Commander Green, The FIFA man, and life after the Murray Empire


I usually cringe whenever I see someone has indulged their …

Comment on Commander Green, The FIFA man, and life after the Murray Empire by Night Terror.

I usually cringe whenever I see someone has indulged their creative writing ambitions on a football website, but in the case of posmill’s effort – superb! I only hope that the brilliance of your effort deters others from inevitably inferior attempts to emulate it.

iceman63 says:
Saturday, October 6, 2012 at 05:50

Read the Scotsman piece . Delighted to see “the good of Scottish football” trotted out again by Sally.

I’d be much more convinced about any “for the good of Scottish Football” arguments when the actions proposed did not coincide with the interests of those proposing them.

Again from iceman:

iceman63 says:
Saturday, October 6, 2012 at 05:38

The SFA’s actions can only be understood in the light of covering up their own actions over the illegal registrations fiasco and the granting of a UEFA licence to Rangers in 2011 when they knew that they had no entitlement to one.

I think the SFA’s actions, and particular in keeping Ogilvie in place, can also be understood as retaining some convenient bodies to throw off the side when a body or two is required.

Night Terror Also Commented

Commander Green, The FIFA man, and life after the Murray Empire
whisperer18 says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 12:55

Re “Cenkos Securities” …. …. C Whyte …. D King …. A Ellis … Anyone ? ?

It was garbage. Made up nonsense.

Commander Green, The FIFA man, and life after the Murray Empire
Tragic news about Corsica.

Probably the best commenter on RTC – always clear and fair, and always made a point or pushed the conversation forwards.

I salute you sir – you are missed.

Recent Comments by Night Terror

LNS – A Summary
Interesting prediction of events.
How much of that is what you hope happens, irrespective of what you think will happen?
It sounds like the ideal scenario of most interested non-Rangers fans to me. I’m therefore sceptical without a lot more justification for such a sequence of events.

LNS – A Summary
I think it’s very easy to understand why the SFA would continue to stonewall on that one.
It’s harder to understand how they are allowed to or able to do so.

Whose assets are they anyway?
@Gym Trainer
I agree. The problem is, most fans find the overspending thing easier to grasp and be outraged about, whereas the intricacies of player registration can seem ore of an administrative and therefore boring infraction.
It suits many to characterise the Title Stripping argument as based on overspending and tax liability (subject to appeal) and even alleged sporting advantage, none of which have concrete rules to outlaw them as far as I know, rather than the specifics of registrations and hidden contracts which are provable and forbidden.
The problem is we are dealing with football, where people focus on the results on the pitch, whereas actually that is irrelevant to the question of whether Rangers broke rules on player registration and contracts.
Sporting advantage, cheating, tax evasion/avoidance, illegal tax arrangements, overspending, players they couldn’t afford, other fans’ sense of outrage. All irrelevant. If you want to pursue a legal/quasi legal case to remove titles from Rangers, it’s the contracts and player registrations. Everything else is a counter productive waste of time.
If the Nimmo Smith verdict is seen to have settled this issue, it’s game over on that front. So, if you want titles removed, LNS’s verdict need to be set aside or superceded somehow.

Whose assets are they anyway?
In addition to my last post, I now see Paul Brennan, Celtic Blogger, agrees.

Whose assets are they anyway?
An unpopular thought.

Dave King is right! Well, about one aspect as inferred by today’s article in the Record, anyway. In particular that there is a threat of title stripping due to the large debt Rangers Of Old accumulated…

Record Sport understands that would put Hearts in the firing line, as Gers would attempt to have their Scottish Cup Final wins over Gretna in 2006 and Hibs in 2012 wiped off the history books, using the argument that they too claimed success based on a regime of reckless spending that forced the club into administration.

I think that is fair enough. No titles should be stripped because the team doing it were “overspending”. Anyone pursuing such an approach is being unreasonable. To go down that route would open a Pandora’s box of reassignment of cups and titles. It’s fair enough to spend more than you’re taking in (within FFP) so long as, if that particular strategy blows up in your face, you suffer the consequences without favour from the authorities, football and creditors.
It might stick in the craw of rival fans to lose matches and trophies to someone spending more than they can afford, but that’s life. So long as it’s above board, no undeclared payments, no third parties involved, no secret contracts, then overspending is hunky dory, no problems, go right ahead.
So, well said Dave King, case closed, and let us hear no more about stripping titles because any team spent more than they could afford.

It’s frustrating to see the threat of questioning whether Rangers won things legitimately being undermined by justifying this because they have ended up with a large tax liability (subject to possible appeal). This allows King, and many in the media, to portray any attempts to remove titles from Rangers as being unreasonable. If the main justification is because they overspent and may now have a large tax debt, I agree that such arguments are unreasonable.
Any move to strip titles should be based on other associated infractions. See Auldheid for that.
Crying about the tax debt proving they cheated just undermines much stronger arguments and I long to see such anguished claims desist.

About the author