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”
RayCharles says:
September 21, 2012 at 04:12
A banner saying “Paedo Free in Div 3″ was unveiled at a ground recently.
=======================================================================
Ray…I hesitate to make any comments re “offensive” or otherwise, but I do take exception to the spelling on the banner…”Peado Free in Div 3″….illustrating the true level of these people…!
Please don’t shoot me down on account on the spelling pedantry…see this for what is really is…!
Can I just say as a Celtic fan I saw the “zombie” banner and found it unpleasant, because of the sight of a man pointing a gun. Come on Green Brigade your humour is legendary but stick to decent parallels.
Also I hate this “tit for tat” thing “they displayed an offensive banner also” who cares?
Celtic fans should be setting an example in good clean humour and let other fans worry about their morals.
Enough about banners, I’m losing the will to live.
Back to the main issues.
When will TSFM initiate the call for parliamentary and public enquiries into the conduct of the SFA? When do I get to sign the petitions?
It’s time, the corruption can’t go on.
I went to bed last night at around 12:15 after a long hard day reading about Guidi, “did he say it” “did he not” coupled with various lessons on the merits of particular sound deciphering systems. Then along came the banner and the zombie. Had nightmares all night and when I awoke this morning, the banner plus a different banner is still there. Do I need to see my doctor or will it go away without medication?
For the record, I played the Guidigate tapes on the Decca turntable I bought from Woolies circa 1970, I tried it at 33RPM and 78RPM and all I heard was a scratching sound.
Oh come on, there’s nothing at all wrong with the banner, its a bit of fun and having a go at us for what many call a zombie club. Are things so bad between the fans that they can’t handle having the micky taken, I’ve had countless ribbings from celtic supporting mate and even after that they are still good mates. So nothing to see here, move along!
Having read a lot regarding the Banner, All my friends thought it was absolutely hilarious, I asked did you find the mocking newco bit funny they all said no.It was the fact it was mocking the rangers fans “like we always have” they said. They agreed that the MSM would have their say and Celtic will be hung out to dry for it.
Funny that really bearing in mind that it depends who your team is and which banners you can fly without being charged by the SFA,SFL
I wonder who made the complaint?? for transparency like..
Just caught up with everything TD’s in force during the night 🙂 maybe it was all the zombies? However I personally think the banner was a ‘bit close to the bone’ very clever yes, as most GB projects are but 2 MONTHS to notice…..fast-track indeed! This is payback for Sally getting pulled up for his rabble rousing about the 3 man panel etc ……. The dark side have been scrabbling around for the last few weeks desperately searching for something to grass CFC for !! Quite pathetic but being equally pathetic I really hope they are pulled up for their banner!! P—- free etc etc, as someone brought up earlier their spelling abilities are almost as good as their clubs accounts 🙂 come on SFA get a grip and punish the real baddies for a change!! The ones who have cheated and robbed everyone or is it too close to home??? ZOMBIE FC lol
RayCharles says:
September 21, 2012 at 04:12
Just as an aside. In a classic piece of whatabouery:
A banner saying “Paedo Free in Div 3″ was unveiled at a ground recently.
I do not find it offensive although many will.
————————————————————–
As there was no caricature of anyone wearing team colours it could have been meant for anyone, why would you take offence??
So it’s to be Adidas next season? All shaping up nicely for potential shareholders. I wonder if any of the shareholders in old Rangers will be buying a stake in the new? It would seem pointless since Charles insists it’s the same Rangers. And that must be true, you can tell by glints in t’eyes 🙂
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-charles-green-set-1335458
Danish Pastry says:
September 21, 2012 at 08:44
So it’s to be Adidas next season? All shaping up nicely for potential shareholders. I wonder if any of the shareholders in old Rangers will be buying a stake in the new? It would seem pointless since Charles insists it’s the same Rangers. And that must be true, you can tell by glints in t’eyes
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-charles-green-set-1335458
———————————————————————————————————-
41 points posted on CG’s Canadian speech yesterday most of which are lies and can be picked holes in and the DR goes with this one!!! Yet another bit of positive spin. I wonder if they asked how much it was worth…..sorry could be worth, doesn’t look like it.
Maybe they asked Adidas how they felt….. doesn’t look like it.
http://forweonlyknow.wordpress.com/
OT Slightly – I was going to post this yesterday, but, I was interrupted and then the football on ITV4 started. I didn’t realise that the BBC has an on-line academy, and a college of journalism. This is an article regarding Alex Thomson and his attempt to interview some ex-editor of a daily newspaper and would the BBC’s editorial guidelines have them do anything different. I skim read the article, but the last sentence, is the one that made me smile and pass it on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogcollegeofjournalism/posts/Doorstepping-Kelvin-what-would-the-BBC-have-done-
Frankly fed up with multiple posts on Mark Guidi and banners.
Some people have supposedly e-mailed SSB on Guidi, so lets see what happens.
The SFA will deal with the Celtic Banner, lets see what happens.
While I can see the conitations in the banner mildly funny BTW) I am concerned that the DR mentions a non existent shamrock. Maybe thats one for the Press Complaints Commision and an e-mail to the DR’s well knent sports editor as opposed to jamming this blog?
It appears many clubs have a group of fans who seek notoriety. Some times they can be very funny but other times they can be an embarassment and a pain the backside.
Could the fact that Uefa have not got overly involved in the ongoing Rangers saga be that they were offended by a banner the other year that included the organizations name and a well known anglo-saxon phrase.
Zombies. Apparently you can re-kill them by destroying their brain – though what difference a brain makes to a dead thing is beyond me. Anywa, I’m sure I’ve seen zombie hands which are functional on their own.
Banner. I changed my mind. Having thought about it, I do think it’s offensive, given the gunman and his (para)military poise. It’s provocative. Zombie killers generally shoot from the hip with a sawn-off, so what reason for having an obviously military guy. 😉
Paedo banner. As pointed out above, not even spelled correctly. Also offensive, though.
Wish Mr Charles would come out with some more nonsense so we can get away from clods like me perpetuating these subjects. 🙂
I started to write a few paragraphs on this banner debate, most based around hearsay of the meaning behind the gunman and the aim to kill the zombie “club” rather than the supporter. I found it difficult to write a balanced piece around the subject as I personally was not offened, not being close to Irish history, I also didn’t see the part where others may have been offended. That and the Green coloured specs make it difficult.
But after approx. 10 rewrites I realised nobody can win this argument as it involved opinion. As others have already posted, I am not offended by anyone calling me names as I know they are ignorant of my personal circumstances (religion, nationality or my sexual preferences). I can however see why some others may not see the funny side. I know people here (I live in Northern Germany) who are offended by the Faulty Towers German joke but equally there are others who found it hilarious.
So I scrapped most of what I wrote but after admitting defeat one thing stuck me, why has this surfaced now?
We have a blog of mostly Celtic supportes but also some very passionate posters from all other clubs trying to make logical sense of every statement or action that comes from the Scotish Football authorities, media and clubs. Seems to me this banner debate has sidetracked the blog and now has Celtic supporter against Celtic supporter, moderator against moderator, respected blogger against respected blogger etc..
Divide and conquer!
TSFM, may I ask where you are posting your own point of view rather than the overall viewpoint of a moderator of TSFM you post under a different name.
If you use the TSFM for posting personal comments then that may be construed as the view of the whole site, which it may not be.
You can ask, but I won’t be posting under two aliases. There is no conflict as far as I can see.
Testing – all my posts are vanishing
http://www.soccerbible.com/news/football-shirts/archive/2010/09/02/world-s-best-selling-club-football-shirts.aspx
Real Madrid – 1.5 million shirts
Liverpool – 900K shirts
Chelsea – 900K
Bayern – 900K
AC Milan – 600K
Wonder where T”Rangers will be…………..
You can’t give offence. You can only take it.
TSFM says:
September 21, 2012 at 01:08
CW says:
September 21, 2012 at 01:06(Edit)
Just realised tonight that this is really a Celtic Blog in disguise. How anyone can defend that banner ?
I used to think the Blog was neutral.
TSFM, I hope you appreciate what you have created ! It’s your bed, you can lie in it.
______________________________________________________________________
CW
Your trolling is tiresome. I think we get your point. Now please go get some sleep.
——————————————————————————————-
And your blog is beginning to become tiresome as well.
I’m no troll, I’ve followed RTC all the way through this from the very beginning. You’ve managed to turn me away, and I’m sure many other neutrals will turn away as well in the very near future.
I’m sure the Sheep on your side will keep on following your every word, and the Sheep on the other side will keep on trolling.
That’s the way you like it, isn’t it ?
You ain’t RTC that’s for sure !
As I said, It’s your bed, you can lie in it !
Try not be so arrogant and sanctimonious to non CFC fans in the future. RTC never was, but then again, as I said, you ain’t RTC !
bye bye !
madbhoy24941 says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:16
1 0 Rate This
I started to write a few paragraphs on this banner debate …
———–
Definitely need a change of subject. A bit of serious news or a touch of humour would do. You can make some pretty funny puns on adidas, or should I say, adeidas?
I’ll get ma trainers …
exiledcelt says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:25(Edit)
Testing – all my posts are vanishing
_____________________________________________
EC
The WordPress spam filter didn’t like that link for some reason. Now sorted.
http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=70446
Top selling shirts for Adidas shows T”Rangers need to beat Chelsea, Bayern and AC Milan to be no 1
justshatered says:
September 21, 2012 at 00:06
I believe the fact that they are with holding merchandising and TV money is SR and ND trying to fulfill their own prophecy of financial melt down by pushing at least one club into administration.
They will then use this as an excuse to bring league re-construction back into the spotlight.
It really is high time that somebody called these two clowns to account.
There is no reason why this money should not be paid.
—————————————————————————————————
This has been my own thought recently and was considering posting but you’ve stated it far more succinctly than I could (I tend to be verbose) so well done. I hope we can have some discussion on this rather than the side issue of the banner which is really a bit irrelevant.
The thing that puzzles me is why the SPL chairman are standing for it. Sure they may want to get TRFC shot up the divisions but why would they go along with a method of doing so that could seriously damage their own clubs?
Seems to me we need another ‘campaign’ like the one when they tried to drop newco into the SPL/Div 1 to email/write to all SPL boards asking why they are allowing this and risking their clubs’ futures.
PS Don’t mind being thought wrong in any of above as long as it’s explained why.
TSM – thanks – I found another link to the same info 🙂
CW says:
September 21, 2012 at 01:06
Yes this at times may seem like a CFC orientated blog but one would have to acknowledge that any nuetral blog that discusses Scottish Football would have a much larger percentage of fans of either one or both of the big two. In the situation we find Scottish Football in and that the big story is about Rangers and the SFA it stands to reason does it not that CFC supporters will be in the majority? There are likely many non CFC supporters who do not put up comments but are signed up and I would encourage them to do so.
As for the banner it didn’t make me laugh far less crack a smile and I already made my point about the silhoutte figure being OTT. I do look out for your posts and they have often got a TU from me, I did neither with the above.
AsDEIDas love it thank you DP 🙂
TSFM says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:22
You can ask, but I won’t be posting under two aliases. There is no conflict as far as I can see.
———————————————————————————————–
Again thats your personal viewpoint, you are calling yourself The Scottish Football Monitor but the comments you post as such are personal, and going by last nights posts not always reflective of the site called The Scottish Football Monitor.
smallteaser says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:40(Edit)
———————————————————————————————–
Again thats your personal viewpoint, you are calling yourself The Scottish Football Monitor but the comments you post as such are personal, and going by last nights posts not always reflective of the site called The Scottish Football Monitor.
__________________________________________________________________
smallteaser – and you call yourself that 🙂
I’m fairly confident that what I said was fairly “reflective” of opinion on the blog. If it transpired that it was not, there would be little point in hanging around.
I’m a Celtic fan, but I like to see the cross platform of views from all supporters on this site,albeit I did spend more time on RTC, though no doubt due to the activity around EBT etc at the time. If I want to look through my green tinted specs, I can look elsewhere. I’d like to see this site continue to maintain the high level of integrity that it has demonstrated previously.
exiledcelt says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:25
0 0 Rate This
Testing – all my posts are vanishing
=====================================================================
Morning EC, I believe the problem is caused by your Chief Clerk not wanting you to sell your pools coupons!
I can’t think of any other explanation!!
LOL!
Hope you’re keeping well
TSFM says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:46
0 0 i Rate This
———————————————————————————————–
Again thats your personal viewpoint, you are calling yourself The Scottish Football Monitor but the comments you post as such are personal, and going by last nights posts not always reflective of the site called The Scottish Football Monitor.
__________________________________________________________________
smallteaser – and you call yourself that
I’m fairly confident that what I said was fairly “reflective” of opinion on the blog. If it transpired that it was not, there would be little point in hanging around.
————————————————————————————-
I guess what you are saying here is that anyone who disagreed with your point of view, either on the banner issue last night, or in fact anything else you say, should really leave the blog?
The blog appeared to be split 50/50 last night so I don’t agree that your comments were reflective of the blog as a whole.
Should I stay or should I go? Is there any point in “hanging around”?
smallteaser says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:57(Edit)
I guess what you are saying here is that anyone who disagreed with your point of view, either on the banner issue last night, or in fact anything else you say, should really leave the blog?
The blog appeared to be split 50/50 last night so I don’t agree that your comments were reflective of the blog as a whole.
Should I stay or should I go? Is there any point in “hanging around”?
__________________________________________________________________
Your guess would be wrong then – and I can’t believe you have taken offence at what was just a harmless piece of fun 🙂
As for leaving the blog, that is your choice. However if you decide to remain, I’d appreciate it if any further complaints about moderator(s) are made via the Contacts page.
michael b says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:51
Indeed lol – these new fangled computers – much easier doing a cut and paste – using scissors and glue – to update the Sasines.
TSFM registration did not like my new name Invisible line so I switched back to my RTC one. Just following the examples of others that say never mind the name change, its still me !
Hope everything is tickety boo with you too 🙂
The questions asked by Paul mcconville on his blog the other day.. Is there any way they could be put to duff and Phelps in such a way that they would be legally obliged to answer
exiledcelt says:
September 21, 2012 at 10:11(Edit)
TSFM registration did not like my new name Invisible line so I switched back to my RTC one. Just following the examples of others that say never mind the name change, its still me !
_________________________________________________________
EC
If you go to http://www.wordpress.com and access your profile, you can change your “Display Name” to whatever you want (although your login/username will still be exiledcelt).
Therefore you can have your Invisible Line – and eat it 🙂
J Maclure says:
September 20, 2012 at 14:49
As others have stated, the difference between the two is that Hutton could substantiate his claims
as they were based on actual meetings, presentations and conversations, whereas Green’s comments are self-evidently insupportable.
The very passage that got him in front of the beaks contains enough, prima facie, to find him guilty. On one hand he says quite explicitly that he does not question the integrity of the three people on the panel, then immediately questions their ability to reach a verdict that has not been predetermined. Effectively, he’s saying either the three are unable to reach a fair verdict, or the football authorities procedures are unfair and prevent a fair verdict. That is BTGID right there.
His only defence would be to prove fairly widespread personal and organisational bias against Rangers past and present. How he would prove that I have no idea, but it would seem to require rather a lot of evidence that has never previously revealed itself.
Keep at it though, Mr Green – it’s entertaining and infuriating to non-Rangers and feeds the deluded sense of victimisation and defiance amongst The People you need to milk.
I am not a Celtic or Rangers fan and, FWIW, I find both banners offensive. Compared to the time taken to deal with the Rangers problem, the SFA have responded to the GB banner in the mere blink of an eye. Good to see the rules being applied in that sense (though would be interesting to know how the complaint arose). Don’t know if complaints have been made about the Rangers one but the home side may be charged for not removing it if a complaint is made. Statistically, the accuracy of that one may be as erroneous as the spelling but it has no place at a football match. A forum would shift this to a separate thread and help us focus.
Ok Guys let’s get the blog back on track.
The issues we need to be looking at is how the game is run , are people telling the truth, is there a sustainable future for all Scottish Clubs
Are the rules being applied without fear or favour?
To me the banner issue seems to be one that the football authorities are right to tackle if there is a belief that the content is offensive.
It has clearly taken a few months to call Celtic to account and it is right to ask why so long?
However they took their time calling Ally to explain is ‘name them’ stance. So some of these issues do appear to take time.
On the other hand they were quick to jump on Charile Boy for his SPL commission statement.
Therefore as opposed to specific cases my queston would be do fans need to be given some information on how these processes work as it seems to be a bit slap dash at present?
With regards to the “Paedo Free In Div 3” banner then people need to realise that if that banner is deemed offensive and the rules are then applied without ‘fear or favour’ then it is not just a tit for tat ‘Old Firm’ situation.
Annan Athletic as the club responsible for the match day operations will fall foul of the Rules.
Therfore if Celtic are fined or whatever for the Zombie banner then I would expect that Annan should be treated in a similar manner, with T’Rangers being brought in to answer if they did all that was reasonably practical to control the behaviour of thier fans at an away ground.
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.
first timer test – and I promise not to use the words banner, us or them!
[SFM Edit – well you are very welcome! :-)]
smallteaser says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:57
3 4 Rate This
———
Smallteaser, the essence of the blog is respect and fairness, also towards one another. Someone’s got to lay down the rules and uphold a degree of decorum. It’s a thankless task admining online forums. I’ve known a few forums descend into chaos because the admin gave up after he got enough of nitpicking and people taking personal swipes at him.
The overriding issue for any admin here is to maintain the credibility of TSFM. The forum is referred to far and wide and makes a point of professing its fair-minded neutrality. This probably means erring on the side of caution on controverial subjects. We can’t stand on the high moral ground one minute and then side with questionable expressions of protest the next.
WOTTPI – agree – also add to this “conditional” memberships granted by SFA and the registrations of players. To me this stinks to high heaven but am clueless how we can get the registration information – is it available to clubs/agents through any public access? Or do we need an insider?
We sorely need an RTC type blog that solely concentrates
on Sevco – anyone feel the same?
test wordpress
flocculent says:
September 21, 2012 at 10:39
A forum would shift this to a separate thread and help us focus.
————-
For a while I thought a forum structure was the answer. But I’ve come to the conclusion that the current blog structure focuses minds on each and every issue and deals with it.
My concern about a forum structure is that last night’s debate would probably have gone on partly unobserved on a forum thread. It could have led to some pretty heated stuff being said and some major falling outs. On a forum the audience could become fragmented. And then again, who can possibly admin or police every forum thread? It would be a huge task and perhaps signal open season for trolls. There’s something healthly about the whole TSFM family working through an issue together.
Sorry OT but relevant to the last 24 hours.
Everyone has one, right or wrong and enjoy telling others about it.
Most people like to read them and enjoy the differences with their own.
Some people like to distort them and twist them to their own end.
That’s what blogs are about and why we all come here.
To discover the latest facts and get everyone’s take on it.
My opinion is that TSFM does a great job with the admin.
A thankless task that the opinionated couldn’t do without.
Keep up the good work.
Your Country Needs You!
carlislecelt says:
September 21, 2012 at 06:40
16 2 i
Rate This
I have to assume the vile banner relating to Peadophilia displayed by The Rangers fans will also be looked at and brought to book by the authorities.
—————————————————————————————–
Maybe somebody has to complain first? Then maybe somebody should complain (I assume to the SFA).
exiledcelt says:
September 21, 2012 at 10:53
I think as with most things coming out of Hampden we would need and insider until the organization starts developing the ‘transperency’ that is oft quoted in the McLeish report.
Ogilvie is still sitting there ding and saying nothing and for all the initial openness twittering and the likes Regan appears to have dropped off the planet.
Similarly at one time the SPL’s Doncaster appeared to be turn up in the media for the opening of an evenlope.
I appreciate the season is well under way and these people may have day to day things to be dealing with but frankly in the 21st Century it is just not good enough and fans from all clubs deserve better.
midcalderan says:
September 21, 2012 at 07:58
For the record, I played the Guidigate tapes on the Decca turntable I bought from Woolies circa 1970, I tried it at 33RPM and 78RPM and all I heard was a scratching sound.
—————————————————————————————-
Yes, but did you play it backwards?
WOTTPI says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:10
I think as with most things coming out of Hampden we would need and insider until the organization starts developing the ‘transperency’ that is oft quoted in the McLeish report.
=========================================================================
Henry or Alex?. 😆
the taxman cometh says:
September 21, 2012 at 10:18
The questions asked by Paul mcconville on his blog the other day.. Is there any way they could be put to duff and Phelps in such a way that they would be legally obliged to answer
—–
Yes. They would have to be asked by someone with the legal authority to do so, as part of a relevant investigation.
In my line of work I can ask questions of people with regard to certain matters, without cautioning them, and they are legally obliged to give honest answers. If it’s found they haven’t then I can report them to the PF for obstruction.
Meanwhile … TSFM. First line of your latest blog. It’s “pursued”, not “persued”.
(Correct – my line of work is the Spelling Police. :))
Ok, my tuppenceworth on the “banner” issue. Did those who made the banner not think the sillhouetted gunman was just a bit “iffy”.I feel it spoiled what was otherwise a good example of satire ie truthful and funny! However I do feel that the Green Brigade have been guilty in the past of being insensitive at least and the their display of the “poppy” banner inside the ground was highly questionable and should never have been allowed by the Club. We are allowed free speech and inqury, we have the right to political beliefs and expression, but I don’t think we should use our football stadia to air these.
The banner
Of course it is offensive (albeit funny) A lapse of judgement by the stewards and match commander who maybe should have noticed its content and quietly asked the owners to fold it away.The depiction of Rangers fans in the form of an ape is the most offensive aspect. The Norn-Irln-esque crouching gunman shooting the zombie is maybe slightly less offensive as it is not depicting shooting at a living soul.
For those who have defended the banner, just imagine a parallel banner at Ibrox ! You don’t have to have too much imagination to construct something replacing the gorilla with a man of the cloth sporting a green and white scarf and replacing the tomb stone with the same man behind bars. Would that be offensive ? You bet.
The Rangers Div 3 banner, while more puerile, and amateur, is also offensive but it might be a bit trickier to make an SFL punishment stick ( and not just because Charlie might need to be asked in advance if he will accept any punishment ) but because the statement doen’t actually say who it is aimed at (although we all know) And maybe also because it is an away game.
Surely a quick email can sort this.SFL/SPL to all clubs -somebody from security must be given the specific responsibility to check all banner contents and have any iffy ones taken down and notified to the match commander in case further action is warranted. Reminder – fines can be up to £X
WOTTPI says:
September 21, 2012 at 09:12
2 1 i
Rate This
Could the fact that Uefa have not got overly involved in the ongoing Rangers saga be that they were offended by a banner the other year that included the organizations name and a well known anglo-saxon phrase.
——————————————————————————-
Would that be Swyve thon EUFA?? I’m sure you can’t be referring to the one that came into English somewhere around the 15th-16th centuries?
Sorry, don’t seem to be posting much of relevance, but whole Guidi-banner thing is pee-ing me off. Let’s get back on track, guys.
WOTTPI says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:10 (Edit)
___________________________________________________
The two things that unite fans of ALL clubs at the minute is;
1. the fact that the last few months (at least) have been an embarrassing shambles, and
2. anger at the lack of transparency at the SFA and SPL.
I think that ultimately that may be the undoing of several individuals at the top of the legislative wing of the game.
People like Regan, Doncaster, Ogilvie and Topping (and others perhaps), regardless of whether they have acted honourably or not, have no friends on either end of these arguments, and since it is a demonstrable fact that what has occurred has been shambolic, those in charge will be sacrificed.
However the stark fact is that as long as people continue to attend football matches and hand over their cash for tickets and merchandise, the clubs will have no compelling reason to make their processes more transparent. Starting up something that is honest and above reproach is a much easier task than making a corrupt and inherently closed society into an honest an open one.
My opinion is that it is all about money and influence. if you take away the money, you also take away the influence. Our job as fans, not just on this blog but everywhere, is to hold those in charge (and their demented, crayon-wielding gophers in the press) accountable, and make them believe that we are capable of organising economic campaigns against them in order to achieve that.
WOTTPI says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:10
Correct – Batman and Robin have disappeared to the Batcave beneath Hampden – as you said they used to be seen/heard from more than my favourites Ant and Dec but suddenly have made Lord Lucan appear to be a publicity seeking celebrity.
There is no transparency – Henry McLeish’s vision or recommendations are as much likely to be implemented as there is of Campbell Ogilvie becoming a supergrass – weeping and confessing to all his sins to the BOD/Strathclyde’s Finest and then going into the witness protection program.
The email released from SR stank – it was so obvious that he was thinking he was in control and the plebs that bought the SFA transparency nonesens coudl be kidded on more.
My issue currently is not so much with T’Rangers – they are irrelevant team in SFL3 trying to kid on they are Juventus in the G31 – but with RFC-NIL and the beaks at SFA/SPL who turned the other cheek while they were letting the insane run the asylum.
We need the SFA to come clean and tell us how they allowed this to happen and what rules they will implement to stop it.
You would have thought the Govt would be going nuts about the money lost to the public purse – but they too are quiet…….maybe they don’t care……or maybe they are busy covering their tracks too!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9400788/Rangers-in-crisis-SFA-chief-Stewart-Regan-could-become-latest-casualty-in-saga-after-email-leak.html
As a reminder……….to get the blood boiling……………
Dear all,
Many thanks for your contribution and support over the last two weeks in trying to deliver a programme of change that will move Scottish football forward whilst addressing the need to deal with the Rangers matter with integrity and in line with our own values as an organisation.
I was hugely encouraged with where we got to last night on a long and tiring phone call and I thank all of you for your efforts to move this issue forward.
I thought it would be helpful if I summarised where I think we are:
1. The Rangers Football Club will be relegated to the 1st Division of the SFL with immediate effect and will be replaced in the SPL by Dundee FC.
2. The television rights for Rangers FC matches in the SFL will be purchased by the SPL for the sum of £1m as a one-off fee for the season 2012/2013.
3. The two leagues will merge into a single league body – The Scottish Professional Football League – effective season 2013/14 – with a working party set up immediately involving representatives from the SPL, SFL and (if required) the Scottish FA to plan the integration of the two bodies – people, rules, rebranding, commercial considerations and so on.
4. A new Board of Directors will be appointed to govern the single league. The make up of this Board will consist of an Independent Chairman, CEO, 3 representatives from the Premier League, 2 representatives from the Championship/Leagues 1 & 2 and 2 Independent Non-Executive Directors.
5. Play-offs will be introduced immediately with the first matches taking place at the end of the coming season 2012/2013.
6. Enhanced parachute payments will be implemented from the end of the season 2012/2013 to soften the landing for club(s) relegated from the Premier League.
7. A revised all-through distribution model will be put in place to provide: a) An all-through distribution model for clubs 1-22 and a minimum guarantee for 20 clubs in Leagues 1 & 2, equivalent to what they would earn under the current settlement agreement.
8. A Pyramid System will be put in place which open up the bottom of League 2 effective from the end of season 2013/2014 with the first opportunity for promoted clubs to enter the league being 2014/15 thus allowing for licensing to take place.
9. Consolidation below the Third Division to take place to create a Lowland & Highland League structure effective 2014/15 with appropriate play-offs and promotion/relegation to be put in place. Clubs to be briefed that the previous season 2013/2014 will involve the opportunity to enter play-offs for the first time.
In terms of actions/timings I think the following needs to happen in this coming week:
A) A joint statement today from all 3 bodies confirming that productive discussions have taken place on a new blueprint for Scottish football. Consultation will continue over the next two weeks with a view to clubs getting together week commencing 2nd July to try and agree the way forward. (D Broadfoot to provide this and circulate to DL/ND for approval)
B) Rod P / Jim B to finalise the all-through financial model by Wednesday this week latest.
C) Neil / David to finalise the detail on Governance, Commercials and Play-Offs (ideally Monday/Tuesday) and incorporate these, plus the financials in B) above into a legally binding Heads of Terms ‘draft’ for presentation to each league body w/c 2nd July.
D) DL to organise SFL Board Meeting w/c 25th June to gain buy-in to the plan and also arrange an all club meeting w/c 2nd July
E) ND to gain support from SPL Clubs 28th June
F) SFL Clubs Meeting to be planned for 3rd July
G) SPL Club Meeting to be planned for 4th July
H) Scottish FA Board to sign off on the final plan post 4th July. Subject to approval all bodies (including Newco) to sign legal documentation.
I) Agree joint communication strategy
J) In parallel to A-D above, could Rod Petrie please brief Charles Green confidentially on the discussions from a Scottish FA perspective so that there are ‘no surprises’ and there is a general acceptance of the plan plus all of the other conditions discussed e.g. transfer embargo, fines, repayment of football debt, waiving rights to legal challenge, acceptance of relegation and so on.
K) Andrew to ensure our check list of disclosures relating to Newco and Fit & Proper Person criteria are delivered by 2nd july. The Board will need these plus the Heads of Terms above in order to complete this plan.
The Scottish FA Board have agreed to provide a one-off restructuring budget of £1m on condition the above plan is delivered.
I hope this covers everything.
Speak soon….now off to the airport!
Regards
Stewart
Is this new? http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
Danish Pastry says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:02
There was pretty heated stuff said anyway.
At least wityh a different “Banners” thread, those not interested could just ignore it rather than post that they are not interested, adding to the stream of posts that need to be read or skipped to get to the ones on the topic of the original blog post. And, err, what was that again?
Angus says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:16(Edit)
Meanwhile … TSFM. First line of your latest blog. It’s “pursued”, not “persued”.
(Correct – my line of work is the Spelling Police. )
_________________________________________________
Thanks Angus – and shame on me as a Special “Literacy Across the Curriculum” Constable 🙂
I’m beginning to find the relentless bun fighting tiresome. TSFM appears to be doing a reasonable job, and the tone of the criticism is becoming increasingly harsh and intolerant. Maybe a few of the posters need to take a weekend off and return refreshed and reinvigorated to continue the good, if imperfect, work of this blog.
Night Terror – just wanted to say nice try on your attempts to get Chris Graham over on Rangers Spectator to try to force him to give details to his accusations rather than let him get away with hsi a taxi driver told me from a well known source stuff, so no arguement about it – you have more patience than me for sure!!! I would have given up long before you did 🙂
Resting
SPL Note of Reasons para 31…..Newco liable for the sins of the Club committed while it was owned by Oldco…..
It think that is new!
I have been away from this site more than I have been on it so may have missed the conclusion to the question doing the rounds about a week ago…
DID EAST FIFE GET PAID? I seriously do not know the answer and just need updated.
Oh and another question….HAS LORD HODGE STEPPED IN YET?
One last question for now…HAS ANYONE SEEN OR HEARD FROM BOMBER?
SPL Note of Reasons does appear to say that the current form of Rangers is the same as it has always been. It talks of a “Club” that can be owned and operated by different parties.
See Michael Laudrup has some interesting ideas concerning paying rivals to win.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19667219
Swansea City manager Michael Laudrup says he sees no problem with teams paying rival sides to win games.
The Dane stressed he was completely against “match fixing”, but believes the term needs to be “better defined”.
He said: “If Swansea play the last game against a team and a third team pays Swansea to win the game, I really don’t see anything bad about that.”
The Football Association has said that accepting money to influence the outcome of a match is unlawful.
A spokesman, who declined to comment specifically on Laudrup’s revelations, pointed to the FA’s Rule E5 (a) that says:
A Participant shall not, directly or indirectly, offer, agree to give, give, solicit, agree to accept or accept any bribe, gift or reward or consideration of any nature which is, or could appear to be related in any way to seeking to influence the outcome or conduct of a Match or Competition.
Bonuses agreed between a club and its players or club officials are deemed to be approved.
Laudrup was asked about the issue of match fixing by a journalist working for European media organisations at a news conference.
The scenario Laudrup describes could involve a club in the relegation zone paying a team a bonus if they beat one of their closest rivals, enabling the threatened club to stay up.
Laudrup, who has 104 caps and 37 goals for Denmark, was asked the question because he played for Lazio and Juventus in the 1980s, and Italian football continues to be dogged by match-fixing claims.
As many as 13 Italian clubs – mainly from the second division – are under investigation. Juventus coach Antonio Conte was given a 10-month suspension in August for not reporting alleged match-fixing in two games involving ex-club Siena in the 2010-11 season. He denies the claims and is appealing.
Laudrup, 48, said players guilty of being paid to lose should be banned from the game for life instead of being given fixed-term bans.
He said: “To say I’m against that [match-fixing] is like saying today it’s Thursday – it’s obvious.
“The worst match fixing I’ve heard was what happened in Italy before I came there in the beginning of the 80s, where somebody bought three or four of the players in a team to lose a game.
“That means that seven or eight players in a team were playing to win, like normal, and three or four of them just to lose.”
However Laudrup has no issue with what is known in Spanish football as the “suitcases” culture.
“It’s just a bonus. For me, match-fixing is somebody pays someone to lose a game,” he said.
“In Spain where there’s one or two matches left in a season we always talked about the suitcases.
“But the suitcases is to win – I don’t see anything bad about that.
“I think we have to define very well what is match-fixing because there’s different levels, I think.”
Very curious. One wonders if a certain dead club of ill repute might have indulged in such skullduggery. Put it this way, I wouldn’t be surprised.
stmiley says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:36
Is this new? http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf
…………………………………………………………………………………….
I hadn’t seen it before. It’s certainly laying out reasonably clearly the way that most on here believe is how things SHOULD work and should proceed. 🙂
(p20. item 54. where it says ‘would could’, it should have said ‘we could’, I believe…)
insidewinger says:
September 21, 2012 at 12:33(Edit)
SPL Note of Reasons does appear to say that the current form of Rangers is the same as it has always been. It talks of a “Club” that can be owned and operated by different parties.
___________________________________________________________________
Yes but I think that they are paying out some extra rope here.
Legal guys may tell me I’m talking cobblers here, but by doing that, the logic is that Sevco – as the owners of the “club” – are liable for any sanction, monetary or otherwise, because the “club” is liable for sanction if found guilty much as a parent or pet owner can be held liable for the actions of children or errant pets(is there a difference?).
If Sevco were to argue successfully against, they would have to argue that club and owner is indivisible – thus breaking the timeline.
There is also a paragraph which states that RFC “ceased to be a club” on a particular date.
Aside from any party bias here, it is intriguing to see how the sematics/legalese is panning out.
We seem to be getting into a lot of whatabouttery regarding the banner. Got to agree if the boot was on the other foot I’d take issue with it. Substitute the crest on the gravestone and the shamrock for a red hand. Time to put this one down and move on.
tmiley says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:36
—
Thanks for posting this very useful link. Publication of the report is not mentioned anywhere in today’s ‘Scotsman’. Other papers?
No one is suggesting the blog is perfect but I fully appreciate the effort put in by TSFM to fill the void left by RTC, as it needed filled because there is no other outlet, in my opinion, for discussions of this type.
Off topic detours will always happen and as for world press etc, I am guided by those who have done a good job to date.
We all have a responsibility to keep posts to a decent standard. Nothing has changed in that respect.
Being Friday I expect the usual CG statement later this afternoon which we can all dissect after wiping away the tears of laughter.
I wonder if HMRC can/will take the same view as the Commission’s report- that newco is really oldco?
insidewinger says:
September 21, 2012 at 12:33
SPL Note of Reasons does appear to say that the current form of Rangers is the same as it has always been. It talks of a “Club” that can be owned and operated by different parties.
—-
… and also reiterates that letters were sent to “Newco, Oldco and Rangers FC”. (Para 21)
How interesting.