Gilt-Edged Justice


Charlie Mulgrew ‏@charlie_mulgrew In my opinion the league is more exciting …

Comment on Gilt-Edged Justice by Smugas.

Charlie Mulgrew ‏@charlie_mulgrew
In my opinion the league is more exciting with old firm games any player in Scotland would agree. I didn’t say they should be let back in

I see Charlie uses the same definition of Scotland as Alex Smith.

Is anyone else slightly sceptical at the length of time the debate on restructure is actually taking (between the clubs I mean). “OK guys we’re here for the most important thing in Football right now (following that other unfortunate episode that we told you we’d fix for you), Show of hands for an adjournment and we’ll see you all again next month. Motion carried!”

Oh, and Danish

Is this an SDM Mark II scenario?

No its an SDM financier on very thin ice scenario.

Smugas Also Commented

Gilt-Edged Justice
Total tangent but I see Hibs are complaining about lack of goal line technology. Why, when everyone viewing the tv could see that it was over the line is some tv bod not allowed to notify the ref. Zero cost, instant solution, problem solved. For those saying its not fair on the small untelevised teams, you would still be no worse off, no?

I’m not calling for replays or the thing where the rugby judge draws an imaginary tele in front of him. Three decisions. Yes (award), no or inconclusive (play on).

Same thing with Ferdinand in England (Off the ball nonsense with Torres yesterday). Cameras clearly catch him cheating. Retrospectively punish him. Have discussion with clubs refs, assocs etc what decisions you want approved in real time (ie. goals) restrospectively (diving would be my personal favourite) and not at all. To continue the existing – ignoring the blatant in front of you – is a little outdated, no? Again I’m not calling for £ms in technology to a bankrupt league. The technology is already there, literally!

Gilt-Edged Justice
Anyone help. I am certain I read that ND had denied the ‘stranraer’ precedent, or at least said it was inapproriate (I’m sure the word rediculous was used somewhere) in this context but have been unable to track it down. Maybe about two months ago?

Gilt-Edged Justice
Cutting through all the cr*p what it comes down to is SPL inclusion a la Alex Smith gives TRFC the chance of publicity to drive an increase in turnover, although eight-fold is possibly pushing it a bit (you say possibly, I say definitely, potato, potaato…).

A struggling TRFC in the SPL would increase their crowds, possibly even increase the other teams although I’m not convinced on that latter arguement where good old integrity comes back into play. SFL2 inclusion, or new SFPL3 inclusion doesn’t. It constrains their market to the already converted.


Recent Comments by Smugas

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

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

so the answer to your question is…both!

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

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

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

Ok you get the rest!

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author