History, Neighbours and Made Up News

By

Barcabhoy September 22, 2016 at 10:15 Allyjambo LNS made the correct decision …

Comment on History, Neighbours and Made Up News by Allyjambo.

Barcabhoy

September 22, 2016 at 10:15

Allyjambo

LNS made the correct decision based on the evidence presented. The fact is that the evidence and the terms of reference was contrived by Doncaster to arrive at his preferred outcome .
That evidence has now been discredited, and the No Sporting Advantage ruling has been blown up totally by the COS verdict that Rangers used EBT’s unlawfully . Should the Supreme Court uphold that verdict then LNS must be set aside
________________

Barca,

In my opinion, LNS made a ‘paid for’ decision, though not, by any means, a ‘bribed’ or dishonest decision. Just like Howard Webb, he knew what he was being paid for, and delivered.

I am not suggesting, by the way, that Howard Webb is there to defend Celtic or it’s players, but he is there to lend ‘gravitas’ while stirring things up a bit with an ‘alternative’ perspective to the ‘footballing experts’!

From what little evidence I’ve seen I’d suggest that, even if he clearly wasn’t the last player, he’d have received a booking for a ‘professional’ foul, even if the foul hadn’t been so high, and dangerous, but the ‘tackle’, itself, undoubtedly merited a booking, at the very least, though we will see a number of straight reds for less ‘dangerous’ efforts as the season progresses.

I notice, though, that you describe in another post Gordon’s tackle as being ‘reckless’, is that not a description of an automatic red card tackle now? (I may be wrong on that, along with much else) I have often heard pundits (I know, I don’t trust their opinions) stating that the ref was correct to show red because the rules now state that ‘reckless’ tackles merit a red.

Allyjambo Also Commented

History, Neighbours and Made Up News
A genuine ‘well done’ to Celtic on a great performance and result last night. Watched the game on a dodgy stream and missed some of the goals and difficult to get a feel for the game, but (whispers it) found myself cheering out loud when the second and third goals went in (missed first one, when stream froze as ball crossed 18 yard line from free kick).

If Celtic can repeat last night’s performance, and maybe get a win or two, then Brendan Rodger’s standing will surely rise, and that would highlight yet another shortcoming in the English game – they can’t produce decent English born coaches and managers, though there’s plenty of hype surrounding each and every one of them, and they do attract such great respect!

I’d suggest that Brendan Rodgers would have been a far better choice for the FA than Allardyce, even without the latest revelations, and Celtic supporters should be concerned that last night’s result doesn’t put him on the FA’s radar (as opposed to being quoted by the bookies along with someone who definitely demands more respect than Sam Allardyce).


History, Neighbours and Made Up News
TEARSOFJOYSEPTEMBER 28, 2016 at 23:58 
I haven’t followed the The Rangers/Rangers/Sevco – Hibs/Hibernian/HibsPLC/Whatever post cup final conflagration too closely but my take on things is that “The Edinburgh Club” decided that they weren’t going to be tried for a bad day out when the Scottish football “authorities” have acted like Pilate for the last 130 years a propos “The Glasgow Clubs”. If they did – well done them. So, can the Glasgow media please ask the Scottish football authorities why they convened this fiasco in the first place – when they KNEW the clubs could not possibly be held accountable ie no strict liability.A face saving and embarrassing farce – Scottish football was dragged through the mud (not for the first time) but the SFA can’t take any action – because , as an organisation , it has already decided it does not want the powers to do so , as demonstrated by its member clubs. What a joke.
On a more topical point – as the late Brian Clough has been mentioned in this thread , a wee question for you : which Scottish club paid Cloughie a holdall full of money for bringing his team up north for  a testimonial ?the manager of which Scottish club blocked the transfer of a player because he didn’t get a bung ? The manager in question is regarded with the utmost probity by the fans but I am assured is as corrupted as any of the current crop of managers being mentioned by The Telegraph.Of course, these are merely allegations as I have no first hand knowledge of the events – but I can tell you the sources are impeccable.
___________________
LNS mark 2 possibly? Eyewash for the masses, even. Does the SFA believe we are all as stupid as the inept fools in the SMSM, and so can’t work out for ourselves that they, the SFA, are as impotent as they are incompetent, and think that they can hide their failings behind pointless inquiries and tribunals?

It’ll serve them right if the govenment steps in as a result of this dumping of responsibility, and puts in place something that makes heavy, self imposed, but manageable, fines quite desirable!  

Still, when the board of one particular club isn’t held accountable for their own rabble rousing, why should any other club accept responsibility for the actions of their own supporters?


History, Neighbours and Made Up News
So, Big Sam Allardyce has been caught scamming football. Making money by underhand means from a sport he’s supposed to love. The contempt of football supporters, everywhere, is fully deserved, and I hope the law punishes him accordingly if any laws have been broken – I am sure his actions will be investigated.

But…

His ‘crimes’ can surely have had little effect on any result, anywhere. I doubt, too, that any titles were secured by the facilitating of some sordid syndicate to make a nice little earner. I am sure Big Sam massaged his conscience from time to time with similar thoughts. He broke the rules of the game, a bit like players gambling on football results, and possibly the law, and has deservedly been castigated by all and sundry…and lost his ultimate dream job.

From what we know, he has only gained personally, and no club he managed has benefitted from his dealings (they might have secured a player or two they otherwise might have missed, but it would appear they were ultimately paying over the odds to line dodgy geezers’ pockets), though perhaps some players have lost out financially, so that these syndicates can cream off unearned profits. He has cheated individuals, but has not, directly, cheated the clubs, the supporters, not even the Treasury – oh yes he has, for those bungs will have gone undeclared on any tax returns, but, again, that aspect was only to benefit himself. 

We, here, all know that a much greater wrong was perpetrated on Scottish football, with a much greater cheating of the Treasury, for some ten years, and yet the same Scottish Media that was so quick to jump on the ‘Big Bad Sam’ bandwagon have done the exact opposite with the Rangers EBT Scandal.

I challenge any Scottish journalist, reporter or hack to write an article comparing the wrongs of Sam Allardyce to those of all the people involved in Rangers’ cheating. It would be amazingly easy to do, perhaps career defining, for all the evidence is here, on this blog and others, though for that career to continue leaving Scotland might be required, but to do it, a conscience and bravery, hitherto missing, would surely be required.

I’d suggest that, rather than do that comparison between those cheats, the ‘anger’ of the Scottish media aimed at Sam Allardyce will dwindle quicker than might otherwise be the case. Notably, when challenged in this manner, Jackson ran to the hills, or, rather, to bed! 


Recent Comments by Allyjambo

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Big PinkJanuary 2, 2018 at 13:54 
AJI suspect the TDs are not from SFM folk (remember the ratings are available to all manner of trolls). It is a disgusting world-view if made in earnest. A shocking way to score a point if not.
_________________-

I didn’t, for a moment, suspect they were from anyone who posts here, even the more prolific troll posters are better than that, I am sure. 

For some time now I have had the feeling that there is someone, or some people, coming on here and just TDing a number of posts without bothering to read their content, either out of malice or as some sort of concerted effort on behalf of people with reason to dislike our message. It really is quite strange how, suddenly, a number of posts receive one, two or occasionally three thumbs down in very short order, and often posts like uth’s, that could offend no one, receive these petty TDs as a result. 

I can honestly say that I have never read anything from our regular, or occasional, posters that might suggest they would TD anything relating to that terrible day. I include, of course, all supporters of Celtic and RFC/TRFC who have, over the years, made their arguments on SFM. My experience of Celtic supporters talking of that day is one that leaves me certain in the knowledge that only the basest of their support (and we all have them) were not badly effected by the disaster and in full sympathy with the deceased, their families and the wider Rangers support. 

I can still remember that night, sitting in the Queens Arms in Edinburgh, watching the death count rising on the TV, waiting for one of our mates we knew was at the game, getting more and more nervous until he appeared. It had a lasting effect on me.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
upthehoopsJanuary 2, 2018 at 08:52 29 2
Rate This
On this day in 1971, the Ibrox disaster happened during a Rangers v Celtic game at Ibrox. 66 fans died in a crush. Some of us remember that day, some of us may even have been there, while some of us would not even be on this earth at the time. We are all football fans. Nobody should go to a football match and never return home. Rest in Peace.
_____________

Wow! I know we are not meant to put much store on the thumbs up or down, but two people have given thumbs down to this post! Who on earth could find fault with a post respecting the dead from the Ibrox disaster?

It kind of confirms my belief that there are people coming onto this site who don’t read the posts, but are assigned with the task of creating the appearance that there is some disagreement with posts that mostly criticise Rangers(IL) and TRFC and hit the TD button without thought.

Alternatively, of course, it could just be that others, like myself, have difficulty hitting the correct symbol on tablets or mobile phones, I certainly hope that is the case here.

Thanks to Upthehoops for reminding us of that sad day, something we should do every year as a mark of respect for those who died on Scottish football’s worst day.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_______________________

DBD, though I used your above post to highlight the impossibility of separating club from company, I have to agree, to some extent, with the thrust of the post. While I am not sure that by declaring himself bankrupt that King could escape the wrath of the TOP and CoS, he isn’t going to do anything for the benefit of your club if it doesn’t benefit him, or save him, at the same time.

That said, however, King’s ‘ownership’ of the NOAL Trust was established in court to the judge’s satisfaction, and I doubt that he would get away with making further loans to RIFC plc through it or any other hidden avenue, once declared bankrupt. Indeed, despite my limited knowledge of bankruptcy laws, I am certain that King (or anyone else) can’t just announce bankruptcy and clear themselves of all fiscal responsibilities, they have to prove they have no money to meet their debts, and as far as we know, King doesn’t have any – and if he had, the court would make sure the funds in his NOAL Trust would be used to meet them, as far as possible, with, I am sure, an investigation into what other (disguised)investments he holds. One thing’s for sure, he would not be allowed to ‘lend’ any money to RIFC/TRFC, and, if he does, indeed, have substantial debts, his creditors might well force the return of his existing RIFC loans to meet his debts.

One thing’s for sure, the law will not allow someone to avoid the consequences of breaking the laws and regulations of the land by availing one’s self of the laws of bankruptcy! While a little tax cheating scrote like Barry Ferguson might get away with transferring his assets to his wife, just prior to receiving his tax bill, King and his money are already on the court’s radar and I doubt that even his Masonic connections would be enough to let him get away with further fraudulent behaviour.

Something I am sure of, and has to be considered before wondering if bankruptcy is a way out for both/either King or RIFC, and that is – you have to have debts that you demonstrably can’t meet before you can petition for bankruptcy. Unless King has very substantial debts, that outweigh, at least, the funds held in the NOAL Trust, then he has no grounds to declare himself bankrupt.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_________________

Hi, DBD, and a Happy New Year to you.

While your recent posts have been pretty good, showing a realistic approach to what’s happening at your club, might I ask how it could be that the chairman of RIFC’s selfishness, and I presume you include his dishonesty in that, could lead to your club’s downfall, if, as you’ve previously claimed, the club is separate from the company? Surely, in your belief structure, it would only be the company, TRFC Ltd, that would ‘fall down’, and the club would just sit around, responsible for none of the inherent financial chicanery of the ‘overspend our way to success’ ethos that permeates at Ibrox, until some new ‘football company’ is set up to carry the can again!

I know it’s a bit early in the year to reintroduce the OC/NC debate, but I am wondering if you’ve, perhaps, come to realise that the idea that a football club can, for some skewed reason, escape the consequences of it’s own greed, is pretty ludicrous?


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
ODDJOBJANUARY 1, 2018 at 13:42
Allyjambo,Thanks.I also suspect that the assignation of ” ra deeds” would provoke an angry response in some quarters
___________

And I suspect that the assignation of ‘ra deeds’, should it ever come to pass, might well be the last throw of the dice! What’s more, once any assets are used as security, it reduces the amount the current lenders are likely to get in the event of liquidation. It may well be that the directors, who are now refusing to give more loans, have, rather than reached the end of their free funds, decided that the lending has reached a level greater than, or close to, the total value of the group’s assets.

It’s one thing lending without security when in a position to ensure there is enough in the pot to, more or less, cover the amount of the loans, it’s an altogether different thing once someone else gets that security!

Whatever the accounts give as a value for the fixed and current assets, the directors will all have a very good idea of the realisable value of those assets (particularly the heritable asset value), and should total creditors begin to outstrip that value, they may well begin to wonder if it’s time to call in the administrators. Granting security over some of the heritable assets would only hasten the moment for unpleasant decisions.

If PMGB is correct in saying King is looking out for loans secured on the club’s heritable assets, then I am certain that the rest of the directors would carry out proper due diligence on the potential lenders before granting any security. Not that they have any dodgy characters in their midst, or anything, just that they are canny businessmen.


About the author