Past the Event Horizon

On the Old Club vs New Club (OCNC) debate, the SFA’s silence has been arguably the most damaging factor with respect to the future of the game. Of course people get frustrated when there is a deliberate policy of silence on the part of the SFA which results in the endless cycle of arguments being trotted out again and again with no resolution or closure possible.

The irony (it’s only irony if you assume that the SFA have gone to great lengths to create the conditions for the unbroken history status of the new club) is that the mealy-mouthed attitude they have adopted has actually polarised opinion in a far more serious and irreconcilable way than had they just made a clear statement when Sevco were handed SFA membership. A bit of leadership, with a decision either way at that time would have spiked a lot of OCNC guns very early on, but as history shows, they were afraid of a backlash from wherever it came.

I am now convinced that Scottish Football has passed the Event Horizon and is broken beyond the possibility of any repair that might have taken it back to its pre-2010 condition. Rangers fans will never – no matter what any eventual pronouncement from Hampden may be – accept that their next trophy will be their first. The trouble is that no-one else – again despite anything from Hampden – will cast them as anything else other than a new club who were given a free passage into the higher echelons of the game. Furthermore, they will forever force that down the throats of Rangers fans whenever and wherever they play. A recipe for discord, threats of violence, actual violence, and a general ramping up of the sectarian gas that we had all hoped, only a year or so ago, was to be set to an all-time low peep.

There is a saying in politics that we get the government we deserve. It works both ways though, and the SFA will get the audience it deserves. In actual fact it is the one it has actively sought over the last couple of years, for they have tacitly (and even perhaps explicitly) admitted that Scottish Football is a dish best served garnished with sectarianism. They have effectively told us that without it, the game cannot flourish, and they stick to that fallacy even although the empirical evidence of the past year indicates otherwise.

That belief is an intellectual black-hole they have now thrust the game into. They have effectively said that only two clubs actually matter in Scottish football. The crazy thing is that to put their plans into action they have successfully persuaded enough of the other clubs to jump into the chasm and hence vote themselves into irrelevance and permanent semi-obscurity.

That belief is also shared by the majority in the MSM, who despite their lofty, self-righteous and ostensibly anti-sectarian stance, have done everything they can to stir the hornet’s nest in the interests of greater sales.
Act as an unpaid wing of a PR company, check nothing, ask nothing, help to create unrest, and then tut-tut away indignantly like Monty Python Pepperpots when people take them to task.

Consequently the victims of all the wrongdoing (creditors and clubs) walk away without any redress or compensation for the loss of income and opportunity (and history) – stripped of any pride and dignity since they do so in the full knowledge of what has happened. But even as they wipe away the sand kicked in their faces, those clubs still insist on the loyalty of their own fanbases, the same fans whose trust they have betrayed with their meek acceptance of the new, old order.

The kinder interpretation of the impotence of the clubs is that they want to avoid the hassle and move on, the more cynical view that they are interested only in money, not people. In either case, sporting integrity, in the words of Lord Traynor of Winhall (Airdrie, not Vermont), is “crap”.

The question is; which constituency of 21st century Scotland subscribes to that 17th century paradigm?
Sadly, this massive hoax, this gigantic insult to our collective intelligence, is working. Many will leave the game – many already have in view of the spineless absence of intervention from their own clubs – but many, many more will stay and support the charade.

If you doubt my prediction, ask yourself how many tickets will be unsold the first time the New Rangers play Celtic at Parkhead? That my friends will be final imprimatur of authenticity on just exactly who New Rangers are, no matter the proclamations of both sides of the OCNC argument.

This entry was posted in General by Big Pink. Bookmark the permalink.
John Cole

About Big Pink

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

3,926 thoughts on “Past the Event Horizon


  1. Bryce,

    1. Where do you stand on the punishment handed out to clubs that are thrown out of competitions for failing to correctly sign documentation?

    2. Is the “punishment” handed out to RFC proportionate to the crime?


  2. bryce9a says: (7)
    November 24, 2013 at 12:32 am
    ‘…Thankfully though, the governing bodies came through for us.’
    ——-
    And therein lies the corruption.
    With the utmost respect, and in the best traditions of philosophical discourse, considering the time of night it is, I have to say with Plato that you are p..ssing into the wind on this one.

    You know you are deceiving yourself.

    But if you are happy to endorse a lie and be personally associated with a dead club that in the act of dying stiffed its shareholders and debenture holders and a whole host of innocent creditors, it marks you out.
    I hope you are not anyone I might do business with, if you have the cavalier attitude of the dead club to notions of decency and honour and sportsmanship.


  3. john clarke says: (1389)
    November 24, 2013 at 1:12 am

    But if you are happy to endorse a lie and be personally associated with a dead club that in the act of dying stiffed its shareholders and debenture holders and a whole host of innocent creditors, it marks you out.
    —————————————————————————————————————
    Absolutely correct and very succinct .
    I cannot understand why anyone would want to be associated with such dishonour.


  4. bryce9a says: (7)
    November 24, 2013 at 12:32 am

    Your old club did indeed serve a just penalty, liquidation and death.
    I’ve no problem with you believing your club survived, despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise; you and your fellow fans have an emotional attachment, which you don’t want to let go. Emotions can make even normally sensible folk see things differently.
    Personally, I’m one of those boring types who only deals in facts and there is no doubt in my mind that the Rangers FC founded in 1872 or 1873 no longer exist. And before you ask, no I’m not a Celtic fan!
    When your new club was founded, the governing bodies didn’t ‘come through’, they just kept quiet, which they still continue to do! They treated you as a new club by having you start from the first round of both national cup competitions and had to scramble to find you a ‘conditional’ membership so you could play your first game………..in the Ramsdens Cup.
    Funnily enough, I don’t remember any of these things happening the ‘last’ time your club ‘merely changed companies’. How come, when MIH sold up to Wavetower, you didn’t require a transfer of membership, nor start again in the bottom division?


  5. Resin_lab_dog – I want Rangers run professionally and responsibly, and fairly by the governing bodies. It’s as simple as that. The thought that the likes of Stockbridge are still there, & spivs and crooks might be lurking in the background, is quite sickening.

    tomtom says:
    November 24, 2013 at 1:07 am
    1. Where do you stand on the punishment handed out to clubs that are thrown out of competitions for failing to correctly sign documentation?

    2. Is the “punishment” handed out to RFC proportionate to the crime?
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Depends on the example, but cases like Spartans recently being binned from the scots cup for one signature missing is far too harsh.

    Yes I think the punishment of, effectively, demotion to the 4th tier (which, from my point of view of Rangers surviving, it is – aware others will disagree!) has been proportionate. Ultimately we have no-one to blame but ourselves (though obviously only a few individuals hold direct responsibility) for a massive, colossal **** up and I think the eventual consequences were appropriate – and that includes the club (in the official RFC1872 sense) being saved from obliteration.

    I think points penalties for administration/cvas are far too lenient and should carry a relegation of at least two tiers.

    I gather Hearts CVA will see almost 200 unsecured creditors get absolutely nothing in recompense, yet they will get nothing but a slap on the wrists in comparison? Not right.


  6. john clarke says:
    November 24, 2013 at 1:12 am
    “And therein lies the corruption….
    ….if you are happy to endorse a lie and be personally associated with a dead club that in the act of dying stiffed its shareholders and debenture holders and a whole host of innocent creditors, it marks you out.
    I hope you are not anyone I might do business with, if you have the cavalier attitude of the dead club to notions of decency and honour and sportsmanship.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    No football club “died” in my opinion, an opinion endorsed by more than enough (indeed more than expected, as things have turned out) official/independant authorities to leave me satisfied I’m not believing a “lie” – quite the contrary.

    With regards whether I am happy to be “personally associated” with Rangers considering the damaging fallout of the insolvency, my answer is an emphatic yes – I remain tremendously proud to follow Rangers Football Club. This is on the basis of understanding that all mistakes and misbehaviours made in the name my club have been the responsibilty of individuals, many of whom I would certainly NOT be happy to be “personally associated” with. But Rangers itself has a firm grip on my heart and no amount of spivs or other variety of cretin misbehaving in it’s name will sever that emotional tie – most football fans would understand that, I’d hazard a guess.


  7. Bryce9a

    I gather Hearts CVA will see almost 200 unsecured creditors get absolutely nothing in recompense, yet they will get nothing but a slap on the wrists in comparison? Not right

    ******

    And therein lies the whole unwinding of your argument to be an undead club

    Hearts are not dead – very sick – but not yet dead. Its called administration. Something Dundee, Motherwell, Dunfermline, Livingston all have encountered.

    To accurately make the “comparison” you want to make – think Gretna. They went into liquidation, And are no longer in the league. Think Airdrie – they also liquidated because of David Murray primarily by coincidence! They had to reform and then take over Clydebank to remain in the league.

    Hence the reason Charles was so eager for the CVA to succeed and avoid liquidation – as did the RFC fans with their “Red Card to Liquidation” protest as they knew what it meant. Or what it meant at that stage!

    Now compare your status with theirs – that is more accurate! And you will see there was help indeed from the SFA/SFL – otherwise you would also be like Gretna.


  8. Please folks do not feed the latest troll. The nature of the argument is just a rehashing of the MH PR. It is designed to force you to engage and if possible bring out the worst in us so you won’t be talking about other things.

    Please ignore to save me a morning of post-removal when I get up.


  9. arabest1 says: (406)
    November 23, 2013 at 10:43 pm
    15 0 Rate This
    ————

    I’ve heard Gordon Smith twice this week. And if I didn’t know better, I’d say he’s part of an organized PR drive. He insists that it’s the same club, and that the SFA and UEFA ‘have said so’, with only the old company going out of business. Gordon is certainly doing his bit. Could he be working for MH now?

    He’s repeating a very well-rehearsed line. Not unlike our polite visitor Bryce9a. Fact is, a cabal of pro-Blue people in positions of influence are abusing those positions to gloss over a huge sporting injustice and establish a myth. It’s a slippery slope they’re on, since this issue is now much bigger than Sevco Scotland (possibly Sevco 5088). The current club is an irrelevance in football terms — its special treatment is not.

    Off the Ball was surprisingly tepid. Though I can’t say I blame Stuart or Tam. They must be getting some harsh feedback from certain fans, particularly Stuart. And as mentioned the BBC may have asked them to cool it.


  10. Once upon a time there were three billy goats, who were to go up to the hillside to make themselves fat, and the name of all three was “Gruff.”
    On the way up was a bridge over a cascading stream they had to cross; and under the bridge lived a great ugly troll , with eyes as big as saucers, and a nose as long as a poker.
    So first of all came the youngest Billy Goat Gruff to cross the bridge.
    “Trip, trap, trip, trap! ” went the bridge.
    “Who’s that tripping over my bridge?” roared the troll .
    “Oh, it is only I, the tiniest Billy Goat Gruff , and I’m going up to the hillside to make myself fat,” said the billy goat, with such a small voice.
    “Now, I’m coming to gobble you up,” said the troll.
    “Oh, no! pray don’t take me. I’m too little, that I am,” said the billy goat. “Wait a bit till the second Billy Goat Gruff comes. He’s much bigger.”
    “Well, be off with you,” said the troll.
    A little while after came the second Billy Goat Gruff to cross the bridge.
    Trip, trap, trip, trap, trip, trap, went the bridge.
    “Who’s that tripping over my bridge?” roared the troll.
    “Oh, it’s the second Billy Goat Gruff , and I’m going up to the hillside to make myself fat,” said the billy goat, who hadn’t such a small voice.
    “Now I’m coming to gobble you up,” said the troll.
    “Oh, no! Don’t take me. Wait a little till the big Billy Goat Gruff comes. He’s much bigger.”
    “Very well! Be off with you,” said the troll.
    But just then up came the big Billy Goat Gruff .
    Trip, trap, trip, trap, trip, trap! went the bridge, for the billy goat was so heavy that the bridge creaked and groaned under him.
    “Who’s that tramping over my bridge?” roared the troll.
    “It’s I! The big Billy Goat Gruff ,” said the billy goat, who had an ugly hoarse voice of his own.
    “Now I ‘m coming to gobble you up,” roared the troll.

    Well, come along! I’ve got two spears,
    And I’ll poke your eyeballs out at your ears;
    I’ve got besides two curling-stones,
    And I’ll crush you to bits, body and bones.

    That was what the big billy goat said. And then he flew at the troll, and poked his eyes out with his horns, and crushed him to bits, body and bones, and tossed him out into the cascade, and after that he went up to the hillside. There the billy goats got so fat they were scarcely able to walk home again. And if the fat hasn’t fallen off them, why, they’re still fat; and so,

    Snip, snap, snout.
    This tale’s told out.


  11. Exiled Celt says: (812)
    November 23, 2013 at 10:57 pm
    36 0 Rate This

    Serious question – if you are a business owner and are approached by a football club to do business with them, how much likely are you to proceed given the fact that according to the authority governing them, they can walk away easily without any concern?

    Can the SFA not see the damage they are doing not only to the football community but also to the business community that is engaged in business with them. Many of these businessmen have not got any interest in football never mind particular teams – so why would anyone for example, be eager to put in any bids to do the construction work at Celtic that is being currently proposed for the new ticket offices/museum etc. Unless its cash up front or I can get some water tight security, why do the work only to find out at the end that the entity I am dealing with can change and to use Neil Doncaster’s words, “shed debt” in this manner?

    What message are they giving to the Scottish business community? Thanks for your money and interest, but no guarantee we can fulfill our side of the bargain/contract?

    No wonder we have no one willing to sponsor or invest in anything the SFA/SPFL is involved in – because they are saying its ok to shaft business partners!
    ……………………….. Totally agree exile made the point a long time ago when I heard a ssb panelist/ journalist state this would be a good idea for Kilmarnock to follow the same route as the old rangers club,this was before hearts hit the skids and he could see no problem with this. Every club who have had a good relationship with their bank would be horrified as the appropriate decision for the banks due to these wreckless actions would be to call it all in now.scottish football authorities haste to support suicidal business ethics and corrupt corporate governance could easily lead to this.


  12. They’re still at the denial stage and don’t do irony

    [regarding Celtic]

    . . .” Secondly, in broad terms they are dying every bit as much as the game as a whole. Although many Bears see the Sectarianism Legislation as directly only at them, it reflects a wider belief in Scotland that the day of Old Firm bigotry is past. Teams may be multicultural but the fans you are obliged to step past, usually pished and almost always giving it something from some idealised Irish folk history song book certainly are not”. . .

    [Celtic may be “dying”, but Rangers are ALREADY DEAD]


  13. The Rangers are a team shoehorned into the league. They have one trophy and are losing 38,000 pounds a day. the money will run out soon and they will be claim to be new club to get a lesser penalty than the one due to aclub with a second insolvency. I am impatient to see them die again.


  14. I’m reading on here and on other forums that yet another person, this time Gordon Smith, has been handed a platform by the national broadcaster to peddle a very one sided view of the new club / same club debate. Surely the publicly funded national broadcaster has a duty to allow an informed alternative view, of which there are many out there?

    We have to ask are the BBC now showing clear bias on this subject. It is too easy to scoff at this notion but anyone who has paid any attention to the words of the respected Archie McPherson will know that the theory of pro-Rangers, and also anti-Celtic bias in the BBC is not so far fetched, and not really that long ago either. Even lone voices like Graham Spiers who don’t buy into the same club theory, immediately qualify it with ‘technically’ and ask what it matters in any case. Do the BBC want to be seen as a truly impartial broadcaster, funded by us all and allowing every view, or are they a Pravda type organisation when it comes to matters down Ibrox way?


  15. uthps @ 7:57

    Consider the possibility that this particular issue is all but closed as far as the wider world is concerned.

    Consider the possibility that when Stuart Cosgrove seems to withdraw from the frontline and reluctantly accepts the situation for what it is, that this is a relevant indication as to the state of play within the more straight talking and fearless end of the fourth estate.

    Consider that Graham Spiers is an overly verbose windbag who sits on the fence for a living and wouldn’t know what real journalism was even if he got up off his bahooky and actually attemped to dig. The fact he is granted some perceived status within the SMSM is only indicative of it’s level.

    Consider that on a serious platform (AGM), the CEO of Celtic wouldn’t give a serious answer to the question.

    Consider that the time and words typed on the issue may be more constructively used on something else.

    Link is unrelated (or is it ?)
    It may be interesting for some given replies to some of my earlier posts.
    http://daily.represent.us/matt-damon-blows-your-mind/


  16. GJ,

    On this side of the fence we attach a lot more attention to the OC/NC debate because we believe in justice, fairness and the application of the rules. You may think that the argument for/against it to be tedious and not worthy of our time and words. We think that it is standing up against corrupt practices and favouritism. That the SFA have created an almighty mess out of all this is in no doubt but the call to just “put it all behind us and get on with the game” is the worst possible scenario. Too much information about the shabby deals that were done is now in the public domain for this to go away – no matter how much you may want it to.

    This is a war of attrition and there can only be one winner – an armistice is not the solution. When RFC are placed into admin again (as they will be in order for the spivs to complete their game plan) there will be no hiding behind the company/club argument. What will be the defining moment will be if the SFA deem it to be the first admin thereby denying the club it’s history or will they see it as a second admin and deal with it in that vein.

    Until then we shall continue to press our case. We also don’t do walking away.


  17. Matteo Galy says: (31)
    November 24, 2013 at 1:29 am
    .
    Funnily enough, I don’t remember any of these things happening the ‘last’ time your club ‘merely changed companies’. How come, when MIH sold up to Wavetower, you didn’t require a transfer of membership, nor start again in the bottom division?
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    May have missed it but can’t remember seeing the ‘new company = old club or new club’ point being put so simply. Well said.


  18. wottpi says: (1282)
    November 24, 2013 at 9:07 am

    Matteo Galy says: (31)
    November 24, 2013 at 1:29 am
    .
    Funnily enough, I don’t remember any of these things happening the ‘last’ time your club ‘merely changed companies’. How come, when MIH sold up to Wavetower, you didn’t require a transfer of membership, nor start again in the bottom division?
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    May have missed it but can’t remember seeing the ‘new company = old club or new club’ point being put so simply. Well said.
    ===========================================
    Morning all.
    I’ve used this arguement many times.To say Rangers Football Club(IL) did not have a holding company is incorrect.
    That holding company was not,however,the”Legal Entity” of RFC but The Rangers Football Club Group Ltd,formerly known as Wavetower,who funnily enough,despite attempts to close them down,are still alive,if not exactly kicking.


  19. upthehoops says: (669)
    November 24, 2013 at 7:57 am
    “I’m reading on here and on other forums that yet another person, this time Gordon Smith, has been handed a platform by the national broadcaster to peddle a very one sided view of the new club / same club debate. Surely the publicly funded national broadcaster has a duty to allow an informed alternative view, of which there are many out there?

    We have to ask are the BBC now showing clear bias on this subject. It is too easy to scoff at this notion but anyone who has paid any attention to the words of the respected Archie McPherson will know that the theory of pro-Rangers, and also anti-Celtic bias in the BBC is not so far fetched, and not really that long ago either. Even lone voices like Graham Spiers who don’t buy into the same club theory, immediately qualify it with ‘technically’ and ask what it matters in any case. Do the BBC want to be seen as a truly impartial broadcaster, funded by us all and allowing every view, or are they a Pravda type organisation when it comes to matters down Ibrox way?”

    What you perceive to be bias, I would interpret as the BBC applying the decisions of their top tier Editorial Standards Committee, the “final arbiter of editorial appeals” which concluded the following (quoted directly):

    – “there was no reason to treat the football club itself as “new” simply
    because the assets that make up the club had been transferred from one company
    to another”
    – “the BBC had not used clear, precise language and due accuracy had not been
    achieved
    where the distinction between an “old” and “new” Rangers had been
    made in output referring to, and related to, football and the club as opposed to
    the “old” and “new” company. ”
    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf

    What I have seen here referred to as a “myth”, the BBC’s top tier of editorial appeals has ruled is accurate, and to stating otherwise have resulted in “due accuracy” not being achieved.

    Considering this judgement from the editorial standards committee, is it not understandable, on that basis, that the BBC is becoming uniform in its acceptance that Rangers FC – the “club” as they call it – has survived?

    That is distinct of course from “owning companies and the corporate transactions involved in the sale of the club” (another direct quote).

    Finally, I find it a little odd that having entered into a discussion representing one perspective that I’m being accused of being a “troll”. I came here with the assumption this site was a forum for discussion on these topics, rather than just an echo chamber. Should I proceed on that basis?


  20. Campbell Ogilvie…….a man of few words, and when he does speak he demonstrates why he is completely unfit to hold the position he does.

    As McCoist made statements on demanding to have the SFA reveal the members of an independent panel, which lead to threats by Rangers supporters and members of the panel receiving Police guidance over their safety, Ogilvie said nothing.

    As Green uttered racist comments, accused SPL clubs of deliberately damaging Rangers, of leading a boycott against Dundee United, Ogilvie again said nothing.

    When Green stood and clapped Rangers supporters who were chanting abuse about the SFA , Ogilvie said nothing.

    Most shamefully of all when Rangers accused clubs of bigotry for denying Rangers an SPL place. Ogilvie said nothing. Celtics response to Rangers bigotry claims , wasn’t to play to the gallery by running to the SFA with an official complaint, it was to state simply that the comments were not worthy of a response

    Compare and contrast with Ogilvie’s rush to comment on an innocuous remark from Peter Lawell. Ogilvie isn’t the honest broker we need at the head of a national association, he doesn’t even have the appearance of neutrality


  21. Tomtom @ 9:01

    I look around the UK, Europe and beyond and see many what may be considered as one-sided ‘wars of attrition’, the majority of which will not be won. In many of these cases it is justice, fairness/application of rules/laws etc. that is missing.

    When each individual ‘struggle’ is isolated then they are so much easier to combat, ignore or deflect. You can continue to write about OC/NC on here, on other social media platforms or talk about it in the pub but in your heart of hearts do you think it will achieve what you want ? Your own clubs won’t even stand with you on it.

    What I touched on yesterday was an alternative approach of fighting against perceived injustice and the like.

    There is much common ground in amongst many of the ‘struggles’ out there.
    Together, there is a chance to change or alter the over-riding corporate/political culture that seems to produce injustice, on a conveyor belt.

    The governing bodies and clubs* in Scottish football are comfortable within the present corporate/political culture (aslong as money continues to flow) and use it to their advantage. The relationship with the fans/clients has changed in modern society as has the way of interaction between parties.

    Spin-management and perception are everything.

    * Smaller ‘community clubs’ can be considered somewhat differently.


  22. “On the Old Club vs New Club (OCNC) debate, the SFA’s silence has been arguably the most damaging factor with respect to the future of the game”.
    _________________________________________________________

    I am astonished to learn that the SFA have been silent on this issue.

    Why, only yesterday on BBC Radio Scotland, ex SFA employee Gordon Smith said forcefully that the SFA has confirmed Rangers are the same club and not a new club, with not a protest from even Stuart Cosgrove.

    This must settle the matter.

    Surely?


  23. davythelotion says:

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

    What was once known as “biscuit tin mentality” to deride Celtic and the club’s attitude / status is now described as good corporate governance or living within your means.

    The “for every fiver they spend …” mentality is now seen as being willing to spend money you don’t have in order to buy success. Just the attitude the FFP rules were brought in to combat.

    How things have changed.


  24. I wonder what the founder of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland would make of so many of it’s putative modern day followers so eagerly embracing the doctrine of transubstantiation? 😉


  25. I’ve not got a lot of time for Gordon Smith. He’s been the Chief Executive of the SFA where his most notable achievements were the appointment of Craig Levein as Scotland Manager and an attempt to move the Scottish Cup Final to help out Rangers FC (IL). He then had a spell at Rangers FC (IL) during the Craig Whyte era where, as far as I am aware, he didn’t do much other than give a good impression of the three wise monkeys, even publicly supporting Mister Whyte after the club entered administration. As a result of a having a business degree he is often touted by the MSM as having a sound business brain but this did not stop him being declared bankrupt earlier this year. Having such a mediocre track record in football and business why is anyone interested in his views on anything?


  26. Davy @ 10:24
    I wonder what the founder of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland would make of so many of it’s putative modern day followers so eagerly embracing the doctrine of transubstantiation?
    ———————————————-

    Generally speaking, the ‘Divide and Rule’ tactic has been very effective over the centuries and has been used in so many different guises/levels.

    It’s on-going popularity reflects the success it has had and the narrowness of the regular human mind.


  27. It must be mighty frustrating for those trying to perpetuate misinformation and downright lies that in the age of the internet it’s near impossible to do so. Had the RFC (IL) abomination happened 15 years ago then they would probably have got away with it with the few shouting for the truth from the side lines being branded paranoid.

    Oh for the auld days Jack ! (Sighs)

    There is no doubt that Cosgrove and Cowan were told to go easy on Smith yesterday but Stuart did find a way to go under the radar to put the boot in. His comment about some companies having to genuinely use the administration / liquidation process to wind up a business while other companies use it to run away from debtors and start up as the “same” business the next week was lost on Smith who actually agreed to this being a bad practice. A few weeks ago Cosgrove or Cowan would have followed up with “Is that not what Rangers did ?” Not now however as it appears that even the marginal presenters at the BBC have been silenced.

    It’s up to us “Internet Bampots” to keep telling it like it is.


  28. Paulmac2 says:

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

    Anyone who wants to claim Rangers as being the same club has to address the basic point about Rangers starting in the early stages of both domestic competitions in their first season.

    Words are one thing, however that is how the SFA and the League actually treated them, as a new club.

    People on the “old club” side claim that the SFA have said Rangers are the same club, then they must explain why the SFA did not treat them as such. The argument falls down until that is explained in a satisfactory manner.


  29. Greenock Jack says: (178)
    November 24, 2013 at 10:01 am
    =============================
    Thank you for your measured response.

    I agree that in many “wars of attrition” a form of stalemate can be the outcome and the two warring parties can agree to disagree and move on with their lives. They generally do so by keeping each other at arms length thus preventing another outbreak of hostilities.

    Unfortunately one of the warring parties here will not rest until they are again locked in combat (apologies for the surfeit of military metaphors here) in the fight for the title. The OC/NC debate is not one that can be put to the side, it has to reach a conclusion. You may have the upper hand in the emotional argument. We tend to look at it from the legal standpoint. As long as RFC are seen (by us) to be unpunished for their sins then a satisfactory outcome is unlikely. If one club can be thrown out of a competition for omitting a signature yet another can be virtually absolved of any wrongdoing when they are in flagrant breach of the regulations (the 5 guilty verdicts in the FTTT) then there is no hope for reconciliation.

    Losing the honours won during the “tax years” would go a long, long way to solving this dilemma, and may indeed be sufficient for enough of us to consider your club as a continuation. Would you consider this a price worth paying in order to end the war?


  30. Barcabhoy says: (290)

    November 24, 2013 at 9:33 am

    Excellent points. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    There is evidence he started Rangers on the ebt road using what is now the wee tax case as the vehicle.

    It is possible that the one he launched was done as the scheme intended, there is not enough evidence to say that it was not – although questions would unveil the truth if they were asked.

    However within 11 months of that first foray the scheme was definitley used invalidly – hence the wtc and we are expected to believe that the man who was present at and minuted the decision to embark on the ebt road, was unaware how his colleagues in the same building were implementing the tax strategy as part of employee remuneration? He treats us like fools.

    Now he has stuck his head above his trench then questions become the right of reply.

    The answers may already be known but too frightening to seek.

    I hear the reason he got elected was no one was prepared to take the post, again probably from fear of what needs to be done.


  31. Reilly1926 says: (182)
    November 24, 2013 at 10:47 am
    &&&&&&&
    Maybe they’ve been told not to speak Ill of the dead? No doubt jack has put the squeeze on media outputs and their staff in order to promote the ‘nothing happened’ message. Also silent running on the AGM. Anyone would think they were hiding something!


  32. Can I suggest that Bryce should perhaps be able to contribute without immediately being labelled a troll simply because he’s explaining his views from “the other side”?

    Certainly, shoot down his claims with hard evidence if it’s available, but be prepared for him to come back with evidence of his own.

    Bryce is apparently a genuine Rangers supporter with a degree of patience. He’s obviously able to contribute intelligently to the discussion here in a way few have before. Please don’t hound him out of town because of the colour of his scarf or because he contradicts your long-held and previously unchallenged opinions.


  33. Paulmac2 says: (796)

    November 24, 2013 at 10:43 am

    If King Billy himself told Bryce to accept it was a new club he would argue the case. The debate has been going on for months on Twitter as each of the arguments presented were twisted and turned.

    As a result I have decided RIFC are neither an old or new club but are a Cury Wurly.


  34. Barcabhoy says: (290)
    November 24, 2013 at 9:33 am

    All very true, and it was just as true, when all the clubs, including the one we support, voted to re-elect him. We can bitch and complain about Mr Ogilvy, even though he is only a symptom not the disease, but until our clubs decide there has to be change, we are just pissing against a gale of indifference.


  35. Regarding the holding company argument.

    I could have genuine sympathy if a football club had to go into liquidation due to the holding company getting into serious financial difficulties outwith football and having to withdraw support as a result.

    This simply didn’t happen with RFC(IL). As far as I’m aware their entire debt was racked up by the football club. When RFC(IL) plunged into the liquidation process did any of Craig Whyte’s other business’ go at the same time ? I don’t think they did you know.

    As previously stated I think there probably is an argument for a club to claim a separate identity, morally if not legally, but in the case of RFC(IL) they don’t have a leg to stand on. Their business died because of the business of the football club – nothing else.


  36. Angus1983 says: (1248)
    November 24, 2013 at 11:03 am
    Certainly, shoot down his claims with hard evidence if it’s available, but be prepared for him to come back with evidence of his own
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————–
    I’m all ears if he has any evidence, but so far all he has come up with are opinions.
    The ‘hard evidence’ is certainly available, but like most TRFC fans, his emotions won’t allow him to accept any of it.
    If RFC and TRFC are the same club, then why did the new ‘company’ have to apply to start at the bottom of the SFL and at the 1st round of both national cup competitions?
    Why, if it was merely a change in ownership, did Wavetower not require a transfer of SFA membership to take over from MIH?
    As far as I’m aware, DAFC’s SFA membership didn’t transfer over either when they changed owners, nor did any other club previously. So what’s different here?
    Like I said, I’m all ears!


  37. Glenn Gibbons from just over four years ago. I wonder if the sycophants that Glenn talks of had done their job then RFC wouldn’t have been allowed to self implode. Once bitten twice shy does not seem to be in their vocabulary either as they now seem to see the way ahead is through another sugar daddy. They really have to take a lot of the blame for their beloved Rangers going to the wall.

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/nov/01/rangers-david-murray-administration-lloyds


  38. Reilly1926 says: (183)

    November 24, 2013 at 11:17 am

    The holding company argument is a lie, a device invented to give a myth credence.

    There never was as far as I know a constitution to support it . Who were the club and who was the holding company? Rangers and MIH?

    Well MIH, whilst in a perilous state, has not gone into liquidation. So who or what was liquidated?

    There may be a holding company club relationship now and RIFC may be constituted as such, but where is the evidence of a similar constitution at Rangers before HMRC pulled the plug and who did they pull the plug on?

    If that previous constitution can be produced and it demonstrated that the holding company entered administration then liquidation there might be a point to even having the debate.

    Quite why anyone would want to hold on to the same club and same history myth is beyond me. Decency would suggest it be shaken away like sand off sandals.


  39. scapaflow says: (1153)

    November 24, 2013 at 11:15 am

    8

    0

    Rate This

    Quantcast

    Barcabhoy says: (290)
    November 24, 2013 at 9:33 am

    All very true, and it was just as true, when all the clubs, including the one we support, voted to re-elect him. We can bitch and complain about Mr Ogilvy, even though he is only a symptom not the disease, but until our clubs decide there has to be change, we are just pissing against a gale of indifference.
    =============================
    The story I am getting is no one would stand for the post.

    If you think about it and what needs to be done to clean up the mess, the cleaner is going to have to face lots of aggro. I can understand possible candidates saying no thanks, I want a life.

    Do not underestimate the personal fear factor when facing a mob.


  40. Reilly1926 says:

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

    At the time they went into liquidation the holding company which owned (85% of) Rangers was Wavetower (as was) which became The Rangers FC Group Limited (the “Company”).

    On Monday 6th June 2011 The Rangers FC Group Ltd made the following announcement

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

    The Rangers FC Group Limited
    Publication of Circular

    The Rangers FC Group Limited (the “Company”)

    (formerly named “Wavetower Limited”)

    Publication of circular

    Further to the announcement made on 13 May 2011, the Company announces that it
    has today published a circular to all shareholders of The Rangers Football Club
    P.L.C. (the “Club”) containing background information on the Company and other
    information in relation to the Company’s acquisition of 92,842,388 ordinary
    shares in the Club, representing approximately 85.3 per cent. of the Club’s
    issued share capital. A copy of the circular is available on the Club’s website
    at http://www.rangers.co.uk.

    A copy of the circular is available on the Club’s website at http://www.rangers.co.uk.

    Enquiries

    Ian McKerron
    Hay McKerron Associates
    0141 286 2633

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

    So as far as it’s holding company was concerned The Rangers Football Club
    P.L.C. and the club were different names for the same thing. However we already knew that.

    Craig Whyte, who owned the club when it went into liquidation considered that it was the club which was liquidated. Charles Green who was buying the assets specifically said that if the CVA failed and the club was liquidated then that was the end, 140 years of history over. Various other commentators, former players and others said the same thing.

    The “it’s the holding company being liquidated” myth was created retrospectively. Scottish football knew that when they made Rangers play in the early rounds of the cup competitions, as well as entering them in the lowest senior league in Scottish football at the time.


  41. Big Pink

    I share your fustration and disgust in equal measure.

    last year, the footballing companies were forced, very reluctantly into action, because enough customers banded together to seriously threaten their revenues, because revenue is the only thing these people care about, everything else doesn’t even make it on the list of priorities.

    If people want to see genuine change, then they only way of bringing that about is to directly threaten the companies revenues once again. Boycotting national team games won’t work, it’s the football companies bank balances that need to be squeezed, as they are the ones with the power to effect change, they just need to be properly incentivised.

    Until enough customers say “up with this we will not put, no more money and until you sort yourselves out”, we will simply get more of the same.


  42. Tomtom @ 10:50

    I look at my children and try to take a realistic, practical and wider view (see previous posts).

    Within the current relevant enviroment, the OC/NC debate that you speak of is over.
    As far as the fans are concerned it was never really a serious debate for either side, neither would give an inch and never will. It will continue on social media and be a subject of ongoing general ‘banter’ between fans.

    I see the ‘war’ as you put it, in a much wider context and think that not only are there more important issues out there but the only way to effect the machinary that produces so many injustices (whatever level of importantance you give them) is to collectivelly aim high.

    The main motive behind my views are the children and personally, I don’t like the world we are leaving them. At a time when division is ever more prevelent, we should encourage wider views. I understand the practical difficulties of this in Glasgow/football and realistically don’t expect a sudden change that sees Green and Blue join under a Red flag.

    Generally speaking, it’s not a matter of dropping an issue, it’s the picking up of a bigger one that encompasses the former and much else besides.


  43. Auldheid says: (1031)
    November 24, 2013 at 11:46 am

    Sorry, that argument won’t fly

    Then you should abstain, vote no, reopen nominations. Voting for this person, gives everything done under his presidency your stamp of approval.


  44. Greenock Jack says: (180)

    November 24, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Tomtom @ 10:50

    I look at my children and try to take a realistic, practical and wider view (see previous posts).

    Within the current, relevant enviroment the OC/NC debate that you speak of is over.
    As far as the fans are concerned it was never really a serious debate for either side, neither would give an inch and never will. It will continue on social media and be a subject of ongoing general banter between fans.

    I see the ‘war’ as you put it, in a much wider context and think that not only are there more important issues out there but the only way to effect the machinary that produces so many injustices (however important you consider them) is to collectivelly aim high.

    The main motive behind my views are the children and personally, I don’t like the world we are leaving them but at a time when division is ever more prevelent, we should encourage wider views. I understand the practical difficulties of this in Glasgow/football and realistically don’t expect a sudden change that sees Green and Blue join under a Red flag.

    Generally speaking, it’s not a matter of dropping an issue, it’s the picking up of a bigger one that encompasses the former and much else besides.

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

    A bit more eloquently put than the “Why can’t we put all this behind us” Derek Johnstone screech on SSB during the week. Same message though.


  45. GJ,

    Do I understand it then that the removal of honours is non negotiable


  46. Tomtom
    As far as I am concerned you can have them.

    My priorities ly elsewhere.


  47. Reilly1926 says: (184)
    November 24, 2013 at 11:58 am
    ‘….I see the ‘war’ as you put it, in a much wider context and think that not only are there more important issues out there but the only way to effect the machinary that produces so many injustices (however important you consider them) is to collectivelly aim high. ‘
    ———-
    Honeyed words indeed.

    A great wrong has been done by cynical, biased men.

    There can be no ‘higher aim’ than that of demanding that they be held to account for that wrong and required to redress the wrong before any ‘moving forward’ could be in the least meaningful.

    Allowing them not only to triumph in their wrongdoing but to trumpet it abroad is not an option for us, either as football supporters or as decent folk.

    If participants in a sport are rightly challenged and punished for cheating, how much more heavily sanctioned should be the very lawmakers of a sport?

    It is absurd to imagine that the SFA should be allowed to continue the distortion of reality and truth.
    We may not be able to prevent it, but we ought not let them forget in what deep loathing we hold them.
    Football has been tainted . The stain needs to be removed.


  48. Big Pink on November 23, 2013 at 9:30 am

    I respect your reasoning, BP, but I don’t share your conclusion or your pessimism. By refusing to find Peter Lawwell guilty of bringing the game into disrepute, Vincent Lunny has implicitly recognised the legitimacy of his observation, which the SFA have gone to any lengths to fudge. Lunny had no option.

    But a brief and simple statement finding that Lawwell had no case to answer would have demolished the SMSM’s “Rangers Lives On” campaign so once again it had to be fudged. Step forward the execrable jobsworth Ogilvie to bluster and obfuscate about “respect” and “rivalry” and totally hijack the import of Lunny’s finding. It was yet another squirrel and, sadly, some have allowed themselves to fall for it.


  49. john clarke says: (1390)

    November 24, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    Reilly1926 says: (184)
    November 24, 2013 at 11:58 am
    ‘….I see the ‘war’ as you put it, in a much wider context and think that not only are there more important issues out there but the only way to effect the machinary that produces so many injustices (however important you consider them) is to collectivelly aim high. ‘

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

    John I think you’ve given me “credit” for this when it should have gone to Greenock Jack.


  50. Silent Partner says: (11)
    November 24, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    So no vote, ergo no one is responsible, no one to blame?

    Bollocks

    Edit

    If the clubs were in anyway interested in change, then this was a golden opportunity. They could have drawn up a remit for for change, and opened up the job outside of Scotland.

    Instead, they accepted Mr Ogilvy, because, in reality, the clubs are perfectly happy with the cosy nature of the SFA, and are not interested in change, and devoutly wish the fans would simply shut the feck up, and pay their money at the turnstiles, and leave everything else to the grown ups.


  51. @scapaflow

    I’m not defending the outcome, it’s just that in the absence of an alternative option there was nothing to vote on. Celtic putting forward there own candidate was a non-starter for reasons I’m sure we can all agree on, and no amount of supportive comments could convince anyone else to put their name forward. Efforts were made.

    Frankly, I like the idea of him being in place when the UTT deliver their verdict. 😈


  52. Silent Partner says: (12)
    November 24, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    Part of me is looking forward to that particular GIRFUY moment too. But, the UTT result will change nothing in footballing terms, why do you think they are trying to end the OCNC debate in advance of it?

    As a taxpayer the UTT decision will resonate, in footballing terms its already an irrelevance.


  53. GJ,

    I don’t want them, they’re tarnished.

    However, your probably right to refocus your priorities elsewhere. Wondering about who’s wearing your cufflinks is pointless when your on a life support machine.


  54. JC @ 12:16
    Honeyed words indeed.

    A great wrong has been done by cynical, biased men.

    There can be no ‘higher aim’ than that of demanding that they be held to account for that wrong and required to redress the wrong before any ‘moving forward’ could be in the least meaningful.

    Allowing them not only to triumph in their wrongdoing but to trumpet it abroad is not an option for us, either as football supporters or as decent folk.

    If participants in a sport are rightly challenged and punished for cheating, how much more heavily sanctioned should be the very lawmakers of a sport?

    It is absurd to imagine that the SFA should be allowed to continue the distortion of reality and truth.
    We may not be able to prevent it, but we ought not let them forget in what deep loathing we hold them.
    Football has been tainted . The stain needs to be removed.
    —————————————————————————————————–

    I fail to see where this is going.

    No-one is meaningfully holding anyone to account.
    Not one of the clubs are interested in doing so.
    The same men are still in the senior positions.
    The media don’t want to know.
    The fans pay lip service to it then go along and pay their money.
    In whatever context you hold it, it will increasingly be portrayed as ‘whataboutery’.
    It will be diluted and lost in the corporate/mediatic ‘machinary’.

    My words are not ‘honeyed’, they put forward a very difficult but real journey in an attempt to change the over-riding system that has developed and makes the imposition of injustice and the subsequent lack of accountability so widespread in our society.

    Previously, I thought you should you should concentrate on the ‘local’, what you were involved in, what effected you. I still see that as valid if you have a realistic chance of success.

    But now I believe a more collective effort is required. The main problem is the driver that sets the tone from which others all the way down the food chain take their lead from. It is at the top, the corporate / political / mediatic function and interact in a way that needs to change.


  55. It seems no matter what comes out about their misdemeanours( rfcil sevco & the sfa) it’s ok because someone concocts an explanation/excuse/ ignorance of the rules etc etc blah blah blah 😥 still waiting on the nuclear moment 😉 and although I have lost heart many a time I still believe it will happen one day 😆 don’t know whose petted lip will be the biggest sooperdooper ‘ I love the board whoever they are’ ally or jim SSN white 😆 😆 😆


  56. tomtom says: (503)

    November 24, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    GJ,

    I don’t want them, they’re tarnished.

    However, your probably right to refocus your priorities elsewhere. Wondering about who’s wearing your cufflinks is pointless when your on a life support machine.
    ==================

    I sincerely hope (In a Hughie Green insincere kind of way) that the life support machine is a bit better than the last one ! :mrgreen:


  57. Reilly1926 says: (186)
    November 24, 2013 at 12:24 pm
    ‘…John I think you’ve given me “credit” for this when it should have gone to Greenock Jack..’
    ——–
    My deepest apologies, Reilly1926. After all this time I can still click on the wrong thing! Manual dexterity never was a strong point of mine- I’ve ripped many a billiard table cloth in my day! I’ll try to be more careful.


  58. If anyone has time on their hands, the twitter account @AnOrangeCount has just uploaded a whole bunch of documents to scribd at the following address:

    http://www.scribd.com/mobile/users/anorangecount1/uploads

    The link was an accompaniment to the following message:

    I’m going to leave you with this…my work is done and I’ve cashed in.

    Edit to add that this is a definite Charlotte account, the twitter timeline shows tweets that were posted by the charlottefakes3 and 4 accounts originally.


  59. scapaflow says: (1157)

    November 24, 2013 at 11:52 am

    Aye, and paint a target on your back that says Rory Bremner.

    It is not you would be carrying the target and I’m not sure I would be so brave either.

    It cannot be dismissed as a factor although we can disagree on its relevance.


  60. Auldheid says: (1031)
    November 24, 2013 at 11:42 am

    The holding company argument is a lie, a device invented to give a myth credence.

    There never was as far as I know a constitution to support it . Who were the club and who was the holding company? Rangers and MIH?

    Well MIH, whilst in a perilous state, has not gone into liquidation. So who or what was liquidated?

    … If that previous constitution can be produced and it demonstrated that the holding company entered administration then liquidation there might be a point to even having the debate.
    ————

    Well said Auldheid. This mantra-like insistence that it was the company that was liquidated defies logic.
    I believe Gordon Smith was challenged by a caller to SSB this week on this very point. He had no answer.


  61. Greenock Jack says: (182)
    November 24, 2013 at 12:57 pm
    ‘…..No-one is meaningfully holding anyone to account..’
    —–
    Perhaps that may be so at the moment.
    The wicked men are deeply entrenched , and are in control of the ‘mass media’.
    That makes it an uneven fight, certainly.
    But there are those of us who refuse to give up in the pursuit of truth.
    We are psychologically winning because we are forcing them continually to lie and pretend to themselves that they are not lying. Each baddy knows that the others are as intrinsically untrustworthy persons as he.
    Only deeply flawed people can live with that for extended periods of time.
    They huddle together, as it were, drawing comfort from each other’s complicity, knowing of each other’s guilt, and that the time will come when hanging together will not prevent them being hanged separately!
    And their wives/children, unless similarly unprincipled, will not feel too good about their behaviour.
    We will continue to insist that they are deceitful abusers of office.


  62. thats a lot of documents been dumped on the net

    i missed this one previously

    ———-From:
    hay141@btinternet.com
    Date: 3 December 2011 07:26To: Craig Whyte Hi Craig,Tom English had said he’ll have a pop at Paul Murray in his column tomorrow (sun).Scotsman used his comments on the back page with our responses ie. Irrelevantand of no consequence.Regards,Gordon HayS


  63. I agree Angus, this was the reason I held off with some of my counter arguments, let’s see what he has to offer was my view. We need more contrasting opinions to keep the blog healthy and on track.

    In saying that, there isn’t a single Rangers fan that I personally know who is not aware of this site. Some have the same view as this guy and some the opposite; others have nothing to say on the subject when we have a discussion. All of them have opinions and are given the same respect with arguments having to be based not just on logic and fact but also on emotion and pride as they are important factors when talking about a club you have followed all your life.

    None of them want to take part on this site because for various reasons but some of them do read it as it forms a big part of the discussion when they get together.

    So to my point….. When a new poster appears with reasoned argument and intelligent (even if opposite) points to make, there are many factors that come into play before deciding if they can bring something to the table. For instance:

    1. Writing style, is it very similar to a previous poster who is no longer around?
    2. Location matching one where a previous troll used to post from.
    3. Going over old ground that has been done to death without actually bringing anything new to the table?
    4. Using terminology like “demoted”, “relegated” or “punishment” when they are clearly smart enough to understand the true definition of these words.

    I actually don’t like any sort of labelling. This is why I just ignore the posts of individuals where I feel they seem intelligent enough to have a good discussion but go out of the way to stifle that with an alternative opinion without logic, only an emotional opinion.

    There was one comment about cleansing and it only mentioned the spivs, to me that is the biggest problem and one that nobody claiming to have any intelligence can possibly believe. The problems at Ibrox did not start and will not finish with the spivs!


  64. Auldheid says: (1032)
    November 24, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    there’s no denying it’s a factor, but, where do you draw the line against mob rule?


  65. oldbhoy99 says: (16)
    November 24, 2013 at 1:35 pm
    5 0 Rate This

    If anyone has time on their hands, the twitter account @AnOrangeCount has just uploaded a whole bunch of documents to scribd at the following address:

    http://www.scribd.com/mobile/users/anorangecount1/uploads

    The link was an accompaniment to the following message:

    I’m going to leave you with this…my work is done and I’ve cashed in.

    Edit to add that this is a definite Charlotte account, the twitter timeline shows tweets that were posted by the charlottefakes3 and 4 accounts originally.

    . . .my work is done and I’ve cashed in !!!

    Maybe it has been chico verde all along – his work is done and he’s got his feet up in the chateau with a bottle of fine red and a a lamb roast in the oven – with some journalist friends round to partake of the gastro delights on offer. . .


  66. With respect to the new poster, I agree wholeheartedly that we should give everyone a chance to make their point. I am not convinced however that this particular poster is doing anything other than following a flow chart with set responses in the fashion of first tier technical support at a BT call centre.

    Everything goes along swimmingly until a customer’s response to a question is not contained in the flow chart. Invariably the call centre operative will hit the reset button and retort with, “Hi , I’m John! Welcome to BT! How can I help you today?”

    If you replace that with “it says in paragraph two and a half of the LNS report….” I think that’s our new troll. Maybe he is not a troll, but nothing is being added to the argument. He is providing a series of contradictions, which I am reliably informed by Michael Palin, is not a proper argument 🙂

    Much as I continue to disagree with Greenock Jack on much of what is discussed here, and a little less with Ryan G, there can be little doubt that they both provide food for thought and present off consensus arguments in a logical and plausible way. Even if they agree with the premise behind the MH PR, they do not merely regurgitate it. I think there is a big difference between that and our new friend.


  67. Scapaflow

    A good question and one Scottish society should be asking .and answering.


  68. Big Pink,

    If you are claiming im expressing “contradictions”, please go to the trouble of pointing them out as i wasn’t aware, if i was. That way i can try to answer and others can get some meat on the bones as to why I’m in the wrong. If i am.

    The points i made regarding the Editorial standards committee were based on direct quotes, so i presume you are not referring to that post. Do tell. Cheers.


  69. Greenock Jack says: (182)
    November 24, 2013 at 8:36 am
    ==================================
    In what context do the wider world consider the OC/NC debate closed? Closed simply because a particular side of the argument doesn’t suit the biggest demographic in Scotland, or closed because it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt Rangers now are the same as Rangers then? The real ‘wider world’ probably don’t give a toss and never have, but that doesn’t alter our right in Scotland to demand that rules and laws are properly adhered to.

    Perhaps a suitable comparison would be when Neil Lennon was assaulted at Tynecastle live on TV, witnessed by many thousands of people, then broadcast later to many millions of people via the news. A Jury was formed and incredibly the Jury returned a not proven verdict. The late Paul McBride later pointed out the Scottish legal system allowed for Juries to be formed where the Jurors are unable to read or write and be full of prejudices. I do not think it’s unfair to ask if Neil Lennon was unfortunate enough to have a prejudiced Jury deciding on his case. After all, it is beyond doubt he is detested by a large number of people in Scotland, and let’s face it many people were delighted with the verdict, no matter the blatant injustice of it. Likewise many people in Scotland seem delighted with the gerrymandered ‘verdict’ that Rangers now are the same as Rangers then, no matter the evidence to the contrary. Once again prejudices have won, no matter the evidence or legal facts available.


  70. Auldheid says: (1033)
    November 24, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    … and society should be asking it. However, it not as simple as that. I have spent around 30 years working in small p “public life” giving my time, like many thousands others to a variety of organisations, at different levels of what’s known as civic society. During that time I have come across people whose views on a range of issues were, frankly Neanderthal, but, only in football have I come across any manifestation of the mob rule tendency.

    In every other walk of life it is simply not tolerated, why is it tolerated in football? Cui Bono?


  71. I have consistently made it clear i have no emotional interest in new club/old club, however as it’s the subject matter of this article I will throw in my twopence worth

    For me , when Celtic next play Rangers then i will rejoice as normal if we win, and be as downcast as normal if we lose. So from that perspective it will feel like the same thing.

    Secondly, if Brian Dempsey had got has hands on Celtic , rather then Fergus, it could have all gone horribly wrong. Had that happened and had the club reformed, wearing the hoops, playing at Celtic Park and with the same supporters it would be Celtic to me.

    Had the Kelly’s and Whyte’s been guilty of deceiving the rest of Scottish football by deliberately withholding information and employed an illegal tax evasion scheme, them I would feel a sense of shame on behalf of my club, but it , to me, would still be my club.

    The emotional argument made by Rangers supporters has my sympathy and actually my support as well. The technical argument isn’t valid in my view, and if I was a bluenose I would just stop with this bought the history nonsense . Its just embarrassing.

    One technical argument that I don’t think has been made before relates to the preseason games planned for 2012/13. There was a tour of Germany planned, home and away games against Le Havre and a game against Southampton. Every one of these was cancelled by the opposition. I believe it wasn’t possible for these games to be played, because technically as a new club, no SFA membership had been issued at this time. The temporary membership issued just before the Brechin game allowed that to proceed, however no membership existed prior to that.

    Le Havre, Southampton and the German clubs would not have been allowed to play against a team without a membership of a national association.

    Anyway, in this particular circumstance emotional beats technical for me. What has kept this debate going is the lack of contrition by Rangers and their supporters and the lack of sanctions on David Murray for his role as architect of the cheating and tax evasion


  72. oldbhoy99 says: (16)
    November 24, 2013 at 1:35 pm
    6 0 Rate This

    If anyone has time on their hands, the twitter account @AnOrangeCount has just uploaded a whole bunch of documents to scribd at the following address:

    http://www.scribd.com/mobile/users/anorangecount1/uploads

    The link was an accompaniment to the following message:

    I’m going to leave you with this…my work is done and I’ve cashed in.

    Edit to add that this is a definite Charlotte account, the twitter timeline shows tweets that were posted by the charlottefakes3 and 4 accounts originally.
    ———-

    Thanks for the heads up on that.

    Intriguing tweet this:

    ————
    @AnOrangeCount
    What exactly would international arms dealers want from a football club?
    12:35pm – 23 Nov 13
    ————-

Comments are closed.