Journey’s End?

By

UPTHEHOOPSMAY 8, 2016 at 07:0 As for Keith Jackson declaring Rangers …

Comment on Journey’s End? by wottpi.

UPTHEHOOPSMAY 8, 2016 at 07:0
As for Keith Jackson declaring Rangers signing an out of contract and injury plagued Liverpool teenager would be ‘a major coup’, where does one start!

There, sorted that for you 🙂

Hopefully the young boy can recover from his recent injuries to have a good solid career but there seems to be an ongoing problem with his hamstrings.
Liverpool blamed the first one on him playing too may games. Not really looking that good if he is needed to put in a fair number of shifts when a small tight squad is Wabrs preference. Even if used in the Academy, they got shot of six lads last week so numbers there could be thin as well. 

Anyway I note the DR got a full House in T’Rangers Bingo in their ‘The next Steven Gerrard’ article
Associate T’Rangers with an EPL club.
Associate potential signing with possibility of ELP teams and a Euro club being interested in signing.
Mention it all has to do with McParlands connections.
Inflate the lads worth to £8m when the transfermarket website has him listed at £563k
Mention the lad played in the Next Gen series founded by Warbs.

Jordan Rossiter joins Liverpool’s lengthy injury list after England blow

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-injury-news-jordan-10611739

http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/205950-jordan-rossiter-gives-latest-on-his-injury-progress

wottpi Also Commented

Journey’s End?
FINLOCHMAY 5, 2016 at 11:39

Alex Salmond’s interest in helping Rangers was understandable and political for a bunch of reasons.

There is of course a distinct difference in actually helping and being seen to help and also with regard to what areas you can actually influence.
Spoken words are different from the actions taken.
However the political gains in terms of how the public may perceive your willingness to get involved in a matter can be the same.
Here is what Salmond said to the BBC

In the last few weeks I contacted both Rangers and HMRC, whose record in court is not particularly good at the present moment and I said once this Tribunal which is adjudicating on what genuinely owed – once that Inland Revenue Tribunal sets a sum – can’t that not be agreed as the sum that has to be paid and a time scale agreed to allow the club to pay it without going out of business.
“Now that seems to me an entirely reasonable proposition that would allow the Inland Revenue to get what they are due and allow Rangers to pay their obligations but continue as a vibrant part, not just of Scottish football, but of Scottish culture. I still think that is the best way forward.

To me that reads as -I understand the position of both parties, Rangers are in difficulty but taxes are clearly due, get a sum agreed and have the club pay up – one way or another. The implication is that if such an agreement is not forthcoming then the club would go out of business. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

The contentious part is whether or not you agree with Rangers being a vibrant part of Scottish Football and Culture and how you interpret the apparent barbed comment with regard to the success of HMRC in the courts.

As Homunculus says Tax matters were not devolved so Salmond could have easily kept his mouth shut.

However similar to the current issue of Ministry of Defence ship building contracts for the Clyde are we saying that our MSP’s should be more than happy to sit quietly and not try and get solutions for local businesses and employees just because defence contracts are a devolved matter? How would that look to the local electorate?

SNP MSP’s would lap it up if they had official correspondence from the MoD telling them to mind their own business with regard to ship building on the Clyde

Therefore I doubt whether both Scottish and UK Governments would couch requests and provide replies on such matters in terms that could be used publicly against each other. Subtle and meaningless Civil Service speak will be used so as not to offend anyone or given one party an advantage.

Like Scottc says most likely much ado about nothing.


Journey’s End?
UPTHEHOOPSMAY 4, 2016 at 19:13
I heed Big Pink’s warning but I see nothing wrong pointing out the hypocrisy of believing one club gains from ‘behind the scenes’ political influence, while another club with a high profile politician at the helm will not seek any advantage from such an appointment, regardless of how honest, open and public it is.

What exactly does someone the likes of John Reid bring to the football party, if not his connections.

It is of course not all rosy when it comes to having politicians involved. My own club had the buffoon Foukes as chairman and look where that got us!!
Similarly I always recall Edinburgh Councillor and Lord Provost Eric Milligan was always being  accused by Hibbies of the potential for positively influencing planning applications and the likes connected to Hearts because he was a known Jambo. The opposite being he would be able to bin anything that was going on re Easter Road.

The fact is that most politicians will seek to portray themselves in a good light with football clubs which they see as being at the heart of a community.
What they do exactly and how much involvement they have will depend on the individual and the issues involved. 

Tax dodging is however one issue that any savvy politician would steer well clear of and I for one find it hard to believe that Alex Salmond would be plotting behind the scenes and going out of his way to prop up the Scottish sporting face of the Union that he has fought to dismantle all his political life.


Journey’s End?
UPTHEHOOPSMAY 4, 2016 at 07:25

I get your frustration and in now way would I associate Celtic with the type of financial shenanigans that went on at Ibrox but the facts don’t lie.

Over decades the ‘Old Firm’ brand was happily used and exploited by both clubs for their own gain and, in the opinion of fans of other clubs, at the expense of the rest of Scottish Football. Hand in glove both clubs have expressed a desire to leave Scottish Football to further their own ambitions.

The success of both teams on the park cannot be argued with in terms of their dominance of the Scottish game, especially since the formation of the SPL.

While many a Hoops fan like yourself, joined again by fans of all other clubs, hoped the connection would have been clearly broken and a distance put between the two clubs when the newco was formed, the fear is that it may not be the case.

Yes Celtic have gone and brokered their own sponsorship deals etc and that is to be welcomed as the way forward but the Old Firm agenda is back.

It can be argued that this is mostly being stoked up by a ‘T’Rangers loving media’ but you must see how Celtic’s silence can quite easily be read by others, possibly wrongly,  as an quiet acceptance that ‘normal service is being resumed in the Parkhead boardroom and the GFA.

I can understand why the Celtic board don’t want to rock the boat but you must see why others can’t see a reason for why they would want to quietly play along with the charade.

I suspect both ‘cheeks’ see something to be gained next season by time both being in the top division.

As for your comment re the club from Govan receiving support from high level politicians, I can’t recall that club ever having an ex Cabinet Minister as their Chairman. Ex Secretary of Defence and Home Secretary, political influence doesn’t get much higher than that unless the Prime Minister is an avowed Raith Rovers fan!!


Recent Comments by wottpi

Moving On Time?
StevieBC 22nd December 2020 at 12:26

bect67 22nd December 2020 at 12:50

Agree, if people aren't happy with six goals in a cup final encounter that went to extra time and a nerve wracking penalty shoot out then what is it that floats their boat?

Thinking back, by the end of it I had forgotten there was no crowd in Hampden and was wholly absorbed unlike some games I've watched in these strange times.

OK so the quality was questionable and the result didn't go the way of my team but for me this is what sport should be about. If Celtic had taken it to 3-0 in the second half and strolled to the end of the game, no-one would have even remembered the game next week, let alone years to come. 

Quadruple trebles, Hamilton winning F1 at a canter, etc  are to be admired and respected but I'd say it isn't always 'entertaining'.


Moving On Time?
Nice to see the thumbs back on the site.

18 thumbs down for a fairly innocuous post re the cup final and 1 person responding negatively to Cluster One's post re  the BBC's  half time tribute to a 36 year old footballer being struck down by MND!! 

I know people say the thumbs are not the be all and end all of the site, but come on guys, really?


Moving On Time?
Very entertaining cup final today.

Penalties a bit of a lottery, as usual,  as both teams could claim they were worthy of the win.

 


Moving On Time?
bordersdon 7th December 2020 at 20:23

paddy malarkey 7th December 2020 at 18:36

Would hope by the September rounds there may be a chance to get to games if the vaccine roll out goes well. However in terms of away games can't see any great attraction other than Austria, don't really fancy the rest. Would consider Denmark if I can get a bank loan for a pint!!


Moving On Time?
Re The recent punishments for St Mirren and Kilmarnock, I have merely scanned the ruling for Killie and read a bit of commentary re St Mirren

It seems there are two parts to case. Killie were deemed to have not operated social distancing protocols on the bus to an away game and at a pre-game meal. To put is simply, they probably need to have two buses to keep all players and staff appropriately distanced and at the hotel where the meal was served,  the tables had too many people around them.

In St Mirren's case it seems the same applied but they were also guilty of letting players car share. There seems to be questions about not imparting covid related information to players and staff in an appropriate manner.

I may be wrong but I get the impression the cash fine is for braking the covid protocols and the loss of game and the 3-0 award to opposition is based on sporting disadvantage, given the result was that due to Covid issues the offending team were unable to put out a team and thus placed unfavourable conditions on their opposition that would otherwise not have occurred.

The linking of these two cases to earlier one with Celtic & Aberdeen seems to be 'apples and pears' in that both those clubs were willing and able to play their fixtures. The SPFL seem to also be saying that the Scot Gov cancelled the games but I am not sure that is strictly the case.

However, if a team were to fall foul of a bout of food poisoning as a result of their own catering operation and could not fulfill a fixture, is it not the case that precedent for teams being unavailable due to  'illness' within the squad is that the games are rescheduled.

Clubs would not be fined for breaking hygiene protocols and no points would be awarded to the disadvantaged opposition.

I can see why the SPFL have taken the stance they have, in these most difficult of times,  but not overly convinced they have the powers or precedent to take such action. Perhaps it is a gloves off approach as opposed to being more accommodating in 'normal times'.

While not so fussed about retrospective action on Celtic and Aberdeen, I am more concerned that the same SPFL seem willing to disrupt an already jam packed league fixture list and allow a certain team to needlessly go to a winter training camp (which presumably will be abroad), when there could be a higher probability of people straying from protocols and covid controls. 

If Celtic or any other team are unable to fulfill fixtures due to 'covid mistakes'  then 3-0 it will be, no?

 


About the author