As Celtic prepare to take on one of the Champions league big boys again, a warning to the commentators and pundits.
Like most Scots, I was sad to see Celtic so comprehensively thumped by PSG and Bayern recently. But something about those nights made me angry as well.
Not the players, their effort, or even the schoolboy defending. Not the semi-ritualistic way these games are presented on TV or the ludicrous hype that is generated by the media.
I blame Celtic for their own failings and the executive branch of Scottish football for facilitating that failure. And I think it is the result of a long-term strategy that has clearly failed.
What offends me is the casual referencing of the weakness of the game and players in Scotland as a key reason why Celtic struggle against the best teams, and the implicit suggestion that if only their domestic opponents were more skillful, Celtic’s Champions League training friendlies schedule, aka the SPFL Premiership, might prepare them better for these big games.
Pat Bonner said it outright in his commentary of the Bayern game. The weakness of the SPFL is the problem. Several others made the point that Celtic defenders never get the chance to play against top strikers in their own league and are, therefore, somehow unable to cope with it when they do. Others claim that Celtic are so used to being in possession of the ball and winning games easily at home, that when they face a top-quality opponent, they are suddenly caught like a rabbit in headlights without the faintest clue what to do.
I don’t know enough about the tactics of modern football, or the language used to describe systems of play, to critique that in footballing terms, but I do have a reasonable grasp of what constitutes bullshit. And so much of what our journalists, TV commentators, and pundits say, on occasions like this, is, definitely, it.
I blame Celtic for their own failings and the executive branch of Scottish football for facilitating that failure. And I think it is the result of a long-term strategy that has clearly failed.
Here’s how I think it went. Professional football in Scotland looks like it has been organised around a single goal. To generate Scottish success in the Champions League. A good way to achieve that is to ensure that Scottish teams get plenty exposure to that league. The best way to ensure that is to make sure that the same team, or teams, gain regular entry into it. The way to make that happen is to organise the league such that it is unthinkable that any other team could win it.
How might you do that without making it obvious what your intentions are?
Well, first, you lay the financial ground. Allow teams to keep their home gate receipts. That way, clubs are kept in their place, the big two stay big, the middle six to eight, not so big, and the rest, remain almost irrelevant.
To further entrench the financial status quo, you need to ensure that income from domestic sources (particularly TV money) is kept low enough to stop any other club paying for a team above their station, but not so low that mid-sized clubs go out of business.
It is our fault because we are not brave enough. Not brave enough to stand up to the powers running our game and put a stop to this madness.
Next, you would have to ensure that the rules stay in place long enough for the plan to work. Give the two big clubs the right of veto over rule changes. The masterminds of the plan have to be kept in office for as long as possible and committee members must be carefully selected. A generous portion of executives from the big two, and a fair sprinkling of others too afraid of their own clubs going to the wall to bother about grand generation-long master-plans, should guarantee no one rocks the boat too much. Allow a rogue committee member to challenge things every now and again to make it look good for the punters, safe in the knowledge that no permanent damage can be done to the plan.
But what if something unexpected happened to one of the big clubs? That could be tricky, right? The whole plan could be put in jeopardy. On the other hand, what is there to worry about when you have ensured that the decision makers are either on message or too concerned about their own teams’ survival to get in the way of a stitch up. Sure, we lost a few years, but it’ll soon get back on track.
Journalists would get wind of this surely, or even be able to work it out for themselves, right? Well, in a profession that seems to have lost most of its towering intellects to be replaced by either agenda driven zealots or barely literate fan bloggers (like me, I suppose), we might be asking a little too much of them. In any case, the overwhelming coverage of the big two in the national media and the simple fact that promoting Celtic and Rangers sells advertising space means that they are, more or less, complicit, even if they don’t always realise it.
I hope this sounds like the ramblings of a mad conspiracy theorist, but if any of the above rings true (and it does to me), then there might just be some truth on it.
Pat Bonner and those other pundits and commentators are right of course. Celtic’s failure against the big teams is the fault of the rest of Scottish football. Our players and teams aren’t good enough. But fault is a convoluted thing. It is not our fault because we are not good enough. It is our fault because we are not brave enough. Not brave enough to stand up to the powers running our game and put a stop to this madness.
I have absolutely no evidence that there is such a master-plan, or that anyone at the SFA or SPFL has even considered any of these points or the consequences that might flow from them. I even have serious doubts that any of the current leadership have the intellectual capacity to dream up such a Machiavellian plot, let alone execute it. But one thing I do know is that Scottish football is not in a healthy place. Not even a Celtic victory tonight, even if they gave some of their CL win bonus to Kilmarnock, you know, for giving them such a good run out on Saturday, would fix it.
How glorious would it be for the other Scottish teams to be credited for Celtic’s CL victories (especially the big ones)? I imagine the words would get stuck in plenty of throats. Celtic win CL games despite Scottish Football and lose them because of it. That, in a nutshell, is where we are right now. All that is likely to change any time soon is that Rangers will join them again. Something has to change, if only because my TV won’t survive another shoe being thrown at it when some Celtic minded blowhard tells the world that my team is partly to blame for Celtic’s defence not being good enough to stop Neymar or Lewandowski.
This article was first published in the unofficial Dundee Fans Forum https://www.thedarkblues.co.uk/news/scottish-football/enough-is-enough-r542/ on 23 October 2017. Reproduced, in slightly amended form, with their kind permission.
Homunculus November 8, 2017 at 20: So basically you don’t know.———————————–How could I, or any other member of the public know? As I said in my earlier post all HMRC Investigations are strictly confidential.
Is this good for the journalism?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41900184
AULDHEIDNOVEMBER 9, 2017 at 01:24
If a picture paints a thousand words what is this still from Mark Daly’s documentary on tax avoidance saying?
=================================
In my opinion it is saying that persons at the BBC (not necessarily Mark Daly), want to link Celtic’s name to tax avoidance even the story is nothing to do with the club. They stressed often enough there was ‘nothing illegal’ about the story, but never once stressed the football club is not linked to it. The simple fact of life is the picture you show is enough for some people, either through ignorance, bias, or lack of intelligence, to assume Celtic have been caught embroiled in tax avoidance. It is cheap journalism, and in my view quite sinister as well, but it is a result for those in the Scottish media who are desperate to find some sort of equivalence. Over the past years we have had spurious and misleading headlines about state aid, and film company tax avoidance, and the BBC has been right there at the head of the queue.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Just listened to the podcast regarding the fans survey. Whilst we all know where his allegiances lie,Daryl Broadfoot’s level of deflection,spite,and all round rudeness was a disgrace. This guy should not have been allowed near this programme far less the SFA.
I, too, have just had a listen to the fans’ survey podcast (available here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQRFX2vOWUvkaeRAEEYL3vzMqdXGFE8T/view?usp=sharing)
I presume some decision makers at the SFA will also have listened to it by now.
Although it is (almost) certain Mr Broadfoot would have been briefed on what tack to take during the on-air discussion, I wonder if those at the SFA involved in his commissioning for the task will be content with Mr Broadfoot’s contribution to the ‘debate’.
From this listener’s perspective, this was an ideal, early opportunity for the SFA to pour some much needed, soothing oil on the troubled waters thrown up by the fans’ survey.
Instead, what we witnessed was a mystifyingly sneering and disdainful SFA spokesman liberally sprinkling unnecessary petrol.
I must also compliment Paul Goodwin for keeping his calm throughout and being well-prepared for this ‘encounter’.
Anyone care to interpret what this reply that I received from the TOP means?
I suspect it means that the RIFC board can go ahead with their disapplication motion.
But I can’t think what would happen if the motion is passed as it presumably must be on the basis of the ‘illicit’ majority the concert party have?
The reply from TOP:
“Thank you for your email, which is acknowledged. As you say, we are awaiting the judgment of the Court of Session. The Takeover Code applies in parallel with Companies Act regulations and its application to the actions of shareholders would not be affected by any disapplication of pre-emption rights
Kind regards
Support Group
The Takeover Panel
Email: Theresa.Scott@thetakeoverpanel.org.uk
Phone: +44 (0)20 7382 9026
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7236 7005
sannoffymesssoitizzNovember 9, 2017 at 06:07
‘..Is this good for the journalism?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41900184‘
_____________
YES, certainly, I’m afraid, in so far as it removes editors who have signally failed to ensure accurate, fair, non-partisan investigation and reporting of the biggest instance of sports cheating we have seen in Scotland and a distinct lack of readiness to investigate the possibility of major corruption involving criminal conspiracy to slide monies wrongfully to parties not entitled to them
sannoffymesssoitizz
November 9, 2017 at 03:57
==============================
Then you referred us to Code of Practice 9 which specifically states.
“If you have brought about a loss of tax through deliberate conduct for a tax period beginning after 31 March 2010, then we may be able to publish your details. However, you may be able to earn exemption from publication by fully co-operating with our investigation.”
and
“If you co-operate fully with our investigation, you will achieve a greater reduction in any penalty found to be due. You may also be able to avoid other civil sanctions such as insolvency and, in some cases, the publication of your name and details.”
Those editor changes are interesting. I fail to see how things could become any more ridiculous at both those rags. When I witness their bias in their football related stories, their willingness to make a complete mockery of their profession, why would I ever want to turn the pages and see what they have to say about other issues?
Interesting to find out what Phil is tweeting (Intrepid, investigative journalist doorstepped at 6am today.)
John ClarkNovember 9, 2017 at 13:35
My Interpretation of that reply would be that We don’t care whether you dilute the other Shareholders shares, You Still have to Make the Offer to buy then at 20p per share or Else..
upthehoopsNovember 9, 2017 at 07:19
AULDHEIDNOVEMBER 9, 2017 at 01:24 If a picture paints a thousand words what is this still from Mark Daly’s documentary on tax avoidance saying?
=================================
In my opinion it is saying that persons at the BBC (not necessarily Mark Daly), want to link Celtic’s name to tax avoidance even the story is nothing to do with the club. They stressed often enough there was ‘nothing illegal’ about the story, but never once stressed the football club is not linked to it. The simple fact of life is the picture you show is enough for some people, either through ignorance, bias, or lack of intelligence, to assume Celtic have been caught embroiled in tax avoidance. It is cheap journalism, and in my view quite sinister as well, but it is a result for those in the Scottish media who are desperate to find some sort of equivalence. Over the past years we have had spurious and misleading headlines about state aid, and film company tax avoidance, and the BBC has been right there at the head of the queue.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stuart Cosgrove was talking to John Beattie on Radio Shortbread earlier today about the “doorstepping” of prominent people during investigative journalistic projects. His view on Daly and Crick was that it is essentially “theatrical journalism” used because it attracts attention, in a visual way, to complex matters where there are large numbers of documents and it is not possible to present those to the viewer in a meaningful way.
He thought most of this approach was inappropriate (he didn’t agree with what Daly did re DD) because it usually ends in chasing people down the street shouting questions at them and adds nothing to the understanding of the viewer other than to create a visual spectacle where the target is seen to be evasive. Its an interesting take that I generally agree with.
Re Broadfoot – he really hasn’t got the right temprement or intellectual wherewithal to do the job he does. He’s way out of his depth with his adverserial approach which is completely counterproductive to the aims of his clients at the SFA. Others have said he shouldn’t be on the BBC because of they way he behaves. I disagree the more people hear from him, the more they grow to understand how useless he is and they start to wonder what all the bluster is designed to deflect from.
DUNDERHEIDNOVEMBER 9, 2017 at 11:43
There is absolutely no question that Broadfoot was primed by Regan primarily, but I suspect Doncaster as well, with the “correct” line to take. What is ridiculous and contemptable is why a PR poodle like Broadfoot is even on the air?
Why do we accept the monkey, when we all want and deserve to hear from the organ grinder, but there is no way Regan will expose himself to such scrunity, and that’s precisely the reason for the discord in the first place. I thought the role of a good PR consultant was to remain in the background?
On here, we are all familiar with Daryl “I am the SFA” Broadfoot, we know the cut of his gib, with his lucicrous & farcical ego, and need for significance, but unfortunately, every Scottish football fan is paying for this farce.
I tweeted Paul Goodwin immediately after the programme to commend his patience, and enquired whether off air, DM told him the name of the SFA “academic” who criticised the survey and it’s expert methodologists?
Until, we remove Regan, Doncaster, Broadfoot et al, our collective intelligences will continue to be insulted by these risible fools.
Mibbees someone at the Scottish Government could informally let the blazers know that the SFA’s receipt of public monies – i.e. monies collected from those same 16K+ survey respondents – will be frozen unless / until the SFA publicly engages with the fans – meaningfully – and to formally respond to the survey’s findings ?
– and for the SFA to publish how it will change
– and to justify why the SFA deserves to receive taxpayers’ money,
when the taxpayers clearly believe the SFA to be incompetent / corrupt / unaccountable.
Just a wild idea.
Like everyone else I get exasperated with BBC Scotland most of the time. But I will speak up for a few. Stuart Cosgrove being one of them. I don’t always agree with him but he’s better than most. Willie Miller and Michael Stewart likewise. Not afraid to come off the BBC Scotland track on a regular basis.
The two others who should be good disappoint the most. Tom English and Graham Spiers. They seem to have some grey matter between their ears but try ever so hard to be ‘neutral’. Sit on the fence experts. They will start off saying something we all agree with but then quickly backtrack so as to not upset the Ibrox fans and their spiritual leaders at Pacific Quay. I find them a bit cowardly.
West Ham FanNovember 9, 2017 at 14:26
‘…My Interpretation of that reply would be that We don’t care whether you dilute the other Shareholders shares, You Still have to Make the Offer to buy then at 20p per share or Else.. ‘
___________
Yes, WHF, but the thought occurs: could they allot ALL the presently unallotted shares to themselves at 1p each, legitimately leaving none that they could then offer to other shareholders, thus making the TAB’s requirement meaningless?
That might, of course, seriously annoy the other big shareholders, but that Board has been capable of living with the untrue claim that they are Directors of RFC(IL), so one would not put anything past them in any dimension of truth, reality or basic savvy.
John Clark November 9, 2017 at 18:33
West Ham FanNovember 9, 2017 at 14:26 ‘…My Interpretation of that reply would be that We don’t care whether you dilute the other Shareholders shares, You Still have to Make the Offer to buy then at 20p per share or Else.. ‘
___________
Yes, WHF, but the thought occurs: could they allot ALL the presently unallotted shares to themselves at 1p each, legitimately leaving none that they could then offer to other shareholders, thus making the TAB’s requirement meaningless? That might, of course, seriously annoy the other big shareholders, but that Board has been capable of living with the untrue claim that they are Directors of RFC(IL), so one would not put anything past them in any dimension of truth, reality or basic savvy.
======================
My reading of such a scenario
There are approximately 81m shares issued at the moment, with King being required to make an offer for the 66% that the concert party doesn’t currently own. (approx 54m shares)
If Resolution 11 is passed and they issue the full 108m new shares at 1p, 10p, 20p or whatever, it would make no difference to the original TOP requirement. King would still be required to make an offer for the same 54m shares at 20p (at a maximum cost of £10.8m).
easyJamboNovember 9, 2017 at 18:43
‘..If Resolution 11 is passed and they issue the full 108m new shares at 1p, 10p, 20p or whatever, it would make no difference to the original TOP requirement. King would still be required to make an offer for the same 54m shares at 20p (at a maximum cost of £10.8m).’
_____________
I was hoping that that would be the kind of situation-no way King can get out of having to offer 20p for each of 54 m ( if that is the number) shares.
The worry I had in my general ignorance was that the General meeting could authorise, in effect, the purchase by the concert party members of all the new and any unsold existing shares, leaving none to be offered to anyone else; and that a vote by General meeting of shareholders might gazump a TAB decision, to the shock and horrorof the TOP, them not ever having been ignored by someone they censured.
I clearly don’t have much of clue, and you have set my mind at rest. Thank you.
BOGS DOLLOXNOVEMBER 9, 2017 at 14:40
Re Broadfoot – he really hasn’t got the right temprement or intellectual wherewithal to do the job he does. He’s way out of his depth with his adverserial approach which is completely counterproductive to the aims of his clients at the SFA. Others have said he shouldn’t be on the BBC because of they way he behaves. I disagree the more people hear from him, the more they grow to understand how useless he is and they start to wonder what all the bluster is designed to deflect from.
==================================
Broadfoot was a disgrace the other night. He was basically there as an SFA Spokesman, and seemed to hint that if the views of the SFSA were made up of 40% Celtic fans, that somehow devalues them. For an organisation that claims to be fair to all clubs, the SFA and their PR rep have both recently made it clear the views of Celtic as a club, and the views of their fans, hold no value. However the survey under question was about far more than the views of Celtic fans. The other 60% seemed very unimpressed with SFA Governance to say the least, and Broadfoot did his best to devalue them too. In terms of his general behaviour towards Paul Goodwin, he was just plain ignorant.
I see Paul Goodwin is on Off The Ball this week. I think he will get a far fairer hearing on there than he did on Sportsound, which basically consisted of four Rangers fans who don’t want any SFA scrutiny in case it shows up rule breaking in favour of their club.
i listened to the podcast of the Goodin/Broadfoot/Smith/MacIntyre discussion of the results of the survey commissioned by the wholly independent SFSA.
There was something comical about Broadfoot dismissing the Survey as being biased and then, on being assured that the German academics were experienced in the business of conducting statistically sound surveys into German football experience, followed up by asking why had the SFSA gone to Germany rather than use Scottish academics!
He seemed ready enough to accept the validity of a survey commissioned by the SFA and carried out by Supporters Direct, an organisation funded by the SFA!
He further cut across his own case ‘that we are all working for the good of Scottish Football’ when he observed that the SFA and SPFL are associations of clubs-looking after their interests.
This showed that he missed the whole point of an independent survey which shows that the fans do not see themselves as mere turnstile fodder to satisfy businessmen, but as having a right to call those businessmen and their ‘associations’ meaningfully to account, and to insist on functional representation to guard the wider interests of football as a live spectator sport.
Paul Goodwin did a very job of letting Broadfoot make himself sound like a very narrow-minded, would-be divisive, self-contradictory waffler of an ineffective PR chap, while he(Goodwin) was a model of calm objectivity and debating politesse, emphasising the objectivity of the findings and the blunt truth that, as seen by a hugely representative sample, both the SFA and SPFL are busted flushes in attitudes and in the perception of their lack of genuine transparency and openness.
Didn’t know until today that Dean Shiels lost an eye in 2006. Due to an accident when he was just 8 years old. Brings a lump to my throat just to think of that alone. For him to go on and make a career in football with his disability and then carry on after he finally lost the eye is remarkable.
I read up a wee about him this evening on Wiki and this is at least three times now he has been plagued with abuse about his disability. Words fail me. I Can’t fathom it. Surely the guys a hero if anything.
upthehoopsNovember 9, 2017 at 19:40 I see Paul Goodwin is on Off The Ball this week. I think he will get a far fairer hearing on there than he did on Sportsound, which basically consisted of four Rangers fans who don’t want any SFA scrutiny in case it shows up rule breaking in favour of their club.
—————————————————————————-
Don’t hold your breath UTH. Cosgrove and Cowan long ago took the BBC’s shilling and are firmly in the “move on” camp. Any talk of the SFA, SPFL promoting the BIG LIE will be excluded or edited out.
bordersdonNovember 9, 2017 at 22:42
‘…Any talk of the SFA, SPFL promoting the BIG LIE will be excluded or edited out.’
______________
Undoubtedly, bordersdon.
The truly extraordinary thing is that there has never been anything like a reasoned , legal or commercial argument advanced by anyone to support the view that the football club that is currently in Liquidation and which actually ceased to exist as a recognised professional football club in Scottish Football on account of Liquidation, can legally, practically or even metaphysically be the new club set up by CG and for the first time admitted to membership of professional football in 2012.
What we have had from the SFA and SPFL is a total avoidance of even any question, and a hasty shifty-eyed shift to another topic, with a reference to the fans, and the ‘what it’s all about’ and the ectoplasm of Rangersness, which somehow allows a football club, for the first time in history, to claim that it survived Liquidation!
Followed by crap such as that all that had happened was a change of ownership,that CG had actually bought the club out of administration, and in due course sold it on to whichever chancers it was at the time who bought it[Geez, there have been so many chancers that I’ve forgotten who was next after CG!]
I even had a journalist citing English FA precedents for ‘same club’ stuff when a particular club down there changed hands in disputed circumstances.
But, unlike the SFA, the FA insisted that the authentic club was the one which had held the equivalent of our league and SFA entitlement, no matter what others claimed.
And, perhaps sadly for some, the league and SFA membership that TRFC Ltd holds is not the league and SFA membership that RFC(IL) once had, and lost in effect by the cheating of arch sports cheat SDM.
It holds a membership entitlement with a history of , what?, 6 years?
Indisputable facts.
And that is not my fault!
[Interestingly, I note that Mark Daly is listed among the 200-odd journalists who are in the consortium of ICIJ real journalists who have produced the ‘Panama Papers’
Should he be included among those real journalists, some of whom court death in the interests of a telling a thoroughly investigated ‘true’ story, instead of playing to the gallery?
John Clark November 9, 2017 at 23:38
I even had a journalist citing English FA precedents for ‘same club’ stuff when a particular club down there changed hands in disputed circumstances.
——————————————————-
I rediscovered the following link via an internet search. Is this what you were referring to above?
http://www.sfmonitor.org/the-offline-game/?cid=145659
I see that JJ has made another schoolboy error in today’s article. If you’re going to chastise somebody for a spelling error, as he does today regarding the Scotsman’s ‘centeanary’ typo, you have to make absolutely sure you accurately proof-read your own output to avoid calling Libya ‘Lybia’.
He further tells us that he will not allow the right of reply on the subject of Scottish independence in his misnomer of a ‘Speakeasy’, where dissenting opinions are not allowed.
And while I’m on the subject of JJ, whatever happened to his exclusive from several months ago that Dundee United were imminently going into administration? Funnily enough he never mentioned that in his recent exclusive article which claimed United were in line for significant foreign investment/takeover, something else which has yet to prove accurate.
sannoffymesssoitizzNovember 10, 2017 at 05:51
“..John Clark November 9, 2017 at 23:38 … I rediscovered the following link via an internet search. Is this what you were referring to above?”
___________________
No,it was the Coventry case that the hack referred to, to support his ‘same club’ notion.. That was a right bit of a dog’s breakfast of a complicated ‘who owns what’ situation,with the ownership (including local authority ownership of the stadium)of different bits of different things being used to try to claim ownership of the club.
Ultimately the question had to be decided of which entity actually had the original title as Coventry City. And if that entity had gone bust, so had Coventry City fc as a football club entitled to participate in English professional football.
The English FA is, of course, a different beast from the SFA, but on the ‘continuity’ or otherwise of clubs that are being financially competed for in situations of Administration they seem to be,eventually, quite clear: liquidation is death. Only being bought out of Administration by new owners allows continuity.( as, say, in the case of Hearts)
And, of course, RFC(IL) were NOT bought out of Administration: instead, speculators bought bits and pieces of real estate and a handful of football players to start a new football club, which had to apply for the first time to join a league. There was absolutely no footballing continuity with the Liquidated club.
That is a simple fact that still requires to be properly acknowledged and properly reflected in the official documentation of Scottish Football.
[And, of course, there may be much more serious matters relating to Res 12 that might , after independent investigation ,require the retrospective dishonourable expulsion of RFC(IL) !
Of course,the new club is undoubtedly a new club whether the old club gets expelled or not! ]
When is the Celtic FC PLC AGM? What can we expect re Res 12 (or anything else re the cheating b******s)?
Virgil Van Dijk,
“When you play for Celtic, your love for the club never goes away.”
Ah Virgil if only that was always true.
The media seems to ‘turn’ some people, I don’t know what it is about some ex players when they go into a Sky studio or BBC Scotland or have a column in a Scottish paper they become an arch critic of everything Celtic. Charlie Nicholas for instance – a guy who was loved by thousands of Celtic fans – nearly chokes when speaking about Celtic. There is more chance of a compliment from Willie Miller who never played for Celtic nor managed them.
I have heard of one or two current pundits who left Celtic under a cloud but it was at board level disagreements – contracts, money etc. But one or two senior managers doth not make a club. Why be bitter against the fans who are listening and reading today? It was fans that paid for their handsome wages at the time they played. Paid for their lifestyles ordinary fans could only dream about. For their sake if you can’t say something nice, say nothing at all. Don’t put the boot into a squad who were babies when you left Celtic and donned the cloak of bitterness.
I prefer listening to Michael Stewart and Steven Thompson over Andy Walker or Davie Provan.
I think they are much more likely to give an honest appraisal of a Celtic game than either of the former Celtic players. Happy to provide credit where it’s due and not afraid to criticise. That is just my opinion of course.
I can’t really comment on how unbiased they are in relation to other games, unless it is very specific incidents as I only really see the highlights.
Walker in particular seems to have a particular dislike of saying anything positive when commenting during a Celtic game.
Ok I was being lazy earlier it’s next Wednesday:
http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/Celtic_plc-AGM_Notice_2017.pdf
Credit for the resolution seeking to improve facilities for the disabled. The rest all about appointing or reappointing Directors and other technicalities.
Delusional: adjective “characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder”
“Based on or having faulty judgement; mistaken”
I refer the above, to the “article” by Alex Rae today, in a local West of Scotland tabloid , where he boldly stated “Rangers are a club who win & lose with dignity and the Board need to get that back to Ibrox”
I won’t attach a link to the story, because it is indicative of the above delusion, and is one of main causes of the continuing failure, of anybody in a position of authority, at Ibrox, to adjust to the new paradigm, that they find themselves in, and secondly, the collapse of the newsprint industry in this country.
And that’s mainly because they write this pish & secondly because,they actually believe this pish. They will never move on as a club, if they continue to exist in a paradigm( if it ever did) that no longer exists.
Additionally, the newspaper industry will continue to atrophy, at an incredible rate, if they continue to perpetuate such lies and utter mince, because that’s what it is, lies and utter mince
Now, I know the bold Alex thinks that this is what the troops want to hear, and will increase his staunch status down Govan way, especially if Big Eck gets the job, and takes him, as his Assistant?
But really, where are the intelligent Rangers fans who can see through this nonsense for what it is??
Why in heaven’s name did Lambert and Dodds ( five minutes ago)think it at all relevant to even mention Celtic when asked why the TRFC Ltd/RIFCplc board (whose decision is it?) had not yet named a new manager?
It’s that sodding perverted desire to try to maintain the Big Lie that the new club is the same dead club that was once part of the ‘Old Firm’
It’s as if it was a condition of appearing on Sportsound that the continuity myth be supported.
Have to admit I’m really enjoying Radio Clyde at 6pm. I didn’t listen to it for several years because loads of people were saying on social media that they were using a heavy gateway to potential callers and callers were being cut off or interrupted if they didn’t toe the party line.
I hear no evidence of this. I have heard caller after caller giving it their all. From all sides. Now and again when Hugh Keevins tries to get too uppity he is put into place by mine host.
I would go as far as to say that it is more listenable than BBC Sportsound. I still enjoy Off The Ball – there is also a bit of humour in it & I like Stuart Cosgrove – and I don’t mind too much the football commentary on the BBC when I can’t watch it on the TV.
But Radio Clyde is no bad.
PS I have yet to win the Quiz at 7pm on Clyde but I’m the same with University Challenge and Mastermind!
The SFSA has a survey on the future of the National Stadium.
Mr Regan has been reported as saying millions is needed.
I’ve suggested building the New Oasis Asset Limited Stadium.
Register the company in the British Virgin Islands.
No tax. No questions.
Watching Engerland v Germany on council telly.
Why are Engerland in an all blue strip?
The blue in the Union Flag is Scottish.
The Engerland colours are red and white.
Regarding the National Stadium, I hate the ‘new’ Hampden. But I don’t fancy Murrayfield either, too much like Hamden as in the distances from the field of play. In the past on here I have suggested Stirling for a new one.
I have changed my mind. I now think that there are lots of vast open spaces besides the M8 near Shotts. Tons of space for thousands of cars and buses. A nearby service station (Harthill) and a Co-op Supermarket in Shotts for carryouts. A train station in Shotts. And a prison. Then there’s the climate – beautiful.
I rest my case.
(plus Hughie Dallas was born in Shotts).
mark my words sevco will be moving into hampden when their pals move out
FAN OF FOOTBALLNOVEMBER 10, 2017 at 20:43 1 0 Rate This
mark my words sevco will be moving into hampden when their pals move out
—————-
Or when their pals move into ibrox,could take care of some of the repairs
CLUSTER ONE
One thing is for sure ,something is afoot .
Time will tell
fan of footballNovember 10, 2017 at 20:43
‘..mark my words sevco will be moving into hampden when their pals move out ‘
________
Would make it easier to visit the Museum of Football’ and see some relics of the dead RFC of their fathers and grandfathers!
CLUSTER ONE
NOVEMBER 10, 2017 at 21:11
FAN OF FOOTBALLNOVEMBER 10, 2017 at 20:43 1 0
mark my words sevco will be moving into hampden when their pals move out
—————
Or when their pals move into ibrox,could take care of some of the repairs
===========================
That is such a crazy suggestion CO…that it sounds plausible for the SFA !
The SFA moving to Ibrox permanently could be the final, metaphorical, swift kick to the goolies for the exasperated Scottish football fans.
As they say: a win/win for TRFC and the SFA.
[And any complaining football fans just need to ‘move on’.]
Hampden houses the offices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA) and Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) at a cost of£500,000 rent.
Could come in very handy £500,000
——–
STEVIEBC
NOVEMBER 10, 2017 at 21:40
0 0 Rate This
That is such a crazy suggestion CO…that it sounds plausible
[And any complaining football fans just need to ‘move on’.]
——-
Any ibrox fans complaining…would you rather celtic got £500,000?
what if a club had major repair work that had to be done to their stadium but could not afford to close a stand or two as the loss of revenue never mind the cost of repair would sink them .
What if that club needed over 43,000 ST to be sold to keep their annual losses to just over £6m
what if that club had a third party claiming to own that stadium and if that claim was proven to be true ,that third party might be able to demand a high price for the use of his asset if the present tenant had nowhere else to go .
Now where would a club like that find another stadium to solve these wee problems .
Jimbo @ 1937
We used to have a saying, in my home “town” of Baillieston, that the only place you could throw snowballs at the Orange Walk, was Shotts!
Hence the reason the television masts were built there.
I bet Im not the only one who is suspicious about the news today of SFA possibly vacating Hampden , I hear Celtic Park and Ibrox being mentioned in their statements……mmmm I wonder if it will turn out to be beneficial for a certain Glasgow club who are struggling financially ….. any one smell a rat here ?
Oddjob, much of what you say about The Shotts is true. However in defence of my little town can I inform you that Hannah Park (Home of the famous Shotts Bon Accord) has one of the biggest pitches in Scotland? Many professional clubs use it now and again for bounce games when the weather in Baillieston is foul but the weather in Shotts is fair, my friend.
roddybhoyNovember 10, 2017 at 22:41
‘..I bet Im not the only one who is suspicious about the news today of SFA possibly vacating Hampden , I hear Celtic Park and Ibrox being mentioned in their statements……mmmm I wonder if it will turn out to be beneficial for a certain Glasgow club who are struggling financially ….. any one smell a rat here ?’
___________
Well, let’s look at some facts,roddyboy.
The National Stadium plc owns Hampden.
National Stadium plc is a wholly owned subsidiary of Queens Park FC.
The SFA lease agreement with National Stadium expires in 2020.
The SFA have the option to renew the lease.
What will they do, other than try to get the most favourable terms possible, using ‘blackmail’ in their threat to pull out and use other stadia for internationals and Scottish Cup semis and finals?
The weight of Tradition and the (almost absolute) neutrality of Hampden and the fact that in reality it is not much more difficult of access than Celtic Park, Murrayfield or Ibrox, and the siting of the Museum ( and I don’t knock the museum, incidentally) argues strongly for renewal of the lease.
But of course, the SFA would naturally not want to pay a higher rent/rates/running costs than they need to.
So, their talks with Celtic plc and RIFC plc will be aimed at seeing whether a deal with them (both, of course!) over playing (on a mutually agreed basis) internationals and etc etc at their grounds would be less expensive than remaining at Hampden.
But they have to factor in the fact that they need administrative office space , which would need to be paid for, if they move out of Hampden.
Neither celtic Park nor Ibrox could accommodate the staff and functions presently housed in Hampden.
I conclude ( provisionally) that it’s unlikely that the SFA statement about considering whether to renew their Hampden lease is prompted by a desire to slide a few big gate-money opportunities to a financially challenged TRFC Ltd!
( apart from anything else, TRFC Ltd/RIFC plc might run itself aground long before the Hampden lease expires)
But , roddyboy, you are absolutely right to be suspicious of anything the SFA says!
StevieBCNovember 10, 2017 at 21:40
‘..The SFA moving to Ibrox permanently could be the final, metaphorical, swift kick to the goolies ‘
_________
There are , StevieBC, some very, very wicked people this side of the Atlantic, who (and I shudder at the iniquity!) actually brazenly assert that such a physical move would only confirm that the SFA’s spiritual home is in Ibrox Stadium.
That they could make such an assertion!
“Oh, Ethel….quick, fetch me my heart pills!”
( me, a dramatist? )
JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 00:28
That lovely new hotel being built by celtic.Could factor in that administrative office space,could it not?
But they have to factor in the fact that they need administrative office space , which would need to be paid for, if they move out of Hampden.Neither celtic Park nor Ibrox could accommodate the staff and functions presently housed in Hampden.
————
Ah! but JC
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/620523/celtic-plan-to-build-a-new-hotel-and-museum-outside-their-parkhead-stadium/
The hotel would be based on London Road, outside the main stand of Celtic Park and across the road from the Emirates Arena.Just think how good the SFA would look(brought into the 21st century) surrounded with all that
If I was a Rangers supporter I would find this official statement very ominous.
===============================
Friday, 10 November 2017, 17:30by Rangers Football Club
THE Club confirms that since the departure of Pedro Caixinha it has received numerous applications for the now vacant position and is anticipating further applications by the end of next week.
The Club will then consider all viable options available to it. At this time the Club has not interviewed any candidate and will take its time to ensure that the best possible decision is made.
================================
Caixinha left a couple of weeks ago and they are waiting another week for “applications”.
Surely they should be head hunting their chosen options, not hoping someone decent applies. In fact why would anyone already in a job apply. Surely the procedure is that the club who wants the manager approached his current employer and seeks permission to speak to him. The if he likes the terms they negotiate buying out his current contract.
To me this is a statement saying we will take the best available and affordable, not we will go for who we think is the best option. This must be as clear an indication of the parlous state of their financial affairs as one would wish to see.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 09:12
The Club will then consider all viable options available to it. At this time the Club has not interviewed any candidate and will take its time to ensure that the best possible decision is made.
—————-
not interviewed any candidate?..just what has their DOF been doing with his time?
—-
Caixinha left a couple of weeks ago and they are waiting another week for “applications”.
There chance of league and cup glory may be all over by the time they appoint someone.
———-
To me this is a statement saying….Feck we hope Murty can pull it off.
this statement is just a delaying tactic
Homunculus November 11 at 9:12
unfortunately, the Edmiston Drive shape shifters don’t do proper procedure.
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 08:46
I nearly choked on my Crunchy Nut Cornflakes, when reading Cluster’s suggestion. Can you imagine the meltdown of the Bearmacht, if the SFA moved lock, stock & barrel into the new CP Hotel, when built-:))
Unseen Fenian Hand indeed, but would potentially deliver such top comedy, as to be seriously considered
Wrt Sevco taking there time on appointing a new manager, I believe that they’ll make their move (for McInnes) and try to have him in place before the upcoming double header v Aberdeen – assuming they raise the £800,000 to release the Dons management team.
You would then witness cheerleading on a hysterical scale from SMSM and former players on his appointment (this has already started through reports in our press that Dons are slipping up after a defeat from Celtic 2-2 draw away to Hamilton).
It’s quite simple in their eyes – first catch Aberdeen and then Celtic. No worries!
CYGNUS X-1NOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 09:50 1 0 Rate This
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 08:46I nearly choked on my Crunchy Nut Cornflakes, when reading Cluster’s suggestion. Can you imagine the meltdown of the Bearmacht, if the SFA moved lock, stock & barrel into the new CP Hotel, when built-:))
Unseen Fenian Hand indeed, but would potentially deliver such top comedy, as to be seriously considered
————
As JC said above.The SFA lease agreement with National Stadium expires in 2020.
——-
CYGNUS X-1…stop eating now
Richard Brown, executive director for development and regeneration services at Glasgow City Council, has now written to Celtic informing them planning consent has been granted.
No objections were lodged to the plans and the decision notice states that building work must be commenced within three years.
2020 anyone?
Just what will the SFA do?
1.stay at hampden? will the lease be renewed?
2.Move to ibrox and pay £500,000 rent,money that may help spruce up the place fit enough to hold the SFA offices?
3. Move to parkhead and join in the regeneration of the east end of Glasgow?
4.Or move somewhere else?
—
ps.Plans for the hotel building states it will be up to five storeys in height and will include a restaurant, cafe and bar.
The say nothing statement, actually says quite a bit. Especially the “viable options” bit. I wonder if anyone will be door-stepped to determine where the “viable” and “unviable” border sits.
Surely they have a checklist of “viability” criteria they need to adhere to. Compo, Transfer funds, earnings expectations, etc.
It could save some potential “applicants” a wee bit of wasted time.
May be of interest,I copied it from a Celtic blog to save the annoying ads.
Today someone I know sent me a story which has been doing the rounds; I later found out that it made the E-Tims diary yesterday. If true, it’s a remarkable one and considering the source I have to say that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to readily dismiss.
On Kerrydale Street, long-time poster Corsica68, who used to be on Twitter and has been a regular contributor to TSFM and other sites, made a spectacular allegation, one that goes right to the heart of how the media in Scotland works … and it offers an alarming insight into the BBC in particular.
If it’s true then it’s a major scandal in itself.
Corsica68 did a lot of work investigating a story involving the Rangers Charity Foundation, an investigation which led him to believe – led him to know – that funds which had been appropriated for charitable reasons had found their way to the club. This story flared briefly on social media and then died. But it would not have died had he had his way.
The story, which he initially did a lot of digging into, was that two football matches played by Rangers (IA) and Sevco, as well as a white water rafting trip in which Ally McCoist took part, all of which were allegedly to raise money for charities, instead diverted the bulk of the proceeds into the accounts of the Ibrox clubs.
They were all set to produce a segment on it.
And then something happened. The story was dead. The story had been killed inside the BBC Scotland offices. A senior manager allegedly threatened his own team. He told them their names would be leaked to the online hate mob, and they dropped the story as a consequence.
According to Corsica68, one of the journalists was Mark Daly.
I cannot think of a more serious allegation about a major media organisation. If Daly was subjected to such pressure from within the Corporation then we’re in a desperate place here. It’s all well and good some saying – as some have – that he should have immediately resigned; few people are willing to walk out of a well paid job, no matter what.
But as I said in the piece about BBC Scotland’s decision to “investigate” Dermot Desmond, an effort which was effectively nothing but an attempt to smear Celtic, someone gives Daly his instructions. Someone decides what projects he will work on. Someone gives him his cue. Our argument is not with Mark Daly per se but with those above him.
That’s what makes today’s story especially interesting; BBC Scotland is an organisation which employs tax cheats. It smears our club. It has ignored evidence that the SFA has been involved in dark deeds in relation to the Rangers and Sevco crises. Its journalists are apologists and hand-wringers. If it is also stifling one of its best investigators in his efforts to dig into scandals at Ibrox that would not be terribly surprising.
But it would be disgusting. It would be shameful.
They are a tax payer funded organisation; their moralising over the tax affairs of an Irishman who lives over there whilst ignoring crooks right here at home is bad enough … but we’re paying the salaries of people who are deliberately supressing news … and that’s a new low, and a dangerous one.
I have no idea if this is true or false; I trust Corisca68 implicitly, because he has been right time and again. This story was one of his best efforts but he did some of the most sterling work on finding out about Craig Whyte and he’s been diligent on issues like Res12 and others.
If he is correct we’re in uncharted waters.
Serious questions need to be asked about this allegation.
I have no faith in us ever getting to the bottom of it but that should not stop us putting those questions in the public domain.
BECT67
NOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 10:28
====================================
If that is true, and I tend to agree, then their statement is basically just a lie to buy time.
On Rangers, Charity and Football Matches.
From the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-23587678
The charities watchdog has strongly criticised trustees of the Rangers Charity Foundation after cash raised at a match went to the football club.
The fundraising game between Rangers Legends and AC Milan Glorie took place after the club entered administration.
After doubts the game would go ahead, trustees gave the club control of match income – a decision which cut the charity’s profit share by £191,430.
The watchdog said the decision making of trustees “constituted misconduct”. However, the Scottish Charity Regulator decided not to take action against any of the trustees.
The regulator’s report states that the Rangers Charity Foundation had three trustees at the time of the game – all of whom were employed by or held senior positions at the club.
… etc
{my bold}
THEREDPILLNOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 11:18
============================
Stephen McGowan of the Daily Mail made what was in my opinion a derisory comment today about Celtic fans possibly asking at the forthcoming AGM about Mark Daly asking Dermot Desmond ‘awkward questions’. They should remember he (Daly) did the same about Rangers EBT’s was the thrust of his argument. The questions asked by Daly of Desmond were nothing at all to do with Celtic, but the BBC made damned sure the clubs name was raked through the muck, with their stage managed grandstanding. The muck clearly sticks though, and if Celtic fans do ask questions it will be because the clubs name was deliberately brought into something it has nothing to do with. Apparently Rangers cheating for years with EBT’s means Celtic are equally bad because a Swiss based company engaged in legal tax avoidance with no impact on the UK taxpayer. Scotland is a very strange place at times.
Homunculus November 11, 2017 at 11:55.
=========================
From D&P’s final creditors report:
Charity Match Costs ……………… 194,615
Friendly Match Costs ……………… 15,533
(I added the second line for comparative purposes)
—————————————
… and from the Charity regulators report:
The purpose of our inquiry was to determine whether the charity trustees had acted in breach of their section 66 duties when they agreed to reduce the Charity’s share of the proceeds from the fundraising event in favour of The Rangers Football Club plc.
Trustee C considered that assigning the Charity’s interest in the Agreement to The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration) fulfilled the legal duties of a charity trustee because the event would still be able to take place and, in terms of the agreement reached with the Administrators, the Charity would still receive some benefit. Trustee C did not obtain professional advice before making this decision.
Under the terms of the Agreement the Charity had been due to receive up to 60% of the net profit from the fundraising event in addition to a £25,000 management fee. Mindful that if the fundraising event did not proceed the Charity would receive nothing, and that it had already incurred costs in relation to organising the event, Trustee C agreed to assign the Charity’s interest in the Agreement to The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration) on the agreement with the Administrators that the Charity would receive 10% of the net profits together with the management fee.
The event went ahead as scheduled. In addition to the management fee of £25,000, the Charityreceived £38,286 as its 10% share of the net profit from the fundraising event.
—————————————-
The above shows how the Charity lost out on the £191,430. I still haven’t worked out where the £194,605 went in costs though.
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 09:35 To me this is a statement saying….Feck we hope Murty can pull it off.this statement is just a delaying tactic
======================
As things stand I don’t know why they don’t just give Murty the job. Perhaps if he wins the next two games that will give them the reason they need to do so.
UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 12:56 CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 09:35 To me this is a statement saying….Feck we hope Murty can pull it off.this statement is just a delaying tactic
======================
As things stand I don’t know why they don’t just give Murty the job. Perhaps if he wins the next two games that will give them the reason they need to do so.
======================
I imagine he is on the fitba equivalent of a zero hours contract at the moment. Real contracts cost money. It would be a good time for Murty to negotiate his position….Before a season ticket salesman rears his head.
UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 12:56
The reason may have something to do with -“they pushed the boat out with Rodgers and he turned a mediocre side into “invincibles, so we(the fans) are looking for a manager of similar stature to galvanise our squad and take them to where we belong . Murty meets the criteria if he can beat the Sheep twice and gives us a chance of going top . It’s not about money,which we have “.
From a conversation with a TRFC – supporting mate last night . That is about the extent of their ambition-to show they’re “back” .
Which board actually appoints the manager , RIFC or TRFC ?
Edinburgh Tax Network on 14th Dec an address by Rt Hon Lord Hodge on SC decision concerning RFC. Details below. get in first as there could be a stampede from our smsm for front row seats
https://t.co/SSymcFxZB4
PADDY MALARKEYNOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 13:55
============================
I am obviously biased but I’d be willing to bet a cross section of several knowledgeable football men would never try and argue that the current Rangers squad are simply awaiting the right Manager to go on and challenge for the league.
UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 15:20
The collective term for these football men is “haters” .
EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 12:34
==================================
Given that it was a Rangers Legends v AC Milan Glorie match, to provide money for the clubs’ charities, how did handing over such a large amount of money to Rangers administrators “allow the match to go ahead” surely it could have gone ahead anyway.
Did anything actually change, were the teams, venue or support different. Could the match not just have gone ahead as planned. I imagine all of the costs would have been paid from the takings anyway.
I really don’t understand this argument that giving Rangers administrators c£190k of a charity’s money allowed the charitable game to go ahead.
I appreciate that there are a substantial number of JJ fans on this site, but so long as he continues to set those schoolboy errors up, I feel obliged to tap them over the line, especially when the quality on offer cranks up to eleven on the cringeometer.
Today’s offering is a rebuttal to a comment, and I quote before he edits it as he did yesterday, “This is not a forum for innacuracy“.
Sublime.
However, I will cease and desist hereafter before accusations of being the petty spelling police arrive, or worse still, I myself make a spelling misteak.
HIGHLANDER
NOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 16:49
=====================================
I wonder if he will have any predictions for this Rangers AGM.
Here are last years attempts.
He has probably deleted those though. When he faked the high dudgeon in order to justify getting rid of a whole load of nonsense at the same time.
Well done to the folk sleeping out tonight at Celtic Park to raise money for the Celtic Foundation Christmas appeal. It is bitterly cold outside tonight, approaching freezing. I believe a similar fund raiser is planned at Ibrox 30Nov. and 1 Dec.
Brave souls!
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 16:32 6 0 Rate This
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 12:34==================================
Given that it was a Rangers Legends v AC Milan Glorie match, to provide money for the clubs’ charities, how did handing over such a large amount of money to Rangers administrators “allow the match to go ahead” surely it could have gone ahead anyway.
————–
from what i have locked away.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/rangers-charity-criticised-over-ac-milan-cash-1-3031799
HomunculusNovember 11, 2017 at 16:32
‘….I really don’t understand this argument that giving Rangers administrators c£190k of a charity’s money allowed the charitable game to go ahead.’
______________________
I suspect, Homunculus, that the answer lies in these paras of the Regulator’s report:
“Trustee C considered there was a very real risk that the Joint Administrators would not permit The Rangers Football Club plc’s resources to be used for the fundraising event. If that happened,the fundraising event would not take place and neither the Charity nor the AC Milan Foundation would benefit.”
”
Trustee C considered that assigning the Charity’s interest in the Agreement to The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration) fulfilled the legal duties of a charity trustee because the event would still be able to take place and, in terms of the agreement reached with the Administrators, the Charity would still receive some benefit. Trustee C did not obtain professional advice before making this decision.”
[You bet he didn’t, because he would know what he would be told!]
I think the Charity regulator deserved to be himself disciplined for not punishing the Trustee for the misconduct in sliding a substantial sum to bolster the funds available that D&P might have available to disburse to creditors of a club then in Administration(and now undoubtedly dying the long, slow death of Liquidation) on the specious pretext that some few bob would find its way to the ‘charitable’ causes.
I thought that when I first read the Regulator’s report. I still think it.
The Report can be found on this link ( at 4. Findings )
https://www.oscr.org.uk/media/1297/rangerscharityfoundation2013.pdf
something else i found locked away.
https://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/rangers-charity-foundation/
————-
That should be enough to keep you reading for a sat night
Ps. just one more.
https://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/the-return-of-that-classic-ibrox-show-charity-theft/
JOHN CLARK
NOVEMBER 11, 2017 at 21:29
==============================
Indeed.
Surely Rangers would not have cancelled a charity event like that because they were in administration, if there was going to be no cost to the club.
Even if there were costs Rangers intended covering then that money could have been taken from the proceeds of ticket sales, sponsorship etc still leaving the charity with a very healthy amount raised.
Just handing that money over to the administrators, to presumably keep the club running. That is just wrong.