Is Stewart Regan, Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Football Association a DIDDY?
Disingenuous: Incompetent: Dishonest: Duped? You decide.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Scottish Football Monitor sorority/fraternity jury, who want an honest game, honestly governed, are invited to pass judgement on Stewart Regan, the CEO of the SFA.
The main stream media are finally asking questions of Regan’s performance in that role, but based on a rather shallow (by comparison to what he has presided over) single issue of the recruitment of a national team coach, and not his character.
Maybe we can help the three monkeys media men (you know who they are) push for change at the SFA. How? By highlighting for them the appropriate response to Regan’s performance on the basis of what follows if he really is a DIDDY.
Disingenuous is defined as:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Evidence of such can be found in the written exchanges with the SFA that Celtic initiated on 27th July, and continued on 18 August, 21 August, 4th September and 7th September 2017; and published on the Celtic web site with SFA agreement at http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/SFA_Correspondence.pdf
This from the SFA letter of 18th August 2017:
Comment: the statements are not alleged, they are a matter of court record and if untrue represent perjury.
…. And then this from subsequent SFA letter of 4th September 2017
Both paras give the impression that the SFA were unaware that Rangers had accepted the liability without question before 31st March 2011. Yet the SFA’s attention was drawn to this fact in July 2015 by lawyers acting on behalf of Celtic shareholders as follows:
- Our information in respect of this £2.8M in unpaid tax is that Rangers PLC had been alerted in November 2010 by HMRC that they would be pursuing payment of this exact sum.
- From that date onwards, the Directors of Rangers PLC should have known there was a potential liability to HMRC for back taxes specifically relating to payments made to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer. These sums became an accepted liability in March 2011.
- Matters had been brought to a head on 23 February 2011 when HMRC presented Rangers with a written case for payment of back tax owed in respect of Flo and De Boer. As your department may well be aware, that case for payment involved hitherto undisclosed side letters which were found to be an adjunct to their declared and disclosed contracts of employment.
- Those contracts of employment were, of course, disclosed to the Scottish Football authorities (including the SFA) as part of the necessary compliance procedures followed by all clubs and demanded by both the SFA and UEFA.
- Additionally when replying to the initial enquiries by HMRC in 2005 regarding these alleged side letters and ancillary agreements, the then Group Tax Manager of Murray International Holdings (MIH) acting for Rangers PLC on tax matters, apparently advised HMRC that no such agreements or side letters existed.
- It ultimately proved that these representations to HMRC were completely untrue and without foundation. The tax Inspectors concerned in turn saw these false misrepresentations as being an attempt to simply hide the true financial position and an attempt to avoid paying the taxes which were lawfully due on the contracts of the players concerned.
- As mentioned earlier, Rangers PLC accepted liability on 21st March 2011 for unpaid tax having taken legal advice on the matter.
- In turn, HMRC then chose to formally pursue payment of the back taxes and penalties in relation to these two players, all in terms of HMRC’s debt recovery procedures under what is known as regulation 80.
- Prior to 31st March 2011, there was clear knowledge within Rangers Football Club of the liability to make payment for these back taxes and, as can be seen from the attached documentation, by 20th May 2011 HMRC had served formal assessments and demands on Rangers PLC for the sums concerned.
The impression given by Regan’s reply to Celtic is that the first time the SFA were aware there might be an issue on granting was in June 2017 as result of testimony at the Craig Whyte trial. This is clearly not the case and the only explanation that would clear Regan of being disingenuous is a that he was incompetent as in not knowing what the SFA already had in their possession, however a bit more on being disingenuous before looking at incompetency.
The above extract of the exchange of 4th September where Regan mentions Celtic being satisfied on the UEFA Licence 2011 issue was challenged by Celtic on 7th September 2017 as follows:
“on the matter of the Licensing Decision in 2011 it is not accurate to describe Celtic as having been “satisfied” at any stage. Like everyone else we were in a position of responding on the basis of information available to us. In correspondence, Celtic raised continuing concerns as did a number of Celtic shareholders.”
In dealing with the Celtic shareholders the SFA and Regan appeared keen to welcome from the early days of correspondence that only the process after granting i.e. the monitoring phase of June and September was being questioned and not the granting itself. That was the case initially but as new information emerged in respect of what UEFA judged to be an overdue payable, upheld by the Court of Arbitration on Sport in 2013, focus swung back in 2016 to the significance of what the SFA had been told by the Res 12 lawyer in July 2015. However the emphasis the SFA put on shareholders accepting the grant was in order was puzzling at the time. The suspicion since is that the SFA did not want the circumstances around the granting investigated and the SFA and Regan were being disingenuous in their attempts to keep that aspect under wraps. especially when their defence of not acting as required in 2011 was based around when the SFA responsibilities on granting ended and UEFA’s on monitoring began. (for more on that read the Incompetence charge)
In response to a separate point in Regan’s letter of 18th August about the QC advice on there not being a rule in place at the time to use to sanction Rangers or the limited sanctions available to a Judicial Panel, Peter Lawwell responded on 21st August to Regan’s disingenuousness as follows:
” In your letter you refer to advice from Senior Counsel that;
‘there was very little chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any compliant regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would be very limited in their scope.’
As I said in my last letter Celtic considers that this misses the point. The fact that disciplinary sanctions may not be secured is in our view not a reason for Scottish football to ignore the opportunity to review and possibly learn lessons from the events in question.”
Although they didn’t refer to it in that reply of 21st August, Celtic could have pointed out the following catch all rule in existence in 2011 (and presumably earlier) under Article 5 in SFA handbook.
5. Obligations and duties of Members (where all members shall)
5.1 Observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play.
This Article could have been used to demonstrate sporting dishonesty by Rangers FC. However by recognising this Regan would be on a collision course with an issue that he wanted to avoid at all costs;
whom to sanction? Rangers FC? The Rangers FC? Those currently at The Rangers FC who were officials or on the Board of Rangers FC in 2011?
Consequently, the SFA chose to hide behind QC advice – but to protect whom? Not the integrity of the game. Here is a suggestion to restore it:
That the Rangers FC admit that the trophies won in the EBT years were won as a result of clear wrongdoing (the wrongdoing Regan was so desperate to say never occurred – see later), and that The Rangers give them up. Surrendering them is not being defeated, it is simply the right thing to do for the game AND for Rangers to restore some integrity to themselves.
If they want to lay claim to their history, lay claim to all of it, just be honourable and act with dignity and we can all move on.
In summary then, Regan is being disingenuous by pretending to know a lot less than he does – and on that note the case of disingenuousness ends.
Incompetence: is defined as;
lack of ability to do something successfully or as it should be done:
Whilst a CEO would not be expected to know the minutiae of any process, he would be expected to seek such information before going public to defend the SFA’s position.
On 23 October 2013, Stewart Regan had an interview with Richard Gordon on BBC Sportsound. Excerpts from it can be heard at http://www.bbc.com/sport/scotland/24685973 . Interestingly or strangely, the following excerpt regarding the lines of responsibility between the SFA and UEFA fell on the BBC cutting room floor.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9YktGc0kwWjJCY1E/view?usp=sharing
In it Regan is saying that the 31st March is a key date and AFTER that date, the SFA having granted the licence on evidence provided to the SFA (now under Compliance Officer investigation) have no more responsibility in the matter. Richard Gordon asks Regan to confirm that after 31st March there is no other course of action the SFA could have taken. To which Regan answers “Correct”.
This understanding however does not stand up when compared to the information supplied to the Res 12 Lawyer on 8th June 2016 by Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing and so ultimate authority on the matter.
That letter (more famous for its new club/company designation of the current incumbents at Ibrox), confirmed that the UEFA Licence was not granted until the 19th April 2011, so Regan was wrong on his dates, but even more significantly UEFA stated that the list of clubs granted a licence was not submitted to them until 26th May 2011.
This raises the obvious question (though not so obviously to Regan);
” how can UEFA start monitoring until they know who to monitor?”
More significantly, and one for the SFA Compliance chap to consider, should the licence have been granted, irrespective of what “evidence” the SFA Licensing Committee acted on in March 2011 , when it was obvious from a HMRC Letter of 20th May 2011 to Rangers, that HMRC were pursuing payment of a tax liability which could no longer by dint of being pursued, be described as “potential” which was the justification for granting at 31st March/19th April?
Here ends the case of incompetence.
Dishonesty;
lack of honesty or integrity: defined as disposition to defraud or deceive.
The line between incompetence and dishonesty is a thin one and so difficult to judge, however some discernment is possible from observation over time.
On 29 March 2012 Stewart Regan was interviewed by Alex Thomson of Channel Four news, a transcript of which with comments can be found on a previous SFM blog of 8th March 2015 at
https://www.sfm.scot/did-stewart-regan-ken-then-wit-we-ken-noo/
It is a long article, but two points emerge from it.
Stewart Regan bases his defence of SFA inaction on the fact that at the time of the interview no wrongdoing had occurred . Regan emphasises this rather a lot. Had he been an honest man, he would have confessed that this defence fell when the Supreme Court ruled that wrong doing in respect of Rangers’ use of EBTs had occurred.
This extract from Regan’s letter of 4th September 2017 beggars belief in light of his position on wrongdoing during interview with Alex Thomson.
” The reality is that the final decision in “The Big Tax Case” signalled closure for many involved in the game. It is hard to believe that a “wide review” no matter how well intentioned and how wide ranging could ever bring closure in the minds of every Scottish football fan and stakeholder.”
How on earth did the Supreme Court decision signal closure to Regan given his emphasis on no wrong doing?
Had Regan (in response to Celtic in August and September 2017) acknowledged that wrongdoing had taken place, then that at least would have been honest, but the defence of not acting was on the grounds that admitting dishonesty would be raking over old coals. An honest man would have accepted that the situation had changed, and some form of enquiry was necessary, but instead Regan fell back on unpublished advice from a QC.
The second point is a new one. Regan was asked by Alex Thomson in March 2012
AT: But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?
SR: Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition
AT: I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?
SR: No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,
AT: Never?
At time of interview in March 2012 this was true but 2 months later on 25th May 2012 the issue of a Judicial review WAS raised by Celtic
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/celtic-still-pressing-sfa-for-inquiry-8p25q8wbb
for the same reasons that Regan had ignored in 2011 as the LNS Commissioning proceeded apace and Regan continued to ignore in the 2017 correspondence. An honest man would have recognised that his truth to Thomson in March was no longer true in May 2012 and acted. He didn’t.
These do not appear to be acts of an honest man, rather they appear to represent the behaviour of a man who is being dishonest with himself; although perhaps Regan was simply duped?
Duped is defined as;
“ If a person dupes you, they trick you into doing something or into believing something which is not true.”
In his e mail of 7th December to Ali Russell, then Rangers CEO , after a discussion on the 6th December 2011 with Andrew Dickson, Rangers Football Administrator and SFA License Committee member in 2011, Regan set out the basis on which the SFA granted a UEFA License in 2011.
This was a letter from Ranger’s auditors Grant Thornton describing the wee tax liability of £2.8m as a potential one with the implication that it was subject to dispute, an implication carried into the Interim Accounts of 1st April 2011 signed by Rangers FC Chairman Alistair Johnson.
The true status of the liability and the veracity of statements made that justified the UEFA License being granted are under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer.
However Regan’s belief that the liability was disputed and therefore hadn’t crystalized, is supported more or less by his Tweets at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9NG5CNXcwLW9RZjQ/view?usp=sharing
The case that Regan was duped is a plausible one, at least up to 2015, but I would contend that the SFA responses to Res 12 lawyers after July 2015 suggest that whilst the SFA may have been duped initially, they subsequently appeared more concerned with keeping events beyond public scrutiny (like the effect on the licence issue of HMRC sending in Sheriff’s Officers to collect a £2.8m tax liability in August 2011).
At this point, based on the foregoing –
You the SFM jury are asked to decide: Is Stewart Regan a DIDDY?
Copy paste this link for GUILTY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejizOV-IQEM
And this for NOT GUILTY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwXGdgFZmNk
The Sin of Omission by Margaret Sangster ends:
And it’s not the things you do, dear,
It’s the things you leave undone,
Which gives you a bit of heartache
At the setting of the sun.
Fair play HOMUNCULUS. Likewise I can see your view point and respect your views, whilst not agreeing with them.
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 12:59
HOMUNCULUS, if we were to rule football managers, players, celebrities, politicians, CEOs or bankers out of certain jobs because of tax avoidance or evasion we would have a very small pool to choose from. Unfortunately that’s the world we live in.
=====================
No-one is naive enough to think many rich people don’t try and avoid tax. However, taking Neil Lennon as an example the tax and N.I he was due from his Celtic salary was deducted and paid. If he then took risks to avoid tax on his savings then he can pay the same penalty as any others who do the same, but it gave Celtic no advantage, and was nothing at all to do with Celtic.
However it is beyond any legal doubt that Alex McLeish and all others at Rangers who had an EBT did not pay the tax and N.I due on all their earnings. The scheme was designed to allow Rangers a standard of player they otherwise could not afford, and brought them a lot of success. Sadly, even though the highest court in the land has exposed the illegal nature of what Rangers did, both the Scottish football authorities and the media fully approved of it. Quite incredible, but true.
The word corrupt doesn’t come close to describing what has been allowed to happen.
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 13:01
They got off with a scam the first time. Even OSCR wouldn’t let them away with a similar scam.
—————
That reninded me of something JC. a LONG READ BUT A GOOD ONE.
———
It is also interesting that OSCR take the view that it only became clear in June 2012 that The Rangers Football Club plc were insolvent when any accountant could have stated that they were insolvent as of 14 February 2012 given the scale of debt. Surely anyone senior working in the finance department of that football club would have known this given that they would have had access to the club’s financial affairs? If a bunch of internet bampots could decipher and correctly call the financial implosion of Rangers and the chance of a CVA, why couldn’t a fully qualified accountant?
As an aside, perhaps OSCR should note that the Foundation never had the power to appoint trustees so could not have that power reinstated… but maybe that’s the level of competence that we are dealing with here.
The Rangers Football Club plc was renamed RFC 2012 plc and entered liquidation on 31 October 2012. Since there will not be another Chair of RFC 2012 plc, the charity trustees themselves will in future decide which charity trustee will be Chair.”
On 14 February 2012, Craig Whyte was removed as Chair of The Rangers Football Club plc and replaced by joint administrators appointed by the Court of Session. Perhaps one for the legal minds, but wouldn’t that make Duff & Phelps de facto Chair and therefore Chair of the Foundation?
If so, there is an even bigger conflict of interest which has been deliberately ignored by OSCR. And I say deliberate because that very point was put to them on more than one occasion by me asking for clarification. On each occasion they ignored it, instead referring me to the Foundation for an answer knowing full well that the Foundation was refusing to respond to even basic enquiries (it took them eight months to send me their accounts and incomplete constitution when they have a legal duty to provide these to any member of the public).
————–
Here is the link to the full article.
https://alzipratu.wordpress.com/
Charity law also provides for a very specific conflict of interest that may arise between the interests of the charity and those of the person or organisation responsible for appointing the charity trustee.
Should such a conflict arise, the law makes clear the charity trustee’s duty is to act in the interests of the charity. A charity trustee who is unable to put the interests of the charity before those of the person or organisation responsible for appointing them is required to disclose the conflict of interest and refrain from participating in any deliberation or decision with respect to the matter in question.
The 2005 Act makes clear that the duty to act in the interests of the charity and avoid conflicts of interest is not only a duty on individual charity trustees; it is also the duty of their fellow charity trustees to ensure that they do so.”
from article posted above
DBD, You always come across to me as a man who loves the football side of things. For instance throughout the chat on McLeish you usually bring the footballing aspects into it. I’d like to hear your views on the Morelos stuff. His valuation. How much do you think he is worth? I’d like to hear it from an honest bear’s perspective.
UPTHEHOOPSFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 13:26
However it is beyond any legal doubt that Alex McLeish and all others at Rangers who had an EBT did not pay the tax and N.I due on all their earnings. The scheme was designed to allow Rangers a standard of player they otherwise could not afford, and brought them a lot of success. Sadly, even though the highest court in the land has exposed the illegal nature of what Rangers did, both the Scottish football authorities and the media fully approved of it. Quite incredible, but true.
The word corrupt doesn’t come close to describing what has been allowed to happen.
————–
JIMBO
FEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 11:36
You can look at this in two ways. From a legal perspective he would be told that it was all legal and above board. Tax avoidance rather than Tax evasion.
==========================================
Tax avoidance is not legal and above board. The fact that it is dealt with civilly rather than criminally does not make it legal and above board.
If someone is caught avoiding tax HMRC can issue penalties specific to that avoidance. People cannot be penalised for doing something which is legal and above board.
Tax management is legal and above board, however tax avoidance isn’t.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-avoidance-an-introduction
What tax avoidance is
Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.
Most tax avoidance schemes simply do not work, and those who engage in them can find they pay more than the tax they attempted to save, once HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has successfully challenged them.
Jimbo, I think like everyone on here if Rangers had been offered half the figure quoted for Morales they would have bitten their hand off for it. Personally I would have accepted anything above £3m for a player who is still very raw and his attitude is questionable. A 300% profit in 6 months would be a fantastic achievement, and would have negated the Close Brothers deal. I don’t know the inner workings but I wonder if there is some arrangement in place whereby we are borrowing money secured against him as an Asset? It’s convenient that the teams looking at him are all from far flung countries where it’s not possible to question? Also interesting that the Chinese team seems to change every time I read a story.
If by some reason the stories have any truth even at half the value and Rangers have turned it down then everyone involved in that decision should be banned from Scottish football (and any business related matters in Scotland) for pure negligence. To turn money down for a player whilst propping the club up with directors loans and onerous lending from outside sources would be ineptitude above anything previous witnessed at Ibrox (and that is saying something!!). Not to mention the team left without him would still be good enough to finish in a European slot, the same unlikely chance of a cup upset but with the added bonus of actually being allowed into Europe by FFP.
The SFA are taking a real pounding on Sportsound for the mess they made of appointing a new Manager, and for not having a CEO in place. What a difference to the intense support the same programme gave the SFA when they refused an independent review. There is a PR lesson for the SFA here. Ensure everything, absolutely everything, has an angle to it where the SFA are being accused of favouring Rangers. If they do that they will never receive any media criticism at all.
” If we didn’t pay the money Celtic were paying on wages we’d have been behind them ” Alex McLeish ===%===
To be fair to McLeish he does aknowledge a principle that UEFA have articulated in Article 50 of Financial FAIR Play iro unpaid tax.
The clue of intent is the use of the word “FAIR” in the regulations title. What UEFA Art50 means is that if a club has tax owed to HMRC at 31st Dec and has not paid it or met the other conditions in Art50 by 31 March, then that means a club with unpaid tax was operating to an unfair standard as UEFA deem it, compared to other clubs who were paying their tax.
That non payment may or may not have given a wage advantage (although in McLeish’s words that was the intent of Rangers use of ebts.) but that unpaid tax could give a club a wage advantage if tax was being used directly or indirectly on the playing budget.
However UEFA did not add any other stipulations, asking clubs where else the unpaid tax was spent, it took the overall view that unpaid tax by 31 March conferred an advantage over other clubs paying their way, so an errant club was simply refused a licence because not to do so would be unfair on other clubs.
The SFA to their eternal shame have ignored this fair play principle when addressing what Rangers had done and until such times as what Rangers did on a massive scale is recognised as it is – cheating- the game under those rubbing our noses in it, cannot move on.
Only applying UEFA FFP principles in a domestic version of UEFA FFP that is properly policed by a competent authority to do so (which rules out the SFA) will enable Scottish football to demonstrate it has learned lessons from the past.
In the meantime DK and the same cohorts who drove a horse and cart through FFP by not paying tax, are still at the reins of the club surviving on loans that enable players to be paid at a higher standard than TRFC/RIFC can afford.
Why those in charge of rivals closest to TRFC/RIFC do not ask questions of the SFA Licencing Committee and demand a greater degree of transparency is beyond me.
I see the Morelos offer has now been upped to £11m – ‘take it or leave it’. Is there actually grown up people out there believing this stuff?
How convenient that a Chinese club is allegedly involved in this. I wouldn’t imagine anyone in China pays any attention to what the Scottish sports media is saying. If Celtic manage to qualify for the next round of the Europa League on Thursday (by no means a given), will Morelos price be up yet again within half an hour like it was after Celtic’s first leg victory?
Surely it is not beyond the power of the Scottish media to verify this story one way or the other.
“I see the Morelos offer has now been upped to £11m – ‘take it or leave it’. Is there actually grown up people out there believing this stuff?”
In a word, no. I don’t know any even Rangers fans who believe it.
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 15:26
“I see the Morelos offer has now been upped to £11m – ‘take it or leave it’. Is there actually grown up people out there believing this stuff?”
In a word, no. I don’t know any even Rangers fans who believe it.
=============================
There are plenty on social media who believe it. There also appears to be plenty in the media who believe it.
Post Script to my previous.
UEFA are not interested in proving sporting advantage occured from not paying tax.
They simply take it as self evident that one club not paying it’s proper tax on wages has an unfair advantage over clubs that do.
So for over ten years Rangers had an advantage as UEFA see it and in each of those ten years going back Rangers should/would have been refused a licence to play football.
Had LNS taken place after the Supreme Court, that is what any Commission would have had to look at and why SFA do not want to revisit.
UTH – do the media believe it or are they towing the party line?
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 15:51
UTH – do the media believe it or are they towing the party line?
================================
I think it’s a mixture of that, pet Rangers journalists being used, and others who simply can’t stand the hassle of being added to the list of haters.
In my opinion if Celtic were claiming this about e.g Leigh Griffiths or James Forrest, the media would have did all they could to find out whether it was true or not. However, there are no consequences for reporting negatively on Celtic.
I don’t fully agree with you on that one, as I think the media also inflate the prices of Celtic players (Dembele as the recent example). I always take whatever the media quote in terms of values and half it (although in the case of Moreles it’s getting close to a factor of ten!).
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 16:22
I don’t fully agree with you on that one, as I think the media also inflate the prices of Celtic players (Dembele as the recent example). I always take whatever the media quote in terms of values and half it (although in the case of Moreles it’s getting close to a factor of ten!).
============================
Really? Many in the media claimed Virgil Van Dyk was worth nowhere near the £11.5m Southampton paid Celtic, saying he would be ‘found out’. How did that work out again?
VVD was a different story. I was delighted when you sold him as he was a standard above anyone else in Scotland at that time and I knew he would strengthen you in games against us. I actually think you could have got more for him, but sadly players in Scotland will never command the fees they are due. But I don’t believe Dembelle is worth the money he is quoted. He is not even the best player in Scotland (Sinclair by a mile).
UTH, you are a favourite poster of mine but I don’t think you should be so hard on DBD. He has already said that Morelos is worth 1/10th of ridiculous quotes.
See to be honest, the way Dembele has been playing most of this season I would have taken the hand off anyone who offered £15m. And I am a Celtic supporter who saw the best of Dembele last season.
Cluster OneFebruary 17, 2018 at 13:26
‘….a LONG READ BUT A GOOD ONE.’
____________________
A very good read: and, in my mind, there are nearly as many questions to ask of OSCR as there are to ask of the SFA!
Questions relating to things like ‘ brains’,’trust’ and ethics”, about which the OSCR CEO (who was in post when the ‘inquiry’ into the Ac Milan Glorie match reported) retweeted a quote on 11th of this month:
” @DavidRobb22 A blog I wrote last year contained this quote: “Leadership requires five ingredients: brains, energy, determination, trust, and ethics. The key challenges today are in terms of the last two – trust and ethics.” Fred Hilmer ”
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 17:10
2
0 Rate This
Cluster OneFebruary 17, 2018 at 13:26‘….a LONG READ BUT A GOOD ONE.’____________________A very good read: and, in my mind, there are nearly as many questions to ask of OSCR as there are to ask of the SFA!
———————
Rangers Charity@RFC_Charity Our recent Armed Forces Day at Ibrox raised £4,837 for our Armed Forces Partnership with @Erskine1916 @AAVeteransSupp & @ChcGovan
————–
If the charity could only raise £4,837 with a crowd of up to 50,000 i believe. Just how much do they expect to get from this game
UPTHEHOOPSFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 15:45
8
0 Rate This
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 15:26
“I see the Morelos offer has now been upped to £11m – ‘take it or leave it’. Is there actually grown up people out there believing this stuff?”In a word, no. I don’t know any even Rangers fans who believe it.
=============================
There are plenty on social media who believe it. There also appears to be plenty in the media who believe it.
————–
The Chinese super league transfer window will close on the 28th Feb.
Something else is to happen on the 28th Feb. But i can’t quite get the connection
Is it not £11 mill Mr king has to come up with by the 28th?
Here’s a link to today’s Sportsound programme, including the savaging of the omnishambles of a clusterf*ck that is the SFA Board by Michael Stewart, Willie Miller, Pat Bonner and even Chris McLaughlin and Billy Dodds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05yjcfd#play
Nice wee read lol.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/02/17/rugger-guy-analyses-the-close-brothers-document/
Thanks to John Clark for supplying the link to Rangers Charity Foundations page, makes for interesting reading. The original charity and the new charity have a few intriguing differences written into the sections marked Purposes, Beneficiaries and Activities.
In the Beneficiaries section the new charity has the line “people of a particular ethnic or racial origin”.
The old charity didn’t have that line. Seems quite a remarkable clause unless I’m missing something.
Activities really has changed, here are the original charities lines marking out activities followed by the new charities.
Activities: It makes grants, donations or gifts to organisations,It carries out activities or services itself-old
Activities: It makes grants, donations, loans, gifts or pensions to individuals,It makes grants, donations or gifts to organisations,It carries out activities or services itself-new.
The new charities accounts will be due on the 30th August 2018. Will be interesting to see who has been getting loans and whose pension is getting paid through charity.
Here’s a report of some of the discussion on Sportsound for anyone who does not have access to the above link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43098581
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/02/17/the-sevco-high-command-decide-to-reign-in-their-pr-fantasist/
Well we’ve had “not wanting to rake over old coals” now the mantra is “we must get behind the Scotland manager”.
Simple question “Why must we get behind him?”
The belief system from the media people on radio Scotland is that they are more concerned how he managed to be selected after the rebuke by O’Neil, and Walter’s refusal.
Perhaps I can enlighten them; McLeish is a tax dodger, picked by a group of people who do not wish to address McLeish’s part in a larger tax dodge which in turn cheated Scottish football for more than a decade.
He was picked by Petrie who is, as I type, being fitted for his SFA’s Presidents jacket after the current incompetent either serves his time or just dies in office!!
This is Petrie‘s prize for his leading part in the infamous five way agreement, an agreement so secret that not one copy has managed to make it into the public domain after six years. This document may be illegal for all we know. It could promise all sorts of things against the very sport itself. This is not, and never will be, acceptable!
The great irony of this is that it is the Scottish footballing public, the very people defrauded by McLeish in the first instance, who will pay his demand for back taxes. What’s the old saying “fool me once ……………..”.
Perhaps when one of the media guys starts spouting the “we need transparency of the process as to how McLeish was selected” we should simply tell them to “move on” and not “rake over old coals”. This is the problem when media people start accepting things given to them without questioning, you end up either unable to think of a difficult question, or you cannot find the testicular fortitude to ask a question.
The media, who have never paid to attend a match, are so ready to accept ten years of cheating on behalf of the paying public, then they should not be surprised when they are treated with the same disdain as the paying public.
The SFA is a corrupt, self-serving, incompetent, small minded, petty minded, and dismissive of the people who pay their wages.
Time for change?
It’s long overdue!!!
I was in the pub this afternoon. And then went to visit an old friend is not so good. I intend to revisit this site about midnight with the ‘Thumbsdowners’. If I can manage it. Till then, take care I love you all. And listen to DBD. He’s a good guy.
sannoffymesssoitizzFebruary 17, 2018 at 19:17
0
0 i
Rate This
Here’s a link to today’s Sportsound programme, including the savaging of the omnishambles of a clusterf*ck that is the SFA Board by Michael Stewart, Willie Miller and even Chris McLaughlin.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05yjcfd#play
====================
So according to Bonnar at 14.44/45 in” there were a lot of other things going on and we all know that” that caused Regan to be sacked which suggests media have known for some time what all those other things are.
It would be good if Bonnar could share and the BBC gave him the platform.
Good but highly unlikely.
Bonnar is now part of the ‘establishment’. For an Irishman he is a disgrace. He should hold his head in shame.
The same as English.
Cowards.
Easyjambo, you have a PM.
Slaves to the BBC. And £££££££££s
On a completely separate matter I was pointed in the direction of the website The Celtic Blog. Now I always laugh when the label of ‘obsessed’ is applied to a football fan of a rival as it always comes part and parcel with football – not just Rangers/Celtic. Obviously the fans will from time to time discuss their rivals and that’s only natural. Likewise I welcome sites such as this which deal with all matters relating to Scottish football, and because of recent history it’s only natural that Rangers will dictate a lot of the narrative. I also enjoy a read at Phil’s blogs, whilst I won’t agree with a lot he says and his recent sources do appear to miss the mark more often than hit (though I would love to know who his mole was from 2010-2012 cause he was pretty much spot on there). At least with Phil he doesn’t pretend to be something else and is quite honest about his aim at dealing with corruption in Ibrox. What got me though with The Celtic Blog was the sheer number of articles posted on Rangers and a shortage of anything related to Celtic.
It was pointed out to me by a Rangers fan so I obviously went on with an open mind that he would be biased. But I can honestly say if there was a blog called The Rangers Blog where 95% of it was focussed on my rivals I certainly wouldn’t find myself a regular visitor or poster. I think this is the example where the ‘obsessed’ label certainly fits. I just wondered what the opinion of all the decent Celtic fans on here thought of it, and whether it was even a main Celtic website or a small bunch of extreme fans and general clickbait the way The Ibrox Noise is (albeit without the unhealthy focus on our rivals).
Allyjambo February 17, 2018 at 20:37
Easyjambo, you have a PM.
===================
You have a response
In the aim of fairness, I thought I would post a link to the latest Ibrox Noise article for a laugh. As unlikely as this seems, please read it knowing this isn’t a wind up or a parody, this is someone’s genuine views. Enjoy
http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2018/02/the-fake-news-of-alfredo-morelos.html?m=1
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 22:08 £9M for Craig Gordon, the £6M for Hooper, the £13M for van Dijk and the same for Wanyama?
———–
Did they not all play in the champions league?
And this free scoring kid could not score against a part time club in the preliminary rounds of the europa league
You miss my point Cluster One, I posted merely for everyone on here’s amusement. I had criticised a Celtic Blog in the previous post and felt it only fair to then draw your attention to what I personally feel to be the absolute worst and delusional Rangers blog going. The article in absolutely no way whatsoever represents my views!
justshateredFebruary 17, 2018 at 19:34 (Edit)
In 2011 Rod Petrie Chaired the Licensing Committee on 3 occasions.
Andrew Dickson now a Rangers Director sat on the same committee on 3 occasions.
Given what was revealed in court regarding the true status of the wee tax liability at 31st March 2011 and the public utterances of Alistair Johnson on 1st April 2011 in the Daily Record (that seems to have been removed from Google search but which I have seen or references to it as in)
DR quoting Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnston that contradicted/ raised questions about the status of the liability as potential as was reported in the Interim Accounts signed by him. The problem he (Johnson) said ” was a cash flow issue , someone has to pay and we don’t have it in our budget” which suggests there was no dispute.
Does Petrie not have due diligence questions to answer given that the licence was not granted until 19th April and SFA had plenty of time to clarify the position with either Johnson himself or HMRC under the agreement all clubs enter under UEFA FFP Article 43 to allow SFA to enquire of HMRC?
Does Dickson not have questions to answer on his role? Did he excuse himself altogether when discussing RFC’s application on the basis of vested interest but morally should he have done so?
Hopefully the SFA Compliance Officer will be looking at the minutes of the LC Committee meetings pf 2011 even if only to identify failings in their rules that allowed a lie to go unchallenged.
Petrie’s defence regarding not asking questions would be interesting to hear.
Auldheid February 17, 2018 at 22:47
=====================
Johnston’s quote is still available in a Telegraph article by Roddy Forsyth dated 9 August 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8691510/Rangers-in-discussions-with-HMRC-over-appealing-2.8-tax-liability.html
Edit: also found the DR artice from 2 April 2011
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/alastair-johnston-were-less-sceptical-1099159
The bill dropped through the Ibrox front door only three weeks ago and the interims had to be hastily readjusted
DarkbeforedawnFebruary 17, 2018 at 21:39
‘..Obviously the fans will from time to time discuss their rivals and that’s only natural. Likewise I welcome sites such as this which deal with all matters relating to Scottish football, and because of recent history it’s only natural that Rangers will dictate a lot of the narrative.’
_______________
I don’t think that the search for truth, and the angry condemnation of those
who –
-actually perpetrated the biggest sports cheating offence in Scottish footballing history,
-or benefited from it (eg our new National manager)
-or who assisted in it by their craven failure to question the low wages being paid to European football stars (the staff of the SFA under the charge of an EBT beneficiary)
-or those who , when the bubble was bursting , allegedly slid a few million quid to the corrupt club ( the club Licensing committee of the SFA)
-or those in the BBC and print media who chose to ignore all that ( with the very clear support of their editors )
-or those who manufactured the stupid Big Lie that a liquidated football club is still somehow up and running
-or those who defend any of the above
-or those in RIFC plc/TRFCLtd who , in effect, are making some kind of money from the results of all of the above
can be considered as merely fans ‘discussing their rivals’.
There is a very great and justifiable anger out there at the tendency for the media and others not only to avoid the truth that TRFC Ltd of 2012 vintage is NOT , cannot possibly be, the once proud Rangers of 1872.
The pretence that TRFC Ltd is entitled to call itself the same club as the Liquidated club, and to claim even that old club’s legitimate sporting honours has to be challenged at every turn, because it simply is not right that a cheat should win, whether an ‘oldco’ cheat or a new club living a lie!
And it is most definitely not right that a sports governance body, in receipt of public monies, should escape unchallenged from charges that might conceivably result in actual criminal charges, but which is in any case deserving of independent investigation.
Which, of course, and par for the course, was denied by that body!
The target here is not ‘Rangers’ as a ‘football rival.’
No, the target is the deceit that surrounded the Rangers now in liquidation, the alleged corruption that allowed that deceit not to be ‘seen’, and indeed aided and abetted it, the SMSM who not only did not investigate but actively helped promote that deceit, and continues to propagate the Big Lie, and so on and on……
Oh, for an Alex Thomson in Scottish journalism!
JC, all very fair points and again an example of a difference of opinion. The wonder of the internet is it allows everyone’s opinion to be heard and debated without the agenda’s behind MSM. That aside, I can’t understand why it calls itself The Celtic Blog? Why not a blog on Scottish football corruption in general? I know if it was the other way around I wouldnt be happy with a blog called The Rangers Blog that didn’t actually write articles on Rangers.
As for Morales: I think TRFC should out for £15M, minimum.
As for McLeish: he was a guy desperate to get back in the game, after 2 long years in the wilderness.
We haven’t qualified for a Finals for 20 years.
The Scottish team – obviously – needs a shake up.
So, the SFA returns to an unemployed, previous manager – who failed to achieve qualification.
Am I missing something here?
It’s not exactly rocket science: a fresh approach was required.
And which rated, decent, forward thinking individual would want to be associated with the blazers, as their new CEO?
Gordon “I know nothing about anything” must be a strong contender for next CEO.
DarkbeforedawnFebruary 17, 2018 at 23:45
‘…JC, all very fair points and again an example of a difference of opinion.’
__________
No, with respect:
it is not ‘my opinion’ that RFC was liquidated.
it is not ‘my opinion’ that SevcoScotland is a 2012 creation as a football club with no possible entitlement to anything that belonged to RFC, except some premises
it is not ‘my opinion’ that the SMSM propagates an untruth ( they knew that liquidation of a football club means death, as Traynor and company wrote)
and so on and on.
These are not matters of opinion, but stone cold, hard facts.
If any man in the street wants to refuse to accept those facts, well and good. Let him live in fantasy land-and perhaps see a doctor.
But it is not acceptable that a sports governance body, or newspapers ,or the BBC should refuse to accept the facts.
And it is most definitely not acceptable that they purvey untruths.
JC, with all due and respect it is your opinion. I always try and steer conversations towards the footballing side and deliberately try and stay out of some of the more controversial topics. I will also take anyone’s points onboard and respect them even if they are not my own. I will always listen to every different view and never ‘play the man’ (copyright Phil) despite the fact I feel the same respect is not shown of me (Jimbo excluded from that
)
There is no denying Rangers as a corporation are a new company but in terms of new club it depends on your definition of a club – corporate law or something more emotional (ala Fiorentina). I will never argue for or against a new club as it is, while you disagree, a matter of opinion. Also I find it rather hypocritical that someone such as yourself who will forever (rightly) criticise the SMSM for creating truths and twisting facts, cling so much to the very papers front page stories that declared Ranged dead. It seems for some that the only times the SMSM are correct in their eyes is when it fits an agenda.
DarkbeforedawnFebruary 18, 2018 at 00:24″I will never argue for or against a new club as it is, while you disagree, a matter of opinion.”
I would not say it does not come down to opinion i would say the rules in place determined them one in the same, you cannot unincorporate one and leave the other, cherry picking is not an option and there is no argument, we were there when it happened.
“forum.rangers-mad.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-1074528.html
Grant Russell @STVGrant 7m7 minutes ago Charles Green appealing to the Court of Session today to try and have Rangers pay his legal fees. Live tweeting … now3 seconds ago. Dewar notes that the corporate entity is the body recognised by SFA, contrary arguments “exist only on the minds of die hard supporters” …”
Easy Jambo.
Many thanks.
I had the Telegraph one of Aug that referred to the DR Article.
It’s power is in the date 2 April 2011 and what it says 16 days before the licence was granted.
I mean if you were being diligent and the DR article was brought to your attention, then not to check hardly suggests competence.
As I said this is the area the Comp Officer should be investigating. Were SFA trying to apply FFP or avoid applying it?
The “You’re obsessed!” obsession again. Straight from the same skool that gave us other classics such as:
“You’re paranoid!”
and
“Always cheated, never defeated.”
Catchy, easy to remember and spell, short enough to daub on walls and, if shouted loudly enough and often enough, can totally drown out the need for even a modicum of self reflection.
The second two have now been quietly dispensed with, now that we know at least some of the truth. The ‘obsessed’ mantra is just a final, desperate act of strawclutchery. It really is all there is left to cling onto.
As someone recently said, “If you want to know what’s going on at Rangers, read a Celtic blog.” That wasn’t an attack on Celtic blogs – it was actually quite a damning comment on Rangers fans.
Sorry ‘Thumbsdowners’ I slept in. I’m just awoke. Have turned night into day. Stay out of the pub in the afternoons is my advice.
Anyway, everybody was asking me about the winter Olympics. For goodness sake! I cant be annoyed with any of it. The last time I had any interest was Torvill and Dean and that was for the music. I love the real Olympics. Track and field events. Not the horsey ones with Princess Anne etc. Or even the swimming and diving ones with Tom Daley. And don’t get me started with that pool event with girls making nice shapes in the water like an old Hollywood movie. No it’s all about running. I feel the Olympics could however expand to include events for the over 50s. Like walking football. Or my own favourite Dominoes. Lets face it if snooker and darts are thought of as a sport, why not Dominoes?
I rest my case.
I’ve just had three thousand PMs from the ‘Thumbsdowners’ that I was a bit out of order with Tom Daley. I agree. He is a great sportsman and I wish him well in his future life.
OK? Now get off my case, and think of something else to do with your thumbs!!
On a (hopefully) lighter note re the demise of the English vocabulary – as evidenced by a female BBC reporter!
I was watching Match of the Day last evening, and heard her describe a save by a goalie as ‘HUMUNGOUS’. Whit!!?? What’s happening here?
I can’t help but think this would have had JC spluttering in his Saturday night dram!
Had me pining for Arthur Montford and his ‘stramashes’ in his commentaries.
Helpumoot, you miss my point altogether. I’ve never once called any other fans “obsessed”. Infact I went as far as to explain that having an interest in a rival – especially one to have made so much news for the wrong reasons as Rangers – is not obsession! I merely asked if that particular website was a reputable source as in my opinion it does come across a bit obsessive. Or whether it was a cringe worthy fan site with very little traffic that the decent fans on here did not respect. It is a site called The Celtic Blog that doesn’t report on Celtic. And I then posted a link to what I think is the worst of the Rangers fan sites to try and even the debate up a bit.
It has also taken me by surprise how many folk on here have got defensive of a completely different site! My comment seems to have been taken personally by so many on here judging by the thumbs downs as if it were a dig at this site or the wider internet blogs. Which it clearly wasn’t.
DARKBEFOREDAWNFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 22:38
———–
Sorry if there was any cross wires,my post was more of an answer to the blog you posted. I just put it across wrong.
Looks like Rangers Media has been hacked overnight, going by this welcome message.
https://i.imgur.com/SEWE2VV.jpg
JIMBOFEBRUARY 17, 2018 at 20:35
Bonner is now part of the ‘establishment’. For an Irishman he is a disgrace. He should hold his head in shame.
=================================
Every time I hear Pat Bonner speak on the radio he comes across exactly like most ex-Celtic players do in the media. Most times he is on Sportsound he is ‘the token Tim’, a phrase once used regularly in the Scottish workplace, but now required to be spoken in more hushed tones for fear of a rebuke from HR. Bonner probably enjoyed a very good middle class lifestyle when playing, but was never a millionaire by his 20’s like so many Celtic players now. It is very likely that he needs the money from the BBC therefore he must dance to their tune, no matter what his real views are. While the massive Rangers contingent on the BBC are free to express any view they wish without challenge, whether that is excusing Rangers tax evasion or ridiculing the new club view, people like Bonner have to be more of an ‘Uncle Tim’ or they simply wont be there. There are books which describe in detail the pro-Rangers bias at the BBC which the late Jock Stein rallied against, including one written by a former BBC employee! It doesn’t seem like anything has changed much since those days.
HELPUMOOTFEBRUARY 18, 2018 at 02:01
As someone recently said, “If you want to know what’s going on at Rangers, read a Celtic blog.” That wasn’t an attack on Celtic blogs – it was actually quite a damning comment on Rangers fans.
———–
I think CW said that,or soneone said that to him and he quoted it.
happy to be corrected
UTH, Help!. I’m trying to remember the BBC pundit I really like, he calls it as it is and doesn’t toe the party line. I think it is Michael Stewart but not sure. I thought the chap I’m thinking of had a spell with Celtic but when I looked up MS there is no mention of Celtic. He played for Hearts and Hibs. Is it Michael Stewart?
(My memory is shot to bits)
Michael Stewart is certainly one of the best of the current pundits. If not the best.
He had various clubs, most noticeably Hearts and Hibs.
Never involved with Celtic to the best of my knowledge.
He always seems measured and balanced in his comments, at least he does to me.
DBD,
Not sure people are defending James’ website per se – just his right to talk about whatever he wants as long he’s not misleading anyone.
Also a bit disingenuous to suggest that what has gone at Ibrox over the last two, possibly three, decades has no effect on other clubs and their fans.
Also seems an easy way out of an argument to represent facts as opinion.
You may well have a belief about the status of the club/company/boiler-room subsidiary which is contrary to those facts, and like anyone else who invests in an article of faith, I remain respectful, however I don’t expect to be subjected to physical and verbal abuse, or a campaign to have me sacked because I choose to take a more scientific view.
On your definition of same club, I am quite happy to go along with it. Definitely a Rangers to me. If it wasn’t for the denial of the liquidation process and the inseparable nature of club and company (defined in RFC’s own articles of association) then perhaps moving on is something we could start to look at.
The obsession is with the 55. Seems to me that the 55 is more important to many Rangers fans than the club itself.
For the rest of us (non-bears) who don’t particularly care about the club itself the 55 mantra is kinda rubbing our noses in the cheating of those 30 years.
That is why with no movement divergent from the fable, Rangers (sadly in my view) will never be accepted by the rest.
DarkbeforedawnFebruary 18, 2018 at 00:24
JC, with all due and respect it is your opinion. I always try and steer conversations towards the footballing side and deliberately try and stay out of some of the more controversial topics. I will also take anyone’s points onboard and respect them even if they are not my own. I will always listen to every different view and never ‘play the man’ (copyright Phil) despite the fact I feel the same respect is not shown of me (Jimbo excluded from that ) There is no denying Rangers as a corporation are a new company but in terms of new club it depends on your definition of a club – corporate law or something more emotional (ala Fiorentina). I will never argue for or against a new club as it is, while you disagree, a matter of opinion. Also I find it rather hypocritical that someone such as yourself who will forever (rightly) criticise the SMSM for creating truths and twisting facts, cling so much to the very papers front page stories that declared Ranged dead. It seems for some that the only times the SMSM are correct in their eyes is when it fits an agenda.
_____________________
I don’t know what you are here for, then. This is a ‘football blog’, but not one to come to if you want to discuss ‘the footballing side’, for there are many places out there that concentrate on how the ball was kicked, if that is all you want. We are here, in fact, to discuss ‘the more controversial topics’, of which the cheating of Rangers, and the setting up in a very shady manner, of a new club, must always feature highly.
It is, of course, the greatest dream, and I include yourself in this, of all ‘Rangers’ supporters, the SMSM, the SFA, the SPFL, that blogs like this, and the Celtic Blog, and Jamboskickback, and Hibs.net etc, etc, stop discussing your clubs’ misdemeanours (crimes) and just ‘move on’.
Rangers Football Club perpetrated the greatest act of cheating Scottish football has ever seen, and received nought but a paltry fine for it. It died, regardless of what anyone says. TRFC has received aid from the game’s authorities and all areas of the media that no other club, new or old, would ever receive, or ever have thought to look for, and yet you, and so many of your supporters and those who help perpetrate all that has happened, expect us to stop discussing it, forget about it, and just move on. Tell me, why? What would anyone gain, other than, that is, all those who have perpetrated the wrongs?
For the record, no one is saying Rangers died because the media said so at the time. Those references to the headlines are quoted to point out the media’s hypocrisy in saying differently now. A change of view that they have never even tried to justify. They have just wiped that view from their history. But we have not!
To be fair to DBD I have a Celtic supporting friend who designs web sites for a living. He told me a few months ago that he now never reads The Celtic Blog for exactly that reason. He mostly talks about TRFC.
I’m in the camp that off pitch, club wise, for the last decade or so, there is only one story in town.
bect67February 18, 2018 at 07:06
‘…… ‘HUMUNGOUS’. Whit!!?? What’s happening here?I can’t help but think this would have had JC spluttering in his Saturday night dram!’
________________
Back in the day when that a citizen of a Republic who happily accepted an honorary knighthood at the hands of an English queen was host of a morning BBC 2 radio show, ‘humungous’ was fairly regularly used, to the point of becoming an acceptable neologism, a composite of words such as ‘huge, tremendous, stupendous, overwhelming , and, in context,horrendous’ and such like, applicable either to very good experiences or very bad experiences.
New descriptive words are one thing.
It’s quite another thing when University-educated BBC announcers ( yes, even some of those on the dumbed down BBC Radio Scotland claim to have been at university) come out with ‘he’s went’, ‘he done it’ , ‘it might have went anywhere’ ‘they have came from nowhere’, ‘he should of’ and such like.
BIG PINK
FEBRUARY 18, 2018 at 11:33
==============================
One is forced to wonder if getting 55 domestic titles will be the be all and end all of everything when Celtic get to title number 54.
I have no issue with Rangers getting to the 55 mark, as I will be over 110 by that time, even if they win 55 in a row. How hot my soup is will likely be of more interest to me. I’m assuming there will be a lot of soup in my diet by that time.
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 18, 2018 at 11:38
For the record, no one is saying Rangers died because the media said so at the time. Those references to the headlines are quoted to point out the media’s hypocrisy in saying differently now. A change of view that they have never even tried to justify. They have just wiped that view from their history. But we have not!
———-
pic above from today 18 feb 2012. But now we are being told as if Ally never got that call.
————
Ps if you want a look at the last couple of days media headlines back in 2012. @ClusterOne2 twitter.
hope is alright with mods
On words and the evolution of language.
Words Shakespeare Invented
The English language owes a great debt to Shakespeare. He invented over 1700 of our common words by changing nouns into verbs, changing verbs into adjectives, connecting words never before used together, adding prefixes and suffixes, and devising words wholly original.
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html
BP, a quite excellent response from your good self and a very well worded and constructed piece.
Ally Jambo, I try to avoid topics on only two matters in general (old club/new club, and EBT/Sporting Advantage including the disdain for so called tax cheats) mainly because I know I will be in a minority of one. However outwith those topics I frequent this site and by in large for the most part I agree with the vast majority of posters on other aspects of Scottish football, including:
– the attrocious governance from the SFA
– the unwillingness to deal with Resolution 12 (my understanding of it is the Res12 team aren’t even looking for punishment of Rangers, merely an acknowledgement that Rangers lied to SFA and should not have been awarded a licence. If I’m right, a simple acknowledgment, an apology and assurances that rules were put in place to stop it happening again would suffice?)
– the fact McLeish should never have been given the Scotland managers job.
– the crooks that are still working in my club and are lying and getting away with it in the open without any proper scrutiny.
– the media
– the Moreles fabricated transfer stories.
Homunculus, thanks for that. I really like Michael Stewart.
BTW, a poster on CQN yesterday mentioned the word Homunculus. So I enquired about what it meant.
“A homunculus is a representation of a small human being. Popularized in sixteenth-century alchemy and nineteenth-century fiction, it has historically referred to the creation of a miniature, fully formed human. The concept has roots in preformationism as well as earlier folklore and alchemic traditions.”
(Wiki)
I’m intrigued, why the Moniker?
Michael Stewart is actually a pundit I really like. He seems to be very fair and balanced. I guess a Celtic fan who grew up in England with Man Utd, went on trial with Rangers and then played for both Hibs and Hearts can discuss Scottish football from a level point of view without favouritism. I thought his piece on the McLeish fiasco was the best bit of journalism on the appointment in any of the SMSM.
I think DBD deserves credit for participating on a forum of which the membership largely disagree with his point of view. Much kudos for that DBD, but your ideas regarding obsession or the degree of bias on other football sites are necessarily defensive because it is an issue close to your heart. Celtic fans are more than justified in reflecting on the history of their club, which is close to their hearts.
The facts then show with indisputable finality that Rangers broke the rules for years (cheated), and eventually were forced into liquidation. I don’t think it is reasonable to label Celtic fans “obsessed” because they want the rules applied, and every title/honour which Rangers gained while cheating to be struck from the books. Football and the history/memories of the triumphs and disappointments of years past is an emotional issue.
Unlike many Celtic fans, I do have some sympathy with you regarding the same club position. Technically, the present Rangers is definitely a new club, but I think about it in terms of empathy. If this had happened to Celtic I would still feel that I was supporting the same club. Anyway, I can accept Rangers as the same club, but only after every honour gained by cheating is struck from the record. Until then I will continue to obsess and argue and agitate and fight tooth and nail against anyone who tries to “move on” from a period which must be unequivocally resolved.
DBD, we have more in common than what divides us. Stay on the forum and don’t get disheartened. We will never agree on some profound issues but nonetheless.
I was one of the first posters on Johnjames site, then we had our tiff. At the time he still declared himself a ‘Rangers’ supporter. One thing he said stuck with me. I reported on it here a couple of years ago. That is the emotional tie with the team playing out of Ibrox wearing blue. To the bears it is ‘Rangers’. JJ was in no doubt that they were liquidated and were new. I wondered if something similar happened to Celtic would I be any different. If they came out onto the pitch wearing the hoops at Parkhead, they would be Celtic.
I would love to then follow that through with – it is harmless – but it’s not I’m afraid. The truth has to be accepted by all. Then move on. After that, who cares?
John ClarkFebruary 18, 2018 at 11:47
___________________________________________________
Just reading that list made me cringe and shiver.
I have resorted to shouting corrections at the TV and Radio. I find that quite therapeutic!!!!!
Thank Realshocks. Apologies if I came across as labelling all Celtic fans obsessed, that is definitely not what I meant and not what I think. It goes without saying that the situation at Ibrox the last ten or so years is always going to generate a lot of column inches on fan forums. And I tried to make the point that sites such as this, Phils etc are perfectly within their right to focus on this, and I visit both sites frequently.
It was only the one site The Celtic Blog that I commented on, as if I was a Celtic fan I would want a site to discuss my team. When 95% of the articles on that site are not actually about Celtic then I question the owner of the site as to whether he is a Celtic fan. Fair enough write the articles, but surely change the name to The Scottish Football blog or similar?
Realshocks, you must have been reading my mind!