Hello

By

Re the name debate, to be honest there is a …

Comment on Hello by BayviewGold.

re the name debate, to be honest there is a fair amount of thrashing here, and i think this is partly because of the issues raised by quite a few others – namely the blog trying to be all things to all people, is it simply son of RTC or something else? the important point of RTC was that it was single minded and was after all a blog, it wasn’t a forum but a blog – a place where substantive articles addressing a subject were posted and allowed comments on those articles, it latterly became more of a forum and in this sense became a victim of its own success. I think a few comments here are trying to set this up to be a forum, but to be honest there are more than enough of those, to be successful it needs to be a blog as only then can issues be entertained in depth. However a blog puts strain on the content generators (e.g. PL) although guest posts can be used but without actual Blogs it will degenerate into an unfocused forum like all the others. I would love to see this be a success as there a lot of serious issues around scottish football (and football in general) that should be addressed but the question we need to ask is – how do the contributors take the content here and turn it into something that enables change? RTC succeeded by being in-depth and factual. My opinions or anyone else are just straws in the internet wind without facts and focus. I hope that this doesn’t wither and die like some posters have implied but without a rallying point of a solvable problem we are relegated to piano playing cats and nutters on r.ngersmedia, so what problem does SFC/SFM/SL/NFNF want to solve today? 🙂 oh yes the name – I have been involved in enough business startups and bands in my youth to realise that names are the bane of any discussion you can agonise for months over subtle influences etc – but in reality the RTC was succesful not because of the name, Scotslawthoughts is frankly not a name I would pick (apologies to PMcC – great blog!) and the beatles were succesful regardless of what they woudl have called themselves – so even though I have my feelings about the name, lets just have one and keep up the momentum. sorry for the long post.

BayviewGold Also Commented

Hello
Lord Wobbly says:
July 31, 2012 at 9:53 pm

On that note, it would be good if more non-Celtic fans could be attracted to join in. Perhaps aim for at least one representative from EVERY club?

==================
well there is at least one from EFFC 🙂 btw if the blog changes and people shift from RTC can it claim the RTC history? 🙂


Hello
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
July 31, 2012 at 8:48 pm

Rate This

Goosy on July 31, 2012 at 8:25 pm
How about

“The Mutton Enquiry”

*****************************************************
Edited that for you Goosy 😉

ok can I change my vote – this beats the poll choices, you have enquiry,lamb and pies – brilliant.


Hello
re the threaded versus non threaded question, there are pros/cons to both, the threaded version keeps the context, but the non-threaded is useful to keep ongoing discussions current in view without having to go back up to an original thread, my preference would be to use the non threaded a la RTC, I actually enjoyed the discovery of a reply and then having to backtrack to find the original,


Recent Comments by BayviewGold

Two wrongs and a right
Dropping out of lurking mode for a few mins to wish everyone at SFM and all contributors and lurkers a very (if belated) happy new year and a reminder to keep fighting the good fight.
Scottish football needs a Strong Arbroath, East Fife and judiciary in 2016!


Whose assets are they anyway?
RIFC are done for, the pending debts are too high, cash flow problems, no funding available and depending on various court outcomes potential large liabilities for both the asset transfer and the IPO monies. (insurance will not cover those if fraudulent)
So it is simply a matter of timing, what we are seeing with DCK & Ashley is simply a fun game of brinkmanship or ‘pass the parcel’ where DCK is desperate not to be left ‘holding the bag’ and blamed when they do go down and hoping he can goad someone else to pull the trigger and Ashley giving DCK enough rope and estimating the best time to minimise losses without being blamed.
Everything else is just a sideshow. 


The Case for a New SFA.
HirsutePursuit 14th October 2015 at 8:39 am #

Thanks HP, that answered my question,

re the IPO – that to me is the one that should have the alarm bells ringing, while the other ones may murky the waters re assets, really it is still just a squabble over which of the parties is left with a chair on the Sevco/Oldco musical chair extravaganza, the big financial threat is potentially any liability to RIFC over the IPO: £22M worth of risk.

But I’m sure if that happened DCK would just jet in with a newly opened warchest and see them right.


The Case for a New SFA.
HirsutePursuit 13th October 2015 at 8:18 pm
Allyjambo 13th October 2015 at 8:48 pm

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (ok too late 14 ) this is a very important point and the glee from supporters of the “club” over the case may be short lived. Officers of a company are in the legal sense acting for a company therefore as HP posted liability may fall on the company. This is true to an extent for any employee but much more important for officers and executives. Remember TRFC are Sevco Scotland despite what the press may lead you to believe, Sevco scotland were set up and run by CG therefore they may be liable for any misdeeds occurring while CG was in place – potential liability for a company does not end on termination of the employee.
Where I am confused (and looking for help here) is that the charges outlined so far don’t seem to be clearly aligned to any specific time frame. There are three distinct trigger events that were chock full of potential shenanigans (although TRFC seemed to stretch laws/regulations on a daily basis)

1) Purchase of RFC Ltd from Murray by Whyte & the ticketus saga
2) Purchase of the RFC assets by Sevco from D&P and the switcheroo
3) The RIFC IPO
#1 seemed to have a case pending based on earlier arrests but that seems to have gone away – is it the opinion here that 1 & 2 have now been folded together?
#3 – this one has a much bigger potential liability for RIFC – is this in any way forming part of the upcoming trial?
Each of these has distinct and different “victims” of any alleged wrong doing.
Hopefully I have steered a non-judgmental way through discussing public domain knowledge of a live proceeding!

Scottish football needs a strong something or other.


The Case for a New SFA.
neepheid 13th October 2015 at 8:06 pm

Thanks NH seems pretty clear on the guilty/not guilty aspect, good post!


About the author