The recent revelations of a potential winding up order being served on Rangers Newco certainly does have a sense of “deja vu all over again” for the average reader of this blog.
It reminds me of an episode of the excellent Western series Alias Smith & Jones. The episode was called The Posse That Wouldn’t Quit. In the story, the eponymous anti-heroes were being tracked by a particularly dogged group of law-men whom they just couldn’t shake off – and they spent the entire episode trying to do just that. In a famous quote, Thaddeus Jones, worn out from running, says to Joshua Smith, “We’ve got to get out of this business!”
The SFM has been trying since its inception to widen the scope and remit of the discussion and debate on the blog. Unsuccessfully. Like the posse that wouldn’t quit, Rangers are refusing to go away as a story. With the latest revelations, I confided in my fellow mods that perhaps we too should get out of this business. I suspect that, even if we did, this story would doggedly trail our paths until it wears us all down.
The fact that the latest episode of the Rangers saga has sparked off debate on this blog may even confirm the notion subscribed to by Rangers fans that TSFM is obsessed with their club. However even they must agree that the situation with regard to Rangers would be of interest to anyone with a stake in Scottish Football; and that they themselves must be concerned by the pattern of events which started over a decade ago and saw the old club fall into decline on a trajectory which ended in liquidation.
But let me enter into a wee discussion which doesn’t merely trot out the notion of damage done to others or sins against the greater good, but which enters the realm of the damage done to one of the great institutions of world sport, Rangers themselves.
David Murray was regarded by Rangers fans as a hero. His bluster, hubris and (as some see it) arrogant contempt for his competitors afforded him a status as a champion of the cause as long as it was underpinned by on-field success.
The huge pot of goodwill he possessed was filled and topped-up by a dripping tap of GIRUY-ness for many years beyond the loss of total ascendency that his spending (in pursuit of European success) had achieved, and only began to bottom out around the time the club was sold to Craig Whyte. In retrospect, it can be seen that the damage that was done to the club’s reputation by the Murray ethos (not so much a Rangers ethos as a Thatcherite one) and reckless financial practice is now well known.
Notwithstanding the massive blemish on its character due to its employment policies, the (pre-Murray) Rangers ethos portrayed a particularly Scottish, perhaps even Presbyterian stoicism. It was that of a conservative, establishment orientated, God-fearing and law-abiding institution that played by the rules. It was of a club that would pay its dues, applied thrift and honesty in its business dealings, and was first to congratulate rivals on successes (witness the quiet dignity of John Lawrence at the foot of the aircraft steps with an outstretched hand to Bob Kelly when Celtic returned from Lisbon).
If Murray had dug a hole for that Rangers, Craig Whyte set himself up to fill it in. No neo-bourgeois shirking of responsibilities and duty to the public for him; his signature was more pre-war ghetto, hiding behind the couch until the rent man moved along to the next door. Whyte just didn’t pay any bills and with-held money that was due to be passed along to the treasury to fund the ever more diminished public purse. Where Murray’s Rangers had been regarded by the establishment and others as merely distasteful, Whyte’s was now regarded as a circus act, and almost every day of his tenure brought more bizarre and ridiculous news which had Rangers fans cringing, the rest laughing up their sleeve, and Bill Struth birling in his grave.
The pattern was now developing in plain sight. Murray promised Rangers fans he would only sell to someone who could take the club on, but he sold it – for a pound – to a guy whose reputation did not survive the most cursory of inspection. Whyte protested that season tickets had not been sold in advance, that he used his own money to buy the club. Both complete fabrications. Yet until the very end of Whyte’s time with the club, he, like Murray still, was regarded as hero by a fan-base which badly wanted to believe that the approaching car-crash could be avoided.
Enter Charles Green. Having been bitten twice already, the fans’ first instincts were to be suspicious of his motives. Yet in one of history’s greatest ironic turnarounds, he saw off the challenge of real Rangers-minded folk (like John Brown and Paul Murray) and their warnings, and by appealing to what many regard as the baser instincts of the fan-base became the third hero to emerge in the boardroom in as many years. The irony of course is that Green himself shouldn’t really pass any kind of Rangers sniff-test; personal, sporting, business or cultural; and yet there he is the spokesman for 140 years of the aspirations of a quarter of the country’s fans.
To be fair though, what else could Rangers fans do? Green had managed (and shame on the administration process and football authorities for this) to pick up the assets of the club for less (nett) than Craig Whyte and still maintained a presence in the major leagues.
If they hadn’t backed him only the certainty of doom lay before them. It was Green’s way or the highway in other words – and speaking of words, his sounded mighty fine. But do the real Rangers minded people really buy into it all?
First consider McCoist. I do not challenge his credentials as a Rangers minded man, and his compelling need to be an effective if often ineloquent spokesman for the fans. However, according to James Traynor (who was then acting as an unofficial PR advisor to the Rangers manager), McCoist was ready to walk in July (no pun intended) because he did not trust Green. The story was deliberately leaked, to undermine Green, by both Traynor and McCoist. McCoist also refused for a long period of time to endorse the uptake of season books by Rangers fans, even went as far as to say he couldn’t recommend it.
So what changed? Was it a Damascene conversion to the ways of Green, or was it the 250,000 shares in the new venture that he acquired. Nothing improper or unethical – but is it idealism? Is it fighting for the cause?
Now think Traynor. I realise that can be unpleasant, but bear with me.
Firstly, when he wrote that story on McCoist’s resignation, (and later backed it up on radio claiming he had spoken to Ally before printing the story), he was helping McCoist to twist Green’s arm a little. Now, and I’m guessing that Charles didn’t take this view when he saw the story in question, Green thinks that Traynor is a “media visionary”?
Traynor also very publicly, in a Daily Record leader, took the “New Club line” and was simultaneously contemptuous of Green.
What happened to change both their minds about each other? Could it have been (for Green) the PR success of having JT on board and close enough to control, and (for Traynor) an escape route for a man who had lost the battle with own internal social media demons?
Or, given both McCoist’s and Traynor’s past allegiance to David Murray, is it something else altogether?
Whatever it is, both Traynor and McCoist have started to sing from a totally different hymn sheet to Charles Green since the winding up order story became public. McCoist’s expert étude in equivocation at last Friday’s press conference would have had the Porter in Macbeth slamming down the portcullis (now there’s an irony). He carefully distanced himself from his chairman and ensured that his hands are clean. Traynor has been telling one story, “we have an agreement on the bill”, and Green another, “we are not paying it”.
And what of Walter Smith? At first, very anti-Charles Green, he even talked about Green’s “new club”. Then a period of silence followed by his being co-opted to the board and a “same club” statement. Now in the face of the damaging WUP story, more silence. Hardly a stamp of approval on Green’s credentials is it?
Rangers fans would be right to be suspicious of any non-Rangers people extrapolating from this story to their own version of Armageddon, but shouldn’t they also reserve some of that scepticism for Green and Traynor (neither are Rangers men, and both with only a financial interest in the club) when they say “all is well” whilst the real Rangers man (McCoist) is only willing to say “as far as I have been told everything is well”
As a Celtic fan, it may be a fair charge to say that I don’t have Rangers best interests at heart, but I do not wish for their extinction, nor do I believe that one should ignore a quarter of the potential audience for our national game. Never thought I’d hear myself say this, but apart from one (admittedly mightily significant) character defect, I can look at the Rangers of Struth and Simon, Gillick and Morton, Henderson and Baxter, and Waddell and Lawrence (and God help me even Jock Wallace) with fondness and a degree of nostalgia.
I suspect most Rangers fans are deeply unhappy about how profoundly their club has changed. To be fair, my own club no longer enchants me in the manner of old. As sport has undergone globalisation, everything has changed. Our relationship to our clubs has altered, the business models have shifted, and the aspirations of clubs is different from that of a generation ago. It has turned most football clubs into different propositions from the institutions people of my generation grew up supporting, but Rangers are virtually unrecognisable.
The challenge right now for Rangers fans is this. How much more damage will be done to the club’s legacy before this saga comes to an end?
And by then will it be too late to do anything about it?
Most people on this blog know my views about the name of Green’s club. I really don’t give a damn because for me it is not important. I do know, like Craig Whyte said, that in the fullness of time there will be a team called Rangers, playing football in a blue strip at Ibrox, and in the top division in the country.
I understand that this may be controversial to many of our contributors, but I hope that this incarnation of Rangers is closer to that of Lawrence and Simon than to Murray and Souness.
Oh ,and shield 2012
Bye
The Battered Bunnet, in a post recently, explained a very plausible reason for the illogical punishment for endemic rule breaking ( I never said, cheating, Troll).
It was, if the proper sanction of results reversal had been imposed, then not only would SPL points have to be adjusted, but every European and World Cup match where points were gained using inelligible players, would also have to be revisited.
That, I fear, would be a journey too far for UEFA / FIFA.
And therein lies the resting place of Sporting Integrity.
Calling fiver;
spot on,the divide and conquer strategy is working well,or at least it seems to be.
2 things to do;
-Don’t ever go to Ibrox.
-Don’t support national team until such times as the main protagonists have been moved on.
This will be a strong,public,and properly targeted protest.We can all do this together,it is not,then,a one team agenda/protest.Tell your club and ask for their support.Do it now.
Oh,almost forget,Shield 2012,goodbye.
Bye Bye, member your sword?
nevilleprat says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 15:57
See that makes sense to me.
People targetting the source of the issues rather than their own clubs.
I know it is a bit harsh on the national side, which I personally have nothing against. However it would be guaranteed to get publicity, and widespread publicity at that.
The famous Scotland support not going to games because of the actions of the people who run the game
That would be much more effective than say 5% or 10% of the support of each club turning away. I doubt that would attract any attention at all, especially outside of Scotland.
However, and I say it again, please do what you want because it is what you think is best.
manandboy says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 15:16
Feb 14th 2012 Scottish Education Day
I was born and bred in Scotland…
===========================
Good post.
Galling fiver says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 16:05
3 0 i Rate This
Bye Bye, member your sword?
====================================================
I assume you mean the Shining Sword of Truth (copyright cheating, lying, formerly Honourable, ex-MP Jonathan Aitken)?
My my Shields, not only nothing to see here , draw lines in the sand but let’s just close the TSFM down , really, can’t help but think you don’t want any witnesses to the crimes still to come.
What do we know that we didn’t know a year ago?
Thanks to LNS we know that it is vitually impossible to infringe the SFA’s registration rules in such a way as to gain a sporting advantage.
Thanks to the FTTT we know that it is permissible to arrange so that witnesses testifying under oath are allowed to be aware of any and all previous testimony and it’s implications before taking the stand themselves.
Thanks to the the media, the SFA, SPL and SFL, we know that the only way to kill a football club is with a seance or something.
Thanks to the same people we also know that some form of Rangers will always be shoehormed into Scottish football at the top, but the cheating in the boardroom, or the smokefilled rooms at hampden is somehow totally different from blatantly cheating on the pitch in that they will admit to giving certain clubs (one dead, the other less than a year old) preferential treatment, but will balk at admitting this equates to telling a ref to make sure they win.
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 15:0
“LNS had to make his decision on the evidence presented he cannot just make a legal decision on his personal thoughts & feelings even though he may not agree with the evidence advanced.
In the absence of any argument from the other parties the evidence to the Hearing presented is all that counts. Obviously an appeal might alter the situation but I won’t hold my breath on that one”
——————————————————————————————————————————
But this is precisely what LNS with his finding of “no sporting advantage” did . This was and is an assertion not backed by any evidence considered by the Tribunal , the pro’s and cons not even considered in the written findings.
As such it outrages some, baffles others and as for the man on the Clapham omnibus ……….!
Surely someone in the SPL has the moral fibre to demand that LNS’ findings are rejected or at least re-visited through an appeal process.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 14:54
I think you are missing the point.
The best that can be said of the SFA is that they were too trusting of Rangers. But then again they probably trusted all clubs, so they were not really at fault (if you accept that no one at the SFA which had a number of Rangers employees in offical positions actually knew Rangers were using ebts and how. This suspension of belief is very difficult given that Campbell Ogilvie had one but for the purposes of my point lets assume that no one at the SFA knew that full disclosure had not been provided.)
So lets just charitably say that the SFA were too trusting. They were too trusting that Rangers would deliver all the documentation that would have allowed them to say from the outset that ebts were or were not acceptable. Lets say their checking systems relied on trust and on what they were told. And this is were the wrong doing took place not at the SFA but at Rangers.
In not delivering all documentation Rangers broke trust not only with the SFA but with the rest of Scottish football and the clubs that make it up.
Now had their been an admission since that they had done so, that in breaking trust they have severely damaged the game (and they have or TSFM would not exist) then perhaps there would have been much less resistence to them being allowed back.
However all we get is justification or minimising of the wrong doing with no recognistion whatsoever of the serious damage Rangers have done to the game (and themselves). No sign whatsoever of contrition and acceptance of responsibility. None.
Whether you can understand the strength of feeling or not, most if not all supporters who do not follow Rangers simply do not trust them not to break the rules in the future.
By extension we do not trust the SFA to properly apply the rules the next time that The Rangers try to be cute (and they will because to the mind that sees no wrong, there is no wrong.)
Whether TSFM continues or not is not what should concern The Rangers supporters, what should concern them is that the club and all associated with it have been shown to be absolutely untrustworthy, which means anything they win in future will be devalued because other clubs cannot trust that they went about their business honestly.
That is what supporters of other clubs are looking for, some sign that The Rangers and the SFA can be trusted from now on in. As yet we have none and it would be a pity if TSFM had to give up before that happens, but if it does not the mistrust will taint everything The Rangers do or acheive in the future.
The only way to get trust back is to admit it was broken in the first place and that has simply not happened. Rangers did not simply break registration rules by not disclosing the full ebt documentation, they broke the trust on whch any sport depends and it appears this is lost to most Rangers supporters including yourself.
Simply put why should we trust you? Convince us of that and the game has a future. How to do so has already been suggested in the previous blog.
blu on Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 15:13
17 0 Rate This
shield2012 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 14:54
=====================================================
shield, I’ve been one of those that welcomed a different view, challenging the common mindset of most posters on this blog. That inlcudes your posts but in recent times you seem to have moved to a position that says nothing wrong happened (almost straying in to trolling) – did you read the FTTT and LNS findings? You may feel that a little of bit of poor administration over ten years doesn’t amount to much but you must also surely wonder why Rangers serial poor administration and systematic non-completion of players registration was treated so differently to that of other clubs with single transgressions. Can you offer a view on that? I’ll understand if you’ve decided that it’s time to move on from all this but there is a lingering sesne of unfairness about this whole business that goes far beyond paranoid people from the east end of Glasgow.
———–
You’re actually correct blu, I have noticed a difference in my posts, which have definitely swayed more towards TRFC being innocent. I just feel things have turned a bit too sinister with conspiracy theories and claims of a higher power in Scotland. I’m sorry but I can’t contribute anything to this kind of chat.
Neepheid, you’re asking me to explain why I think a corrupt establishment doesn’t exist? How could I possibly go about answering that? It’s like explaining why I don’t think David Ike’s theories are true – it’s just a conspiracy theory!
Auldheid, I can’t disagree with any of that and understand.
Also, i’m not saying TSFM should stop. I just can’t contribute much now and can’t bear some of the extreme chat that seems common now.
Some posters are probably right……time to take a break.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 16:28
Neepheid, you’re asking me to explain why I think a corrupt establishment doesn’t exist? How could I possibly go about answering that? It’s like explaining why I don’t think David Ike’s theories are true – it’s just a conspiracy theory!
===========
You could start by explaining to me why Lord Hodge delayed the liquidation of RFC for over 3 months, conveniently ensuring that there was an SFA membership available for transfer to Sevco. Or even any precedent for such a delay? I’ve been asking these questions for 6 months now. At first I was told what an upright and unimpeachable judge his Lordship was, what a lovely man, and similar stuff. Since it has become clear that the COI nonsense was just a pretext, I’m not hearing his fan club any more. Apart from you.
So I’m not asking you to prove a negative. I want a rational alternative explanation for the apparently collusive actions of these people. That’s quite achievable, surely.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 16:28
blu on Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 15:13
17 0 Rate This
shield2012 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 14:54
=====================================================
shield, I’ve been one of those that welcomed a different view, challenging the common mindset of most posters on this blog. That inlcudes your posts but in recent times you seem to have moved to a position that says nothing wrong happened (almost straying in to trolling) – did you read the FTTT and LNS findings? You may feel that a little of bit of poor administration over ten years doesn’t amount to much but you must also surely wonder why Rangers serial poor administration and systematic non-completion of players registration was treated so differently to that of other clubs with single transgressions. Can you offer a view on that? I’ll understand if you’ve decided that it’s time to move on from all this but there is a lingering sesne of unfairness about this whole business that goes far beyond paranoid people from the east end of Glasgow.
———–
You’re actually correct blu, I have noticed a difference in my posts, which have definitely swayed more towards TRFC being innocent. I just feel things have turned a bit too sinister with conspiracy theories and claims of a higher power in Scotland. I’m sorry but I can’t contribute anything to this kind of chat.
===================================================================
People on here supporting conspiracy theories doesn’t make TRFC innocent. Use your heid man and think about what you post.
The Scottish game is knackered and it is down to the actions of that vile club and its supporters from the South side of Glasgow. Their cheating really has killed the game here. They disgust me.
For Celtic to maintain its pride and self respect it has to demand firstly that the SPL board appeal Bryson’s absurd sophistry and LNS’s baseless assertion in the commission report – and in the first instance to the SFA itself.
If the board refuses then they must lodge the appeal theselves. When it is rejected then it has to be pursued to the CAS. Nothing less I believe will assuage the anger of Celtic fans. Win or lose at that point at least resistance will have ben shown as opposed to the present apparent path of least resistance.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 16:45
I understand, but I hope you take the message of mistrust and how to regain it with you, for it is absolutely key to moving on, but sometimes it takes years or lifetimes for wrong to be admitted.
“I had a conversation in which I found myself saying that this is as much about ruining CFC as it is RIFC. To which my totally “sick of listening to it” Mrs Fiver replied, ” but you said RIFC are not being ruined, they are let off all the time”.
__________________________
I have mentioned this already, Celtic and the rest of Scottish football will suffer, their fans are interested in fair play. If these SPL clubs do not do the right thing they will, slowly but surely, end up in a slow meandering back-water of a league. The strange thing is those fans that hang on will, by their attendance, prolong the corruption, and when it dawns on them will feel somewhat foolish. I may have phrased that wrong, but the jist of my argument is how can you support a team in a corrupt game especially if you know in advanced that it is corrupted.
The only way I can see now of restoring integrity to OUR game is to refuse to attend.
In cardiac surgery you have to stop the heart to cure the patient.
OT
I said a troll, even a good one, but the mask eventually slips – it was always thus!. .
,
I may be wrong but BBC Sportsound is indicating a Peter Lawwell invitation tonight
What is the future for TSFM?
I hope they keep asking the questions the MSM dont ask. Like, ‘where is sporting integrity in this whole affair?’ or ‘what to do if the whole game is not a level playing field?’
We’ve had the tax cases; winding up orders; Orlit; ‘nuclear’ info; independent commissions; and many other rumours. We’ve all enjoyed discussing it but, when you look back, none of it was accurate and obviously transpired through wishful thinking rather than fact.
Of all of these examples you give – only one remains as rumour (the nuclear info – which has legit reasons for remaining as rumour) – the others did in reality exist.Or weren’t you paying attention?
It wasn’t that long ago when claims of corruption were frowned upon by big names on here. Also, any unsupported views of Lord Nimmo Smith, or other such figures, were discouraged.
but now there is a demonstrable case to show the paranoid conspiracy theorists as in the right. These views are supported.
Now? Well we have the majority of posters claiming that it’s all down to the establishment or a higher power that is present to aid TRFC. LNS is corrupt just as much as the SFA and other high powered organisations in Scotland.
have you did a count on the ‘majority’ claim? … I dont recognise your ‘establishment or a higher power’ claim – but its clear who culprits are.
2nd to these discussions, is talk of walking away.
As someone who doesn’t believe in this corrupt establishment, I view it as being absurd and quite laughable. I don’t thing i’m alone in this respect. I can’t find any common ground with most posters now.
there is demonstrable evidence that the claims are not ‘absurd’. It is in everyone’s interests that the verdict or decision is shown to be sound. Rangers have carried some baggage about for some time, and the evidence of how the decision was arrived at doesn’t change that. The baggage remains. Only a just decision will rid them of it – regardless if you support whatever team.
Without credibility, TSFM has nothing and it’s losing it fast in my opinion.
there has been a huge loss of credibility, but its not been on TSFM.
Sorry but someone had to say it.
In my view, your post is on the premise that the SPLIC decision ‘makes it true’. Forgive me if thats not the case. An inadequate Commission is not just and serves the interests of no-one in the long run. Say what you wish but your wide of the mark on all counts.
Prior to the LNS commission decision I posted several times on the false premise on which it was founded.
In essence, for all intents & purposes, three defendants were being placed in the dock – The Rangers Football Club PLC (OldCo); the floaty thingy “Club”, Rangers FC; and the new owners & operators of said “Club”, The Rangers Football Club Ltd (NewCo).
SPL Article 4 says that the meaning of words & expressions in the SPL articles should take their meaning as provided in the Companies Act of 2006. So when the SPL describe a “Club” as the “Undertaking” of an association football club, a quick reference of the 2006 Act tells us that in the case of Rangers FC, the undertaking can only be its “body corporate”.
Ergo, from their own articles, an SPL “Club” is the legal entity/company of an association football club. There is, in fact, no ethereal entity (lacking in legal persona) masquerading as a football Club.
The SPL chose to frame this commission’s ignoring Article 4 of its own Articles. They chose to construct its remit with the flawed premise that the “Club” Rangers FC had been sold by OldCo and purchased by NewCo.
LNS and the other members of the commission chose to accept the remit they were given.
But, looking at the charge “…in the third chapter (Issue 3(c) in the Notice of Commission,
read together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b)) directed only against Rangers FC, alleging that the club was in breach of the Rules by playing ineligible players”, it would seem that a guilty verdict was simply not possible.
How could this charge be directed at the “Club”; but not at the corporate entity that IS the “Club”? How could the “Club” be guilty of any charge that is not directed at the corporate entity that IS the “Club”?
When: “It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a finding that Issue 3(c), together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b), had been proved.”, was this because of Mr Bryson’s evidence, or was this really because that it was a charge that was known to have been incompetent from the start.
Lifted from a fellow Bear on FF, Possible or Pish ?
This is my take on what I think may have been going on in recent months.
It is obviously factual in places and hypothetical in others.
We currently have a situation where it seems that we´re going to see an attempt to fast-track the club upwards within the Leagues……This is how I think it came about and how the support have been deceived by Green&Co into further confrontation when the reallity in the offices at Hampden & Ibrox was very different.
Last summer when the infamous “5 way agreement” was being drafted and re-drafted on various occasions, discussions will have taken place between the club/CG and the governing bodies wrt how they could fast-track Rangers up the Leagues.
I believe that it interested all parties involved with the main driver being financial, eg. TV deal, sponsership, gates and other revenues.
This came after some of the same people failed to secure a place for Rangers in the SPL or the SFL1.
The SPL decision is a story in itself but without the sporting integrity bandwagon, subsequent boycott threats, protest momentum and lack of leadership….we´d probably have remained in the SPL after a vote of the SPL board (rather than individual clubs).
The momentum had been established and SFL were next to vote and refuse the overtures of Regan & Doncaster.
So it was SFL3 rather than SFL1.
At this point there would have been frantic head scratching from the governing bodies and Charles Green with the main worry being revenue streams.
Dialogue between the parties culminated in the 5 way agreement which included whether written or verbal, a plan for the fast-track.
Rangers had to get some players in prior to September 1st when the registration ban started.
Now I remember not one but at least a couple of players, when questioned about why they were prepared to drop down to SFL3, mentioning that they were told to expect a return to the top tier earlier than how it appeared.
I´m sure that this was well broadcast at the time as I remember questions appearing on it here.
Fast forward to December and the share issue where it was put forward in a more formal manner.
The prospectus made for interesting reading.
On page 13
“However, this risk is mitigated by the fact that any restructuring of Scottish football may enable the Club to return to the top division of Scottish football sooner than currently anticipated and to therefore benefit from access to different sources and levels of income.”
And on page 28
“This structure could lead to an increase in teams in the SPL and in addition a realignment of teams and the division in which they play which could facilitate a faster return for the Club to the SPL than under the current structure.”
In January this year, Regan was asked about his relationship with Charles Green and he said….
“He’s recognised that the way to get success is to play to a group of supporters that now idolise him. He’s actually worked out the secret of getting his fans on his side and that’s to be very outspoken, to be very challenging to the authorities, to be seen to be standing up for Rangers when nobody else would stand up for them and he’s turned the club around. Charles is not a big fan of the SFA and that’s probably because his fans aren’t. But, privately, sitting across a table, we get on fine.
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-…-sfa-1-2734702
The apparent rush to get League reconstruction up and ready for the following season was the one main reason, financial.
What is the only thing that can meaningfully make a financial difference ?…….If Rangers are fast-tracked.
The plan is to get momentum behind the proposal and at the 11th hour start to lay the groundwork for the fast-track.
You may have noticed that this has started during the last few days with some of the main “players” hinting towards it and TV pundits passionately demanding it in newspaper columns.
So expect another bout of The Financial Imperative v Sporting Integrity involving supporters, clubs and the governing bodies.
Whether it happens or not, remains to be seen but the governing bodies will point to struggling clubs needing the cashflow and have a convincing argument.
What I think Charles Green has done is prioritise revenue streams, wanting to get back to the top asp. This is entirely understandable from a business perspective both for him individually, the shareholders and the club.
However what he has also done is send the support off on a phoney confrontational wild goose chase whilst doing the deals behind the scenes not long after he started at Ibrox.
To this end, the club are not saying or taking any meaningful steps against the likes of Regan et al.
Looks like LNS never heard of The Golden Rule.
http://glasnostandapairofstrikers.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/gilt-edged-justice/
Rather than apply it he allowed an interpretation that undermined the intent of a key football rule.
I think it is worth mentioning again, just for the avoidance of doubt.
The Nimmo Smith enquiry found Rangers guilty of the charges laid against them. No matter the derisory “penalty” or the way this has been spun they were found guilty.
The FTT found that Rangers did indeed owe tax, in some cases. Not in the majority, but in some. As I have said before, if these had been reported on separately then it would have been a scandal.
HMRC are appealing those which the FTT decided that tax was not due. It is therefore no different from the position we were in before, other than the appelant and respondent having changed places. It is worth bearing in mind that HMRC do not appeal FTT decisions as a matter of course.
In addition to this Rangers have admitted to a further two instances where they did not pay the proper tax. In one of these occassions they simply stole millions of pounds which they had collected on behalf of the governemnt.
Those are the facts of the matter. Though the press and others would have us believe that Rangers have been vindicated of the charges against them. That is simply nonsense.
bailemeanach on Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 13:28
10 0 Rate This
What was his beef with Mr English?
————
He named TE specifically. I think he felt misrepresented when TE accused him of telling lies. Would love to see CG v TE face to face.
CG certainly has the patter. But admitted he lived a boring life. Funny bit: ‘If was raining in Scotland people would disagree (t’bout rain)’.
Much better was Tommy in Glasgow’s interview with Bomber. Bomber comes across as genuine.
If the SPL will not query the impact of Nimmo Smiths findings on football integrity (see The Golden Rule Blog) is this another avenue to pursue?
https://www.bkms-system.net/bkwebanon/report/clientInfo?cin=6fifa61&language=eng
In fact could the thrust of the Golden rule blog above not form a basis for TSFM reprsenting a number of Scottish Football fans going to the FIFA site whilst SPL clubs dither?
This relevant parts from Golden Rule blog are
Returning to the Rangers case, there is a powerful argument that applying the player registration rule literally creates absurdity or injustice – principally because it creates three perverse incentives.
Firstly, it incentivises clubs to apply for a player to be registered even if they know that the conditions of registration are not satisfied, in the hope that the application will somehow ‘slip through the net’ and be granted anyway (in which case it will be valid until revoked).
Secondly, a club which discovers that it has made an error in its application is incentivised to say nothing and to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ – because it would be in a better position by not confessing its mistake.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it incentivises fraud – by deliberately concealing relevant information, a club can ensure that a player who does not satisfy the registration conditions is treated as being eligible – and therefore allowed to play – for as long as a period as possible (potentially his entire spell with the club). And then, if the club is no longer around when the deception is finally discovered, imposing meaningful sanctions may be impossible.
Could these points, particularly the third be the ones to draw to FIFA attention.
the fat lady aint sung yet folks.
In learning about some of the worst people in Scotland,
I’ve discovered some of the very best!
I’m not so happy now and not so proud to be Scottish.
———————————————————————-
Manandboy
Scotland is a great country, you need to ignore the west of Scotland bubble that affects some of our more challenging citizens..
There are lots of great people all over Scotland, TRFC should not cloud your love of your country.
The whole episode stinks from intelligent people who should know better.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 17:43
2 0 Rate This
If the SPL will not query the impact of Nimmo Smiths findings on football integrity (see The Golden Rule Blog) is this another avenue to pursue?
https://www.bkms-system.net/bkwebanon/report/clientInfo?cin=6fifa61&language=eng
In fact could the thrust of the Golden rule blog above not form a basis for TSFM reprsenting a number of Scottish Football fans going to the FIFA site whilst SPL clubs dither?
This relevant parts from Golden Rule blog are
Returning to the Rangers case, there is a powerful argument that applying the player registration rule literally creates absurdity or injustice – principally because it creates three perverse incentives.
Firstly, it incentivises clubs to apply for a player to be registered even if they know that the conditions of registration are not satisfied, in the hope that the application will somehow ‘slip through the net’ and be granted anyway (in which case it will be valid until revoked).
Secondly, a club which discovers that it has made an error in its application is incentivised to say nothing and to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ – because it would be in a better position by not confessing its mistake.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it incentivises fraud – by deliberately concealing relevant information, a club can ensure that a player who does not satisfy the registration conditions is treated as being eligible – and therefore allowed to play – for as long as a period as possible (potentially his entire spell with the club). And then, if the club is no longer around when the deception is finally discovered, imposing meaningful sanctions may be impossible.
Could these points, particularly the third be the ones to draw to FIFA attention.
the fat lady aint sung yet folks.
=======
Good point
It’s all well and good bumping our gums on internet blogs but isn’t it time for some action
Are you going to raise this with FIFA?
greenockjack says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 17:25
Lifted from a fellow Bear on FF, Possible or Pish ?
——
Thanks for that. A well written piece, which sounds entirely plausible to me.
dreddybhoy says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 17:56
0 0 Rate This
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 17:43
2 0 Rate This
If the SPL will not query the impact of Nimmo Smiths findings on football integrity (see The Golden Rule Blog) is this another avenue to pursue?
https://www.bkms-system.net/bkwebanon/report/clientInfo?cin=6fifa61&language=eng
In fact could the thrust of the Golden rule blog above not form a basis for TSFM reprsenting a number of Scottish Football fans going to the FIFA site whilst SPL clubs dither?
This relevant parts from Golden Rule blog are
Returning to the Rangers case, there is a powerful argument that applying the player registration rule literally creates absurdity or injustice – principally because it creates three perverse incentives.
Firstly, it incentivises clubs to apply for a player to be registered even if they know that the conditions of registration are not satisfied, in the hope that the application will somehow ‘slip through the net’ and be granted anyway (in which case it will be valid until revoked).
Secondly, a club which discovers that it has made an error in its application is incentivised to say nothing and to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ – because it would be in a better position by not confessing its mistake.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it incentivises fraud – by deliberately concealing relevant information, a club can ensure that a player who does not satisfy the registration conditions is treated as being eligible – and therefore allowed to play – for as long as a period as possible (potentially his entire spell with the club). And then, if the club is no longer around when the deception is finally discovered, imposing meaningful sanctions may be impossible.
Could these points, particularly the third be the ones to draw to FIFA attention.
the fat lady aint sung yet folks.
=======
Good point
It’s all well and good bumping our gums on internet blogs but isn’t it time for some action
Are you going to raise this with FIFA?
===================================================================
So anyone can be a whistleblower.
I think this applies not to the SPL; but the SFA as the local association.
Does permitting the unfettered fielding of ineligible players (by refusing to insist that the SPL apply the rules that would deem them to be ineligible) amount to match manipulation? Perhaps.
Certainly the strongest case has to be made to the effect that the circumstances have not been dealt with appropriately.
Brenda, meant to say welcome back, yes Vincent Lunny does exist, and it’s amazing the alacrity he moved with to bring DAFC up on charges, and yet the team in the SFL3 who shamed the nation on a live TV broadcast , nothing. He could of course be saving us all time and money by assuming despite overwhelming evidence there would be another “not proven” , “not guilty” or a “just gonny no do that.” Verdict.
Does permitting the unfettered fielding of ineligible players……
they never said that.
the next miscreant will be dealt with in the usual manner – yer oot and it wiz 3-0.
dreddybhoy says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 17:56
I was looking for feedback to see if folk thought it a goer.
HP
I was thinking a case under 3 could be made as SFA providing evidence could be considered inappropriate.
There have been a few interesting points made by fellow posters, which have set my mind buzzing as I lurked. The first point is that SPL chairmen felt that their “stand” has not been rewarded by higher attendances from fans this season. I do not feel that any club has taken a stand: they all wanted Sevco in the SPL last season. The fans blocked this. The SFL clubs then blocked the parachute into the First Division – again under huge fan pressure.
At this point, the fans looked for a way for a statement of the way forward from the clubs and a clear assertion that sporting integrity was paramount. All of the clubs were silent. We sought engagement with the clubs and were rewarded with the cold shoulder.
Since then, Charles Green has continually attacked the SPL & SFA over any issue he could find. He also attacked other SFL clubs who dared point out that Sevco were a new club. All of the clubs were silent. The governing bodies were silent and did nothing.
For years, fans have been expressing their extreme dissatisfaction with the construction of the Leagues. We were dismissed by the authorities. Now we have reconstruction being forced through at a reckless speed.
The fans wanted justice for the cheating of Rangers. They were shafted by the LNS commission. Thhe clubs sit silently. Apparently, the paying customers do not deserve an explanation.
The only faith shown in the fans by their clubs has been bad faith. It looks very much like the clubs have sulked since they did not get their own way last season and are determined to get it this season. The fans will serve as useful patsies. We, however, are not to stupid as they think nor as passive as they would wish.
Yes GJ, I’ll echo Angus’ comments as well. More of the same please.
Note, at no point that I spotted did the article refer to any higher power or conspiracy of thieving goats – but I enjoyed it all the more for that.
As someone who has never responded to “shield02” but breaking my rule on this occasion. Like all dead bear fans his arrogance is breathtaking, TSFM is not credible in his eyes so he is “walking away” (does Ally know?)
Anyway like all trolls, how long before “shield02” morphs into another “concerned”poster anxious to give a “different” opinion
HirsutePursuit says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 18:10
1 0 Rate This
It’s all well and good bumping our gums on internet blogs but …
I think this applies not to the SPL; but the SFA as the local association.
Does permitting the unfettered fielding of ineligible players (by refusing to insist that the SPL apply the rules that would deem them to be ineligible) amount to match manipulation? Perhaps.
Certainly the strongest case has to be made to the effect that the circumstances have not been dealt with appropriately …
———–
And why not, but on behalf TSFM or individual clubs? Point 3 must have relevance. Perhaps something like that online survey the other day could form part of the basis. There were a lot of responses.
Meant to say GJ, the article didn’t really come to a conclusion per se. What was the reaction like? The confrontational thing was simply to maintain bums on seats and you could hardly criticise him personally for that (in the absence of any body prepared to enforce anything else). Whether it was actually necessary is anyone’s guess since incredible crowds were maintained apparently regardless. He does now have an interesting balancing act to perform however. On the one hand the SFA/SPL need (or at best would certainly prefer) the RFC up for shere numbers, on the other hand to maintain the crowds (craving success) but keep the costs low by not spending large(r) CG has to be seen to be acting in spite of, not in support of the authorities. There’s even the angle oft quoted on here that that was his get out clause leaving a walteresque figure to balance the various pressures. Thoughts from the blue corner?
dentarthurdent42 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 13:35
8 0 Rate This
Can someone explain to me how, if the top league is staying as 12 clubs, Rangers or anyone else can be forced into it.
————————————————-
Well they tried to force them into the SPL last year and the only thing that stopped it was a fan revolt, they didn’t even bother with a justification. Why was there even a vote? What justification was offered other than we need the money? Well guess what, they still need the money.
The position of fans will be fatally weakened if we just continue to buy tickets like mugs.
They can find a way to find Rangers guilty of 11 years of systematic cheating and not punish them so they can find a way to punt them up a couple of divisions
This is why the ball is burst as it appears there is nothing they won’t resort to, to help the Establishment team
My money is on SFL1 though, or Championship or whatever its equivalent will be called
Every fan should, on the 47th minute hold up a red card (A4 size maybe?) just chant ‘Cheats Out!, Cheats Out!’ continually until news filters through that Rangers during their game have had their obligatory dodgy decision. The red cards and 30 seconds of chanting, every game, until the end of the season should be enough to send a message.
If you’d be willing to forgo purchasing a season ticket unless the cheats are dealt with properly, hold up both.
the reconstruction has to be about fast tracking TRFC probably at the expenses of another struggling club. At first I wondered why Longmuir was presenting the proposals rather than Doncaster and Regan. My feeling now is that Doncaster and Regan knew they had no credibility so decided the reconstruction should be presented by someone else.
I think TRFC will be in the top league or second league next season, after all, the 5 way agreement seemed to hint at such a scenario. How it will happen, I do not know but I expect it will happen.
smugas
I think the piece touched on 2 main issues.
An opinion on what´s actually happening with reconstruction and that CG wouldn´t be adverse to saying one thing and doing another.
The reaction was mixed, as you would expect.
What you appear to have now though is a large section of the support in tune with CG and under his spell.
The Walteresque figure as you put it, is way in the background with CG having successfully reached a place where he feels confident he´ll be able to deal with whatever is thrown his way.
expense, not expenses 🙂
manandboy says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 15:16
I was born and bred in Scotland.
————————————————————————-
What school did you go to?
Danish Pastry says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 18:41
———–
And why not, but on behalf TSFM or individual clubs? Point 3 must have relevance. Perhaps something like that online survey the other day could form part of the basis. There were a lot of responses.
——————————–
This one? https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PLLNCMR
Cos the results were V surprising (to me).
I see Shill2012 (can you write a Freudian slip on purpose? – given the recent interpretations of plain English, why not!) has finally got to the end game of his postings …
TSFM what’s the point? give it up, no credibility, blah, blah, f#ckin’ blah!
On the occasions I’ve read his sparrings with other contributors, his comments simply come across as insistent, scripted appeasment, full of lexical semantics, spurious reasoning and specious argument. He is simply on this site for one thing only – to suck the lifeforce out of any well reasoned polemic that further imperils the now noxious TRFC brand.
If The Rangers are now innocent – its last post time Shield.
Celtic Paranoia (@CelticParanoia) says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 18:58
dentarthurdent42 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 13:35
8 0 Rate This
Can someone explain to me how, if the top league is staying as 12 clubs, Rangers or anyone else can be forced into it.
————————————————-
Well they tried to force them into the SPL last year and the only thing that stopped it was a fan revolt, they didn’t even bother with a justification. Why was there even a vote? What justification was offered other than we need the money? Well guess what, they still need the money.
=========================================
That debacle was because of Rangers dying.
There was the whole thing about “Club 12”
Ross County were promoted because they were entitled to it, then there was the other place to fill.
So even if another club in the SPL were to die (not go into admin, actually die) then the precedent is set. They are replaced by an additional club from SFL 1.
Or, if the club dies during the season there is simply no relegation at the end of the season.
Need a reason to continue to contribute?
Without a hint or irony, the ‘bitter battle’ is blamed on Thompson, Petrie and the apparently ‘Machiavellian’ Peter Lawwell. No mention of David Murray. No mention of being found guilty of years of lying and yes, cheating.
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/233-why-i-can-t-move-on
It really is quite extraordinary. Or it would be if they didn’t try to rewrite history every single day. If you want to let this kind of rubbish go unchallenged, then move on. If, however, you prefer to fight for truth, justice and the integrity way, keep on keeping on.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 14:54
What is the future for TSFM?
We’ve had the tax cases; winding up orders; Orlit; ‘nuclear’ info; independent commissions; and many other rumours. We’ve all enjoyed discussing it but, when you look back, none of it was accurate and obviously transpired through wishful thinking rather than fact.
It wasn’t that long ago when claims of corruption were frowned upon by big names on here. Also, any unsupported views of Lord Nimmo Smith, or other such figures, were discouraged.
Now? Well we have the majority of posters claiming that it’s all down to the establishment or a higher power that is present to aid TRFC. LNS is corrupt just as much as the SFA and other high powered organisations in Scotland.
2nd to these discussions, is talk of walking away.
As someone who doesn’t believe in this corrupt establishment, I view it as being absurd and quite laughable. I don’t thing i’m alone in this respect. I can’t find any common ground with most posters now.
Without credibility, TSFM has nothing and it’s losing it fast in my opinion.
Sorry but someone had to say it.
___________________________________________________________________________
I find myself in agreement with much of what Shields has to say, which is closer in spirit to the original article, than many of the responses he’s been receiving. I welcome his continued presence on here as it’s an important counter-balance to some of the more hysterical views that are becoming prevalent of late. The dismissive and occasionally aggressive (with a small a) tone towards him is not what he deserves. Disagreements and different opinions should be encouraged on here. They used to be.
broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:13
0 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 18:41
———–
And why not, but on behalf TSFM or individual clubs? Point 3 must have relevance. Perhaps something like that online survey the other day could form part of the basis. There were a lot of responses.
——————————–
This one? https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PLLNCMR
Cos the results were V surprising (to me).
—————
I think that was the one. I understood there was a response that suggested disatisfaction with the LNS verdict, maybe not? Anyway, listening to phone-ins and even from some in the media there is still a question mark over this verdict. Mind you, Green did say it was a Mickey Mouse investigation 🙂
dentarthurdent42 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:17
————————————————-
Correct. My statement was poorly phrased. What I meant to highlight was why were the New Rangers FC even considered as an appropriate option as Club 12?
My memory isn’t great but I recall some sort of farce whereby the dead (life support) Rangers actually had a vote on whether their zombie reincarnation should be given the vacant place.
But of course we all know why really
Whistleblowing to FIFA eh. Smacks of Rangers hating to me……. 😉
greenockjack
”Just as there was some validity in the arguments made against the Celtic politically minded efforts to maximise damage on Rangers, not cause the damage but to maximise it.
The horrible irony is that what is left is a mess, with no-one happy (apart from Mr Green and his consortium) and the game in that has never been in such a terrible state both economically and at an administrative level where there is no trust left.”
I find that quite an extraordinary statement. What level of damage do you reckon Murray wrought on the club? Merely a def-con 1, maybe a 2 if pushed? I do get what you’re trying to say but I believe it is utter bunkum – Murray was the architect and chief executioner of the whole, financially disastrous project, and no amount of PR will ever change that (history will not be kind); Whyte was brought in to apply the coup de grace, and Mr Green is currently picking over the carcass. There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that Celtic or any other club could do to “maximize” the damage beyond the current position. In a way, your statement is symptomatic of the supra-entitled, super-race, that guarantees Scotland’s future is doomed in a footballing-sense.
Celtic Paranoia (@CelticParanoia) says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:35
————————————————-
Correct. My statement was poorly phrased. What I meant to highlight was why were the New Rangers FC even considered as an appropriate option as Club 12?
——————————–
New rangers shouldn’t even have been considered as the main candidates for an SFL3 place. However given that it is clear Scottish football is institutionally corrupt in favour of one club and one support it is less than surprising that the place was just given to them.
dentarthurdent42 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:17
——————————————
Precedent? Rules? These do not apply to Sevco. Hearts are on very thin ice at the moment (I do not think the Lithuanian financial authorities will treat UBIG and its asset Hearts in the same way that happened to MIH and Rangers here). If Hearts are still alive, find an excuse to deny the First Division champions promotion (this has happened before to Falkirk). Sevco, of course, will only accept for the good of Scottish football.
Green, who relaunched Rangers in the Irn-Bru Third Division last summer after the club was consigned to liquidation, told
talkSPORT: “With what has happened to us in Scotland, I’ve had
enough indications that Scottish football don’t like or don’t want Rangers, so I look at other options.”
http://www.football365.com/scottish-football/8546156/-
I don’t suppose competing on a level Scottish playing field ever entered into the equation. Did it Charles? If the new club can’t compete on the same skewed basis as the old one, then sticking around isn’t really on. Is it?
greenockjack says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:04
CG having successfully reached a place where he feels confident he´ll be able to deal with whatever is thrown his way.
—————————————————-
He’s a man who can fire off an opinion in any one of 360 degrees depending on his audience, quite unperturbed by that fact that it gets reported all over the place. So he’s certainly not a man who lacks confidence that he will sail though with enough chutzpah, protection, or a combination of both that he doesn’t need to worry about it
Although as far as Scottish football goes, it’s been pretty savage stuff all round for the past year and more, watching it all and seeing it as some kind of morality play about modern day finance, justice and power – now that would definitely worth the price of a ticket!
Geordie Bhoy says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:43
Here are the current top 4
1 Morton 26 52
2 Partick Thistle 24 50
3 Livingston 25 40
4 Dunfermline 26 39
Assuming 1 wins and gets promoted and there is somehow another space in the SPL, would whoever came second of the other three simply be overlooked, and how would it be justified with the Dundee precedent.
Bearing in mind if it happens during the season then there is simply no relegation and 1 club comes up.
verselijkfc
I can appreciate the point about the likes of Murray, who has to take the lions share of the blame and indeed that the cause was the fault of no-one but Rangers.
However when I mention Celtic and their part, I don´t think you understand fully.
The train wreck was there but those within the Celtic support that are politically active wanted to maximise damage, push and lobby for it.
If you didn´t see it, recognize it, ok but believe me it happened.
In fact it makes for a hugely complex subject in itself.
This isn´t about being super-entitled, it´s simply stating what happened.
No-one could maximise the damage done to Rangers.
They went into administration as a direct result of stealing from HMRC.
HMRC then refused a CVA. There’s a shocker.
Rangers are now being liquidated.
That’s kind of it, no damage to maximise. Dead is dead, you don’t get deader.
greenockjack says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:56
The train wreck was there but those within the Celtic support that are politically active wanted to maximise damage, push and lobby for it.
———————————————————-
How dare fans push and lobby for rules to be applied as they would to any other club. It’s just not on.
greenockjack says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:56
———————————————
It’s actually very telling that any such alleged lobbying was necessary. You’ll also find this “lobbying” was unanimous among fans of other clubs
Imagine a league where you can see what the referees and linesman can see hear what they are saying. Rugby is starting to implement these technologies at the highest level.
Surely it can be the only way forward no more excuses that they didn’t see an incident. Team the wearable gopro camera with some kind of wrist mounted screen. So views of linesman can be seen too the tech is already on the market and not overly expensive. The refs could give tv companies access to the pov feeds in exchange for live feeds from the other angles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lxXU-5rbPo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
We can dream
greenockjack says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:56
———————————————
Also telling that you focus your disdain on only Celtic’s “political” fans. The ones that are subject to visits from Plod at dawn whilst the new Rangers chorus tours the nation in fine voice with no apparent impediment whatsoever
stmungo69 on Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:16
3 0 Rate This
He is simply on this site for one thing only – to suck the lifeforce out of any well reasoned polemic that further imperils the now noxious TRFC brand.
———–
[Edited for crass stupidity]
greenockjack says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:56
The train wreck was there but those within the Celtic support that are politically active wanted to maximise damage, push and lobby for it.
===============
I take that to mean anyone who thought that the same rules should apply to RFC, TRFC and Sevco as apply to everyone else? I think you’ll find that such people weren’t all “within the Celtic support” by any means. As for your remark about the “politically active”, I really don’t know what you are on about. Could you be more specific, please?
Carl31 (@C4rl31) says:
Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 20:50
One of the most disappointing things about the last few weeks has been that the guys on here who I had categorised as spouting conspiracy theory have been proved right. I had refused to believe that the game in Scotland was so skewed and basically uneven. I could not accept that, prior to the SPLIC decision, the governing bodies of the game in Scotland were happy to assist one particular team or at the least content to see it happen.
And the blogosphere, the so-called Keyboard Warriors or Internet Bampots, are not the only source of such opinion – numerous Celtic fans, and a few other fans, I know have claimed bias of the authorities in favour of Rangers. I had previously been completely sound in the belief that these guys were, at least to some extent … paranoid.
They had predicted that something new and hitherto unknown factor would be produced in Rangers favour to get them off with it – a rabbit would be produced from the SPL/SFA’s hat – there would be no change to the record books on titles ‘won’, and Rangers would ‘get away with it’.
I, on the other hand, had predicted that justice would be done, as far as could reasonably be expected.
Who ended up hitting the nail on the head?
For ‘Paranoid’, read ‘Realistic’, since it turns out the ‘Paranoid’ are demonstrably right.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
It’s a bit like The Matrix and Alice Through The Looking Glass. Once you are unplugged,have stepped through the mirror and donned your tinfoil hat nothing ever quite looks the same again. The label of paranoia is a very useful one. It implies that the fears are groundless and irrational and at the same time that the proponent of them is mentally ill. A very useful double edged sword.
As Adam Smith,who could hardly be called either paranoid or a fool, put it. “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.”
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
The misquote of President Roosvelt also springs to mind ‘”In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt. However his actual words pretty much say the same thing. “Yes, we are on the way back — not by mere chance, not by a turn of the cycle. We are coming back more soundly than ever before because we planned it that way, and don’t let anybody tell you differently.”
◦ Speech at the Citadel (23 October 1935)
Once upon a time the image of a Capt. Mainwaring type as the quintessential banker would be the one that prevailed. The same for those working in the stock exchange with their motto of “my word is my bond.” Stolid,honest and acting with impeccible probity. The truth as shown by the Libor rate fixing scandal takes us back to days of Nathanial Rothschild leaning against the pillar named after him in the Stock Exchange manipulating the market with the result of the match played at Waterloo already known to him:Napoleon 0-1 Wellington. It would be possible to go on ad nauseum about recent financial scandals. Enron, Madoff, Starbucks, Cummings, Masteron, HBOS, Sur Minty, Rangers and on and on and on…
I and others have had posts deleted for making reference to an organisation which claims to be “not a secret society but a society with secrets.” It makes you wonder if even TSFM has moderators with an interest in whitewashing this avenue of interest from the blog. The ‘all seeing eye’ does not miss a lot. The next time you see a well dressed gentleman with a small black attache case containing his apron,sash and gloves dissappearing up an anonymous close in Partick beside the Tribeca cafe in Dumbarton Road rest assured. He is only going upstairs to join his mates for a wee sing song and discuss his golf swing in the temple.
Likewise for the Speculative Society. They are nothing more than an ancient debating club with a rather exclusive memberhsip list. Members prepare an essay for the meeting and over claret in the candlelight they discuss and debate it. Move along nothing to see here. And if you are not a member of the Spec. then there is always Edinburgh’s New Club.
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/New_Club
•
“And, if the latest issue of Who’s Who is to be believed, no fewer than 16 of our judges are members of that dismal essay in 1960s modernism, the New Club in Princes Street, Edinburgh. Some day, someone will disentangle the strings of power and influence that radiate out from that peculiar establishment (with its own swimming pool) above the Princes Street shops.”
It may well be called the New Club but it has been on the go since 1787. Again, move along nothing to see here.
Not wishing to commit the offence of murmuring a judge I would only say that in regard to the findings of the SPL enquiry that the good Lord Nimmo Smith may have misdirected himself. I believe that is the terminology his brother judges would use if his decisions were to be appealed.
Murmuring (a judge)
The offence of publicly criticising, or “murmuring”, a judge, or for jurors to openly discuss their deliberations after they reach a verdict.
In 1900, the editor of the Birmingham Daily Argos was fined £100 by the Lord Chief Justice for describing Mr Justice Darling as an “impudent little man in horsehair”. The editor avoided a prison sentence for “personal scurrilous abuse of a judge” only because he made an abject apology.
Avoiding prosecution, but arguably offending this principle, Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, made a speech to the Society of Editors on 9 November 2008, in which he accused Mr Justice Eady of “an animus against the popular press”, and complained that the judge had given “arrogant and amoral judgments” that had created a privacy law “with a stroke of his pen”. The matter in question was the defamation judgment concerning Max Mosley the head of F1 motor sport whom it had been alleged had paid five women £2,500 to take part in acts of sexual depravity with him.
http://sixthformlaw.info/03_dictionary/dict_m.htm
Another of the good Lord’s judgements that puzzles me is the SFA disrepute case with ‘big hauns’Charlie and the not proven verdict.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19826914
The commission, comprising Lord Nimmo Smith and two QCs, found the charges against Green “not proven” on two counts – on rule 66, “bringing the game into disrepute by calling into question the integrity of the commission”; and on rule 71, “not acting in the best interests of football by calling into question the integrity of the commission”.
In my naivity and ignorance I must confess I thought that a not proven verdict was only applicable to a criminal trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction (“guilty”) and two of acquittal (“not proven” and “not guilty”).
Leaving aside the trivial questions of side letters, EBT’s, players registrations and eligiblity. The revolving door with Sports Direct Stadium and the SFA. Jim’Cadettegate’ Farry and Bryson (yes the same Bryson), George Peat, the ‘heavily conflicted’ ” I’ll just leave the room and step outside, but I’ll no be long” Campbell Ogilvie et al in the corridors of power. The Men In Black with the whistle and the agenda. Dallas Snr. and ‘not proven’ Jnr., Dougie McDonald,’Eyes in the back of the Head’ Collum etc. all the way back to Tiny’Handshake’Morton and beyond lets look at the most bizzare administration in the history of the business world.
No lets not. Nothing to be seen here either.
Duff&Dufferⓒ at Axminster carpets immediately cut 300 from a workforce of 400. However at Sports Direct Stadium the same firm try to enlarge the workforce by attempting to employ Daniel Cousin. Perhaps sometime before hell freezes over we will hear from the Insolvecy Practioners Association and the result of their enquiry into the alleged conflict of interest and Lord Hodge’s thoughts on the matter. Hopefully his appointment to the Supreme Court will not distract him too much. We also await a report from the Charity Commissioners regarding the proceeds of the Legends game I believe. No doubt Strathclyde Police will soon be able to fill us in with the result of their investigation into the Wavetower takeover of that bastion of probity and fair play at 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow G51 2XD Company Number: SC004276, not to be confused with the entity that is Company No.SC425159 at the same address and is not under investigation.
When all is said and done, if anything approaching the facts and the truth ever materialises from the labyrinthian web of companies,offshore companies,nominee companies,trusts, Charlotte18, the rest of the smoke and mirrors and whatever the bold Craigie has recorded for posterity it may be not so much a tinfoil hat that is needed but a full blown lead helmet.
As well as the cast of businessmen, insolvency practioners, QCs, judges the assembled cast from the school of lies and spin that is the media in this corrupt cesspit festering in our country let us not forget the role of the politicians in this clussterfuck of an omnishambles. From the First Minister of Scotland and the other MSPs, to the local Westminster MP; from a Northern Ireland MP to the other members of the Westminster Rangers Supporters Club who have stuck an oar into these muddied waters the question must go out. WHY?
Why was the administration not conducted like any other business?
Why was it not treated like Third Lanark and allowed to die?
Why was it not treated like Airdrie or Gretna?
Why the creation of the mythical ‘conditional membership’ for the game against Brechin?
And on and on and on. (Did he ever tupe over?)
To me the answer is simple but perhaps unpalatable. Manchester,Barcelona,Newcastle etc..
The fear of the mob roaming the streets but with no target to vent their spleen on. Sur Minty ensconced in his French chateau surrounded by his vinyard. The bold Craigie flitting between Monaco, Castle Grant and the impenetrable black hole of the Carribean tax havens. The nebulous entities that comprise TicketUs and the many tentacled Octopus. All well out of harms way. Not unless that supporter, who along with his many friends that were sold down the river, was correct in his statement “that the moon would not be far enough”.
Before I take my lead laminated tinfoil hat off for the evening and seek sanctuary from the cosmic rays, neutrinos and tachyons in the safety of the Tardis; for those who do not give credence to conspiracies; two words. Jimmy Savile.
In law it takes only two people to hatch a conspiracy. Do you honestly believe that this man got away with what he did on his own? Was the BBC alone awash with gossip and wink, wink, nudge, nudge? The police were so friendly with him they had coffee mornings in his penthouse flat. You can rest assured that someone who was a guest of the Prime Minister at Chequers, hob nobbed with senior and junior royalty as well as acting as a marriage guidance counsellor to Charles and Di would have had a security file on him composed by Special Branch and MI5 thick enough to choke a horse.
But then again files have a tendency to disappear. Think back to the ShredIt vans parked outside during the reign of the Duffers. Just normal good housekeeping it was mooted. Or was it?
http://www.shredit.co.uk/One-Off-Shredding-Service.aspx
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237627/Cyril-Smith-child-abuse-Chilling-claims-Smith-child-abuse-scandal-concealed-avoid-crisis-Westminster.html#ixzz2D7iGrsT2
“This would explain one of the murkiest episodes of all in the Smith scandal: the removal by MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence wing, of police files containing reams of documents and sworn statements from victims of the MP.
In what serving officers of the time believed was part of a sinister cover-up, these police files — ‘thick’ with allegations from boys abused by Smith — were seized by MI5 and have never been seen since.
According to Tony Robinson, an officer with Lancashire Police in the 1970s, the files disappeared after an MI5 agent told him they needed to be sent to intelligence officials in London. After being taken out of the safe at Special Branch headquarters in Preston for despatch to the capital, the files vanished.
‘I looked through Sir Cyril’s file, which was kept in a safe in our office,’ he told a newspaper last week. ‘It was full of statements from young boys alleging abuse. It had been prepared for prosecution. Written across the top of it were the words: “No further action, not in the public interest. DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions].”’
To add to the stench of a cover-up, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), having initially claimed to have ‘no knowledge’ of any police investigation, admitted this week that it had now ‘unearthed’ its own file about allegations against Smith from as long ago as the 1960s.
Simon Danczuk MP told the Mail yesterday: ‘I am absolutely convinced there was a cover-up of Smith’s abuse. The question now is why, and why are ministers refusing to answer questions about police files full of allegations of abuse that were seized by Special Branch and buried?
‘Smith set a tone in Rochdale that made people like him think they could get away with this stuff, and I’ve no doubt that he was emboldened to carry on abusing children, all the time thinking that he was above the law.
‘The daughter of a victim who’s now passed away has told us her father went to his grave angry and ashamed about Smith having abused him.’
Despite persistent inquiries by the Mail over the past fortnight, the CPS has repeatedly refused to say who took the decision not to prosecute the MP, and why. Officials have also refused to answer any questions about specific allegations against the MP, or whether they will be made public.”
At least the gullible public were not treated to the sight of the Shred-It vans sitting, as bold as brass, outside Haut de la Garrene, Bryn Esten and the Kincora Boys Home. All of which Savile denied visiting but seems to have been contradicted by photographic evidence. Perhaps MI5 could help out here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys%27_Home
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=30010
Photographs of men abusing boys in north Wales were deliberately destroyed.
Sian Griffiths worked for Clwyd council in the inquiry office on the 1994 Jillings and 2000 Waterhouse inquiries into the abuse.
She said that photographs of abuse obtained by victim Steven Messham were ordered to be destroyed. Steven said he could see men’s faces clearly in the pictures but police officers said they could not identify them.
Asked what happened to the photographs, Griffiths said, “We were supplied with copies of court documents… there was an order made for the book of photos to be destroyed.
Asked to clarify that they had been destroyed she said, “They were. Well that’s what’s in court papers—official documents.” And asked whether those photographs could have been vital evidence she replied, “Yes.”
Griffiths added that there were people mentioned in the Waterhouse inquiry who probably got away with abuse.
The Jillings report was trashed on the insistence of Clwyd council’s insurers, which feared a wave of writs from victims. It outlined the widespread abuse of children in care.
The then newly appointed chief constable of North Wales Police refused to meet the panel or help with access to the police major-incident database.
The report says that, “We were disappointed at the apparent impossibility of obtaining a breakdown of data. We are unable to identify the overall extent of the allegations received by the police in the many witness statements which they took.”
Some 130 boxes of material handed to the police by the council were not made available to the panel. The council didn’t allow the inquiry to place a notice in the local press seeking information. “This was considered to be unacceptable to the insurers,” says the report.
According to the report, the insurers—Municipal Mutual—suggested the chair of the council’s social services committee, Malcolm King, be sacked if he spoke out.
“Draconian as it may seem, you may have to consider with the elected members whether they wish to remove him from office if he insists on having the freedom to speak,” it is quoted as saying.
Allegations covered the period 1980 to 1988, and a four-year police inquiry saw 2,600 statements taken and 300 cases sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Eight men were charged, and six convicted. How many children were abused is not clear.”
So don’t be paranoid just invest in The Lead Laminated Tinfoil Helmet.(pat. pending)
Guaranteed to deflect all known Moonbeams and Greenbeams.
Impervious to all MSM generated smoke.
Shatters strategically placed SFA, SPL and legal mirrors.
However may not work against the sound generator used by the bold Craigie Bhoy.
But I’m working on it. Now where did I put that sonic screwdriver?
A favour please, if I may.
Could some knowledgeable person please post the financial gain for Celtic from this season’s CL run and a breakdown of how the total is arrived at. Could the payment for the other Scottish clubs that was made on the back of this CL run be included.
Thank You in anticipation.
Posted in CQN
Hearing tonight from an SFL source that SKY are heavily engaged in the league reconstruction discussions with a strong agenda about Newclub being fast tracked to top league using threats of contract withdrawal if it doesn’t happen…………
good source.
dentarthurdent42 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:53
—————————————-
I believe that if no spare space is available, they will make it: the bottom SPL team gets relegated and an excuse found to block promotion of the First Division champions. When this happened to Falkirk, the state of the stadium was the excuse. The SPL clubs have shown that they believe they will not survive without the blue pound, and hence the red carpet will be rolled out.
As a consequence of their statements and actions, I believe the SPL clubs (excluding Celtic due to their fan base) have left themselves as hostages to fortune. The orcs have been rumbling about destroying their enemies and dancing on their graves. They have already orchestrated an effective boycott at Tannadice, which went unpunished.
By Hibs (for example) saying that they will not survive without two money-spinning visits (plus Cup games) from Sevconians, I am sure that this has not gone unnoticed in Govan, It does not take a genius to work out that the best way to punish this particular enemy is just not to visit Easter Road*. Given that I expect at least 15% – 20% of Hibs fans to stay away next season, this would put Hibs in real trouble. I do not expect visiting Celtic fans to sell out either, as it is one thing to hold your nose & support your own club and something else to make the time & effort and accept the cost of away trips (even easier when Celtic away games are almost always shown on television).
*The visiting handful of bears will be met with taunts of “Cheats! Cheats!” They, however, will have the effective repostes of “You’re Nothing Without us” and “You Are The Dirt Underneath Our Feet,” Truly, this strategy is suicidal and all for the sake of a couple of hundred extra fans every home game. I do not understand their reasoning.
Celtic Paranoia
There are 2 sides to a story.
One that has been explored in detail on here and RTC.
The other which has received very little attention because those at the centre are very astute operaters.
Take that in the context of my previous post rather than go off and say “it wasnae oor fault that you ….”.
shield2012 says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 20:06
———————————————
I have never once claimed that specific individuals or organisations are plotting against my team, neither have I claimed everyone is pro-rangers so the rest of us suffer. I try to stick to what I believe is fact, based on open discussion and normal train of thought. I believe a lot of others do but are just so taken aback at recent judgements it leaves them no other logical avenue.
I would like to ask you to stay as you sometimes offer balance but I cannot say I would miss our tit for tat discussions… Why? Well simple, I have offered on a few occasions, my counter argument on your claim that Rangers didn’t cheat, not once have you responded. You just continue to say “we didn’t, nobody said we did, we were found not guilty…”
So as much as I would like to tell you to stay as the blog needs more Rangers fans, I cannot as I believe you offer even less to the blog than you claim to get from it.
Goodbye!
greenockjack says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 20:38
Instead of talking in riddles, why not say what you’ve got to say in plain language? And name some names while you’re at it?
Lord Wobbly says:
Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 19:19
21
0
Rate This
Need a reason to continue to contribute?
Without a hint or irony, the ‘bitter battle’ is blamed on Thompson, Petrie and the apparently ‘Machiavellian’ Peter Lawwell. No mention of David Murray. No mention of being found guilty of years of lying and yes, cheating.
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/233-why-i-can-t-move-on
It really is quite extraordinary. Or it would be if they didn’t try to rewrite history every single day. If you want to let this kind of rubbish go unchallenged, then move on. If, however, you prefer to fight for truth, justice and the integrity way, keep on keeping on.
———————————————————–
Thought Lord Wobbly’s link was a believable ‘if-you’re-of-that-mindset’ interpretation of events from the persecuted’s point-of-view.
Yet, I couldn’t help but laugh as it’s author’s credibility is ridiculously undermined by his bio…
“his career has focused on industrial relations, employment law and contracts of employment.”
shiela2012 (oops) Glad you have decided that we should all now move on and close the blog. This just reinforces your standard Sevconian default position.