Make our Mind Up Time

Avatar ByTrisidium

Make our Mind Up Time

I have been receiving quite a bit of  unflattering mail about the “agenda” being pursued on this blog. Depending on the correspondent, that is defined as  either denying people their civil right to gloat, hiding the “truth” that people of the RC faith are welcomed and encouraged to come to Ibrox, or indulging in Chamberlain-style appeasement with the banning of the “H” word and other incontrovertible rights-to-insult.

The objection to moderation of any sort appears to be at the root of these diatribes. Our position here in terms of moderation is clear. There is no “agenda” other than a desire not to be chasing up posts containing the rantings and ravings of partisan types who “demand” their right to be heard no matter how objectionable it might be to those hear it. We are not here to service a conduit for conspiracy theories based in Masonic Lodges or the Vatican. There are plenty of places where people can indulge in that kind of stuff, but the moderators here are just not interested. The administration of the site takes around four hours per day. That’s a long time trawling through posts which often set out deliberately to insult, abuse or otherwise cause offence – mildly or otherwise.

Our view is that the blog will only have cross-club support if we stick to what we can substantiate by fact or reasonably infer from the way things proceed. Further, we feel that if we are to gain credibility as an alternative source of news and comment to the MSM, that we need to cut down on the fansite type comments. There is no dignity (a word often used here) in calling the Rangers manager or their fans names. We need to maintain higher standards of impartiality than football fansites, because we know that a united fan base can actually make a difference as RTC did when the SPL chairmen were gearing up for a parachute for the new Rangers. OT discussions are fine, and often amusing, but they shouldn’t become the main reason to come here.

The requirement to have a WordPress account before posting here is not in any way draconian. It is designed to make people accountable for what they post whilst still maintaining anonymity, and therefore being exempt from moderation. Those who don’t like it are not being compelled to carry out any instruction – they only need go to a place where they don’t feel so constrained.

If the main issue of this blog becomes how the blog is being administered – or how the moderation policy is affecting the human rights of posters, we may as well just pack up now.

There have never been any objections to the suggested posting rules on here. We assume that people who post are reasonably intelligent. Therefore it seems fair to assume that those who have ignored the suggested posting rules did so deliberately. If that doesn’t happen, moderation is just not required.

If what we are trying to do fails because of our posting framework, then we will be blamed. We are certain though, that we can have no credibility if we indulge ourselves in conspiracy theories and constant references to anachronistic organisations, the Scottish school system, and the leanings of referees.

There is real corruption in Scottish football. It is based not on religious rivalries but on greed and acquisitiveness. The only thing that matters is that we identify that corruption and help put an end to it.

Our job is to ask questions and not jump to our own conclusions about the answers. That will divide us as surely as the realisation of the depth of the corruption united us. To be totally united as fans, we need to have more Rangers fans on here. Therefore we need to create an atmosphere that they can be comfortable with. Is that the case right now? The anger for RFC’s mismanagement and abuse of the game in Scotland is real, but we need to look forward if we are truly committed to ensuring that what happened to Rangers can’t happen again.

We’re not gonna throw the toys out of the pram here. If anyone else would like to run the blog under those circumstances of zero moderation, we will be happy to hand over the domain. There is no “agenda” – we will be happy to hand the work over to others.

The initial posting which proposed the change to WordPress logins received over 130 TUs and only three TDs. Subsequently the post advising of the changes got around 100 TUs and 100 TDs. It seems that minds are not entirely made up.

To get some closure on this once and for all, we have added a poll below to end on Saturday at 1700 where you can decide whether you want to go along with our original plan in terms of login and moderation. We obviously recommend that you vote “Yes”

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

2,133 Comments so far

Avatar

bubblegumPosted on2:56 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Test

View Comment

Avatar

smallteaserPosted on3:05 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Ordinary Fan says:
September 20, 2012 at 14:49

The agenda set by Clyde and the MSM as a whole needs looking at, not an individual comment that might not have been said and will be denied or distorted even if it was said.
==============================================================
Surely by qustioning the words and phraseology used the agenda maybe changed.?
This is a radio station listened to by thousands of people with a phone in show where “the callers set the agenda”. If the callers and the listening public are not happy then they can turn off OR challenge what is being discussed.
The agenda can be driven any way Clyde likes as they can cut off callers at any time, the listener can only turn off. Any callers using the same individual comment would have been cut off immediately. t was yet another call to arms.

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on3:08 pm - Sep 20, 2012


One thing that RTC and this blog destroys is the myth that all supporters that support teams other than Celtic or RFC-NIL/Sevco/T’Rangers are interested in one or the other as their second team.

I too thought mistakenly that this was the case and that some teams tended to lean one way and others the other way. I am now educated!

What I have discovered is that many of you don’t give a crud about either of us – as long as we do the right things and get along fine with everyone.

So seems CG does not realise this yet

“Motherwell are a club who are suffering financially because Rangers are not in the SPL and we don’t believe that Motherwell are anti-Rangers.”

The only sad thing is that if T’Rangers ever did last long enough to get to the SPL in 5 years time with a better manager, he may actually find out like me its not the case

Of course he will be in BVI with his pals spending/counting his brass by then…..

View Comment

Avatar

abigboydiditandranawayPosted on3:12 pm - Sep 20, 2012


For what it’s worth, I definitely thought Mark Guidi said “hope” on SSB, but others appear not to

have heard it as that.

Have I been influenced by the posters on this site to hear what they want me to hear? Am I now

having doubts as to what I think I heard because of arguments put forward by reasonable

people who’s opinions I respect?

Wish I’d heard it live!

I don’t know what I’m talking about, do I?

I’ll get ma coat…naw, ma jaiket…naw, ma anorak………………….ah didny have a jaiket oan did I?

View Comment

Avatar

fishnishPosted on3:15 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Bigrabbit says:

September 20, 2012 at 02:12

Mark Guidi clip
Used http://www.btinternet.com/~k.miller18/ssb18th.mp3 from different posts.

Now this is odd, using all files as provided and running them through audio diffmaker, this generates a third audio file from the two with the differences highlighted. If there are differences then they will be heard in the third file.
The result for all files is a completely silent file, meaning they are identical!
I seem to HEAR the difference (hope/itll ) but the computer can’t’
Jings my computer is deaf! Or my ears are nackered.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Finally got round to listening to this.
For me he COULD be saying, “…and… eh… whole lot could kick off”. It sounds like the ‘wholelot” combined with a major aspiration of the ‘wh’ forces a sound like ‘hope’ for those who want to hear it as that.

I’m no convinced enough to condemn on that evidence.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on3:21 pm - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 14:49
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, YOU agree that the SFA won’t give notice of complaint to Hutton because they don’t want to wash their dirty linen in public – what would they want to hide that Hutton disagreed with?
And Green was served with a notice of complaint because of ‘bluster’. What exactly was that bluster? He’s alleged to have ridiculed and refused to co-operate with an independent commission on player registration 2001-10 by RFC. I’d have thought that was a serious matter for a new member club, but you know what? I can think of no reason why Charles Green should be involved in such an investigation – the club he’s associated with doesn’t have anything to do with any of this – registration of players, titles or trophies won 1873-2012. You’re right the SFA isn’t fit for purpose, we wouldn’t be in this crazy situation if they’d just applied the rules. That’s just on the basis of what’s known and agreed about 2011-12, never mind what may or may not have happened in the twenty years or so before then to bring an institution like Rangers to its knees. Why weren’t the rules applied JMac?

View Comment

Avatar

iceman63Posted on3:26 pm - Sep 20, 2012


There were real difficulties in bringing any charges against Hutton.He had a case to defend and had spoken if not the indisputable truth then an opinion which could be sustained with evidence.

Charlie talks mendacious nonsense and forces the issue by repeatedly making statements without any foundation in truth.

I still believe the SFA and SPL are reluctant to charge Green. he just leaves them with no option. I think it is deliberate on CG’s part – he sees it as a means of playing to the Bears’ gallery! The SFA’s fear is that Charlie, when the time is right, will release fully what promises he was given and what deals he struck with the SFA and SPL in the Five way agreement and earlier. and that is another ticking time bomb. He may well release this prior to the SPL investigation into dual payments – he may well have been given assurances from Donkey about keeping titles and his SPL place, and his claims of duplicity may indeed be valid.

This scenario where CG was given assurances that were then reneged upon by Donkey et al. does not invalidate the charges against Rangers nor even mitigate them – but it will present another thorny problem of whether or not the SFA and SPL should be charging their own officers with bringing the game into disrepute or even whether such is the patent failure of regulation within the game that at that point some form of judicial enquiry may be deemed necessary. I believe all outside of the corridors of Hampden – ,and the boardrooms of the complicit clubs would welcome such an investigation – .especially I believe Rangers and SEVCO fans who are most entitled to know what was said, what was done, and what was promised as regards their club’s continued existence within the Scottish game.

I suspect that, despite their avowed and wilful silence on the issues surrounding this entire debacle, eventually so much damage will be wrought by the revelations of wrong-doing and cover up and gross mismanagement of the game that must emerge into the public domain over the next two or three months, that politicians of all hues will be forced to set up such an enquiry – no matter how loth they are to the very idea of exploring the workings of Scottish football – to the embarrassment of many no doubt.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on3:26 pm - Sep 20, 2012


To Charles from us at Motherwell.

We did not want you in the SPL or Div1 or 2. In fact the fans decided that and made it very clear in the vote of the Well society.

So none of your Yorkshire flannel thanks you condescending buffoon.

View Comment

Avatar

bobcobb74Posted on3:33 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Whether or not Guidi said “hope” or not isn’t really the issue, is it? Surely the issue is that it is accepted as a “given” by a panel of journalists (I know, I know) that there will be civil disorder if a decision is not to the liking of T’Rangers fans?
That intimidation and threatening behaviour is considered “normal” in this wonderful little country of ours is surely the real issue at stake here?

View Comment

Avatar

steveplustaxPosted on3:35 pm - Sep 20, 2012


I’ve listened to two versions of Mark Guidi’s utterance, and I’m amazed that it has generated any controversy at all. There’s absolutely no way you could seriously accuse him of saying “I hope”–this is all getting a bit “Alice in Wonderland.” The really obvious question is, even if you think Guidi was guilty, why on earth would the guy say that he hopes for trouble from Sevco-land?! Was it an attempt to commit career suicide on the air? Focusing on contrived tosh like “Hope”-gate only taked people’s attention away from the serious issues being faced by Scottish football right now. If there any nutters who try and take this Guidi non-event onto SSB later the panel will have them on toast–and gleefully avoid talking discussing items like Mr. Green’s latest embarrassing public outburst etc. Screw the bobbin, chaps!

View Comment

Avatar

steveplustaxPosted on3:37 pm - Sep 20, 2012


“only *takes* people’s attention away…” (Sorry for the typo, y’ all.)

View Comment

Avatar

steveplustaxPosted on3:42 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Bob, sorry to labour the point, but no-one agreed that the possibility of violent behaviour from the Currant Buns was “normal.” Not at all. That would have to be dealt with in a separate discussion. Guidi, for whom I have scant respect, was merely talking about the reality of the situation as he understands it. I don’t think too many volk on here would take issue with that understanding–Sevco-ites are like cornered, wounded animals right now, ready to lash out at anything that moves.

View Comment

Avatar

AgrajagPosted on3:46 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Since when did it matter if Charles Green agreed to a punishment or not.

Even if we were to wrongly accept that he is the CEO of the same club, the one which is actually being investigated, then so what. If found guilty then they will have to be punished, if that punishment is the removal of titles won through cheating then so be it.

If there is an appeal process and the club being punished wish to use that process then that is what it will do, it is their right. However Charles Green, Rangers or the Rangers fans simply not accepting that punishment is just nonsense.

The guilty don’t just get to refuse a punishment.

View Comment

Avatar

paulmacPosted on3:47 pm - Sep 20, 2012


#Rangers’ Charles Green says #Motherwell welcome at Ibrox next week for League Cup tie despite voting against his club getting into the SPL
@BBCLiamMcLeod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#

Well well well….Mr. Green has another attempt at galvanising the bears to turn out to show their support against those who would have them punished..

Maybe that’s the style other club chairmen should announce the visit of the SEVCO franchise…

“SEVCO will be welcome at our ground despite the fact we DON’T KNOW WHO OWNS THEM?

Or

Despite the fact…they have not paid their debts to other clubs..

Or

Despite the fact…they are a new club..

View Comment

Avatar

paulmacPosted on3:52 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Webster says:
September 20, 2012 at 15:41

Ordinary Fan says:
September 20, 2012 at 14:49
Angus: I agree, the Guidi thing may or may not have been said. I’d be intrigued to know one way or the other but I won’t be bombarding Clyde, Politicians or Newspapers with emails, that is not the way REASONABLE PEOPLE should respond to something like that.

—————————————

Fan – I first raised this issue and have consistently said I hope Mark G did NOT say, of Rangers fans, “I hope it’ll kick off”.

However it is not unreasonable of me to want to be certain that he did not: if he did say such a thing, in the current volatile climate, on Glasgow’s main radio station, then that would be a legitimate cause for serious concern.
Or you think not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It borders on encitement…if he did say such a thing…then he is more of a fool than I thought he was…and I thought he was a fully paid up member of the idiots club!

View Comment

Avatar

steveplustaxPosted on3:53 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Paulmac, superb!

And agrajag: “The guilty don’t just get to refuse a punishment.” If someone would simply point out that fact in the MSM it would save many thousands of trees. (Talk about “Alice in Wonderland”–what on earth will people make of the ludicrous assertions made by Traynor et alia, if they happen to read them in ten years’ time?)

View Comment

Avatar

paulmacPosted on3:55 pm - Sep 20, 2012


‘Incitement’….what was I thinking

View Comment

Avatar

FIFAPosted on3:56 pm - Sep 20, 2012


steveplustax
are you MG’s dad per chance

View Comment

Avatar

steveplustaxPosted on4:11 pm - Sep 20, 2012


FIFA–took me a minute to work out what you meant. Check out the post where I say that I have “scant respect” for the Guido-meister. Then again, perhaps it was a lack of parental love that made him what he is today! (Reminds me of the line in the last “The Thick of It” episode, where the leader of the opposition tells the Peter Capaldi character that he “didn’t get enough cuddles as a child.” Forgive me; I was born a ramblin’ man.)

View Comment

Avatar

Swiss TonyPosted on4:12 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Hello,

I’ve a question which may seem odd but bear with me. Was Charles Green actually asked to contribute to or attend the “predetermined” hearings? If so, he looks guilty as hell. Of something. No idea what yet.

But if he was not actually asked to attend, because his club is not in fact the Rangers in question, and he publicly states that he refuses to attend because the hearings are biased blah de blah de blah he rather deftly pre-empts the question of his non attendance (because he wasn’t asked, because it’s not his “Rangers” being investigated). He picks up publicity, reinforces the siege mentality which has characterised his tenure and heads off at the pass awkward questions regarding the fact that he wasn’t invited.

All depends on whether he was or not which I dont know.

Could also be a load of crap I just made up.

Swiss

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on4:20 pm - Sep 20, 2012


blu says:
September 20, 2012 at 15:21
——–
‘You’re right the SFA isn’t fit for purpose, we wouldn’t be in this crazy situation if they’d just applied the rules. ..’

——-
Correct.

The real problem has always been NOT so much that an important club buggered itself up ( without the help of any conspiracy by the SFA or the SPL!) but that the Football authorities did not straightforwardly apply the rules that they had very strictly applied to other clubs.

I’m more concerned about that than I am about the cheating and wrongdoing of the club ( which I, of course, deprecate) : we know the criminal is by definition a criminal- we should worry when the ‘forces of ( footballing) law’ themselves aid and abet the criminal.

As to the reasons why the authorities behaved, and are behaving, as they did, two principal reasons are advanced, separate but inextricably linked.

The first of these, and the view I take personally, is that the ‘revolving door’ between the club and the senior footballing powers encouraged a shared mind-set that saw ( and sees) the club as being so sacrosanct, and so much a part of their shared ideological heritage, as to need saving and defending at any and all costs in terms of personal and organisational integrity.

The second, perhaps more widely accepted, reason put forward is that sheer fear of the supposed ‘armageddon-like’ financial losses that would allegedly occur, if the club was not saved, made it necessary for the ‘good of the game’ to pervert the very notion of rule-keeping and rule-application.

We see what hat decision led to: a greater ‘bringing of the game into disrepute’ than any single club could have managed!

The stage was long ago reached where, like the corrupt judge in ‘The Untouchables’, the SFA board, faced with complete lack of public confidence in their integrity, should have resigned, and triggered off the appointment of untarnished members. There are many such in the SFA.

View Comment

Avatar

AgrajagPosted on4:24 pm - Sep 20, 2012


One wonders how welcome Motherwell will be in any game after the cup tie.

They are no Queen of the South however they must be in with a shout of upsetting the mighty Sevco and knocking them out of another cup.

Anyway, I image Mr McCoist will be concentrating on the Scottish Cup to secure that European spot for next season.

Incidentally if anyone is interested in a bet you can currently get 6/4 Motherwell. Must be worth a shilling or two.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on4:26 pm - Sep 20, 2012


———–
Green said:

“What we have to understand is not everyone in that room wanted Rangers out of that league and I know – because I could [see] glints in eyes – which ones were happy and which ones were not.”
———–

Aye duck, them glints in t’eyes. This gets funnier by the day. The old Yorkshire eye-glint test. Priceless. If this was cricket I’d say say Charles is actually bowlng a googly.

View Comment

Avatar

SeamusPosted on4:29 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Some right nonsense being posted at the moment.
I miss RTC. I’ve had several posts removed that were
very relevant to the SFA and Sevco.
This site is basically a Newco that’s struggling IMO.

View Comment

Avatar

smallteaserPosted on4:29 pm - Sep 20, 2012


““What we have to understand is not everyone in that room wanted Rangers out of that league and I know – because I could [see] glints in eyes – which ones were happy and which ones were not.”
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/191090-charles-green-claims-some-spl-clubs-wont-be-welcome-at-ibrox/

Charlie is right with his statement, a lot of the clubs wanted to keep the cash cow that was The Rangers, they were rightly aware that they could lose money if The Rangers were removed from the SPL.
What is missing is that the same clubs would lose money, not just 2 games per season, but every match if they did vote The Rangers into the SPL.
Whether club chairman wanted to vote them in or not the threat of nil season ticket sales forced the issue.
Pity the clubs have forgot the paying customer again in so short period of time.
Maybe he is also not talking about specific clubs either but Regan, Doncaster, Ogilvie, I am sure that “not everyone wanted Rangers out of the league”, in fact many fought damn hard to keep them there.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on4:30 pm - Sep 20, 2012


john clarke says:
September 20, 2012 at 16:20
================================

JC – well reasoned and as expected from you. But then, I would say that as it’s pretty close to my view on this affair. It would be interesting to hear JMac’s thoughts on this because I think s/he has a different perspective..

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on4:33 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Danish Pastry says:
September 20, 2012 at 16:26
1 0 i
Rate This

Aye duck, them glints in t’eyes. This gets funnier by the day. The old Yorkshire eye-glint test. Priceless. If this was cricket I’d say say Charles is actually bowlng a googly.

———————————————–

Better than the Sniff Test then. Why’d no one tell SDM?

View Comment

Avatar

Ordinary FanPosted on4:35 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Smallteaser: I agree, I’m just saying that what Guidi said or didn’t say is easily deniable and easily distorted, he will just say it was a slip of the tongue/taken out of context etc. IMO it is not something that should be blown out of proportion, it will be an excuse to peddle the “paranoid” crap and sending emails and making complaints about something so easily deniable will be dismissed as a case of the good old “as bad as each other” get out clause. We are better dealing in statements made that they cannot possibly deny. They spent the whole show telling listeners that RFC should not lose Titles and Trophies because their supporters will go mental, probably resort to violence and we should all be scared to take that route. That is where the issue is for me, the fact they are clearly stating that we should bow down to yet more intimidation.

View Comment

Avatar

AgrajagPosted on4:36 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Ianc says:
September 20, 2012 at 15:26

==========================

Ah but you didn’t sit there and see the twinkle’s in people’s eyes like Charles did.

You are only basing your opinion on facts, he is basing his on many years of being a mental.

View Comment

Avatar

Ordinary FanPosted on4:46 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Webster: Sincere apologies if that is the way I came across. You were right to ask the question. I just think references to Civil War and RFC fans being “up in arms”, which is UNDENIABLE are the way to go. Guidi and his pals on SSB can and will deflect and deny the “I hope” comment. If proven than it is important and it is important because of the other comments on SSB and tone of the programme. On its own it means very little, with all the other outrageous talk of intimidation and fear it becomes important, but only if provable and not as the main reasoning behind tackling the agenda set by SSB.

View Comment

Avatar

chris shields (@chrisshields10)Posted on4:56 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Perhaps with Mr Green’s comments vis-a-vis Motherwell,SPL,glints in the eye & McCoists ability to the read the minds of football chairmen he has his eyes fixed on something different entirely.

Call me cynical but perhaps attendance figures at Ibrox on Tuesday could be playing on his mind. So lets rally the troops to welcome Motherwell and their “old boy” manager to ibrox. Lets get bums on seats.

By all accounts the teams performance against QOTS was quite poor as it was against Annan the previous match.. So how many fans will wish to witness their first tilt at SPL opponents with the team in poor form? Is the the game live on TV? Remember Scottish cup tie against Dundee Utd in last year.

Like I said, call me cynical!

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on5:02 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Over in Bearland, there is talk of boycots sicne they don’t want to give 50% of their money to Motherwell since they are SPL and its their first chance to show the SPL who is boss.

Since they cannot share 1 pound for a seat and 20 for a program then they dont want to “subsidise” Motherwell

SO CG is worried about his 50% and says no no – don’t boycott them – they’re on our side

Simple!

View Comment

Avatar

AgrajagPosted on5:05 pm - Sep 20, 2012


chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
September 20, 2012 at 16:56

I believe the Rangers Motherwell game is on TV, BBC Scotland.

With regard the performance against QOtS, it really was poor. To be honest extra time and penalties was probably a fair outcome.

I think people are missing something very important here. The team Mr McCoist is putting on the park really isn’t very good. They have drawn all three away games and but for a dreadful refereeing decision would have lost one of them.

With the registration embargo running until January 2014 they are going to struggle with him as the manager. he simply can’t get the best out of the squad he has, and just now they can’t buy their way out of that.

One wonders how long the support will put up with it, and more importantly how badly it will effect the share issue.This really is a bad time for them to be so poor.

View Comment

Avatar

AgrajagPosted on5:08 pm - Sep 20, 2012


exiledcelt says:
September 20, 2012 at 17:02

Excellent point.

He need to keep them revolting, whilst at the same time attending games. Especially any not included in the season book. (I don’t know if that one is).

It would be a disaster for them if the fans boycotted their biggest game of the season.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on5:31 pm - Sep 20, 2012


chris shields (@chrisshields10) on September 20, 2012 at 16:56
5 0 Rate This
Perhaps with Mr Green’s comments vis-a-vis Motherwell,SPL,glints in the eye & McCoists ability to the read the minds of football chairmen he has his eyes fixed on something different entirely.

Call me cynical …
———–

No, a highly plausible explanation. If correct, Charles is running with the fuel warning light on.

View Comment

Avatar

Roland BrownPosted on5:31 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Andy M @ Scotzine ‏@scotzine
Celtic have been issued with a notice of complaint from the Scottish FA over the ‘zombie Rangers’ banner unfurled back in July in pre-season
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite

Andy M @ Scotzine ‏@scotzine
game against Norwich City at Celtic Park. Hearing set for 11th October 2012. Celtic to respond before 27th September
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite

View Comment

Avatar

merky999Posted on5:31 pm - Sep 20, 2012


hi guys , new here and wanted to ask a question, does anyone have any idea how much it will cost new rangers to run ibrox and murray park for this season including staff and players wages. considering lower tv and sponsor income while paying spl wages is it achievable without investment from elsewhere or will they end up in the red at the end of the season. If this is the wrong place to have this question apologies and where should it be. thanks

View Comment

Avatar

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on5:34 pm - Sep 20, 2012


http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1957&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=10618

Notice of Complaint issued: Celtic FC
Thursday, 20 September 2012

The Compliance Officer has issued the following Notice of Complaint:

Alleged Party in Breach: Celtic FC
Match: Celtic v Norwich City
Date: 24th July 2012
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:

(1) Disciplinary Rule 26 (Failing to take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the good conduct and behaviour of Celtic FC supporters at Celtic Park during the above match: by failing to prevent said supporters from bringing into the ground and displaying an offensive banner.)

(2) Disciplinary Rule 28 (Failing to take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent misbehaviour by spectators at the above match: by failing to prevent spectators from bringing into the ground and displaying an offensive banner.)

(3) Disciplinary Rule 31 ((i) Failing to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that policies and procedures have been adopted and implemented to prevent instances of Unacceptable Conduct: by failing to prevent spectators at the above match from bringing into the ground and displaying an offensive banner and; (ii) by failing to deal effectively with an instance of Unacceptable Conduct: by allowing spectators to retain possession of said offensive banner after it had been initially displayed, which allowed them to display the banner on a second occasion during the above match.)

(4) Disciplinary Rule 32 (Failing to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that supporters of Celtic FC did not engage in Unacceptable Conduct at the above match: by failing to prevent said supporters from bringing into the ground and displaying an offensive banner.)

Principal Hearing Date: Thursday, 11th October 2012

Celtic FC have until Thursday, 27th September 2012 to respond to the Notice of Complaint.

Rule 26: A club shall take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety, good conduct and behaviour of its supporters on any ground. A club playing at its own ground or allowing its ground to be used for a match in which it is not participating shall also take all such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure the safety, good conduct and behaviour of all spectators at that ground.

Rule 28: Any misbehaviour by spectators before, during or at the close of a match resulting from the failure of a club or recognised football body to take all reasonably practicable steps to avoid the misbehaviour shall render that club or recognised football body liable to any combination of sanctions provided in this Protocol.

Rule 31: A club playing at its own ground or allowing its ground to be used for a match in which it is not participating must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, (i) good order and security; (ii) that policies and procedures have been adopted and are implemented to prevent instances of Unacceptable Conduct; and (iii) that any instance of Unacceptable Conduct is effectively dealt with, all at its own ground, on the occasion of a match.

Rule 32: Each club must ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that its players, officials, supporters and any person exercising a function for or in connection with the club do not engage in Unacceptable Conduct at any club’s ground on the occasion of a match. Any failure by a club to discharge a requirement to which it is subject by virtue of Article 28.6 and this Article 28.7 shall constitute a breach of these Articles.

View Comment

Avatar

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on5:37 pm - Sep 20, 2012


So smoke bombs and sectarian singing are acceptable, but a banner is offensive?

View Comment

Avatar

Ed DunnePosted on5:39 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Who brought the charges re the ofensive banner. Was a complaint made?

View Comment

Avatar

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on5:41 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Danish Pastry says:
September 20, 2012 at 17:31
0 0 Rate This
chris shields (@chrisshields10) on September 20, 2012 at 16:56
5 0 Rate This
Perhaps with Mr Green’s comments vis-a-vis Motherwell,SPL,glints in the eye & McCoists ability to the read the minds of football chairmen he has his eyes fixed on something different entirely.

Call me cynical …
==============

Charles has got that one right. When was the last time Stuart McColls team put any effort into beating Rangers. Never.
Hands across the M8.

View Comment

Avatar

nickmcguinnessPosted on5:42 pm - Sep 20, 2012


So, what’s happened to that Crossbar Challenge? It’s gone awfy quiet on that front.
Chucky Green says an Adidas man told him Sevco would be their biggest clients.
What, bigger than Bayern Munich?
The man is a pathetic rabble rouser. But he’ll be found out soon.
He wants the SPL and SFA investigations halted before the evidence is heard.
He wants Rangers fans to agree to stump up cash before a Sevco prospectus is issued (containing full details of exactly what they’re meant to be buying into).
Green obviously thinks the Rangers fans are stupid.
But it seems clear that in an awful lot of cases, he’s bang on the money.

View Comment

Avatar

AngusPosted on5:52 pm - Sep 20, 2012


I fail to see how a “Zombie Rangers” banner could be construed as “offensive”. May not have been too sharp to include a guy with a gun, given historical CFC (some) fans’ sympathies, mind.

What about the huge “Your Time Is Coming” 4 Horsemen one accompanied by cardboard coffins and stuff? That wasn’t offensive, but this is?

I think that if CFC face a fine for this one, we should all contribute.

View Comment

Avatar

Doon the slopePosted on5:58 pm - Sep 20, 2012


I am intrigued.

Now that Green is making it abundantly clear that he is after the money, what was said to Bomber Brown to make him shut up?

And who said it?

View Comment

Avatar

WOTTPIPosted on5:59 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Just catching up today.

I see much earlier on the day Green was telling the North Americans he was off the see ESPN/Disney.

I thought the other day he said didn’t have time to do business with Mickey Mouse organizations…….

I’ll get my coat!

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on6:01 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Angus says: September 20, 2012 at 17:52
—————–
It’s all in the symbolism. I can see why some of “the people” might be offended by the Zombie banner. Me, I couldn’t give a toss.

The difference with the Apocalypse banner (which I thought was brilliant) is that it illustrated the death of a company rather than a person.

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on6:01 pm - Sep 20, 2012


In regards to the lack of humour shown on the Zombie Rangers banner, can anyone from Falkirik on here tell us if the announcer was suspended only for the game against Sevco for his safety and is he back at work? Or after having his public details and address posted on RM, am sure he has “retired” now.

I have to believe it was a complaint……..seems to be more moderators watching what we call T’Rangers thanbothering about bogoted songs and watching fireworks melt pitches without sayiing much,,,,,,,,,,,,oh I forgot – they have been punished enough, so we have to show them others need to go into the naughty corner as well…….

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on6:07 pm - Sep 20, 2012


There is always the sense that the SFA must ensure that all decisions affecting Celtic and old/new Rangers still have to be evened up over a season. 🙂

Disrepute charge on Green = disrepute charge on CFC

View Comment

Avatar

Doon the slopePosted on6:10 pm - Sep 20, 2012


To those responsible for the “Zombie Rangers” banner:

Own up, pay the fine (if any) and get the banner changed to “Zombie Sevco.”

View Comment

Avatar

goosyPosted on6:13 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Lets face it

Any banner that is offensive to the SFA is an offensive banner
And for sure
“No Zombies in Europe” is offensive to the SFA

But it could have been worse
It could have been

“No Zombies in the SFA”

View Comment

Avatar

merky999Posted on6:15 pm - Sep 20, 2012


nowoldandgrumpy says:
September 20, 2012 at 17:41
0 1 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
September 20, 2012 at 17:31
0 0 Rate This
chris shields (@chrisshields10) on September 20, 2012 at 16:56
5 0 Rate This
Perhaps with Mr Green’s comments vis-a-vis Motherwell,SPL,glints in the eye & McCoists ability to the read the minds of football chairmen he has his eyes fixed on something different entirely.

Call me cynical …
==============

Charles has got that one right. When was the last time Stuart McColls team put any effort into beating Rangers. Never.
Hands across the M8.

You really think Motherwells board would put up with that,
I find that to hard to believe,
Motherwell will win cup game by a couple of goals

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on6:19 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Anyone got a photo of the Zombie banner?

View Comment

Avatar

iceman63Posted on6:21 pm - Sep 20, 2012


How is “Zombie Rangers” in any way offensive – it was an utterly accurate banner – so now free speech and fair comment is to be denied if it in any way offends the SFA Politburo – ridiculous. meanwhile the SEVCO songbook continuess week after week – unchecked. Celtic must find somewhere else to play – this lot are beyond cheating, beyond corrupt!

View Comment

Avatar

NawlitePosted on6:27 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Angus says: September 20, 2012 at 17:52
—————–
“it illustrated the death of a company rather than a person.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………

Damn. I thought it illustrated the death of a club!!

View Comment

Avatar

AgrajagPosted on6:30 pm - Sep 20, 2012


merky999 says:
September 20, 2012 at 17:31

hi guys , new here and wanted to ask a question, does anyone have any idea how much it will cost new rangers to run ibrox and murray park for this season including staff and players wages. considering lower tv and sponsor income while paying spl wages is it achievable without investment from elsewhere or will they end up in the red at the end of the season. If this is the wrong place to have this question apologies and where should it be. thanks

==========================

That’s a difficult one to answer without some sort of inside information.

From memory the expenses (without wages) were last reported as being around £15m. Obviously they will try to cut that by as much as possible, however some things cannot be cut, for example Police and stewards at games. One suspects that they will be minimising other things, for example the upkeep of the stadium and training facility. Posts on places like FF certainly seem to confirm that.

To put a perspective on it, even if they have managed to half those expenses (and I doubt that) it will still be around £7m – £8m. Add on a conservative wage bill of say £6m (and I think that is conservative) then you have a figure of somewhere round £14m. I suspect that is dreadfully optimistic, and it is already way too high to be sustainable.

Rangers are using the fact that their income is front loaded to survive just now. Their cash flow (like every club) is not divided evenly over the year and most of it comes in the first part, due to season ticket money coming in. By Christmas they will have very little coming in, until the next round of season tickets. They have no European income to add to the funds throughout the year, and I strongly suspect there won’t be much in the way of cup windfalls.

In short, they need money and they need it desperately. The only options are selling players, private investment, share issue or borrowings. Of those the only realistic one is the share option (do you see what I did there), that is why it has to work and work well.

View Comment

Avatar

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on6:31 pm - Sep 20, 2012


I am now going to protest outside every cinema that shows a zombie movie and has a man with a gun in it.

View Comment

posmill

posmillPosted on6:34 pm - Sep 20, 2012


zombie banner link here, about half way down the page:

http://www.monthehoops.co.uk/showthread.php?t=16879

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on6:35 pm - Sep 20, 2012


So it’s this?

http://rhebelrhebel.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Norwich13.jpg

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on6:35 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Danish Pastry says: September 20, 2012 at 18:19

Anyone got a photo of the Zombie banner?
======================
https://p.twimg.com/AypOCwmCMAAzAeV.jpg

View Comment

Avatar

fishnishPosted on6:42 pm - Sep 20, 2012


The SFA has always been way too touchy about banners.
Back in 1978, the SFA on the ground in Argentina totally, small-mindedly and rudely refused to help people who had travelled by any means possible to get tickets for Scottish games.
Some fans made a wee banner. It said something like “F*CK THE SFA”.
(I believe there might have been a vowel, where my sloppy typo portrays an asterisk)
An SFA Official saw it and ensured the banner was removed – outside the ground.
OT… but the incident is a fond memory and reminder that fans and their desires have never been intrinsic to the operations of SFA bureaucrats.

View Comment

Avatar

Eastern ex-patPosted on6:49 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Given the time lag involved in this misconduct charge I would anticipate many teams now falling foul of the authorities given the recent appetite by some new clubs in the lower leagues for igniting fireworks in the grounds they grace.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on6:50 pm - Sep 20, 2012


easyJambo says:
September 20, 2012 at 18:35
0 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says: September 20, 2012 at 18:19

Anyone got a photo of the Zombie banner?
======================
https://p.twimg.com/AypOCwmCMAAzAeV.jpg
———-

The horsemen thing was way better. Don’t like the shooter. Looks a wee bit like an image from the Troubles. Not a nice time, that scourge is hopefully over. A better banner might simply have been a mirror image of the mirror image – sort of evolution in reverse. But it is certainly more harmless than postal bombs, real bullets, genuine threats and intimidation.

There was some guy on here today giving the double standards line an airing. Wonder how those two things would compute for him?

View Comment

Avatar

rabPosted on6:50 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Whatever happened to the rfc report for sectarian singing at a Kilmarnock (?) game last season.

I take it sevco will be charged for seperate instances of similar behaviour at several matches already so far this season. There have been arrests but so far no sanctions from the sfa. Still, their super duper ( oops ) fast track disciplinary system is only up to pre season friendlies at the moment.

Personally, i found the banner funny but maybe a bit silly to have a gunman shooting someone. However, it is clearly a zombie being shot and you can only kill zombies by chopping their heads off, and any way, they are the undead so they are kinda unharmable.

Either that or maybe the sfa should cast Celtic into div3 and strip them of titles, fairs fair.

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on6:52 pm - Sep 20, 2012


So are Celtic going to be in bother for displaying a banner stolen from the John Brown protests 🙂

By the way the same protest had dummies hanging from the fence named Murray and Whyte……..

Displaying banner – bad

But displaying hanged effergies is just banter………..got it!

View Comment

Avatar

AgrajagPosted on6:54 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Since we are doing it, here’s a good version of the banner.

http://s7.postimage.org/7nyj3gocr/201.jpg

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on6:57 pm - Sep 20, 2012


On closer inspection the zombie being shot looks like Shaggy from Scooby Doo…..LOL

View Comment

Avatar

merky999Posted on6:57 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Agrajag says:
September 20, 2012 at 18:30
4 0 Rate This
merky999 says:
September 20, 2012 at 17:31

hi guys , new here and wanted to ask a question, does anyone have any idea how much it will cost new rangers to run ibrox and murray park for this season including staff and players wages. considering lower tv and sponsor income while paying spl wages is it achievable without investment from elsewhere or will they end up in the red at the end of the season. If this is the wrong place to have this question apologies and where should it be. thanks

==========================

That’s a difficult one to answer without some sort of inside information.

From memory the expenses (without wages) were last reported as being around £15m. Obviously they will try to cut that by as much as possible, however some things cannot be cut, for example Police and stewards at games. One suspects that they will be minimising other things, for example the upkeep of the stadium and training facility. Posts on places like FF certainly seem to confirm that.

To put a perspective on it, even if they have managed to half those expenses (and I doubt that) it will still be around £7m – £8m. Add on a conservative wage bill of say £6m (and I think that is conservative) then you have a figure of somewhere round £14m. I suspect that is dreadfully optimistic, and it is already way too high to be sustainable.

Rangers are using the fact that their income is front loaded to survive just now. Their cash flow (like every club) is not divided evenly over the year and most of it comes in the first part, due to season ticket money coming in. By Christmas they will have very little coming in, until the next round of season tickets. They have no European income to add to the funds throughout the year, and I strongly suspect there won’t be much in the way of cup windfalls.

In short, they need money and they need it desperately. The only options are selling players, private investment, share issue or borrowings. Of those the only realistic one is the share option (do you see what I did there), that is why it has to work and work well.
——————————————————————————————–

thanks mate and I agree with you suggesting your estimates are conservative and would say that it ties in with CG now trying to assess numbers for a share issue. Is he readying his escape pod already.

View Comment

Avatar

rabPosted on7:05 pm - Sep 20, 2012


The zombie hand has got six fingers.

Sloppy or genius.

View Comment

Avatar

J MaclurePosted on7:05 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Considering the banner came from an area at Parkhead where the The Green Brigade group have been known to participate in, and often start, pro-Irish Republican Army and Irish Republican chants it was’nt the wisest thing to depict a masked gunman firing at whatever.

Now before I get accused of all sorts let me state I abhor the idiots at Ibrox who indulge in sectarian singing, I wish it was just football rivalry.

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on7:05 pm - Sep 20, 2012


easyJambo says:
September 20, 2012 at 18:35
0 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says: September 20, 2012 at 18:19
Anyone got a photo of the Zombie banner?
======================

https://p.twimg.com/AypOCwmCMAAzAeV.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Presumably its the character with the rifle that tips that banner into offensive. I can’t say that I disagree. If they’d omitted that bit it would have been very funny.

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on7:06 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Ordinary Fan says:
September 20, 2012 at 13:0

Regarding Guidi: I was more concerned that the panel were making reference to “Civil War” and being up in arms if RFC were stripped of Titles and Trophies, seems as if their argument was that punishment would HAVE to be lenient because otherwise we will have hordes of thugs wrecking Scotland. Pretty disgraceful that in 2012 in a democratic, European country we are being told that a section of society must get their own way and be pandered to because the rest of us should be too scared to treat them the same way as everyone else. Scottish society is being intimidated and and the MSM are doing what they always have done, writing up and delivering the threats and demands.
——————————————————————————————–
This is a far more important point than whether or not guy on the radio did or didn’t say one particular word. In fact the discussion about that was a distraction from the real issue which you’ve just reminded us of, OF.

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on7:07 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Next in line for the defence, I call Alexander MCLeish, m’lurd….

Key legal term used – tickety boo!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19664749

20 September 2012 Last updated at 16:01

Rangers: Alex McLeish not expecting stripped titles over EBTs
By John Barnes
BBC Scotland Former Rangers boss Alex McLeish says he would be surprised if the Scottish Premier League’s independent commission were to strip the Ibrox club of titles.

The commission will soon assess whether Rangers’ use of employee benefits trusts broke SPL rules .

McLeish’s Rangers won two league championships during the period he was in charge at Ibrox.

“As far as I’m concerned, everything that happened in my tenure was legal,” McLeish told BBC Scotland.

“I know when I joined Rangers my lawyer was with me and he said everything was tickety-boo and legal.

“The SPL seem to want to go through this operation of maybe stripping Rangers of titles, which I would find it absolutely gob-smacking if that was the finding.

“Even [former Rangers chairman] Sir David Murray came out a few weeks ago and said that there was nothing done illegally. ”

McLeish, who was Scotland coach after his time at Rangers, also admitted his surprise that the Steven Fletcher’s absence from the national team has rumbled on as long as it has.

The striker, who joined Sunderland this summer and has scored three goals for the Black Cats so far, is not currently being considered by current coach Craig Levein.

Fletcher elected not to feature in a match last year and has since found himself in international exile but recently indicated he wanted more caps while Levein has maintained his stance on the matter.

“I don’t want to get in between Craig and the player or criticise Craig or even Steven,” said McLeish

“For me, life’s too short, you’ve got to use the best resources you’ve got because that’ll make you a better manager – if you pick good players and those good players respond and win you games,” he added.

The return of Darren Fletcher for Manchester United last night could prove to be a “huge boost” to the Scotland manager if he’s available for the next World Cup qualifiers against Wales and Belgium next month, feels McLeish.

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on7:08 pm - Sep 20, 2012


J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 19:05
0 0 Rate This
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh lordy….I agree with J Maclure. There goes my blog cred 😀

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on7:09 pm - Sep 20, 2012


Delbhoy says:
September 20, 2012 at 13:16
—————————————–

Thanks, you made me smile..

View Comment

Avatar

AgrajagPosted on7:11 pm - Sep 20, 2012


merky999 says:
September 20, 2012 at 18:57

=========================

Personally, and based on nothing more than feelings, I think the share issue is intended to do two things.

1, Get a return (profit) for the original investors.

2, Supply sufficient money to get them through the season.

If there is going to be some sort of league re-construction, and if it is to be next season, then they may feel if they can get through this season then there will be enough to break even the following.

In addition, if Green can get a profit for himself and his investors just now then in reality they can take that and hang around. Knowing that they can walk away at any time. The plan would be to make the profit and still own / control most of the club / business.

Unfortunately the Rangers support will not consider this, any more than they would accept that their club was in terrible debt, Craig Whyte was a charlatan, they would go into administration, they would be liquidated etc etc. That was all badged as timmy nonsense. Even after it was proven to be true.

Maybe this is the factor we have never considered. Charles Green looked at it and could not believe there was any business with customers / potential shareholders who were so gullible. So long as he played the proper cards at the right time. He is selling them nothing, for a lot of money, based on their own arrogance and blinkered thinking.

There are none so blind etc.

View Comment

Comments are closed.