Daft and Dafter

By

Sunincapricorn says: July 23, 2013 at 2:52 pm It is …

Comment on Daft and Dafter by Smugas.

Sunincapricorn says:
July 23, 2013 at 2:52 pm

It is the role of the SFA/SPL (as was) to recognise that (your words),”The beautiful game in our wee country has historically been inter dependent on Celtic and Rangers. The last twenty five to thirty years even more so.”

It is unequivocally NOT their job to defend it, seek to perpetuate it, nor artificially seek to recreate it when one part realises their long term dance partner has horns and a tail. That 40 other clubs appear closer to your view than mine explains to me why the game has rotted away from beneath itself.

Smugas Also Commented

Daft and Dafter
IF Celtic want to respond it should be with ZERO reporting. This is just a pathetic attempt to kick start a rivalry pre season that should no longer exist, at least of any footballing significance. What’s more it seems to be working.

Doesn’t stop them suing the ass off them behind closed doors.


Daft and Dafter
neepheid says:
July 17, 2013 at 10:32 pm

Replace Lawell with my own club’s chairman and you’re absolutely on the button. Same response from me re the SFA and the hampden games. For the club stuff genuinely haven’t decided for the coming season yet. Historically the season ticket was on the mantle piece long before now.


Daft and Dafter
Sorry GJ you’ll be feeling a bit pressurised I’m sure, but I can’t let this one go
—————————–
greenockjack says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm

DP

text deleted for brevity – see post for full text

Let´s look at context, the main “achievement” of the RTC blog in terms of propaganda proved to be the push start of the “sporting integrity” bandwagon. The focus of the blog switched towards this in January 2012 as the tax tribunal came to an end.

It pushed the right buttons and set off a chain reaction within a leaderless Scottish football. This vacum of leadership (despite conspiracies suspected) allowed the momentum built up on the bandwagon to push home and make reallity much of it´s agenda/aims.

Set that against what was happening at Ibrox and the emotions that were brought into play. Can you really expect understanding from football supporters that are punchdrunk from many months of negative headlines, their club is under threat and at the sametime watching certain forces contributing greatly to maximise damage ?

further text deleted for brevity.

_____
I fundamentally disagree with you on your paragraphs 1 & 2 as above. Your 3rd paragraph is 95% of the reason why I am here – and that’s not in support of what you say, just to be absolutely clear.

(((For those interested the other 5% is annoyance at my own personal, not insignificant investment in the game over 30 years turning out to be merely ‘contributory’ in nature)))


Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  


About the author