Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

By

Funny that the Daily Ranger has a completely different take …

Comment on Podcast Episode 3 – David Low by tykebhoy.

Funny that the Daily Ranger has a completely different take on Miller’s departure from Vancouver than the Canadian press http://globalnews.ca/news/1309896/kenny-miller-whitecaps-part-company/ but worryingly he is speaking like Ally

To be honest with you, I wouldn’t rule anything out,” said Miller

here http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/04/kenny-miller-vancouver-whitecaps_n_5263885.html

I wonder if Kenny was truthful with his former employers and the Canadian press. If he wasn’t he will be well suited to the current regime down Govan way.

tykebhoy Also Commented

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
Iamacant shirley Ally is just following recent tradition down Govan way of spend, spend spend! 😉


Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
Brenda, they are but when as the small matter of factual position aka truth got in the way of the :slamb: running with a story likely to attract a few more gullible to part with hard earned for season books


Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
Cast, almost all of the RTC blogs were taken down on the day the FTTT result was announced. Some but far from all the blog posts and comments were returned later. Unless things have changed since I last looked that is still the case. Even “the wayback machine” of google archiving has very little of the extensive postings on RTC


Recent Comments by tykebhoy

Questions, questions, questions
Yes sorry John, the Athletic article is the one I was referring to and not one by the Atlantic


Questions, questions, questions
@nawlite, @johnclark . The Atlantic (behind a paywall) are apparently running a story that alleges the new Cinch contract absolves TRFC of requiring to comply with ANY SPFL sponsorship deal for the next 4 seasons. I’m not sure what effect that has on the deal with Betfred who sponsor the SPFL arranged Scottish League Cup or any replacement for BetFred when that contract expires. The chatter on Twitter is that one or two clubs did question the smallprint but the SPFL didn’t highlight it at the Board meeting that “signed off” the contract. Doncaster, an amateurishly trained lawyer, claims it isn’t Cinch’s intention to enforce the “Any” but if not why was it there and why didn’t Doncaster object to it.

For those arguing TRFC should not benefit from the sponsorships they refuse to comply with. The vast majority of the Cinch money along with the vast majority of the money from the appalling TV deal with Sky, also negotiated by Doncaster, is the prize money for the League positions or for Befred the Cup round reached. The SPFL could only feasibly withhold that with the full backing of the SFA and unless there is a plan B to the arbitration then it looks like the SPFL aren’t looking for SFA support. Note feasibly is doing heavy lifting there. It would almost certainly be subject to legal challenge from a Clumpany no stranger to litigation.


Questions, questions, questions
In other news RIFC seems to have dropped off the JP Jenkins share trading platform. I have no idea how the Jenkins business model works but it most likely is a periodic fee or commission basis.

On the fee front it would suggest RIFC aren’t paying for the service anymore and may have defaulted.

On the commission front it would suggest Jenkins can’t see any profitability. Last time I looked the last transactions were approaching 11 months ago and the shares have been so diluted since that the 19p value is out of touch with reality. Nobody is going to trade at that level even if the board can con(vince) diehard loanees to convert loans to new shares at 20-25p per new share.

Of course there could be another plausible explanation for no more trading of existing shares.


In the Service of Fools
The Glasgow Derby is still showing on the SFA website as 2nd January with 4 named officials. I understand but can’t confirm at least 1 name has changed. If changed and official appointments for other games in Feb are yet to be named then the only reasonable* explanation is that the original official(s) isn’t/aren’t available for non football reasons.

*Reasonable equates to totally above board. Something the SFA have a history of not being and although Farry fits I’m talking within the last 10 years


In the Service of Fools
While the judgement certainly suggests MA/SD were wanting to use Castore as a barometer for the Elite/Hummel damages, what if it was also a fishing expedition on Castore. What happens if the documentation on the “executed contract” proves to be highly inconsistent with the Castore terms SD were shown and declined to match.


About the author