Comment Moderation Thread

By

Could a mod please advise me why my post regarding …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by Highlander.

Could a mod please advise me why my post regarding ‘handballgate’ has been removed? As far as I am aware, it was factually correct and otherwise complied with the rules of the forum. Thank you in anticipation.

Edit – if my mild criticism of partisanship is deemed sufficient to warrant the removal of my post, then I suspect you have made my point for me. I will return to lurking for now.

Highlander Also Commented

Comment Moderation Thread
SFM says:
administrator: (388 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 3:18 pm

Leaving aside refereeing bias, which I completely reject anyway, there appears to be a systematic failure which needs to be addressed.

The accusation that such a discussion constitutes a Celticcentric-ness on this site is nonsense, to those who have made those accusations, I suggest that they have not been paying attention to the general course of this blog over the last few years.

It is also a threat to the blog’s existence when people try to set up Celtic against the rest. If we have learned anything over the course of our many debates it is that to see things from the another’s perspective brings greater understanding.

There is no Celtic focus on this issue just for the sake of it – just that they are at the centre of the affair, and not by their own choosing. Had any other clubs been at the centre then the same discussion would have taken place.

——————————————————————————————

SFM, thank you for at least attempting to answer my grievances. I have become a huge fan of this forum over the past few years, and RTC before it, and have privately defended it on numerous occasions from accusations of being a Celtic-centric board, even if I only recently began posting here subsequent to lurking. What has made it so special for so long is the obvious putting aside of club affiliations and partisanship in the spirit of unity of purpose in order to unmask and hold to account the (allegedly 😉 ) corrupt administrators of our game.

Whether, as you rightly say, Celtic are at the centre of ‘handballgate’ through no fault of their own is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the perceived importance of the incident has been magnified exponentially because it happened to Celtic. A similarly poor decision by the referee denying ICT a stonewall penalty later in the very same match was all but airbrushed out of the story on here until I and others mentioned it some days later. (Let’s not even mention today’s penalty decision.)

When you say that “It is also a threat to the blog’s existence when people try to set up Celtic against the rest”, bear in mind it is also a threat to the blog’s existence if it is perceived that only Celtic fans post here, or that weight of numbers hold sway. As I said earlier, I will always support this blog and the vast majority of viewpoints expressed.

If my viewpoint (the deleted post) doesn’t meet the official party line, wouldn’t it have been better to allow fellow posters to pick holes in it through debate (it was very tame and far from controversial) rather than simply stifling debate by deleting it?


Recent Comments by Highlander

SFM – The Next Steps
Stewart Regan said the following in 2012. Unbelievably, he is still Chief Executive of the SFA. Discuss.

“Without Rangers, there is social unrest and a big problem for Scottish society,” claimed Regan. “They have a huge fan base and to contemplate the situation where those fans don’t have a team to support, where those fans are effectively left without a game to follow, I just think that could lead to all sorts of issues, all sorts of problems for the game.

“Tribalism in football is really important. It is part of the game. People follow their clubs with pride, it is passed down from generation to generation. There are thousands of Rangers fans whose fathers and parents and grandfathers have been Rangers fans. You can’t contemplate a situation without that and if Rangers weren’t to exist that could have real dire consequences.

“There is a lot of emotion around this subject because Rangers are a huge institution in Scottish football history and they are where they are. Their fans have been hurt, they don’t know what’s happening. There hasn’t been a great deal of leadership at the club and there hasn’t been a huge amount of communication from the football authorities.

“The SPL have now decided that Rangers won’t be coming back into the SPL. From our perspective it’s important we set out the landscape because there is only one solution for the game now.

“The only solution for the game now is that Rangers come into the Scottish Football League and they come into it in the First Division. If Rangers were to go anywhere other than the First Division, then there would something in the region of £15.7 million worth of losses to the game.

“For the bigger clubs at the top of the league, that’s half their annual distributions. For clubs at the bottom it is basically wiping out their entire distributions, for some of the smaller clubs it’s a huge proportion of their annual turnover.

“The same will be true for most clubs. Perhaps clubs could survive for a short period of time but it’s not sustainable. Even if Rangers end up in the First Division, there is still going to be a £5 million loss of income to the SPL clubs. The game is not sustainable so there would be a slow lingering death for the game in Scotland. It would then trickle down to the SFL. From our perspective as the governing body and we cannot allow that to happen.

“If we allowed that to happen, it would simply be a dereliction of duty. Therefore, this whole decision-making process has been one of the most challenging and complex decisions that I have ever been involved in in 27 years of business as sport.

“Some clubs in the SFL are afraid of the implications of the decisions. There is the moral argument, the fear of a fans’ backlash and there are financial implications to consider. But when we look at the alternative, it is not possible to think about it without thinking of the game withering on the vine. We cannot contemplate that and the message has to be that Division One for Rangers is the only show in town as far as the future of Scottish football is concerned.”

Regan admits the influence of television contracts, which are largely predicated on the presence of Celtic and Rangers in the Scottish game, are the biggest single factor in his determination to ensure the Ibrox club drop no lower than the First Division. “We have had dialogue with the broadcasters,” he added, “and we understand what the various stakeholders from Sky television, ESPN, Sport Five and a number of the SPL’s other commercial partners are likely to do in the event Rangers are not in either of the top two tiers. It’s not pretty. That’s why we cannot sit back and let that happen without trying to get all parties to accept this is the only solution which can keep the game afloat.

“Without Old Firm games, the value drops, the overseas deals are almost exclusively about the Old Firm derby and that would go immediately. Then you look at the rest of the game and what it is worth. It is fair to say the broadcasters would live with a year without Rangers in the SPL, because it could be a fantastic story for them, which is why I think First Division rights will be an interest as people will want to see how this club is going to bounce back.”

Regan conceded, however, that there can be no guarantee a financially weakened Rangers will climb back to the top flight at the first attempt. “If Rangers don’t get promoted, then the game has got another year to suffer with the financial consequences that brings,” he said. “I can’t predict what will happen, because Rangers at the moment are a weakened team because of everything that has gone on.

“They are a newco at the moment, they have got very few players on their books. They are going to be entering the SFL in whatever division with a weakened team and I don’t think it’s by any means certain they are going to come back in the way they or their fans might like them to recover.

“It’s going to be a slow recovery to get back to the football fitness they have shown in the past. So we can’t look into the future and say ‘what if they don’t operate in a certain way?’. We can only look at building the foundations, to change the game for the better and provide an infrastructure that can bring financial certainty to the other 41 clubs.”


Comment Moderation Thread
SFM says:
administrator: (388 comments)
April 26, 2015 at 3:18 pm

Leaving aside refereeing bias, which I completely reject anyway, there appears to be a systematic failure which needs to be addressed.

The accusation that such a discussion constitutes a Celticcentric-ness on this site is nonsense, to those who have made those accusations, I suggest that they have not been paying attention to the general course of this blog over the last few years.

It is also a threat to the blog’s existence when people try to set up Celtic against the rest. If we have learned anything over the course of our many debates it is that to see things from the another’s perspective brings greater understanding.

There is no Celtic focus on this issue just for the sake of it – just that they are at the centre of the affair, and not by their own choosing. Had any other clubs been at the centre then the same discussion would have taken place.

——————————————————————————————

SFM, thank you for at least attempting to answer my grievances. I have become a huge fan of this forum over the past few years, and RTC before it, and have privately defended it on numerous occasions from accusations of being a Celtic-centric board, even if I only recently began posting here subsequent to lurking. What has made it so special for so long is the obvious putting aside of club affiliations and partisanship in the spirit of unity of purpose in order to unmask and hold to account the (allegedly 😉 ) corrupt administrators of our game.

Whether, as you rightly say, Celtic are at the centre of ‘handballgate’ through no fault of their own is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the perceived importance of the incident has been magnified exponentially because it happened to Celtic. A similarly poor decision by the referee denying ICT a stonewall penalty later in the very same match was all but airbrushed out of the story on here until I and others mentioned it some days later. (Let’s not even mention today’s penalty decision.)

When you say that “It is also a threat to the blog’s existence when people try to set up Celtic against the rest”, bear in mind it is also a threat to the blog’s existence if it is perceived that only Celtic fans post here, or that weight of numbers hold sway. As I said earlier, I will always support this blog and the vast majority of viewpoints expressed.

If my viewpoint (the deleted post) doesn’t meet the official party line, wouldn’t it have been better to allow fellow posters to pick holes in it through debate (it was very tame and far from controversial) rather than simply stifling debate by deleting it?


Comment Moderation Thread
Could a mod please advise me why my post regarding ‘handballgate’ has been removed? As far as I am aware, it was factually correct and otherwise complied with the rules of the forum. Thank you in anticipation.

Edit – if my mild criticism of partisanship is deemed sufficient to warrant the removal of my post, then I suspect you have made my point for me. I will return to lurking for now.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? says:
subscriber
April 24, 2015 at 3:25 pm

“At today’s SPFL general meeting, member clubs approved amendments to rules regarding the insolvency of clubs.

Currently, any club suffering an insolvency event is deducted 15 points (unless it is such a club’s second insolvency event within five years, in which case the deduction is 25 points).

Today’s amendment of SPFL Rules was approved overwhelmingly by clubs and has the following effects:

– Insolvency events that are part of the same insolvency process would be treated as a single deductible insolvency event

– Clubs subject to a deductible insolvency event would have imposed fixed deductions of 15 points immediately, plus a further five points in the immediately following season (unless it is such club’s second insolvency event within five years, in which case the immediate points deduction would be 25 points, with a further 15 points deducted in the immediately following season).”

———————————————————————————-

Insolvency of clubs you say, Mr SPFL?

But but but I was always taught clubs were ethereal floaty things impervious to liquidation, death, or any other life-ending events known to mankind!

Surely only companies suffer insolvencies? Doh! Schoolboy error by the SPFL methinks. 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 7:44 am

As always, I agree entirely with almost everything you said. However, when you say

“I would like to think I would be making exactly the same argument if the same decision had been made against Caley Thistle.”

that isn’t borne out by the facts displayed by Celtic fans in general. No other club that I’m aware of has taken it upon themselves to write to the SFA over a dodgy refereeing decision. As I pointed out earlier John Guidetti ‘slipped’ and won a penalty against Hearts recently but nobody batted an eyelid at the farcical decision because that adverse decision merely affected a supposed wee team.

Whilst I accept that the majority of posters on here will always be Celtic-minded, and that they are generally respectful of other clubs fans, there is a real danger of this excellent forum descending into just another version of Kerrydale Street, in my humble opinion.


About the author