Comment on Look Back to Look Forward by Reiver.
John Clark and Auldheid – PM for you.
Reiver Also Commented
Look Back to Look Forward
“There’s an old saying “money talks”.”
Aye, too true, I regularly hear the pound coin in my pocket saying “I’m lonely”
Look Back to Look Forward
Tangoed April 1, 2016 at 08:49
That article maybe gives us the answer to the money brought in from Hong Kong. It has been suggested elsewhere that the money was from a pot hidden from the the tax and legal authorities in South Africa. You would have to wonder why he should expose that stash just now risking the SA authorities chasing it. Your referenced article perhaps gives that answer. SARS and its related organisations would appear to have been neutered meaning that anyone previously of interest to them have no longer anything to fear.
Scottish Professional Football League chiefs and Celtic have tried to block new laws that would give fans more influence in how clubs are run and, while the Scottish champions made their views public, league bosses asked the Scottish Government to keep theirs secret. (The Times)
On the BBC Scottish gossip today.
I wonder how this all fits in with the grand scheme of things?
Recent Comments by Reiver
Comment Moderation Thread
I have always claimed that our only possibility of success is spreading the word as too few actually are aware that there is a problem. To that end I still consider it acceptable to use any method to attempt to get even one extra person to attempt to find a means to target a bigger audience than the closed community that frequent blogs. That is a sign of how seriously I view this matter.
Lack of humility was not an issue, it is more a surplus of frustration. I know that what I do in my attempts are amateurish and relatively ineffective but I do try. My resignation(?) from the site referred to the amount of time I spent discussing issues repeatedly and fruitlessly. Time that was non-productive and consuming. It was to free myself from the feeling of wasting my time that I decided to remove myself from the discussions on here. I do find now though that, when there are announcements to be made that would further the cause, that to be totally blocked is a disadvantage. For instance, the report that the Sports Integrity Initiative have written in the SFA has cleared the legal hurdles and will be put up on their site shortly. To be effective we need as many people reading it and discussing it as possible and so I need an outlet.
This report has come at great cost to the reporter. When I first contacted him I insisted on anonymity and he agreed as long as he could stick to the principles of the site of being open and the reporters could be easily contacted on a personal basis. Anyone visiting the site just now will see that it is under-going a relaunch. The timing of this is a result of advice he has received from his legal team regarding the reporters’ safety. The site will look different but more importantly all information that may be used to identify the reporters and their families will have been removed. The basic tenet of how that site was envisage has had to be binned because of the lack of integrity in Scottish football. Needless to say I compare that sacrifice to the inactivity of those of sites like SFM and JohnJames and cannot help but be depressed.
Comment Moderation Thread
I find it pretty poor that a site whose stated intention is to hold the SFA to account cannot itself take constructive criticism from its posters. I have had all my posts blocked since using the term “couch potato”, and subsequent argument as to why it was appropriate, in an attempt to move those who only want to talk about others taking action into being proactive themselves. In the last 24 hours posts have been put up with suggestions as to what others should do to make a difference so nothing has changed.
I would like it explained to me how SFM are meeting their stated aim when they gag those prepared to act against the SFA as a means to not upsetting those that would rather just live the fantasy that something will turn up that will fix the problem. The BTC would force change, Mike Ashley’s court cases were going to blow it all open, then the trials against Whyte et al, then the failure to pay back Mike’s £5M and now it is TRFC’s rumoured failure to pay tax that will have HMRC exposing everything. Many, many words written about this that have done nothing to “hold the SFA to account” so it must surely cause those that run SFM to question whether the site is meeting its goal.
Or is the site just a place for individuals to be funded by contributions to enable them to live their dreams of having their own internet TV and radio slots?
Actually Reiver, your posts became ineligible for posting when you resigned rather spectacularly from SFM – and explained it was because the preponderance on SFM of the afforementioned couch-potatoes.
Should we infer that you intend to un-resign? If so, a wee bit of humility might be in order given your valedictory invective.
Staying On The Problem
Bordersdon and Tayred 1330 – 1500
The points that you make encapsulate the reason I no longer contribute on a regular basis. I know that it is difficult for fans to see their own team’s actions with an independent eye but to keep a site like this on course it is an imperative quality. Should contributors feel that there is a bias or leaning that conflicts with the aims of the site that appeals to so many then the moderators, should they fail to agree, should take advice. The intent of this site is so intrinsic to the solving of the problems of Scottish football that to fail to see that there is a tone to the site that deters supporters of clubs other than Celtic is to remove the independence of the site and to weaken its strength.
BP, Tris. You have reacted to my earlier comments by censoring me but my comments were made with the hope that we could backtrack on the increasing Celtic orientated comment on here. This is the perfect example.
For Celtic, the highest earning club in our leagues, to reject the fixture list to fill their coffers more is not an issue that can be answered by whitabootery. It matters not whether other clubs would jump at the chance to play glamour friendlies for cash, the point is, does it sit well with a properly run league set up? Should we be condoning this for ANY club.
The response to this issue is clearly divided between the Celtic supporters who jump to the defence of their club and all other supporters who see it as an affront to the integrity of our leagues. To support the Celtic fans’ view on here is adding to the belief that the site is not independent.
This is not a criticism or condemnation of SFM but rather an appeal to get it back on track. We need an independent platform to confront the risk to our game so please do not censor this post. If you feel that my view is unfair then why not open up another thread that allows discussion on SFM’s (im)partiality. I think you will find that opinion divides into two camps, Celtic supporters and all other supporters. If you are not willing then to step back from the drift towards a CFC site then fair enough, you condemn the site to being just another Celtic outlet.
On the glamour invite games. My view is that if it is so attractive to ANY club then let them play it but concede the game they were scheduled to play as a 3-0 loss.
.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
There seems a requirement on here that explicit proof is required from me regarding my earlier comments. This typifies the mindset that implicit comments can be made by them but, unless we can prove the intent, then the rest of us have no right to draw out and comment on the implications that run through the thread.
I never analyse TU/TD and never use the feature but a trend can be indicative. This site claims to be open to all but, if the trend occurs through actions of TRFC supporters, this claim is not true. There are others who have defined the problems in Scottish football as not being because of one club and it is then that the “ownership” of the site really becomes apparent. The thread becomes defensive, we must be wrong as CFC can do no wrong. The list of self serving actions that do nothing for Scottish football is almost equally shared by CFC AND TRFC with the involvement of the SFA being the separating feature. It is this that I thought this site’s sole purpose was. A site that gave equal opportunity to supporters of ALL clubs, not just supporters who desist from voicing their observations regarding CFC. But it appears I was wrong.
I have spent time here in the hope that others would be prepared to join me in my actions to achieve a change in the governance of our sport and to return the integrity that it has so sadly, and increasingly, lacked over the past two decades. Alas, it would seem that site is occupied by, with the exception of those in the Res12 group, only [removed]. In the short time I have been on this site thousands of words have been written but the actions have been pitifully few.
I have posted every action I have taken and every response I have received not because I look for approval or praise but because I hope to let others see that an ordinary guy can act anonymously and hopefully make a difference. To make real difference though it requires a number of individuals to act but it seems there is not the appetite here. To gripe and moan is never enough. Never enough, that is, to have the right to claim to have been part of any success.
My actions started as a solo effort and now appears to be destined remain that way. I think that perhaps it is now time to remove myself from here and continue alone. I will, with the approval of BP and Tris, keep my username current in the hope that anyone who is prepared to join me and act can PM me and perhaps we can coordinate our actions.
In the meantime I shall return to my US holiday and hope that, by the time I return to the UK I shall have good news from SII or my MSP. If not, it is back to my phone calls and emails. So watch out Leeanne cos you are first on my list
.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
Nowhere in the ticket allocation discussion do I see it involving football governance. It is easy for any of us on any site to justify what we write by relying on our own backgrounds. The ones we see most, because of the numbers involved is the- TRFC fans singing offensive(to Celtic supporters) songs because they claim that the fans at Parkhead are showing support for a country that wishes to take control over part of the UK. The other cheek of the butt is the singing of “Irish” songs whose very origin is in the intent to have united Ireland. Now, I may have an opinion on that but I do not see a football stadium as th place to discuss it, even if it was done in a polite manner.
We live in a society where we refrain from using legitimate words not because we intend to use them to offend but because those that they describe feel offended. Songs at grounds should be no different.
But I go off subject. As I said to Tris attention needs to be paid to the response to my post and to his reply where it would appear I have reasonable support. This not from a strange subculture with weird ideas but from posters exactly like yourself so if you find yourself dismissing them then you need to stand back and have a calm look at your own position in this.
Yes, compared to most other sites you are correct and that is what my posts are attempting to maintain. As I said we need to guard against a drift away from neutrality and that is hard. A drift is what a number of us perceive. With the importance of Res 12 in all this there has ben a tendency to perceive it as a Celtic thing with a number of posters writing with a timbre that gave the impression that they hoped it would succeed so it would put another feather in their club’s cap. These same posters view the fight to be over because Res12 appears to have had an unsuccessful conclusion. That is despite the fact there are other actions ongoing where, in my opunion, success is more likely. That is where the feeling that we are on a Celtic orientated site comes from.