A guest blog by former Celtic & Scotland defender, Jim Craig
“What time is this to come back?”
Dolores McCann (her Mother had been a great fan of foreign films) stood in that classic pose of the wounded woman – up to her full height and chin forward – as she glared at her husband who had just come in the front door. Before he could say a word, she gave him another volley;
“you left the house at half-past-two for a three o’clock kick-off, it only takes you 20 minutes to get to the ground, a match lasts only one-and-a-half hours plus ten minutes for the break and you’ve just walked back in the door at half-past-seven! So where the hell were you?”.
Wayne McCann (his father liked Westerns) tried to calm her down.
“Dolores, you don’t know what it’s like at football matches nowadays ; it has changed out of all recognition; a match goes on for much longer”.
“In what way?” Dolores asked.
“Well, for a start, the players and even the managers can complain about any decision that is given against them. If that happens, the referee then goes and has a word with firstly, the two assistant referees, then the fourth official and gets their comments before he reflects on the situation. If he is still in any doubt that he made the wrong decision then he can ask the guy upstairs sitting in front of a television screen what he thinks. And, of course, all through this, the managers and players of both teams can chip in with their comments. That all adds a fair bit of time to the match”.
“Aye…but turning up at half-past-seven is still a bit over the top…is it no’?”
“Well, no’ really……you see, nowadays you are not allowed to have a drawn game, so if the match is level at the full-time whistle, there is extra time, which takes a minimum of half-an-hour”.
“The time is still no’ matching up!”
“Aye, mibbe so, if that was the end of the match. But if the match is still level at the end of extra-time, then it goes to a penalty shoot-out. I told you…you are not allowed a drawn game”.
“ A penalty shoot-out disnae take long”.
“That might have been the case at one time but because so many keepers were being accused of moving before the ball was kicked, nowadays they are strapped in to a harness which anchors them in the middle of the goal. They can only move when the foot of the guy who is taking the penalty actually touches the ball. So, after each kick, the keeper has to be put back into the harness and it all starts again. And, of course, you get the complaints from the managers and players that the harness wasnae working properly or that the officials who put the harness on didnae put it on right. That all adds up to the time factor”.
“Did you go to the pub?”
“As God is my judge, Dolores, after the match finished, I came straight here”.
“Who won anyway?”
“That’s a difficult question… there was so much noise and kerfuffle both on the pitch and in the stands, nobody was quite sure what the final score was. And the guy who usually does the announcing had gone home. Somebody said that he had a date. Anyway, if you let me turn on the radio, I’ll hear the score there. And Dolores?”
“Yes”
Wayne walked over to the drinks cabinet and took out a couple of glasses. “I don’t suppose you would fancy a wee drink”
We will leave the smooth-talking Wayne to his attempts to mollify Dolores and reflect on the situation. What you have just read is probably the ultimate scenario for those who wish to tamper with the current rules of football. Do I think that the game needs radical changes like that? No but I do think that some change is necessary and in one specific circumstance.
Now, I was a professional footballer for 9 years and in all that time, I can put my hand on my heart and state with complete conviction that I never pulled any other player’s jersey. Did I try to half him in two with a tackle, yes! But no jersey-pulling. And, of course, I was penalised for the challenge.
Today, though, I feel that there is a lot of body-checking and jersey-pulling going on in every match. Very often the referee lets it go and then you get the ridiculous scenario at a corner kick when all those waiting for the ball to come in are pulling and pushing, with the referee watching it and ignoring it. It is a foul, ref!
When the referee decides that an offence has been committed, then the player will be spoken to first. If he does it again, he will be given a yellow-card. The problem is, though, that the offence might possibly have affected the play in the match, whereas the yellow card does not affect the player’s participation.
If the player is daft enough to do it again, then of course he gets another yellow and will be off. Most, however, are sensible and keep the head, so they go unpunished as far as the current match is concerned. What we have to find is a punishment that affects the match in which the transgression occurred. Which means that we have to consider the sin bin.
This works very well in rugby and gives the referee a means to punish an offence a little more harshly – yet more efficiently – than a yellow card but without having to go for the ultimate, drastic – and for many unpalatable – option of the red card. I hope it comes in soon.
John ClarkMarch 16, 2018 at 11:58
Religious sectarianism has lain right at the very the heart of UK politics for several centuries.
I refer to the Act of Settlement 1701. Although this Act was amended by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 which introduced a few changes the provision of the Act of Settlement requiring the monarch to be a Protestant was not removed.
In my view, pissing about with little bits of half-a.sed legislation in the Scottish parliament is a waste of time for as long as the power structure in our now increasingly non-Christian polity is predicated on discriminatory assertion that a Roman Catholic may not be the Monarch.
NOW specifically exclude Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and members of any and all non-Christian religions , as well as all unbelievers,on the same grounds? Because no one would even dare suggest it. But it is somehow acceptable to continue to exclude RCs.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is it not just simpler to abolish the Monarchy?
WOTTPI
Jambos Kickback is at times a great read with regard to all things Sevco. It was on there that the first challenge to Sevco to publish its ‘out of administration’ document appeared (while publishing the Hearts document.) Obviously, it didn’t appear. Not even an ethereal copy.
However, may I homologate your observation regarding the treatment of wannabe bigots on that forum. Much to the credit of the posters on there, the bigots are given short shrift.
The monarchy and religion are both frankly things I believe the world would do better without, but thats personal opinion.
Auldheid, yes, the Fields and Derry walls may (or may not cos I couldn’t tell you the historical background of either in much detail) be free of undesirable elements. But maybe, just maybe to gain some traction and move this hideous issue on, football crowds could just not sing them. Neither have nothing to do with football.
Some will see that as a massive affront to their freedom and rights as a human being – fine I get that, but personally if we want to make progress on this then it may just be worth going up this tiny privilege for 90 minutes a week. There are worse things than not singing a song, and if it leads to one less person being beaten up for wearing green or blue, one less person being discriminated against because they have an Irish Catholic name, it would seem a reasonable deal to me.
Trouble is, I know many, even here, simply won’t countenance such a thing, cos its their history, their soul etc. Somebody has to blink first, cos otherwise this will still be ruining Scotland in 25, 50, 100 years from now. Its not up to the rest of us, its up to TRFC and CFC and their fans. We are fed up listening to it and waiting for everyone to catch up and join us in the 21st century.
Who knows, if something like that happened maybe in 10 years time the Fields could be belting out again, only by that time simply as the beautiful song that it is.
scottcMarch 16, 2018 at 10:25
‘….Was it not because he had been on the board of the old club and there was some question regarding whether the new one could be regarded as a phoenix?
____________________________
“In general, anyone who was a director in the 12 months before the company went into liquidation is banned from taking part in the management of another business with the same name. This prohibition lasts for 5 years and also covers names which are so similar they suggest an association with the previous company. ”
See Section 2 at this link https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/phoenix-companies-and-the-role-of-the-insolvency-service/phoenix-companies-and-the-role-of-the-insolvency-service
Without seeing Lord Woolman’s judgment ( which appears not to have been ‘published’), it is difficult to be certain.
But IF it involved consideration by the Court of whether TRFC Ltd was essentially the same entity as RFC(IL) , and the Court decided that King was free to become a director of TRFC Ltd, then the Court clearly must have recognised that TRFC Ltd was NOT RFC(IL) ( and someone decided that that was not of general public interest!)
I suspect, though, that the matter that was decided was that RIFC plc was not RFC(IL) and that King was therefore not banned from being a director of RIFC plc.
I don’t think King has ever been formally a director of TRFC Ltd, but merely uses the ambiguity involved in the nomenclature of the entities to try to deceive. As does the SFA, when they are happy to accept that because RIFC plc is not the actual football club, the question of King’s fitness and propriety doesn’t arise.
And, of course, the SFA , rotten as it is,has no interest in questioning the fact that King operates as a de facto director of the actual football club.
But I’d like to see Woolman’s judgment, and not have to rely on the tabloids.
That Irish rugby fans can sing the Fields of Athenry at Murrayfield without a murmur shows it’s not the song, or the country, that is the issue. Similarly Boruc played to the gallery but the act of crossing oneself on a pitch should be an equally murmerless action.
The “offensive behaviour” act that was just repealed made an offence of singing a song in one specific circumstance that could be bought in record shops on the high street. That doesn’t make sense. It’s eiyher an illegal song or it’s not.
Anyway IMO the songs is a smokescreen and religious sectarianism a proxy for the issue about the North of Ireland.
iAgain, my view is that was easier for the British government to dress the conflict in Ireland as a religious conflict than accept it as a military invasion and occupation, especially after GB had given independence to many other parts of the Empire. I think that’s also why Scotland and Ireland have very different views of GB – they were conquered but regained their independence, whilst we were sold for English gold, we parcel of rogues… our relationship with the UK is simply economic self-interest.
JOCKYBHOYMARCH 16, 2018 at 13:54
A kitchen knife is legal but it can be used illegally if the laws of the land define its use as such.
I think people are maybe forgetting whats songs are considered legal/ permitted and what isn’t in terms of any laws.
The Daily Record link below provides a list that was supposed to be used by the Police back in 2015
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/old-firm-clash-songs-what-5060640
Using Auldheids criteria The Fields and the Sash are perhaps seem as more historical in nature, similar to the themes in National Anthems. The Billy Bhoys, The Famine Song and Celtic IRA seem to viewed as being provocative and projecting outwards to others and certain groups in particular.
The contentious ones seem to mostly relate to what exact version of the IRA people believe they are referring to or changes in lyrics that alter the focus of a song.
Daydream Believer can be bought in the shops but a change of the lyrics at football games makes it a wholly different song altogether albeit humorous as oppose to intimidating and overtly offensive.
Using Audlheid’s criteria my guess is that if you can sing about the IRA and do it with your face open to the public your could reasonably argue that are referring back to the War of Independence and the struggle leading up to that.
If you have the hoodie up and scarf over the face or singing about the IRA while happily showing and waving flags with iconography of berets and sunglasses from more recent times, then its a good chance your intention is to outwardly intimidate others by linking yourself and your actions to paramilitary organisations. As was the recent Union Bears wheeze.
However what the hell all that and wishing to have carnal knowledge with the Queen and the Pope have to do with Scottish Football in the 21st century still escapes me.
As a Dropkick Murphy’s fan I actually happen to like Fields of Achenry
Scottish football does not have an issue with sectarian singing.
The football authorities and the Police simply ignore it.
Unless a song is specifically designed to threaten or abuse, then singing it cannot be deemed illegal in any fair free and democratic society.
Whether it is appropriate or desirable is another matter. Clubs themselves, or sporting organisations are well within their rights to remove people from grounds and ban them from games for singing such. It seems to me that pro IRA songs are the latter, they are not actively promoting sectarianism nor are they of themselves illegal but I believe that they are entirely inappropriate in football grounds.You certainly should not, however, be criminalised or charged for singing them, but clubs would be well within their rights to ask you to stop singing and to remove you if you refused. I would exempt Grace and Fields, there is nothing offensive about either song.
The criminal law is patently not the answer here. A sensible discussion in which the clubs, supporters and footballing authorities agree on appropriate and inappropriate songs to sing is the way forward at football. There ought to be no specific locus for the law beyond existing criminal legislation at football stadia.
ICEMAN63
A sensible discussion in which the clubs, supporters and footballing authorities agree on appropriate and inappropriate songs to sing is the way forward at football.
———————————
Good luck with that Iceman.
Unfortunatelyy I think JC’s highlighting of fundamental issues needs to be addressed first.
WOTPI
A list of prohibited songs exists? Please pm me.
Apologies WOTPI…I see the link and will check.
JOHN CLARKMARCH 16, 2018 at 13:24
“In general, anyone who was a director in the 12 months before the company went into liquidation is banned from taking part in the management of another business with the same name. This prohibition lasts for 5 years and also covers names which are so similar they suggest an association with the previous company. ”
————–
That may be another reason why king had to go to a judge first.
And as AJ is now outwith that timeline he may not have to go to a judge first,if that is indeed why king had to get approval.
As you say JC I’d like to see Woolman’s judgment,That may explain why king had to go to a judge.
I was wondering at the time of my original post that if King had to go to a judge,would AJ also have to.
Remember too, regarding the Dave King fit and proper issue, that the only reason we found out that he was actually NOT found fit and proper by the SFA was because Mike Ashley took them to court to expose them. As soon as the SFA admitted that they had not found him f and p, Ashley dropped the case.
HelpumootMarch 16, 2018 at 20:43
‘….As soon as the SFA admitted that they had not found him f and p, Ashley dropped the case.’
_______________
I’ve just had a re-read of Lord Bannatyne’s decision following a hearing on 28 April 2016 on the dispute over ‘expenses’ arising from MASH’s petition for ‘judicial review’ of the SFA recognition of King as being ‘fit and proper’.
The decision was issued on 26 June 2016 and you ill find it at this link
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=a77617a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Basically, on or about 19 May 2015 the SFA approved King as ‘fit and proper’ to be a director of RIFC plc.
MASH wrote to them on 3 June 2015 drawing certain matters to their attention, and, as Lord Bannatyne described it, were in effect told that it was none of their business.
MASH wrote again on 1 July 2015 and on 10 September 2015 and got no substantive answers.
At a procedural hearing on 20 October 2015 the SFA said they were not going to add anything further.
But on 14 April 2016 they adjusted their ‘answers’ with new information about their reasons. [Basically, that was to explain that their ‘fit and proper’ approval was in relation to directorship of RIFC plc, not TRFC Ltd(the football club)]
MASH were happy with that, and dropped their petition.
And the hearing then was not about whether the petition seeking judicial review should be granted, but on who should pay for all the legal stuff arising from the lodging of the petition.
So, I suppose Lord Woolman had decided that King having been a director of football club that had been liquidated within a year of his being a director was no barrier( under the Companies Act and Insolvency legislation) to him being a director of RIFC plc.
And Lord Bannatyne wasn’t called upon , once the SFA had ‘explained’ to MASH that their approval of King was only in relation to RIFC plc and MASH withdrew their petition, to say anything about King’s ‘fit and proper’ status.
The fact that people who should know better should let King be referred to as a director of ‘the club’ or of ‘Rangers’ without spelling out that this does not mean that he is considered by the SFA to be ‘fit and proper’ enough to be director of a Scottish Football Club. is symptomatic of the readiness to deceive and lie.
The SFA know he is not, and, however reluctantly, they had to tell the Court of the distinction that has to be made.
But they were , are, quite prepared to try to deceive the rest of us by the use of ambiguous language.
AND to shut their eyes to the fact that , until very recently, King has in fact been calling the shots at Ibrox, quite publicly speaking as being the man in control, with the actual directors of TRFC Ltd obedient to his every order.
JC thanks for taking the time to clarify that.
John ClarkMarch 16, 2018 at 22:53
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I haven’t seen the King deception laid out so well before JC. Tremendous work.
Cluster OneMarch 16, 2018 at 19:58
‘……that if King had to go to a judge, would AJ also have to.
________________________
A curious thing about the DR’s report
“The 69-year-old returned to the club last year but he has still to be approved by the governing body due to a probe into the UEFA licensing process from 2011.
By Record Sport Online20:12, 14 MAR 2018Updated20:23, 14 MAR 2018 ”
is that no individual journalist was brave enough to put his name to it!
It’s as if they were frightened at the prospect of being seen even to hint
a) that the ‘probe’ had found something questionable and
b) that inferences might be drawn from the SFA’s tardiness in approving the 69-year-old.
It seems that the DR has been told not only that your man has not yet been ‘approved’ , but that the reason for that is connected in some way with the ‘probe’.
Are we being readied to feed on a sacrificial victim, to protect the arses of guilty men in office at the SFA at the material time, with a lot of fingers being pointed only at the allegedly cheating and lying club in a desperate attempt to show that the SFA’s hands are clean? That, in the words of arch-cheat SDM in another context, they were ‘duped’?
One does not hold one’s breath waiting for any kind of truthful, comprehensive reporting.
A list of prohibited songs exists?
Hi WOTPI
Checked the link provided and the first thing that springs to mind is the repeal of the OFBA. This list is primarily opinion based and has no basis in law now, nor when the act was in force. It is one of the main reasons for the acts failure..one mans meat etc. Auldheids description of what is sectarian or racist is an admirable attempt to bring introspection to the unrepentant . They will not indulge in any navel gazing and my hope remains with the majority of young people growing to reject prejudice of any kind .A long road.
gunnerbMarch 17, 2018 at 00:12
A list of prohibited songs exists? Hi WOTPI Checked the link provided and the first thing that springs to mind is the repeal of the OFBA. This list is primarily opinion based and has no basis in law now, nor when the act was in force. It is one of the main reasons for the acts failure..one mans meat etc. Auldheids description of what is sectarian or racist is an admirable attempt to bring introspection to the unrepentant . They will not indulge in any navel gazing and my hope remains with the majority of young people growing to reject prejudice of any kind .A long road.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A long road indeed but when the last Kirk and Chapel closes it’s doors due to lack of interest how then will the bosses sow division amongst us?
I know this is a JimbO like aside but when I went off earlier to listen to the “Fields of Athenry” on Youtube I had to go through a 5 second add for Senokot before “Paddy Reilly and The Dubliners” and the audience played and sung the song.
It is a dirge much beloved of the oppressed and dispossesed of Scotland and Ireland. I’m not going to post it because it is so depressing.
Don’t get me wrong I was brought up on The Dubliners and other radical stuff but I can’t help thinking the Orangemans tunes of triumphalism give him the slight edge.
JOHN CLARKMARCH 16, 2018 at 22:53
————-
Great post there JC. Very clear that even anyone not up to speed can understand.
Oh how i wish i could write like that.
Can anyone bring me up to speed with this one?
Saturday morning is sometimes quite, so something to get the brain ticking over.
———–
Ps. never knew Douglas Park was a Blue knight, did he not also become one of the 3 bears.
Sorry if i’m asking a lot of questions this morning,my mind is just not working. I need coffee
Need to get image size right.
Bogs: I don’t think there is a debate about who does “triumphalism” the best, in fact hasn’t that been part of the problem?
As for WOTPPI’s the likening of a knife to a song, I’d say the better analogy would be that some people find marmite offensive – would they legislate to stop knives being used to distribute an offensive spread? As for differentiation of legality based on attire: singing songs (ok) singing songs in a hoody (bad) is going to be tough to get past a judge.
McCann and Celtic did a good job of getting rid of most songs deemed offensive and those in charge at Ibrox were following suit but then there was a volte face and the songs started appearing again. I really can’t recall what changed that – was it the clearly racist famine song?* The Er, back to basics when phoenixing the ashes that gave resurgence to the billy boys? Was it the rise of the green brigade and their away-from-home songbook? The fans of these two teams (and I recognise it’s mostly these two teams we are talking about) have regressed but that is a recent and therefore not imbedded phenomenon.
for the record I think Celtic fans have plenty of great songs, includng ones that celebrate their Irish heritage and even the Irish struggle for independence that don’t include a 3-letter acronym (though for the avoidance of doubt it should be a 4-letter one) or actions of that organisation and I personally wish we’d stick to those. The songs from the other side? The only one that really p’d me off was the famine one and I think that was a tipping point – funnily enough I was told to f#ck off back to Scotland by a drunken middle class woman in the run up to the Scottish referendum. My Jamaican mate was like “whoa lady, you can’t say that!”
I’d also highlight that there is some hellish offensive singing done at English league grounds, including sectarian and ant-Semitic stuff aimed at Tottenham and their fans, this tariff isn’t unique to Scotland, though Scotland’s own peculiar relationship with Catholicism and the Irish does add an underlying tacit societal approval of it…
* changing the lyrics makes it a new song imo – the famine song is definitely not what the Beach Boys has in mind!
For me, the main difference between Rangers and Celtic is not the spurious nonsense that Celtic fans sing political songs and Rangers fans sectarian ones, but rather that Celtic take decisive action. Thus the Green Brigade satirical display was met with a swift two match ban, whilst the constant renditions of The Billy Boys, and The Union Bears Flyer and March have been met with no reaction from the club.
Both clubs have sectarian elements within their fan fan base. One club seeks to confront and challenge it, whilst the other encourages and fosters it.
ICEMAN63
MARCH 17, 2018 at 11:36
For me, the main difference between Rangers and Celtic is not the spurious nonsense that Celtic fans sing political songs and Rangers fans sectarian ones …
==========================================
Forgive me, I tend to try to avoid these types of discussions but can you explain this “spurious nonsense” to me.
I’m not saying that people should sing “political songs” or that they should sing “sectarian sings”, I just want to know what you think is spurious about that position.
Cluster One
March 17, 2018 at 09:41
Need to get image size right
————————————————-
Does this help above?
You have a PM.
Cluster OneMarch 17, 2018 at 09:41′..Need to get image size right.’_______________
You’ve prompted me to have a look at the Worthington Group Liquidation process.
I found this quite interesting from the Liquidators’ report:
Worthington Group plc(in Compulsory Liquidation)
Progress Report : period 4 January 2017 to 3 January 2018
” Subsidiary Claims”
On appointment the Directors notified the Liquidators of potential assets in the estate in the form of various claims against third parties. Prior to the Company’s insolvency it was intended that the subsidiaries (who hold these claims)would pursue them for the benefit of the Company.
These claims are held by The Rangers FC Group Ltd (“Group”) and Sevco 5088 Ltd (“Sevco”) which in turn are owned by Law Financial Ltd (“LFL”)
LFL is 100% owned by the Company, and both Group and Sevco are majority owned by LFL.
The Liquidators have spent considerable time investigating the claims held in the Company’s subsidiaries to determine whether there is any economic value in the progression of these claims that might benefit the estate.
To this end, and with the agreement of the liquidators and the incumbent directors of LFL, Group and Sevco, litigation specialists Henderson & Jones (“H&J”) have been appointed as corporate directors to LFL, Rangers FC Group and Sevco pursuant to a directorship agreement, with a remit of further determining and progressing those claims where practicable to do so.
H&J’s work is ongoing in this regard and it is hoped that further information can be provided in future reports.”
—
BDO ( the Liquidators of RFC(IL) were scheduled yesterday to petition the Court of Session for an ‘interdict’ to stop someone doing something.
easyJambo hazarded a guess that they are trying (again) to get the Court of Session to dismiss H&J’s action as groundless and without any merit worth discussing.
I think that he might very well be right. If so, I’m kind of hoping that the case will be argued in open Court, and that I’ll be there to hear it.
What fun and games ,if it were to turn out that SevcoScotland were not the rightful purchasers!
Fantasy land, I suppose. But I wonder how the legal system could cope with circumstances such as those?
WOODSTEINMARCH 17, 2018 at 14:44
Thanks
JOHN CLARKMARCH 17, 2018 at 15:41
—–
Thanks again JC.
———
I think that he might very well be right. If so, I’m kind of hoping that the case will be argued in open Court, and that I’ll be there to hear it.
———–
Any idea of a date for this one?
Just a heads up to the Kilmarnock support, prepare for the press, radio shows etc moving your manager on.
It’s started already apparently.
HOMUNCULUSMARCH 17, 2018 at 17:50
4
0 Rate This
Just a heads up to the Kilmarnock support, prepare for the press, radio shows etc moving your manager on.
It’s started already apparently.
—————–
There timing is all out.The smsm are suppose to do that before Kilmarnock play the ibrox club
Cluster OneMarch 17, 2018 at 15:52
‘…Any idea of a date for this one?’
__________________
Not really, C1. There is a 21 day period for the other party to be told of the petition, and another 28 days for ‘answers’ to be lodged. Then there might be hearings to make adjustments or sort out procedural , before ever a date for actual argument.
It could possibly take months!
It’ll be a case of keeping an eye on the Rolls of court.
Re the AJ fit & proper.
I found this (picture added)
Former rangers director Paul Murray may be denied a seat on the board if his Blue knights succeed in their bid to rescue the stricken club.
Murray’s previous involvement in the club appears to contravene criteria laid down in the scottish football Associations rules over fit and proper club officials.
———–
Did Paul Murray not get a seat on the club board when king arrived, he then later joined the company board i believe.
Must have passed that fit and proper a couple of years later.
JOHN CLARKMARCH 17, 2018 at 18:59
4
0 Rate This
Cluster OneMarch 17, 2018 at 15:52‘…Any idea of a date for this one?’
-It’ll be a case of keeping an eye on the Rolls of court. —————
What fun and games ,if it were to turn out that SevcoScotland were not the rightful purchasers!Fantasy land, I suppose. But I wonder how the legal system could cope with circumstances such as those?
———–
Makes one wonder
The ‘Pravda’ of the West at it again, reinforcing the Big Lie in their online edition, so no change under the new Dick of an editor.
“The First World War was on the go the last time the Light Blues lost seven in one campaign in Govan”
What are they like, eh?
Not a newspaper that I’d raise a finger to defend as a bastion of truth or campaigner for Sporting Integrity.
Cluster OneMarch 17, 2018 at 20:28 “Did Paul Murray not get a seat on the club board when king arrived, he then later joined the company board i believe.Must have passed that fit and proper a couple of years later”
____________
Paul Murray was appointed to the RIFC plc Board on 6 March 2015 ( and is still on it)
He was appointed to the TRFC Ltd Board on 9 March 2015, and resigned from that Board on 27 March 2017.
After years of lurking, enjoying and being thankful to site, poster, moderators and funders, for uncountable hours of opinion, fact, theory, humour and admiration of intellect and thereafter lack of, tonight I find myself moved and annoyed thanks to mr daniels and his mix with coke (of a liquid variety).
I don’t know what i’d do without Scottish football, our phone in’s, our passion, our blogs, TSFM, BT etc. We’re sheeeeite at every level of professional football. My team, the best are europally (new phrase) sheeeeite but can be crap and still good enough domestically. But if man city ok scrub that, if Man U and Arsenal were playing in my back yard i’d send the mrs out to say no ball games. it may be the best league in the world but I’m not interested.
Football to me has always been on our part of Scotland, it’s ours not yours, if you don’t like it p off. But my annoyance is that after 30 years of the same chaff and years of failure at international level and a declining standard, we as supporters still don’t have the faintest blooming say in anything.
No talk of summer football, no vision for improvement, no real proper partnership and funding with government, no clue about rearing kids, no playing on pitches at night. Were still talking as fans and on phone in’s about the same stuff as 30 years ago
who honestly thinks the game is run properly ?
Who thinks that their club puts football before themselves ?
Clubs like MINE, Celtic continue to lobby for our benefit, selfishly in my view.
When did we lose control ? Before my time ?
When did football listen to the lifeblood ?
Was the last person to recognise at an official level supporters wishes ?
Do they respect us ?
Will they ever listen to us ?
How can we really make a difference when even after regan resigns and others follow we bring in more of the same ?
does our game love us ?
rant and first post over, back to jack and the wonder of whether tonny mcglennan is going to send me a notice of complaint
Stevie Clark is a clever guy. Stevie Clarke sees a future in football management. Stevie Clarke will not be managing a club that plays out of Ibrox.
JOHN CLARKMARCH 17, 2018 at 22:15
Paul Murray was appointed to the RIFC plc Board on 6 March 2015 ( and is still on it)He was appointed to the TRFC Ltd Board on 9 March 2015, and resigned from that Board on 27 March 2017.
—————-
So he did get passed as fit and proper for TRFC Ltd board even though his previous involvement in the club appears to contravene criteria laid down in the scottish football Associations rules over fit and proper club officials.
Strange one that.
Cluster OneMarch 18, 2018 at 08:50
‘..So he did get passed as fit and proper for TRFC Ltd board even though his previous involvement in the club appears to contravene criteria laid down in the scottish football Associations rules over fit and proper club officials.’
________________________
Ah, but look at the wriggle room which the Articles provide to a board composed of people of little personal integrity and with absolutely no regard for Sporting Integrity!
Such a board (and God forbid that there should ever have been any such!) could do exactly what it suited them to do.
“………………………The Board must be satisfied that any such person is fit and proper to hold such position within Association Football.
The Board hereby reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper, as aforesaid, after due consideration of all relevant facts which the Board has in its possession and knowledge, including the undernoted list which is acknowledged to be illustrative and not exhaustive:
(a) he is bankrupt or has made any arrangement or composition with his creditors generally;
(b) he is under or is pending suspension imposed or confirmed by the Scottish FA;
(c) he is listed in the Official Return of another club in full membership;
(d) he is currently participating as a player of another member club or referee in Association Football;
(e) he is the subject of an endorsed Disclosure from Disclosure Scotland;
(f) he has been disqualified as a director pursuant to a disqualification order granted under the Company Directors’ Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years or was serving a disqualification as a director pursuant to such Act at any time within the previous five years;
(g) he has been convicted within the last 10 years of (i) an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or over, (ii) corruption or (iii) fraud; (h) he has been suspended or expelled by a National Association from involvement in the administration of a club;
(i) he has been a director of a club in membership of any National Association within the 5-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event;
(j) he is currently under or is pending suspension imposed by or confirmed by the Scottish FA .. ”
All the Board has to do is to decide, after ‘due consideration’ of what they choose to include as ‘relevant facts .’
The rules are so written that they could even criminal convictions could be deemed irrelevant.
Mr Davie Provan not taking the news of Neil Doncaster’s appointment to the SFA Board to well in todays papers.
Doncaster shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near this SFA Board.It’s a clear conflict of interest.
——
Wonder if Mr Provan was shouting about conflict of interest during Mr Ogilvies time at the SFA?
———
Right now the more pressing issue for scottish football is youth development.
—–
So the more pressing issue for scottish football is youth development. Not the issue that a club from ibrox needs loans to see out the season,the other issue of Mr king having to come up with £11 million to put in an escrow account by the end of the month.
Never mind all that
Graeme Murty has closed the gap and the Bottom line is that for that AM sitter and a bit of Brendan Rodgers CUTENESS was enough to seperate the sides.
—————–
One can only hope Mr provan goes the same way as Mr Hately,Mr Gough,Mr Ferguson and Mr Goram. And his weekly opinions in the media comes to an end soon
PEDMADERONNYLOOKLIKEPEPMARCH 18, 2018 at 01:40
A great first post.
Welcome me to the debate!
JOHN CLARKMARCH 18, 2018 at 11:46
All the Board has to do is to decide, after ‘due consideration’ of what theychoose to include as ‘relevant facts .’
They are having a long hard look then at ‘due consideration’ before AJ gets the nod.
The rules are so written that they could even have ignored King’s criminal convictions!
And yet King was given the nod in about 8 weeks
PEDMADERONNYLOOKLIKEPEPMARCH 18, 2018 at 01:40
———
When you wake up after a night of mr daniels and his mix with coke (of a liquid variety).And remember you did post something and the moment of Oh feck! what did i write?
Then that moment of………..PHEW!
John ClarkMarch 18, 2018 at 11:46
______________________________________
Hi JC
I notice that the ‘illustrative list’ does not say ‘he/she’. Are women excluded?
I never thought I’d see the day when a Celtic site appear to agree with the continuation myth, but CQN in their latest article state that ‘Rangers” loss to Kilmarnock yesterday was the first time they’d lost 7 home games since 1914/15. Poor show.
Below is a complaint that I’m about to send to the Scotsman. I’ve just re-vamped a similar complaint I sent to the BBC a week or two ago, for which I have subsequently received an acknowledgement pending a full reply.
In June 2012, the Scotsman, in common with all newspapers, television companies and other forms of media across the country, reported the death of Rangers Football Club when it failed to exit administration via a CVA. Below is a link to an article from your newspaper detailing precisely that:
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-liquidated-as-cva-formally-rejected-1-2353211
“The club will now be liquidated and its assets sold to a new company which will aim to continue with football at Ibrox.”
I’m confused as to the Scotsman’s volte-face since reporting those events, especially given that your newspaper purportedly employs journalists to seek and report the truth, rather than merely replicate PR spin and propaganda like a professional stenographer. I’d be grateful if you could explain the Scotsman’s inconsistency in reporting the details since those early days, because it is evident that either the details your paper first reported were entirely untrue, or the version it espouses now is a complete fabrication.
No apology, retraction, or explanation has ever been given when the Scotsman began to contradict what it had hitherto reported as fact.
We were told, unambiguously, as a matter of fact, and in absolute unison, that the football club founded in 1872 was dead. This came as no surprise, because as we all know, Rangers Football Club (the club) had incorporated into a company in 1899, fusing club and company into one inseparable legal entity. The death of that entity, Rangers Football Club plc, in 2012 was identical to that of Gretna FC and others such as Third Lanark before it, and the death of Rangers Football Club was as incontrovertible as the deaths of those now defunct clubs.
Not long after the above article was published, and shortly after clandestine meetings were held between five parties of questionable intent and integrity, a new narrative emerged. This concoction was introduced despite the fact that there were no material changes to insolvency law in the period between Gretna FC succumbing to liquidation and Rangers Football Club also failing to agree a deal with its creditors and entering the liquidation process, nor was there a relevant change in the football authorities’ rules and regulations in the intervening period.
Those with the greatest degree of financial incentive in ensuring that a form of Rangers continued, ie the Scottish football authorities along with the purchaser of the assets of the deceased club, prompted the rewriting of history by manufacturing a narrative that club and company had been separate entities and that Rangers had merely undergone ‘a change of corporate structure’, which we were led to believe meant the club had simply been sold to a new owner, something which was completely at odds with what you had previously reported.
It wasn’t exactly an onerous task to separate facts from the obvious spin supplied by those football authorities protecting their vested interest. It was blatantly obvious that their solitary goal was that a form of Rangers must be preserved and promoted at all costs, ideally in the top division, and as they subsequently admitted, in order to avoid imaginary financial armageddon and civil unrest.
For a journalist, it was an open goal; a tap in even Chris Iwelumo couldn’t have missed. A real, objective journalist would have asked the SP(F)L’s Neil Doncaster precisely when, and through what verifiable process, club and company separated in order to make any alleged subsequent sale of the club viable. Any competent journalist, as a minimum, would have challenged how an incorporated club could conceivably be sold when it had massively failed as a business owing many tens of millions of pounds, and was as a result being placed in liquidation, and why that club wasn’t itemised as one of the assets purchased by Charles Green’s consortium if the ridiculous claim that the club was sold was to be believed! This was a club which lost its right to play in Scottish football due to its liquidation, requiring the new club founded by Mr Green to seek admission to the league set up.
Several judges in recent live cases (not retired judges on a lucrative pension top-up) laughed out of court the notion of an immortal, metaphysical club, entirely dispelling Neil Doncaster’s ‘same club’ myth and fable in the process. Why did the Scotsman deliberately choose not to pick up on these game-changing issues, electing to ignore critical factual information in favour of maintaining the big lie that the club currently playing out of Ibrox is the same as the one founded in 1872?
Your editor and every single journalist employed by the Scotsman knows full well that the club currently operating out of Ibrox is not legally the same as the one which was formed in 1872 and which died in 2012, despite the fact that our myopic football authorities are treating it as if it was. There is a world of difference between actually being the same club and merely being treated as the same club, a differentiation that your paper should be ashamed of ignoring.
It is difficult to ascertain whether the Scotsman’s avoidance of the truth in this matter is down to craven cowardice or a lack of impartiality towards a so-called establishment institution. Instead of challenging patently obvious propaganda, and despite having all of the facts at its disposal, your paper has deliberately chosen to side with those who have propagated a monstrous lie, those who are willing to see financial expediency trumping sporting and moral integrity.
The details I have provided above are factually correct and easily verifiable, even to an organisation whose journalists are evidently less than investigative. Although I shouldn’t have to, I feel obliged to point out that I am not simply an obsessed fan of Rangers’ bitter rivals, Celtic, on a point-scoring exercise, but a fan of one of our ‘lesser clubs’ who is fed up to the back teeth of all the verbal and linguistic gymnastics organisations such as yours contort yourselves through to avoid telling the simple truth that a football club died.
Sergio Biscuits
CQN then go on to say (Okay, we know this is a different club masquerading as an old club, but it still makes an interesting comparison. And there could be more woe to come!)
So a bit tongue in cheek I think
jean7brodieMarch 18, 2018 at 13:26
‘..I notice that the ‘illustrative list’ does not say ‘he/she’. Are women excluded?’
____________
Sadly, no,jean7!
‘ 1.2 In these Articles, unless expressly provided otherwise: (a) ……… (b) ……… (c) …….. (d) words importing any gender shall include all genders;’
so Mrs Budge and Ms Dempster would be caught!
HighlanderMarch 18, 2018 at 13:56
‘….Below is a complaint that I’m about to send to the Scotsman..’
________________
Good man yourself, Highlander: great letter!
dom16March 18, 2018 at 14:50
‘..So a bit tongue in cheek I think ‘
____________
Totally meaningless comparison! which gives aid and comfort to the ‘deniers’ [is that how that word is spelled? makes me think of 15denier nylons!]
TRFC Ltd is NOT RFC(IL), and their sporting histories are quite, quite separate and distinct.
Yes, responsible Bampots adhere to; “Don’t Drink & Type.”
…but we’ve all done it!
And alternatively, Stevie Clarke will not be TRFC manager …because he is not ready to manage a ‘huge club like Rangers’. 😉
Re: the suggested appointments of Doncaster and the Jags CEO to the SFA.
Deck chairs and rearranging springs to mind.
And if TRFC’s dismal form continues up to the cup semi, then there will be no pressure / expectations for a result. So Murty might actually be in a preferable position from which to secure a final spot. Well, it’s a funny old game.
HIGHLANDERMARCH 18, 2018 at 13:56
========================
A very good letter, although I expect they will say the SFA and SPFL regard them as the same club etc.
John ClarkMarch 18, 2018 at 16:01
11
2 Rate This
dom16March 18, 2018 at 14:50 ‘..So a bit tongue in cheek I think ‘ ____________ Totally meaningless comparison! which gives aid and comfort to the ‘deniers’ [is that how that word is spelled? makes me think of 15denier nylons!]
__________________________________________
Mmm!!! I peferred 30 denier myself JC!! You hark back to the 60’s and 70’s there and remind me of them. I didn’t know you were into them!!!!!
jean7brodieMarch 18, 2018 at 20:38
‘..I didn’t know you were into them!!!’
_______________
Sadly, hadn’t the legs for them!
But I remember trying to show off my first year French by pronouncing the word as ‘de-nee-ay’. I think that got me a thick ear for being a smart-a.se, from my teenage sister, God rest her.
StevieBCMarch 18, 2018 at 18:17
‘……..And alternatively, Stevie Clarke will not be TRFC manager …because he is not ready to manage a ‘huge club like Rangers’.’
_________________
Do you think ‘the badge is too heavy for him‘, StevieBC?
I heard that phrase last night on Sportsound, in relation to Murty.
Self-delusional hubris about the significance and weight of the 6-year-old club has been expressed in many ways, I suppose.
I hadn’t heard that particular expression used before.
Is it newly minted?
I can’t remember who used it last night.
JC
“Who used it last?”
———————
“The badge is never too heavy a burden for the true Ranger. For it is not his possession, but a momentary privilege handed down through glorious years from the days of the gallant pioneers.”
Bill Struth.
pedmaderonnylooklikepepMarch 18, 2018 at 01:40
‘.. But my annoyance is that after 30 years of the same chaff and years of failure at international level and a declining standard, we as supporters still don’t have the faintest blooming say in anything.’
_______________
Do not despair, pmrllp!
The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA)- which takes no money from the SFA and is therefore free to have a go at the inadequacies, deficiencies, and ‘never-mind-the-fans’ attitude of the SFA – is there to call the SFA to some kind of real understanding that the game and their jobs depends on the readiness of their ‘customers’ to part with their cash!
Sign up, and push for supporter involvement in the business of Football.
HelpumootMarch 18, 2018 at 23:43
‘…JC“Who used it last?”’
_____________
indebted to you, helpumoot. Shows my ignorance.
HighlanderMarch 18, 2018 at 13:56
As a long time lurker since the RTC days I have seldom posted but visit daily. Today I am compelled to congratulate Highlander on an excellent letter to the Scotsman. I think this should be the template used for correspondence to all media outlets that continue the same club myth.
I see it appears Ian Maxwell is the heir apparent at the SFA. I’m curious as to what his actual qualifications are for this role?
– No career in business of any note at all.
– An okay although far from inspiring reign at Partick Thistle (helped by two very generous benefactors)
– Very much one of the boys in terms of football governance in this country.
The press are delighted though because he’s by all accounts a decent sort, I genuinely despair.
Re/RIFC/TRFC Financial Situ
JJ has just published a cryptic story re a bank & Rangers FC – the implication being the bank is closely monitoring the Rangers’/associate co’s accounts – can they have burnt the Close Bros money already ?
Or , maybe a knock on from the TOP decision is starting to have an effect ?
Headline in today’s Daily Record:
Blame Dave King for Rangers woes not Graeme Murty and Celtic are miles clear because of Ibrox boardroom botches – Keith Jackson
I won’t sully this blog with a link and others might want to critique the depth of his hypocrisy which in parts is breath-taking – he actually accuses the Bears of being gullible for welcoming Craig Whyte into the club!!!
To me the interesting point is that KJ would never write this is if he thought that King had a long term hold on the reigns of power. His MO is traditionally to suck up to those in charge at Ibrox in order to secure his award winning stream of “Exclusives.”
Perhaps the word has gone out and the ground is being laid for a changing of the guard in the Blue Room?
TINCKSMARCH 19, 2018 at 11:04
I see the maters is subject to a number of tweets over on Phil Mac’s feed.
The trouble with social media is of course that your past comes back to haunt you and the bampots have long memories and sad enough to hold material in archives!!
However, in the case of Jackson and many others in the SMSM pointing out their incompetence and hypocrisy is like water of a duck’s back.
Highlander’s excellent letter will of course be dismissed because it has been shown that there is very little integrity at the sports desk of our newspapers.
While I understand the need to earn a wage to pay your bills, you really have to wonder how some of them, like Jackson, can live with the pish they spout, let alone accept awards for it.
Any ‘monitoring’ of King, NOAL and/or RIFC plc’s finances will no doubt be related to finalising arrangements for the share purchase offer that has to be made.
No matter how patient the Takeover Panel may be, on their own argument of ‘fairness’ for the general run of existing shareholders, they cannot allow too long a period to pass before King/Noal complies the Court’s order.
I suspect that NOAL/King may be experiencing difficulty in securing underwriting of the offer. Jut how ‘good’ is NOAL for a potential £11 or £12 million? The Takeover Panel or the Stock Exchange or the FCA might want to see a wee ‘letter of comfort’ from perhaps a UK-based financial institution.
But what action is open to them if NOAL/King cannot pony up because they actually don’t have the resources that MIGHT be required if there was a really significant take-up of the offer?
I am intrigued!
Tincks
March 19, 2018 at 11:04
===============================
As was discussed here at the time, was Alistair Johnston brought onto the board of the PLC as a natural replacement to Dave King should Mr King decide to stand down in order to deal with other business matters, as he no longer could put the time he wanted into Rangers.
Thanks for all of the hard work, saving the club, ousting the spivs etc.
“Surrender no.”
Interesting that Jingle Jangle Jackson has moved to put clear blue(natch) water between himself and Dave King today, in a manner not unlike a certain James Traynor did about a week before it all went wrong for the previous tenants at Ibrox. It may be that JJ is on the money with his arrestment article, it may be that he’s got a snippet of rumour and taken a running punt at it, but it does seem to be coming together.
BTW I seem to recall a slightly different version of events to those that Jackson is claiming. He basically copied and pasted from RTC for his ‘Whyte auctions off the season tickets’ story, somehow still managed to get the name of the form wrong, and, rather than stand his ground when someone in Ibrox coughed, he immediately squealed ‘Sorry!’, pulled the story from the website, and the DR spent the next couple of weeks removing the story in its entirety from other stories(they had a comments section in those days!) whenever a reader would helpfully post it as a comment, usually alongside something like ‘You seem to have lost one of your stories. Fortunately I copied and pasted it, so here it is. You’re welcome!’
I miss the heady days of 2011/2012, but mostly I miss the sign off of Rangers fans in the aforementioned comments section: ‘In Whyte we trust, in Ally we trust.’
They don’t make ’em like that anymore.
Tincks
March 19, 2018 at 11:04
“I won’t sully this blog with a link and others might want to critique the depth of his hypocrisy which in parts is breath-taking – he actually accuses the Bears of being gullible for welcoming Craig Whyte into the club!!!”
——————————————————–
Note to “Radar” keep going, every article you pen knocks another 100,000 off your circulation.
naegreetin March 19, 2018 at 10:40
Re/RIFC/TRFC Financial Situ
JJ has just published a cryptic story re a bank & Rangers FC – the implication being the bank is closely monitoring the Rangers’/associate co’s accounts – can they have burnt the Close Bros money already ? Or , maybe a knock on from the TOP decision is starting to have an effect ?
—————————————————————
A poster on a Celtic message board claims to work for the bank in question and states that his branch received JJ’s message this morning on their e-bulletin system. He would not reveal his employer but I note the referred bank telephone number in JJ’s piece has an Inverclyde 01475 code.
Standby while the gentlemen of the press leap into action . . . .
For anyone who doesn’t know about arrestments…
I worked in branch banking many years ago and every day every branch received the same paper ‘circular’ from HO detailing the list of granted arrestments for that day. Normally there was anything from 10 to 20 companies listed each day. The arrestment meant that a creditor had got approval (from a judge, I presume) to have the company’s funds frozen while they tried to get their money from them. If any branch held an account for a company on the list and that account had a creditor balance on it at the time notification of the arrestment was received, the funds were removed from the account and placed into a ‘suspense’ account. The branch then had to notify the company of this and advise that the funds could only be released back to them if the creditor confirmed that the matter had been settled. NB if the account was overdrawn at the time the arrestment was received, it had no effect whatsoever. In reality, most creditors knew where the company banked, having dealt with them, so went straight there with the arrestment document and it only filtered through to other banks/branches a day or two later.
It has been a few years, so the process may not be quite the same (I’m sure everything is done quicker by electronic means now), but that was the gist of it.
NAWLITEMARCH 19, 2018 at 15:43
So what you are saying is that an an arrestment order has been issued but that it goes to every bank just in case they have an account there too. Tick tock
Re Arrestment Orders. Wouldn’t there be some sort of court record of the company applying for it? Or is it the case that a Sherriff signs paperwork out of court for the order to take place, then the case may end up in court if agreement on payment is not reached?
BD, yeah, that’s how it worked when I knew it. A bit more info here…
https://www.tcyoung.co.uk/blog/2012/private-landlord/debt-recovery-scotland-bank-arrestment
and here….
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/pay-a-fine/arrestment-of-funds
Billy BoyceMarch 19, 2018 at 15:13’…A poster on a Celtic message board claims to work for the bank in question and states that his branch….’___________________
In the 2017 published accounts, RIFC plc’s bank was shown as Metro Bank plc, in London? If that is still the case, surely any arrestment order would go there, and as far as I know,Metro doesn’t have branches in Inverclyde?
I’m not saying that the Celtic poster may be wrong about the ‘arrestment order, if indeed every bank, not just every branch of the bank that holds the account of the ‘arrestee’, is notified of arrestment orders.
But for an Inverclyde number for Metro to be cited as the bank’s dialling pre-fix?