowledge of the situation; and an axe to grind with CQN. But then it turns out there’s a screen grab of the French version going about. WTF?!

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:27 pm - Jun 10, 2016


If the problem relates to the advert allegedly being in French, why not re-submit it in English (and only pay when invoiced after publication) ?

View Comment

FinlochPosted on6:33 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Roy Greenslade will be embarrassed but he has the power to turn this enormous own goal into a positive.
He should use his influence and do two things.
1. Publish the advertisement FREE.
Not just once but a few days on the bounce.
2. Put a real journo or even better a team on to a real expose.

A quick call to Phil and a read of this site and a couple of others will help them frame their approach.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:49 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Why would the advert being in French make the Guardian decide not to publish it. 

Are they saying that if a business wanted to publish and article in their paper, and do it in French because they wanted to appeal to French readers, or people who were fluent in French, then they would refuse to publish it. That makes no sense to me, it’s simply refusing income.

Alternatively, if they did not want to publish this specific advert in French why not send it back and say that they would only publish it in English, inviting the people paying for the advert to re-submit it, but in English.

Refusing to publish it simply because it is in French makes no sense to me.

I remain of the opinion, and it is only that, that commercial pressure was put on the Guardian.

View Comment

CrownStBhoyPosted on7:25 pm - Jun 10, 2016


I hope Mr Greenslade will continue with his denials.

For those readers of the Guardian who didn’t know about Res12, they do now!

Better than any ad  07

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:34 pm - Jun 10, 2016


CROWNSTBHOY
JUNE 10, 2016 at 19:25

============================

I was thinking similar, getting the message out about the SFA’s behaviour is the important thing. More important than how it gets out.

Indeed, if this has been cost neutral to the people who organised it then the Guardian may actually have done them a favour. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:39 pm - Jun 10, 2016


HomunculusJune 10, 2016 at 18:49 Why would the advert being in French make the Guardian decide not to publish it. 
Are they saying that if a business wanted to publish and article in their paper, and do it in French because they wanted to appeal to French readers, or people who were fluent in French, then they would refuse to publish it. That makes no sense to me, it’s simply refusing income.
Alternatively, if they did not want to publish this specific advert in French why not send it back and say that they would only publish it in English, inviting the people paying for the advert to re-submit it, but in English.
Refusing to publish it simply because it is in French makes no sense to me.
I remain of the opinion, and it is only that, that commercial pressure was put on the Guardian.
__________________

The impression I had was not that the ‘French’ provided them with an excuse not to publish it, more that they were stealth-ridiculing the advertisers for being so stupid as to send an advert written in ‘French’ to an English newspaper! To my mind it was totally unnecessary for them to even mention the ‘French’ version, even if it did exist, when giving their ‘reason’ for not publishing it, and perhaps the people who tried to place the advert are due an apology for this alone, at the very least. 

I wonder how often the Guardian, or any other newspaper, has received a draft advert and turned it down on the grounds that it isn’t to their standards without contacting the prospective advertiser and suggesting how it might be amended to allow them to publish it and retain the upfront payment! What’s more, I think we can be pretty certain that if the Guardian do have strict criteria for the adverts they publish, then those in the advertising department will be fully aware of them and seek guidance before proceeding and going as far as taking payment. Instead, it would appear that the people the Resolution guys were dealing with were as bemused as anyone by this about turn.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:39 pm - Jun 10, 2016


REIVERJUNE 10, 2016 at 12:55 21 0  Rate This 
For the past few days I have been looking into advertising on buses throughout Scotland in the hope that perhaps I could afford to fund it myself. So here is what i found out.
First Bus20 x Bus Rears for 4 weeks = £2,300100 x Bus Interior Panels for 4 weeks = £2,20010 x Bus Supersides for 2 weeks = £2,550 Needless to say my pension doesn’t stretch that far but if anyone out there has a spare two grand………..
——————————————
here is what i found out….Blu tack cost’s a pound. if you get my drift22
keep up the good work REIVER.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:42 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Indeed JF

The message is getting out, let’s hope someone, or better a few people, from outside Scotland become interested enough to do some actual investigative journalism and reporting. Rather than just printing press releases.

The irony is, from a Rangers perspective, some of the reporting on them over the last few years has read more like adverts than articles. Particularly when they include details for getting season tickets. 

View Comment

shugPosted on7:47 pm - Jun 10, 2016


CQN Resolution 12: Cqn & The Guardian, The Print Ad Emails

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/resolution-12-cqn-the-guardian-the-print-ad-emails/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FIRuC+%28Celtic+Quick+News%29

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on7:51 pm - Jun 10, 2016


“or people who were fluent in French”
I thought the sfa understood French but maybe that was just when chuck green was around to translate ?

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on7:58 pm - Jun 10, 2016


DUPLESISII
JUNE 10, 2016 at 18:02
Meantime, Ashley lost his judicial review (re the fine)
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=ff7f16a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
From above
OPINION OF LORD BRODIE
in the petition
by
MICHAEL ASHLEY
 
(Extract)
 
Article 13 and Disciplinary Rule 19 [4]        Among the Articles by which the petitioner agreed to abide in terms of the letter of 6 August 2012 was Article 13 and among the Disciplinary Rules which applied to the petitioner was Rule 19.  Rule 19 is essentially in the same terms as Article 13.1.  As far as is material Article 13.1 provides:
“Except with the prior written consent of the Board:-
(a)     no club or nominee of a club;  and
(b)     no person, whether absolutely or as a trustee, either alone or in conjunction with one or more associates or solely through an associate or associates (even where such person has no formal interest), who:-
(i)      is a member of a club; or
(ii)     is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club; or
(iii)    has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of a club,
 
may at the same time either directly or indirectly:-
(a)     be a member of another club; or
(b)     be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or
(c)     have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club.”
 
RFCL is a full member of the respondent and “a club” within the meaning of Article 13.1, a

 
s is NUL. 
The Credit Facility Agreement [5]        RFCL was formed (as Sevco Scotland Limited) in 2012.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 There it is in black and white
SFA Rule 13.1 describes a club as a company
And
The Judge introduces the subject matter by re-affirming
RFCL is a full member of the respondent and “a club” within the meaning of Article 13.1, as is NUL. 
 And goes on to define RFCL by stating
RFCL was formed (as Sevco Scotland Limited) in 2012.
 
While it’s understandable for Bears to deny reality
 
Why do the SFA nurture this nonsense?

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:50 pm - Jun 10, 2016


EUKERA!!!

CQN are saying that Greenslade’s ‘proof of French’ ad is in fact dummy copy with lorem ipsum text cropped out. They have provided the full pic and reproduced all correspondence with the Guardian.

Full details at;

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/resolution-12-cqn-the-guardian-the-print-ad-emails/

View Comment

nawlitePosted on9:17 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Big Pink, I’m relying on my schoolboy French from a few years back here, but the image of the designer’s working that the latest  CQN article shows looks like it DOES include the correct text in French rather than just nonsense ‘lorem ipsum’ text.  I’m confused.

Yes. The Headline is correct. It was sent to the Guardian as a dry run for space calculation purposes. According to CQN, the rest of the text and the graphic is dummy. The CQN link tells it all in more detail, and includes the original graphic.
BP

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on9:21 pm - Jun 10, 2016


CrownStBhoyJune 10, 2016 at 14:18

“Was this my Greenslade’s real intention or am I giving him undeserved credit for highlighting the issue without the need to place an ad?”
————————————-
I’m willing to entertain that possibility CSB. The idea that there is anything resembling a free press in any nation is largely fanciful. Perhaps any integrity betrayed needs to be coded underneath the party line.

The basic errors might have been part of this coding. The link to TJN TOG might prove as effective as the original advertisement. His own disclaimer might highlight the need to decode his narrative.

Perhaps the jury needs to remain out on Greenslade. Real hero’s don’t stand on plinths proclaiming themselves, they beaver away in the background and assume no credit.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:12 pm - Jun 10, 2016


James Forrest June 10, 2016 at 19:35
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/a-what-if-scenario-that-should-scare-the-sfa/
=======================
James – I’ve responded on your blog, but my comment is in moderation, so I will repeat it here:

The share sale you refer to was on 12 June 2014 (not 2015) and perhaps could be better described as a share transfer. It involved King disposing of 15,376,000 shares for “no consideration”, so nominally no cash changed hands. However, it is not clear why this share transfer took place.

King’s shares were taken up by two other Directors of Micromega, with 12M going to Greg Morris and 3.375M to Duncan Carlisle

It could be that funds did make their way into King’s coffers offshore, but it is not clear as to the whys and wherefores. The time frame of the transaction doesn’t naturally fit in with the SDI loan repayment, although it wouldn’t necessarily have to occur close to the event.

Link to the stock exchange announcement of 17 June 2014 http://irhosted.profiledata.co.za/micromega/senspopup.aspx?id=233710

The share price at the time was approx 9 Rand, with an exchange rate of 18 Rand to the GBP. That would give a transaction value £7.69M.

View Comment

smallchangePosted on10:13 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Just read that CQN item. email threads aside.
In the preceding overview – Mr Greensdale?
Should they be told, the man might be less than impressed.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on10:20 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Surely Mr Greenslade`s article invites a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission?
The newspaper declined to publish the advert, but found it necessary to rebut it’s content , without having published the same, and did so by using the name of a hitherto honest journalist .
Perhaps it’s my perverted way of thinking, but I can’t help feeling that there is more to Mr Greenslade`s input than is immediately obvious. Why should such an academic put his name to comments which are quite inaccurate not say the least.
A complaint to the Press Commission would certainly establish the facts and perhaps draw an apology from the newspaper, more importantly, attract some widespread publicity.
Greendale`s article may be the key to unlocking the media conspiracy of silence.

View Comment

SteveplustaxPosted on10:24 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Talk about a “developing story”… It’s been hard to keep up with all of today’s developments.
James F, cheers for the clarification. As you say, progress has been made, despite the advetrtising debacle. A couple of folk have pointed out, correctly I think, that Greenslade seems generally sympathetic despite his failure to get a grip on the facts. (There was an awful to digest, and he was working to a short deadline, so there were always going to be gaps in the story. But as I said earlier, there should have been a lot more due diligence before going to press.) His handling of the underlying facts may have been extremely inept–but to be fair, he didn’t make a particularly strong case for his colleagues on the commercial side of the paper; and he did include links to key sources of information about Resolution 12, which he was by no means obliged to do. Which meant that anyone who was curious about the story had access to the real facts–and could put the Guardian version in its proper context. 
As far as the French language issue goes, it didn’t seem to me–as a couple of folk suggested earlier–that the Guardian’s advertising department used that as an excuse for not accepting the ad. It looked like they it in to muddy the waters, inferring that they’d somehow been caught off guard by the final version of the ad. That aspect of the story only got interesting when it looked as though the Guardian must have been told about a French version of the ad by some third party. It sounds as though people at the paper saw French text in a rough version of the ad that was dummied up for design purposes only. Throwing that into the discussion was completely disingenuous on their part; but we at least know how the idea of French copy cropped up. 
Still curious about what was really behind the Guardian’s decision.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:31 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Cast of Thousands
June 10 2016 at 21.21
“..Perhaps the jury needs to remain out on Greenslade.’
___________
Given his subsequent statement in which he agreed that ‘something stinks in terms of Scottish Football’, you might indeed be correct, Cot.
But he’s playing a dangerous game if he’s risking  his ‘journalistic competence/integrity ‘ on the basis that enough folk would understand his ‘coded’ message well enough to get the message and accept that he was acting as double agent on behalf of the Res 12v cause (and coffers)!
And unless his editor is in on the act, he might be risking his job!
He is known to have said in other disputed contexts ” Sometimes I wonder at myself”, and it is debatable whether he wonders at some of the things he says, or at his (career) rashness at saying them! 
But how refreshing it was to see the CQN email trail that shows that the Res 12 folk were concerned about their integrity and truthfulness above any other consideration.

View Comment

shugPosted on10:38 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Who knows maybe a favour was done not publishing maybe more people will hear about it on social media than via their circulation I believe they have somewhere in the region of only a couple hundred thousand.

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on10:51 pm - Jun 10, 2016


I seem to recall a post on a sevco 2012 site mocking the CQN ad but believe it referred to the ad in the Swiss paper .
I have checked back the posts on the said site and it seems to have gone 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on10:54 pm - Jun 10, 2016


GOOSYGOOSYJUNE 10, 2016 at 19:58
Spot on 

View Comment

Winning CaptainsPosted on11:01 pm - Jun 10, 2016


Greenslade should say where he got that proposal for the design of the second ad – which was never accepted or actioned by CQN – and why he is passing that off as the ad copy. 

The ad space was in black and white and was booked for 1st June and 4th June. That was a proposal from a designer for the second batch of ads. We never got that far. 

The snippet he produced was a designer draft, not from CQN and with NO Res 12 text on it – NOT ONE WORD IN ANY LANGUAGE.

It had two pages – the first with an sample English heading and the second with a sample French headline. It was never the ad copy and was never submitted by CQN as the ad copy. 

The ad copy was given to CQN on the afternoon of 27th May by the Res 12 guys. That afternoon the Guardian asked to see the copy. The copy in black and white and as produced on CQN tonight was sent to them. Minutes later the ad was cancelled. 

There was no French language version of that ad ever produced. Nor was there any colour images. What Greenslade produced had nothing to do with the ad they rejected and he knows it. 

I spoke to the Guardian executive who asked for and was given the copy on 27th May. He told me today that both versions were in English and were black and white as booked. 

Greenslade hasn’t taken our calls or answered our emails. Nor has he responded to us on Twitter. 

BRTH called to say that the exposure for the Res 12 issue is through the roof and he has been getting great feedback all day. ‘It has been magnificent!’ he said.

The entire budget spent on UK media for this Res 12 promotion so far is currently sitting at £0.00, so we can’t claim that it is money well spent. 

Other newspapers are asking to run the advertisement. Maybe the next one…

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on11:15 pm - Jun 10, 2016


CASTOFTHOUSANDSJUNE 10, 2016 at 21:21
CrownStBhoyJune 10, 2016 at 14:18
“Was this my Greenslade’s real intention or am I giving him undeserved credit for highlighting the issue without the need to place an ad?”————————————-I’m willing to entertain that possibility CSB. The idea that there is anything resembling a free press in any nation is largely fanciful. Perhaps any integrity betrayed needs to be coded underneath the party line.
The basic errors might have been part of this coding. The link to TJN TOG might prove as effective as the original advertisement. His own disclaimer might highlight the need to decode his narrative.
Perhaps the jury needs to remain out on Greenslade. Real hero’s don’t stand on plinths proclaiming themselves, they beaver away in the background and assume no credit.
………………………………….
Spot on COT CSB
IMO
It is inconceivable that an experienced Journalist like Greenslade would allow himself to be walked over by Senior Management for a reason he intuitively reckons is untrue
His Tweet “defending” his bosses may have been deliberately “mistake ridden”  by him to prolong the story.
If So
Greenslade may be showing two fingers to his Bosses so they will commission him to do an in depth investigation into Res 12
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
More likely however
Some junior PR person has written the tweet
Greenslade considered it needed to be checked by him personally
He may well have asked for time to check the facts, got rebuffed and was ordered to post it on Twitter urgently to kill the story
So he decides to let it go out under his name without knowing if it is wholly factual
Before doing so he speaks with people he trusts in the Advertising Dept and got assurances that they will continue to tell the truth to CQN for the balance of this saga
Meanwhile the damage is done
The Guardian is in the midst of a story, the other titles simply love
 
One of their Rivals has made the mistake of ignoring real news people in favour of listening to stupid PR people. These idiots have a vested interest in digging holes instead of telling the truth got themselves into a mess and are still digging
Fairly soon the Res12 issue may be subsumed in a bigger story as the other papers take great delight in embarrassing the Guardian
The Outcome?
There`s only one way out for the Guardian
They have to cut a deal with CQN 
Run the Advert for free
Plus
Offer to take up the Res 12 issue as a Greenslade exclusive investigation

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:34 pm - Jun 10, 2016


WINNING CAPTAINS
June 11 2016 at 23.01
‘..The entire budget spent…..is £0.00…’
_________
Possibly the most positive negative zero spend in history!  For nil cash cost ,the credibility of the Res 12 promoters , and, consequently, the justice of the cause, has been confirmed, vindicated and promoted against the ‘might’ of a newspaper of national standing!
Now,as I understand things, the (English) FA are most carefully watched by their members, and there is not really much scope for the kind of ‘exceptional’ turning of blind eyes to rule-breaking by any club, let alone for complicity in serial rule breaking by  any one particular club.
Greenslade, and any other general or sports or business reporter , ought now to relish the opportunity the Res 12 issue has provided to get right into a story which would provide several good headlines and lots and lots of copy for days on end, for the enjoyment and entertainment of their readership, most of whom will be enjoying watching England in the Euros and laughing at our absence from the competition!
Twice laughing, in fact. At the professional deficiencies that our Football Governance people have for too long displayed, and now at the grubbiness of their complicity in the deceit and cheating of one favoured club , leading to the destruction of any belief in their moral and sporting integrity.
Would that he or others will seize the opportunity.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:32 am - Jun 11, 2016


easyJambo
June 10 2016 at 22.12
___
The micromega ‘no consideration’ deal.
What I find interesting ( while being extremely conscious that I am but a babe in the wood in these matters) is why (apparently )no questions of the kind that I would think obvious to anybody seem to be asked by regulatory authorities  about why someone seems to ‘give’ a stack of shares away for nothing? ‘Indirect beneficial?’
There were rumours at one time that a crime syndicate wanted to buy the old Rangers  for money laundering purposes, but pulled out because of the Big tax case.( It could only have been a wee syndicate!)
The mind then turns to the question of whether an even wee-er syndicate might have thought of a wizard wheeze! And then ,of course, the mind would begin to run riot!
One might think of steel, of Lanarkshire, of small-time asset-strippers, of Government schemes to assist entrepreneurial initiatives, of men of standing in the business community, of convicted tax evaders and so on.
One of my favourite films ( in spite of Connery’s terrible attempt at an even a stage-Irish accent) is ‘The Untouchables’
The essential truth is that there are bad guys, there are people paid to stop the bad guys, and some of those appointed people are themselves bad.
It would be very hard to bear if the guys appointed to be the good guys in football governance turned out to be bad guys, in thrall to even badder bad guys who wanted to launder money through a corrupt football club.
There’s a good novel in that kind of scenario.Which might not be entirely fictional.

View Comment

Kicker ConspiracyPosted on12:49 am - Jun 11, 2016


Alex Thomson continuing to press the Guardian for answers

alex thomson ‏@alextomo 1 hour ago
Why is The Guardian refusing to tell @Channel4News what rules the Scottish football advert broke? If there is no issue why not tell me?

View Comment

DonegaltimPosted on5:30 am - Jun 11, 2016


Just some general musings, I don’t expect them to be universally popular but I do hope they are thought provoking. As a general aside I know my views are commonly held within the Celtic support, it would be great to see this site get back to it’s original values and have more posters offering alternative views like this. Too often when I look nowadays it seems to be consumed with childish “Rangers are dead” type stuff which used to be the forte of less highbrow forums.I look forward to full houses, decent football and ultimately Brendan leading us to 6 in a row next season which will probably end the appetite for these tedious conversations.
—————————-
While I agree with your right to your opinion, I find this part of your statement a little self congratulatory. I could post the completely opposing view and wouldn’t be wrong. “Commonly held” among how many?? I have not spoken to or conversed online with any Celtic supporter who agrees that Rangers didn’t die and only wants them acknowledged as a new club dating 2012. Anything else is utter bollocks and goes right to the heart of the conspiracy foisted upon the fee paying customers of Scottish football. Without wanting to sound harsh, your post could’ve been typed by Mr Lawwell himself. Let’s all move on for the good of the £££££s in our game. Because that is why we have this mess. Not truth, honesty or integrity but penny’s and pounds and from this Celtic supporter, they will receive no more of mine until they acknowledge the omnishambles that exists over at Ibrox as a new club born in 2012. Rant over.

View Comment

Comments are closed.