Comment Moderation Thread

Avatar By

I agree we should draw a line under the issue. …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by Barcabhoy.

i agree we should draw a line under the issue.

it is disappointing that you continue to claim that i was making personal attacks on another poster. I am sure that there are some who agree with your view, I am equally sure that there are far more who realise I did no such thing.

Mods have no exclusivity on calling it right. They may well have the final word, having the right of censorship and the ability to delete posts, however Mods can and do make mistakes , as does everyone.

The danger to the blog is that points put forward as factual , which are anything but factual, will not be challenged. The length of a post is entirely relevant . Sometimes it is necessary to construct an argument which needs lengthy anecdotal or case evidence . when a post is deleted , which the vast majority of the blog did not see as a personal attack, the result is that a poster is reluctant to devote the time and effort to engage in future.

let me give a relevant example

BRTH wrote an outstanding article on Murray’s finances in charge of Rangers. There was a reference to Dave King which referred to him, quite properly in my view , in the manner described by a high court judge .

The irony of that is that this phrase is banned by the Mods. There is even a warning that anyone using such a phrase risks having their posting rights revoked. It would have been a ridiculous call to delete BRTH’s article and revoke his posting rights, although under the Mods rules that was a possibility

Barcabhoy Also Commented

Comment Moderation Thread
Hopefully this post will not be deleted and I will be allowed the same leeway that Ryan has been allowed to put forward his view.

Re Ryan

Simply Ryan has twisted what I said, and as TSFM has deleted the posts I made on the matter , the rest of the blog are denied the opportunity to judge the matter in full. This isn’t the first time Ryan has reacted to questioning of claims he has made, in the way he has done over his claim that Rangers were 40% of Scottish football.

I have no problem with posters disagreeing with me . However I do have a problem with perfectly reasonable posts being deleted. Posts that took some considerable time to write and much thought given to ensure they kept within the ethos of the blog.

For the avoidance of doubt , I never made a single comment that called Ryan anything. None , not one.

I stated that a claim he made was wrong and supremacist in nature. That has resulted in demands from Ryan for me to apologise, supported by TSFM.

These claims have been accompanied by personal criticism of me from Ryan and TSFM. These criticisms are neither justified nor accurate nor reasonable.

Ryan first came to my attention when he claimed that David Murray was only doing what everyone else was doing . This came on the back of a post i wrote when Murray was found to have short changed his pensioners out of £22 million.

Ryans words were

“I’m not defending Murray, however I don’t think he was doing anything out of the ordinary. Almost everybody pre 2008 was borrowing excessive amounts of money”

That caught my attention as these were the exact words used to me by a high profile PR practictioner who has taken significant fees from Murray to defend and deflect.
The questions I posed to Ryan are below

“You keep stating that public companies engaged in the same practices as Murray. That’s an easy claim to make , so let’s see you back it up. Can you give me a list of plc’s who tick all of the following boxes .

1 guilty of tax evasion ( not avoidance)

2 underfund staff pension plans by 50%

3 have hundreds of £millions of loans written off in return for utterly worthless shares

4 sell company assets to Chairman / CEO for vastly under book value / original price paid

5 destroy a Scottish sporting institution

6 where CEO/ Chairman take a £6 million EBT loan

There are lots more area’s of scrutiny ,however you should easily be able to list quite a few plc’s to justify your claim that Murray’s conduct was commonplace , as opposed to my claim that it was uniquely damaging”

Ryans response was to state that Enron, an English Hotel chain and Goldman Sachs had behaved similarly. When it was pointed out to him that none of them had done all of what Murray had done, and in Goldmans case hadn’t done any of the above, Ryan then changed tack.

He then claimed on a number of occasions that i was accusing him of being a PR Plant. In fact I never accused him of being any such thing , when what I said he was using arguments straight of of Jack Irvine’s playbook.

So my experience of Ryan , is that he does not like being questioned when he makes statements of fact that prove or are easily proven to be wrong. His response thereafter is to claim , falsely in both cases involving discussion with me , that he is being personally attacked , when he is not .

In Ryan’s world he equates someone pointing out he is using a similar argument to Jack Irvine to claim that he is being accused of being a PR plant. That logic was applied similarly in the latest debate.

In short Ryan has made comments which are demonstrably wrong , and similar in nature to comments made by others who clearly have an agenda to deflect blame from David Murray or to nurture the notion that Rangers are essential for a healthy Scottish football. That’s Ryan’s prerogative, equally those who find these arguments completely false , should have the entitlement to disagree , without perfectly reasonable posts being deleted

Ryan does not like his views being equated in this way and claims personal attack. This in my view is ridiculous , as he’s the one making the claims in the first place, and it’s perfectly reasonable to point out he is aligning himself with the views of others who are ridiculed on this blog, for entirely valid reasons.

Deleting rebuttals to Ryan’s claims in my view is damaging to the blog. Ryan has no right to make false claims , just because his is a minority view. I would hope that his posts are not deleted , it’s much healthier to allow them to be debated, and when they are wrong to be proven to be so.

The blog won’t therefore be surprised to learn that demands for me from Ryan and TSFM to apologise to Ryan, not only bemuse me they in my view have absolutely no merit, and are entirely unreasonable .

Comment Moderation Thread
This blog debates the merits and actions of authorities in Scottish football. Referees are integral to the game and they should absolutely be scrutinized in the same way that is deemed fair game for The SFA and executives at individual clubs.

I made it clear I didn’t believe in conspiracy theories, however individual decisions should be able to be debated. When these decisions have a collective appearance that looks unusual, then I believe they are fair game for comment.

Hugh Dallas and Dougie McDonald were removed from the Scottish game as they were unfit individuals to carry out onerous duties. There is very good reason to believe that they would still be in place if it hadn’t been for the actions of online blogs.

Equally there is absolutely no doubt that Rangers would have been introduced straight into the SPL if it wasn’t for the actions of the online community. This blog has been active in leading discussion on a number of topics.

It would be a shame if a future Hugh Dallas or Dougie McDonald was deemed off limits . Not sure at all how that benefits Scottish football

Recent Comments by Barcabhoy

On Grounds for Judicial Review

Celtic aren’t employing a QC . The fans are. 

Celtic have direct access , as a member of both the SFA and the SPFL. They have already succeeded in a committment from the SPFL to a wide ranging enquiry . We await the terms of reference of that enquiry. However it will not include the potential to set aside the LNS enquiry, according to Rod McKenzie

Hence the need for the fans to ask a court to do so.The basis is LNS was not provided with relevent evidence of use of unlawful or irregular tax schemes . LNS , by his own words , said he proceeded on the basis that these schemes were lawful. He also stated that the SPL had rules to prevent breaches of Sporting Integrity and he found Rangers guilty of that , but not in a manner that provided Sporting Advantage.

Based on what was hidden from LNS plus what has been ruled on by the Supreme Court , that conclusion by LNS looks fundamentally flawed

The SFA have failed completely in their role as protector of the game. I have no doubt whatsever that Celtic want fundamental change there. However at this stage the fans don’t have a specific decision that the SFA have made , in regards to the Sporting Advantage , that was the subject of an independent panel, and therefore open to a JR request 
I agree that the non decisions described above by BRTH should be the subject and included in an SFA commisioned fully independent review . However as yet they have decided a 3 monkeys approach is all we are getting . Lets see if Celtic get enough support from other clubs on this one 

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
1 The SPFL has guaranteed TV revenue for 3 years
2 Many clubs have record season book sales
3 Debt has been removed in most clubs
So ??
Why have SPFL clubs been silent so far , with the exception of Celtic , on the implications of the Supreme Court verdict
The argument is made that many are working hard just to make ends meet.
Fair enough , but when was that ever not the case in Scottish football.

 Are we to believe that there will never be an environment where clubs have an appetite to get Four-square behind the notion of Sporting Integrity ?

That can’t possibly be the case , otherwise why bother having a rule book .
Some clubs though are in relative robust financial health, their supporters have dug deep to help finance recent achievements.

 Don’t they deserve the respect , from club directors , of ensuring their club is treated exactly the same way as every club. Not every club bar 1

I’m looking particularly at Hearts , Aberdeen, Hibernian and St Johnstone. You have no excuses for silence , certainly not personal ambition for positions at the SFA or SPFL.
Do you really want your legacies to read :

I was scared to do the right thing in case we jeopardised some ticket revenue.
So I turned a blind eye to the actions of the authorities and 13 years of rule breaches by a member club “


That’s what you want to tell your grandchildren ?

If Clubs can’t speak out when they have guaranteed revenue, record fan support , are debt free and succesful , when CAN they be trusted to put Integrity at the top of their list of priorities…….or even on it .

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
LNS Though did comment on the Tax Case. He explicitly stated that as far as his enquiry was concerned the EBT’s were lawful and as such were not a breach of league rules
That is an important point. If the use of EBT’s in relation to their legality/lawfulness/regularity was a matter of no consequence , then LNS had no need to address them. The fact that he found it necessary  to comment on their legality is telling.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a breach of rules to use tax schemes which are irregular , unlawful , illegal or any of those categories 

Yet there has not been a single enquiry into these tax schemes. Is this because guilt had already been admitted by Rangers ? Is it because it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion that sporting advantage was gained ?

Time to Make Things Happen
Chill Ultra

How do you reconcile your statement that Res 12 was a board controlled project with the fact it’s only in the public domain because of the efforts of the requisitioners ? 

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
Here’s the challenge when it comes to sanctioning clubs for fan behaviour.

1 Minor Incidents can be hugely exagerrated through social media and press coverage.
Take the recent statement by Club 1872 blaming celebrating Celtic fans for Celtic players being attacked, racially abused and having dangerous objects thrown at them. Now even allowing for the fact that the statement was made by the Moron’s moron Craig Houston, it received disproportionate coverage in the msm, virtually none of it ridiculing the shameful nature of the statement.

In the same statement Houston claimed damage to Ibrox stadium in a pathetic attempt to equate half a dozen broken seats with the £80k of wanton vandalism deliberatley carried out by Rangers supporters at Celtic Park
Now anyone with a more than a single brain cell can see through Houston’s lies and bitterness, however his claims were published in the MSM and as far as i’m aware have not been ridiculed by journalists in the papers that published them. They therefore become unchallenged outside of social media, and down the line gain a currency of “fact” amongst those who don’t know better

2  Serious incidents can be downplayed by press coverage

Graham Spiers aside not many in the MSM are prepared to report on the large scale singing and chanting which breaks the law in this country. As another example take the Scottish Cup Final of last season. If you only got your news from the MSM , then you would believe all 11 Rangers players were attacked on the pitch . We know that’s a lie, and at most it appears a single player was the victim of a single attempted assault.
However the media have largely ignored the actions of a large number of Rangers fans who went onto the pitch intent on committing violence. Those who didn’t ignore it, enthusiastically bought in to Jim Traynor’s fabrication of a valiant band who were only intent in defending their players.  

There may be other incidents involving fans of other clubs which could be used to illustrate the points above. The issue though is we can’t allow the MSM to determine what is and isn’t a serious incident. Most journalists , i think, wouldn’t deliberately  mislead, but there are  clearly enough who would based on their track record

About the author