History, Neighbours and Made Up News

By

They shouldn’t get too hung up on the points tbh …

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

They shouldn’t get too hung up on the points tbh (but of course I can hear BFDJ already scoffing in the background at such a notion).  Based entirely on yesterday if they add a decent target man, one that understands that the Centre Half is entitled, in fact is positively encouraged to challenge for the ball and get their full backs to decide if they want to be wingers or full backs particularly when you have explosive players of Hayes ability up against you then they’ll be top 4 or 5 I would guess.  (small matter of being funded to the end of the season notwithstanding).  But don’t tell them that obviously.  Let them stew in the juices of the ever juicy Mr Jackson who reports that they continually had Lewis under pressure 14 

You can see what Wharburton is trying to do.  Very nice, impressive in fact, sideways movement across the halfway line and back again.  Kind of what I imagine England Div2 to be in fact.  Where the defence sit off and admire the build up until the striker gets fed up and comes deep looking for the ball.  If the defence let you do that which in Scotland they simply don’t  and if you are one dimensional (which without a target man they are) and of course your own side haven’t played a difficult draining cup tie 48 hours earlier then that is not impossible to stop.

And you have to applaud that free kick.  Come on!        

Smugas Also Commented

History, Neighbours and Made Up News

Hoopy 7
Without wishing to diminish what Hibs fans did, the common denominator for all of the trouble which has ensued, Hampden, Parkhead, Pittodrie and the weekly rendering of banned songs, is down to one club and its supporters. The Rangers Football Club Limited(formerly Known as Sevco Limited) is at the heart of everything that is unsavoury about the game. The SFA and SPFL were warned but did not listen and the rest of the decent football fans, and I include those decent “Rangers” fans, are now suffering. Regan and Doncaster are completely inept and I cannot understand why they are still in position. You reap what you sow. It is not going to get better any time soon and the best we can hope for is an insolvency event. Frankenstein was meant to be a story don’t let it become a reality the next time, when they’re dead they’re dead

l
There is one very slight mitigant for sevco’s apparent involvement in many of the disputed incidents you mention.  I can only speak for the pittodrie incident it being the only one that I attended.  It is not entirely sevco’s fault that they are at the heart of the problems, more that the problems have been stoked by the fact that sevco have been at the heart of them.  Does that make sense?  The responsibility for that situation is not sevco’s, and therefore sevco’s indignation at it is a little more understandable.  Try telling a five year old who, in the last hour, you’ve let eat five biscuits in a pack of six but they can’t have the last one.  The reaction of the five year old, and the more excitable elements of the sevco support are both equally and horrifically predictable. The responsibility for that lies at the feet of the SFA/SPL/SPFL and indeed the clubs themselves.  They apparently wanted it this way, Doncaster’s box office appeal of the packed grounds that we’ve all been missing apparently.  But those packed grounds are unfortunately but again predictably partially inhabited by those who cannot handle the occasion – and that is occurring on both sides incidentally.

So, partial mitigation and I stress the word partial.  


History, Neighbours and Made Up News
Again JC hence my interest in, of all people, Rod Mckenzie bringing it up.  I cant see that it brought anything more to his defence.  


History, Neighbours and Made Up News
WOTTPI

Just intrigued me that he was the first to formally take up the distinguishable difference between club and SFA member Company.  Bordering on ironic even. 

Particularly this quote from the SFA’s response

we further recognise that in the context of the commission of Lord Nimmo Smith the precise identification of the member responsible for the club was a material concern.


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