Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

By

Torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: May 4, 2014 at 8:44 am “It seems no-one from …

Comment on Podcast Episode 3 – David Low by Castofthousands.

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
May 4, 2014 at 8:44 am

“It seems no-one from the SFA or the former SPL will admit to using the word Armageddon two years ago,..”
—————————————————
I was listening to that Off the Ball episode and went hunting on RTC afterward to see if I could espy the crack of dawn on that expression. To my surprise I couldn’t find a comment after 2/11/2011. Now I know I was reading RTC during February 2012 (how could it be forgotten) so I’m not sure if my stupid alter ego is in play or if there is something amiss with the website. Any observations might help satisfy my curiosity.

http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com

Castofthousands Also Commented

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
burghbhoy says:
May 4, 2014 at 4:49 pm

“And, with a sprinkling of “sevcos”, it worked, as this post from a month ago proves… ”
——————————————-
I don’t think you’ve proved anything of the sort. If this is your burden of proof then I would be disdainful of any of your assertions.

Glancing at the comment it is intensely detailed and was probably given thumbs up for effort. The appearance of ‘Sevco’s’ likely made no difference at all to your comments reception. I nearly always refer to Rangers as Rangers unless a distinction needs to be made. Different posters have adopted different styles based on their perspective but I doubt very much that their input is graded purely on the moniker they apply to the Club that plays out of Ibrox. The thumbs are there for a guide. It’s the opinion that matters.

GoosyGoosy made a point above @ 8.40 pm concerning the value of Graham Wallace’ bonus and salary and whether this indicated his involvement with Rangers was disingenuous. What are your thoughts on this speculation?


Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
John Clark says:
May 4, 2014 at 1:56 am

“…and how the ethereal essence of a being is somehow solid enough to bear the weight of ‘trophies and history’ BUT not the weight of the debts and disgrace that caused it to die.”
————————————–
Perhaps it was the lateness of the hour but your frustration seemed to be blunted to indignation thus giving rise to that poetic piece of prose from which I have borrowed a snippet for illustration.

I sometimes think the Bard’s wistful way of phraseology owed much to the necessity of the situation rather than any ingrained genius, which only resulted as a consequence.


Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
burghbhoy says:
May 3, 2014 at 10:20 am

“I have the impudence to provide new, fact-based insight on a staple discussion of this forum and later that evening I have the site moderator instructing users to “not engage” with me tomorrow.”
————————————–
TSFM sometimes offers advice to posters but rarely censors unless unfortunate phrases like ‘Glib and shameless liar’ are employed. The moderation is reasonably sparse and when it does kick in it can be a bit blunt. Most posters have become comfortable with the regime and have learned the limitations.

I don’t think it was your ‘fact based insight’ that was being frowned upon but rather the further dissection of a topic that has had so many autopsies that a whole new thread (Bonkers OCNC debate) had to be constructed to accommodate its entrails. I think the debate did take place and some bone and gristle was chewed but I think the moderators have grown wary of topics that are either too esoteric or irreconcilable or both. What’s the point of having a debate that few understand and that is prone to turn into a bad tempered dispute.

There are lots of topics that could be challenged, that would be equally discomfitting for regular posters but that would be covering fairly new ground. There has been recent discussion about the next (some say first) Old Firm game and its ramifications. There is endless discussion about TRFCL’s financial predicament which could be engaged productively from other viewpoints. There must be dozens of topics an articulate, thoughtful Rangers fan could broach. They would inevitably attract a lot of curiosity and likely opposition. However I have no doubt that they could influence and develop the outlook of the blog. Just because people don’t instantly agree with well thought out and well presented arguments doesn’t mean that will always be the case. Often the opinions we encounter are speculative or may only have limited evidence to back them up. It takes a poster a bit of time to gain traction.

We can all be a bit curt sometimes (a few exceptions acknowledged) but generally the debate on TSFM is capable of returning to civility. I think if you approach the environment expecting trouble then that is what you are likely to get.


Recent Comments by Castofthousands

A Lie for a Lie
Auldheid 24th February 2020 at 20:27

"Did the terms of the 5 Way in effect provide a pardon to “Rangers” for the crimes against Scottish football if Sevco paid for it and in accepting the 5 Way Agreement by not questioning it, were Celtic a part of that pardon or did Celtic expect a just outcome from LNS…"

%%%%%%%%%%

This for me is the crux of the matter. A detailed OC/NC knowledge may illustrate to the sporting authorities that they haven't got away with it and better not try the same trick again but the average punter will struggle to grasp the nuance. The big picture is drawn with a crayon and not a stylus.

Title stripping would have sent a clear message but perhaps it risked opening up a spectrum of unknowns that may have proven difficult to marshal.

That title stripping could not be countenanced in certain quarters is unfortunate since surely this is only a game and should not be subject to intransigent boundaries; for that would make it politics or warfare.

Such intransigence tells of a deep underlying social psychology that I suspect all of us are blind to.

The 'take home' is that if you infringe the rules to the point that you overwhelm the available sanctions then you get no sanction at all, bar a disproportionately pitiful £250,000 fine. This is not a very good look.


A Lie for a Lie
easyJambo 21st February 2020 at 10:29

“If there was an easy way of searching the RTC archive I would do it.”

I naively mused a few days ago that with Rangers apparently in financial traction and Celtic in possession of a burgeoning war chest then perhaps the team from the East end of Glasgow might rescue their historic brand partners and thus ensure a brighter financial outlook. 

Of course such a manoeuvre would undermine all manner of sporting integrity principles and would infringe football regulations designed to avoid such potential conflicts of interest.

Might this explain Lord Haughey’s vociferous defence of his character since even though his financial intervention would not have provided an immediate conflict (especially with Sir Walter fronting this ‘mythical’ bid), it might have muddied the waters of this festering rivalry in a manner that threatened to take the edge off the competition.

It just goes to show that even the most astute legal advice that Whyte could engage was liable to be found wanting in at least one significant area.


A Lie for a Lie
easyJambo 17th February 2020 at 00:54

“I wish I had retained a copy of all the documents posted by Charlotte Fakes. I did keep a few that I thought might be important down the line, but it’s an incomplete record of events.”

I have a cache on the hard drive retained from my last computer but they aren’t immediately accessible. I recalled from memory (eventually) the Andrew Ellis/Chris Akers production strapline but the tweet in question said little more.

It would however appear that what you have lost on the swings you have gained on the roundabout since you have faithfully played out a thread through the labyrinthine perambulations of this saga which provides this blog and its affiliates with an indelible corporate memory of events.

My long absence from the blog leaves huge gaps in my knowledge that your response reveals. 

At the time Charlotte Fakeovers first emerged much conjecture was bandied concerning motives. I was going to ask you for a brief summary of CharlotteFakes motives but realised I should be doing my own research based on the information you have provided.

I stumbled across this document at the very threshold of my inquiries. I suspect it is not particularly significant but I haven’t sufficient knowledge to make that judgement. It may however be found interesting by you.

https://www.aidanearley.org/tortious-interference-report/


A Lie for a Lie
easyJambo 16th February 2020 at 20:57

"Yes, that’s taken from the book.  I wasn’t overly familiar with the pre takover wheeling and dealing."

————–

A formative Charlotte Fakeovers tweet credited Andrew Ellis and Chris Akers with orchestration of the Rangers shenanigans.


A Lie for a Lie
Thomson appears to be inviting speculation. 

His tweet of 9 February states "Today it is Keith, Tarves, Braemar, Perth and back to Glasgow."

He recently tweeted something about Aviemore.

I thought White's Grantown -on-Spey pile had been repossessed?

What might any of this have to do with Celtic??


About the author