Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

ByTrisidium

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

davidLowDavid Low

represents a highly significant component of the history of Celtic FC and consequently a highly significant component of how Scottish Football has panned out in the last 20 years.

As Fergus McCann’s Aide-de-Camp, Low was instrumental in helping him formulate and implement the plans which ultimately allowed control of the club to be wrested from the Kelly and White families. Low also helped McCann to rebuild and regenerate Celtic as a modern football club.

His views are unsurprisingly Celtic-centred, and this interview reveals his ambition for the club to ultimately leave Scottish Football behind. That may or may not be at odds with many of our readers, but the stark analysis of the realities facing football in this country may resonate.

Podcast LogoHe provides a window on the pragmatism of the likes of McCann, Celtic and many other clubs in respect of the demise of Rangers. He pours scorn on Dave King’s vision of a cash-rich Rangers future, and provides little comfort for those who seek succour for our failing national sport, believing that Scotland will find it impossible to emerge from the football backwater in an increasingly global industry.

Agree or not with Low’s prognosis, it is difficult to deny his compelling analysis of our place in the football world.

rss podcast feed   Subscribe to RSS Feed

iTunes podcast Feed  Subscribe to iTunes Feed

About the author

Trisidium administrator

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

3,066 Comments so far

AllyjamboPosted on10:21 am - Apr 17, 2014


ecobhoy says:
April 17, 2014 at 9:38 am

“I can’t help but wonder whether the BoS strategy wasn’t to actually finance Hearts to compete with Rangers and Celtic but to fund a pincer-movement where Hearts were capable of causing footballing problems for Celtic which would consequently benefit Rangers.”

Eco, I doubt very much that it was a BoS strategy, more likely a David Murray one, aided and abetted by his puppet (whoever he might have been 🙄 ) within BoS. I remember a well received post, either on here or RTC, suggesting BoS did similar to Hearts, as they did to Celtic, at Murray’s instigation, when they let them build up a large overdraft then told them it had to be reduced/repaid. Hearts had also been encouraged by the Daily Record’s holding company (can’t remember what they were called) with an investment and strange loan set up, who were looking for repayment at more or less the same time as the bank. At the same time Rangers were after David Weir and Paul Ritchie (for peanuts) and history shows they ended up at Ibrox via circuitous routes, with Hearts only getting those peanuts. It certainly appeared to be a similar situation to that which saw Celtic in dire straits before Fergus McCann came along. Sadly, we got Vlad. There will never be proof one way or the other, and it’s possibly/probably all mince, but in light of what we now know, would anyone say it’s not possible?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:32 am - Apr 17, 2014


Re Gary Locke,

Harsh though it would be there is going to be very little room for emotional attachment in Div 1 (none of yer championship p!sh) next year.

Re Neil Doncaster

Are you telling me that the four divisions are currently completely unsponsorable? That no brand looking for sporting attachment in Scotland (online bookies included since they sponsor the cup anyway) are willing to forward any sums whatsoever for exclusive weekly national coverage (with no risk of boycott, since its divisions wide anyway)? I’m actually getting to the stage of thinking he’s turning down offers to ‘maintain a tidy deck’ for a couple of years. Extreme? And don’t start me on his ^*£$_*£ inventory!

Eco,

My take from afar on the BoS Corporate Strategy role (as opposed to the unauthorised Masterton punt) was simply that they pursued a strategy of trying to corner that particular market (banking whole divisions at one time I believe) not realising that they were achieving it on the back of their competitors taking precisely the opposite view. Not really conspiratorial as such.

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on11:15 am - Apr 17, 2014


The key differences between Rangers and Hearts was all about HMRC and fans.
Both clubs spent money they didn’t own and the reaction of the Hearts fans is to their eternal credit, but crucially Vlad didn’t decide to try and avoid tax, while Murray’s actions extended to stiffing the tax man for all the wages he was paying with his ill gotten funds.
To make matters even worse, Hector only got wind of this because there was enough suspicion around Rangers transfer activities being illegal to merit a police raid.
Whyte continued this behaviour when the cash ran out by simply paying nobody. This alone guaranteed a CVA rejection, but wasn’t crucial as the wee tax case not being paid off had already forced Hector’s hand. Crucial difference number two. Bryan Jackson has done everything right and Hearts have suffered this year accordingly. No doubt Rangers fans believe Hearts have suffered enough, but Hearts fans are taking their medicine with honour. They are also still on tenterhooks about the CVA. It’s almost there, but Jackson and the fans are still cautious. Roll back to Ibrox two years ago and D and P are full on lying to everyone when they repeatedly reported that HMRC were willing to agree to their CVA. Whether they were in cahoots with Greenfrom the start (as all the evidence suggests) and possibly even Whyte as well is secondary. The cash existed to at least try to get Hector to let the club live, but it was splurged on players to try and get the fans to switch allegiance to the new club instead.
Hearts fans have kept their eyes on the real prize. Their club lives on. Rangers fans followed the hype and lost it all.
While on the subject, Hearts liquidation in the early 1900s. A new club was formed, but it paid off ALL the old club’s debts. That’s the price you have to pay to buy history and as far as I’m concerned that means Hearts have their history from the nineteenth century. The Rangers history will always start in 2012 unless they can come up with between 70 and 130 million quid.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on11:19 am - Apr 17, 2014


The main difference between the Hearts situation and that faced by RFC two years ago has been the quality and level of the information made public. With Hearts everything has been played out in public and all the players have been known. Every step along the way has been openly discussed. The administrator has been working within his remit to reach a suitable outcome with everything open to scrutiny as far as possible. Identity of investors have never been hidden and the fans and supporters have not been constantly fed mis information. This is the complete opposite of anything that happened over Ibrox way.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on12:11 pm - Apr 17, 2014


ptd1978 says:
April 17, 2014 at 11:15 am

12

0

Rate This
That’s the price you have to pay to buy history and as far as I’m concerned that means Hearts have their history from the nineteenth century. The Rangers history will always start in 2012 unless they can come up with between 70 and 130 million quid.

_______________________________________________________

You know this. I know this. TRFC fans in their heart of hearts know it. It is only the ‘having your cake and eating’ mentality of the Ibrox arrogant and the craven, cowardly and conflicted SFA, ably assisted by the partisan media with their ‘black is white’ mantra that allows the ‘same club’ myth to perpetuate.
Rangers has a history. The Rangers (formery sevco) has a History.
In between, there is a hiatus. Because the first club died. And a new one was formed which inherited its trading style.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on12:14 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Morning all.
Just a thought and probably rubbish.
I’ve read somewhere that if a club is still in administration after 3rd May then a points deduction will take place from the start of next season.If this is so then could we have a situation whereby Hearts,if not out of administration by said date start next season 15pts adrift alongside TRFC,who if they enter administration would also have a points deduction?.
(I accept the SFA/SPFL would bend/break every rule in the book to prevent this but if we play by the rules,then is this scenario a possibility)?.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:16 pm - Apr 17, 2014


@SCOTTC
I think, Jimbhoy, what he is trying to say is that instead of selling the proposition of certain matches being guaranteed to happen x times per annum (we all know how that worked out), instead they want to sell a set of grouped individual products (that would be teams to you and me) which would each have a unique set of itemised products (matches to us) to excite would-be sponsors. No? Yes? Possible? Gibberish?
=======================================================================
I have a holiday tomorrow heading into town, I will hit the counting house, have a few pints of the guest ales and read it again and I am sure it will make perfect shenshe!!!

It is hardly surprising they need to bring a new man into try and get some sponsor’s dosh. Job pre-requisite was to speak plain English.

Actually maybe he was talking about the rangers (and now hearts), if a sponsor comes in and says ok here’s a million a season to sponsor the SPFL, he may ask ok what about Rangers, what do they get?

OR If you read between the lines it actually makes more sense it would then read ” “

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on12:19 pm - Apr 17, 2014


cobhoy says:
April 17, 2014 at 9:20 am

15

1

Rate This

Resin_lab_dog says:
April 17, 2014 at 1:14 am
wottpi says:
April 17, 2014 at 12:59 am
_____________________________

Agreed. I think Wallace is TRFCs best shot of getting on a firm financial footing. Sustainable organic growth. And DK reflects the destructive influence of the past.
=============================================
I think it is far too simplistic to regard Wallace as ‘good’ and King as ‘evil’.

____________________________________________________

Not black and white/ good or evil.
My view is that with Wallace, I see a slim chance of recovering something worthwhile from the ashes, eventually.
Whereas with King, they are Royally screwed.
Not a choice I would relish!

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:21 pm - Apr 17, 2014


@RESIN_LD
You know this. I know this. TRFC fans in their heart of hearts know it. It is only the ‘having your cake and eating’ mentality of the Ibrox arrogant and the craven, cowardly and conflicted SFA, ably assisted by the partisan media with their ‘black is white’ mantra that allows the ‘same club’ myth to perpetuate.
Rangers has a history. The Rangers (formery sevco) has a History.
In between, there is a hiatus. Because the first club died. And a new one was formed which inherited its trading style.
=========================================================================
Green didn’t buy the history piece of sequestration, he bought up to administration only, it was cheaper apparently and certainly more convenient..

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on12:24 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Phil MacGiollaBhain ‏@Pmacgiollabhain 8m

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-ibrox-legacy/#more-4561

“The legacy issues that Graham Wallace inherited are not the kind you would like to leave to your children.”

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:31 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Had a peak at the union of fans site, some very colourful club badges on there…I didn’t go as far as to read their statement but saw this…

“Over 6100 fans and numerous RSCs have registered their support for using a trust set up by Dave King to hold season ticket money in line with his suggestions and until the board meet certain conditions.”

— As the UoF’s represent the below, I would think 6100 people signing up, some of whom may not be members represents a small minority of the fan groups’ members, a poor representation IMO. I wonder how many of the >6000 are not rangers fans… 😉

“The Union of Fans comprises the three official Rangers fan groups – The Rangers Supporters Assembly, The Rangers Supporters Trust and The Rangers Supporters Association – plus The Blue Order, Union Bears and Sons of Struth.”

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:33 pm - Apr 17, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)

I would think that if a club has been punished for admin and shows it is coming out that they would not receive further punishment unless they are a threat to rangers in said league of course. So could go either way I guess.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:39 pm - Apr 17, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: April 17, 2014 at 12:14 pm

Just a thought and probably rubbish.
I’ve read somewhere that if a club is still in administration after 3rd May then a points deduction will take place from the start of next season.If this is so then could we have a situation whereby Hearts,if not out of administration by said date start next season 15pts adrift alongside TRFC,who if they enter administration would also have a points deduction?.
(I accept the SFA/SPFL would bend/break every rule in the book to prevent this but if we play by the rules,then is this scenario a possibility)?.
================================
The key date for Hearts is the day before the new season starts. If we are still in administration then a 15 point penalty will apply again next season.

The key date for Rangers is 3rd May (or whenever is their last league game of the season). If they go into administration before that date then a points penalty will apply this season. If it is after that date then the penalty will apply next season.
If they go into administration before the end of this season and are still in administration on the first day of next season, then they will receive a points penalty both this season and next season.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:40 pm - Apr 17, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
April 17, 2014 at 12:24 pm

And with this the reality, the BBC are trumpeting Barry Ferguson’s dream (of becoming TRFC’s manager)!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27064849

Should point out, I haven’t read the article, merely the headline, which is the trumpet after all. I personally couldn’t give a toss about Barry Ferguson’s dream!

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:52 pm - Apr 17, 2014


@EASYJAMBO

I think it would probably be best for the Waldo driven rangers to spend 2 or 3 seasons in the championship, giving him time to clear the decks and look at other revenue options. If they go up next season in the shape they are in with the fan’s overly inflated and unrealistic expectancy, they will get pumped most weeks and sometimes hefty demoralising defeats, that would shurley turn the fans away more than losing a few championship games. Just ’til the boat is steady and the wage bill under control.
In the SPFL they would get a wee bit more telly money but nowt else but.
Can you imagine what the top 6 in the SPFL on a good day would do to that rangers team.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:07 pm - Apr 17, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
April 17, 2014 at 12:24 pm

6

0

Rate This

Phil MacGiollaBhain ‏@Pmacgiollabhain 8m

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-ibrox-legacy/#more-4561

“The legacy issues that Graham Wallace inherited are not the kind you would like to leave to your children.”

________________________________________________

I did hear that contracts such as Black’s have escalations built in, such that £8Kpw in league 1 becomes £12K in championship and then £15K in the SPFL.
Mr Green’s generosity knew no bounds when it came to other people’s money.
He constructed quite a ‘golden cage’ for those less than stellar performers.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on1:19 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Did anything come of the mooted AIM announcement that was mentioned here a couple of days ago? Or was it just in relation to the one about the sponsorship deal? Phil?

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on1:23 pm - Apr 17, 2014


easyJambo says:
April 17, 2014 at 12:39 pm

5

0

Rate This

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: April 17, 2014 at 12:14 pm

Just a thought and probably rubbish.
I’ve read somewhere that if a club is still in administration after 3rd May then a points deduction will take place from the start of next season.If this is so then could we have a situation whereby Hearts,if not out of administration by said date start next season 15pts adrift alongside TRFC,who if they enter administration would also have a points deduction?.
(I accept the SFA/SPFL would bend/break every rule in the book to prevent this but if we play by the rules,then is this scenario a possibility)?.
================================
The key date for Hearts is the day before the new season starts. If we are still in administration then a 15 point penalty will apply again next season.

The key date for Rangers is 3rd May (or whenever is their last league game of the season). If they go into administration before that date then a points penalty will apply this season. If it is after that date then the penalty will apply next season.
If they go into administration before the end of this season and are still in administration on the first day of next season, then they will receive a points penalty both this season and next season.
=================================
Cheers.
Just imagining the state of apoplexy in the Hampden corridors if such a scenario unfolded.What cunning plan could Doncaster and Co come up with to prevent TRFC suffering but still punish Hearts.Chaos would ensue.Throw in the possibility of Hibs maybe losing a play-off and ending up in The Championship.
Armageddon would be on us again. 🙄
As an aside,on clyde last night one of the “Experts” stated that if Hibs got relegated,along with Hearts then it would be catastrophic for the top division.
Why?.
If Hibs did get relegated it would be because their results weren’t good enough and the teams that get promoted won enough points to do so.that’s the whole point of the game.

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on2:01 pm - Apr 17, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
April 17, 2014 at 12:24 pm

And with this the reality, the BBC are trumpeting Barry Ferguson’s dream (of becoming TRFC’s manager)!
———————————————————————-
I’d have thought the very last thing Rangers need, if they part company with the current incompetent – sorry, incumbent – from the post, is another untried and untested wannabe manager. If they’re serious about rebuilding, as has been mentioned many times previously, surely they must look for someone with a track record of developing players and building a real team on the park – and definitely not an ex-player looking for a vanity project.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:27 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Correct. So its Mourinho or bust. And it won’t be Mourinho!

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on2:45 pm - Apr 17, 2014


wottpi says:
April 16, 2014 at 5:59 pm
42 1 i
Rate This

MoreCelticParanoia says:
April 16, 2014 at 4:35 pm

Someone on here the other day said that they were breaking their self imposed exile and going to listen to SSB. Don’t do it and let this be a lesson. It will be full of pitchfork owning individuals who will tonight demand to know why HMFC aren’t bring relegated to the 3rd division.
—————————————–
And no doubt pundits who for some reason will find themselves unable to explain the reasons accurately or rationally for averting their gaze from the elephant in the studio.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I know BFDJ is getting a bit rotund but is that not taking it a bit far
————————————————————————————————

Getting? 😛

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on2:48 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Why do people think GW is trying to make TRFC into some kind of profitable business?
The guy was hired by Spivs to implement a Spiv agenda
Everybody knows the spiv agenda is short term and incompatible with making the business profitable in the short term
All this 120 day nonsense and periodic appearances by the Big Spiv is simply time wasting PR fluff to keep the pitchforks at bay until Admin is in place and GW has moved on

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on3:01 pm - Apr 17, 2014


I thought Doncaster’s gibberish had a fairly simple translation.
“It doesn’t matter what league they’re in, we want to package T’Rangers sponsorship (followed by TV money) in with the Premiership clubs.”

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on3:09 pm - Apr 17, 2014


GoosyGoosy
At the moment, it doesn’t matter if he’s an spivs or an honest businessman. He needs to do the same things either way.
Unless he’s caught doing something completely out of order, the jury will stay out until the SB money is in and it’s either used to save the business or funnelled to directors bank accounts.
He’s clearly not Brain of Britain or he wouldn’t have taken the job in the first place, but he’s yet to do anything that puts his own bank balance ahead of the business.

View Comment

DonegaltimPosted on3:19 pm - Apr 17, 2014


We want a clean game, devoid of cheating and breaking the rules. The two teams in Inverness-shire do the Scottish game proud. The have built a steady rock solid business year on year with very little outlay. Kudos to Hearts supporters for the manner they have adopted in trying to exit administration. Spending no more than you earn would seem to be the only viable model available for Scottish teams.

From a personal point of view, I do not care about the blue pound, just the pound that’s free from stain. The level will be attained and there are shoots of recovery already from the mess that Scotland’s hierarchy heaped on the game. Young players now getting the chance and in turn, the national squad getting stronger.

This could all be coincidental but building from a solid base is the only business method likely to succeed in these turbulent times. The younger players in all Scottish teams could find themselves hunted by teams with larger budgets. This was the method for Scottish leagues for years before the rules were twisted to create more cash.

Any player showing quality, played here for a good few years before heading south, earning a profit for club and a higher wage for the player. Not unlike Celtics model just now which is successful and sensible under the constraints Scottish football has to endure in comparison with our English cousins.

If the SPFA want to continue pushing the new teams agenda then they are going to look very silly and amateurish which should/will result in their positions becoming untenable. There’s a big train coming and the SPFA is in its way so they better jump before it runs over them.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:21 pm - Apr 17, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:
April 17, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Spot on. If Wallace is the “real deal”, what’s this 120 day nonsense all about? No competent CEO would require 5 days, much less 120 to get to the bottom of why TRFC continues to be a bottomless money pit. So what’s it all about? Who appointed Wallace?

In my opinion, Wallace is simply cover for the inevitable asset stripping operation. Can somebody explain to me how else anyone is going to make money out of this? And all the majority shareholders want is to exit with a profit. Wallace is cover, and so is Dave King. Unless King is a complete idiot (which he most certainly is not) then his “trust” scheme is simply a smokescreen.

It is my view (based on no real evidence whatsoever, of course) that Laxey, Blue Pitch and King have a clear and agreed road map to allow King to get the “club”, and the majority shareholders to walk away with a big fat profit.This “war” between King and the Board is beyond pantomime. Smoke and mirrors, and a large dose of snake oil. All this comedy just to persuade the bears to keep on paying- that’s where the money is, and always follow the money. King is bringing nothing to the table except a pair of brogues, a blazer and a club tie. £30m? I’ll believe it when I see it. He will get his promised inheritance from SDM for not a penny more than he has already lost. That’s the plan, surely?

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on3:51 pm - Apr 17, 2014


neepheid says:
April 17, 2014 at 3:21 pm
13 0 Rate This

GoosyGoosy says:
April 17, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Spot on. If Wallace is the “real deal”, what’s this 120 day nonsense all about? No competent CEO would require 5 days, much less 120 to get to the bottom of why TRFC continues to be a bottomless money pit. So what’s it all about? Who appointed Wallace?
________________________________
To be fair, I don’t believe it will have taken Wallace 120 days to work out what the issues are and how they need fixed. It is more likely that the 120 days is needed to get agreement from the rest of the Board on the content, timing and implementation of the plan.

Good luck with that one, Graham…

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on4:15 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Is that really RTC back on twitter?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:20 pm - Apr 17, 2014


nowoldandgrumpy says:
April 17, 2014 at 4:15 pm

he’s roughing up Keith Jackson, TBF Jackson did engage

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:25 pm - Apr 17, 2014


nowoldandgrumpy says:
April 17, 2014 at 4:15 pm

Is that really RTC back on twitter?
=========================
Looks legit, and writing style looks familiar.

Just surprised that he/she [ 😉 ] gave Jackson the time of day…

View Comment

scottcPosted on4:55 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Tartanwulver says:
April 17, 2014 at 2:01 pm
13 1 Rate This

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
April 17, 2014 at 12:24 pm

And with this the reality, the BBC are trumpeting Barry Ferguson’s dream (of becoming TRFC’s manager)!
———————————————————————-
I’d have thought the very last thing Rangers need, if they part company with the current incompetent – sorry, incumbent – from the post, is another untried and untested wannabe manager. If they’re serious about rebuilding, as has been mentioned many times previously, surely they must look for someone with a track record of developing players and building a real team on the park – and definitely not an ex-player looking for a vanity project.

At least Barry F has the sense to state that he needs to learn his trade, unlike Ally.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on4:57 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Have any bears questioned why the 120 day time frame wasnt kept ,does anybody connected with them ever ask a pertinent question,what difference would the extension make to what must have been put together before the New Year,even the squirrels have got fed up and f@cked off.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:04 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Allyjambo says:
April 17, 2014 at 12:40 pm
‘…… the BBC are trumpeting Barry Ferguson’s dream ..’
————-
Or perhaps using a piece purportedly to air Barry’s dream to give another wee BBC boost on the ‘we need Rangers’ propaganda front.
The ‘establishment’ is continuing to do all it can to get us just to forget the huge damage done by the Football Authorities in their dealings both with the cheating dead club, and with the fly-by-night founders of the new club, while preparing us to accept meekly any further dirty deeds that might have to be done again if the new club looks like foundering.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:22 pm - Apr 17, 2014


The 120 days didn’t relate to the length of time it would take to compile the review, it related to how long they needed to hold off publishing it – or the point where they had to find excuses for not publishing it. In truth, I doubt any such review ever gets published the day after it’s completed, or is even due to be completed. TRFC were just playing for time with this, and I think we all already knew that, and the :slamb: just didn’t dare print it.

View Comment

JackBauerPosted on5:22 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Uefa have released the sixth club licensing benchmark report. Lots of in depth analysis of how countries throughout Europe have performed financially, attendance etc. Also an interesting section on clubs who failed to meet licensing requirements and the reasons why.

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/09/18/26/2091826_DOWNLOAD.pdf

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:27 pm - Apr 17, 2014


JackBauer says:
April 17, 2014 at 5:22 pm

Interesting stat, that must be worrying the boards in Hampden

“A total of 20 countries have now had a club qualify
on the pitch but miss out because of poor management
off the pitch.”

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:37 pm - Apr 17, 2014


scapaflow says:
April 17, 2014 at 5:27 pm

While Scotland has had one team qualify because of bad management off the pitch, with the aid of poor governance from it’s FA!

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:38 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Allyjambo says:
April 17, 2014 at 5:37 pm
:mrgreen: Didn’t that pre-date the regs though? Still a sign that the times they are a changin

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:53 pm - Apr 17, 2014


scapaflow says:
April 17, 2014 at 5:38 pm

Regs? Regs? who said anything about regs? Regs only count for some clubs, didn’t you know that? 😉

View Comment

JackBauerPosted on6:06 pm - Apr 17, 2014


The revenue figures for the Scottish game make for particularly depressing reading a 40% drop in revenue since 2008 the second worse in Europe despite Scotland having the 15th best average attendence. Neil Doncaster has to take the majority of the blame for this, the failure to achieve significant Television deals must be a driving factor behind this decline.

View Comment

sickofitallPosted on7:10 pm - Apr 17, 2014


April 17, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Sevco do not have to accept a 25 point penalty to maintain the same club fiction.

The SPFL rules drawn up last year make explicit that the club and company are separate.

To paraphrase, the rules state that a club entering a second administration within five years will suffer a 25 point deduction “even if operated by a different owner.

So Sevco have no choice in the matter. They cannot admit they are a different club to take a lesser points penalty.

The rules mean that as “Rangers” went into admin when owned by Rangers Football Club plc in 2012, if the new owner and operator (The Rangers Football Club Ltd) goes into admin before 2017 it will be a second admin event for “Rangers.”

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on7:30 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Completely off topic, but with the mentions of RTC a wee while back a thought just occurred to me- does anyone here know or has anyone here actually met RTC? I only ask because thinking way back to who started all this, if it was me, I just wouldn’t have been able to shut up about it. I totally understand the anonymity requirement in terms of safety etc but it just occurred to me that again, if it was me, especially having won an award, I’d have been on at everyone about it!

And then the next question would be, if anyone does in fact know him/her, or in fact RTC if you are reading this or continue to post here under a different name, when is the book coming out that you promised us? Most of what you wrote was uncomfortable reading for me, and I have grave reservations about how you got your information and whether it was legal, but your writing style was informative and very entertaining and given that you have so many facts I think such a book would be a compelling read.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:34 pm - Apr 17, 2014


sickofitall says:
April 17, 2014 at 7:10 pm

At first I thought that was a good spot, but on second thoughts: if The Rangers are classed as a new club, then they are still a new club due a 15 point penalty. It doesn’t matter who their present owners are; a new club, started in 2012, is not the same club as Rangers, started in 1872. It is only if they continue with the myth that they are the same club that they’d be docked 25 points in the event of administration. An administration effective this season, expect a 25 point penalty; should it count as next season, a difficult choice awaits the men at TRFC.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on8:17 pm - Apr 17, 2014


PTD / Resin lab dog, regarding your posts earlier today on the price of history, I must disagree. You either can buy history or you can’t. The consistent view here, and one I subscribe to, is that you can’t. Therefore you can’t put a price on something you can’t buy.

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on8:31 pm - Apr 17, 2014


RyanGosling says:
April 17, 2014 at 8:17 pm
0 0 Rate This

PTD / Resin lab dog, regarding your posts earlier today on the price of history, I must disagree. You either can buy history or you can’t. The consistent view here, and one I subscribe to, is that you can’t. Therefore you can’t put a price on something you can’t buy.

——-

You can’t sell something that doesn’t belong to you.

The awarding body own the history , so they give out league titles and if the circumstances arose they can withdraw them. This simple approach stops ‘clubs’ theoretically selling their titles and cups , it’s not theirs to sell.

As Mister Regan stated when he came up for air, sometime back the decision on new/old club, history etc , is down to the fans, it must have been a strong fence he was perched on.

Good thing about history is well it’s history, the future is more fun predicting how it’s going to turn out ….

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:09 pm - Apr 17, 2014


EKBhoy says:
April 17, 2014 at 8:31 pm

As Mister Regan stated when he came up for air, sometime back the decision on new/old club, history etc , is down to the fans, it must have been a strong fence he was perched on.
===============================
I remember it well when Regan made the statement on a BBC interview. Yet the media, almost to a man, insist the SFA have declared they are the same club with all honours and history intact.

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on9:11 pm - Apr 17, 2014


upthehoops says:
April 17, 2014 at 9:09 pm
0 0 Rate This

EKBhoy says:
April 17, 2014 at 8:31 pm

As Mister Regan stated when he came up for air, sometime back the decision on new/old club, history etc , is down to the fans, it must have been a strong fence he was perched on.
===============================
I remember it well when Regan made the statement on a BBC interview. Yet the media, almost to a man, insist the SFA have declared they are the same club with all honours and history intact.
————-

The two statements are not contradictory , as the media are , of course , fans …….. Swoop, vow, jet , tycoon etc ……

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:20 pm - Apr 17, 2014


RyanGosling says:
April 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm
==============================
I imagine not many people know for sure who Rangers Tax Case is. Those at the Guardian who granted him/her a column some time back will know, but clearly have never divulged the information, which is the right thing without a doubt.

Reading The tweets between RTC and Keith Jackson today made me smile. KJ repeated the oft quoted statement that the Police are looking into how the information was divulged. He then (incredibly IMO), declared the info RTC had was illegally obtained. As far as I am aware the Police have yet to progress any charges against anyone re this information, let alone a court actually ruling on the legalities of it all. It would be funny if Keith Jackson was not actually portrayed as a good journalist. Worse still he also receives payment from the BBC out of the public purse.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:32 pm - Apr 17, 2014


upthehoops says:

April 17, 2014 at 9:20 pm

RyanGosling says:
April 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm
==============================
I imagine not many people know for sure who Rangers Tax Case is. Those at the Guardian who granted him/her a column some time back will know, but clearly have never divulged the information, which is the right thing without a doubt.

Reading The tweets between RTC and Keith Jackson today made me smile. KJ repeated the oft quoted statement that the Police are looking into how the information was divulged. He then (incredibly IMO), declared the info RTC had was illegally obtained. As far as I am aware the Police have yet to progress any charges against anyone re this information, let alone a court actually ruling on the legalities of it all. It would be funny if Keith Jackson was not actually portrayed as a good journalist. Worse still he also receives payment from the BBC out of the public purse.
================================================================
Lets get this one straight forever.
Myself and James from the Drum sat in the Rolls Court with BDO and counsel for Collyers.
Mr Justice Newey allowed all the Charlotte material as evidence whether recorded or written and has asked counsel to record it in writing for both parties.
Also it was made known that ALL police interest in the matter was over.
KJ is more than disingenuous as one of his colleagues reported the same fact the following day.
Despite the FACT he was not in court.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:41 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Well, since it’s relatively quiet – and now that Jackson has done some quick back tracking re: twittered RTC allegations…

Let’s not forget that we are fortunate to have such an esteemed sports journalist in our midst.
This time next week Jackson could be lifting his 3 IAR of ‘Sports News Writer of the Year’ Award !
…no really… 🙄
===========================

[Shortlist]
13. Sports News Writer of the Year

David Ferguson…….The Scotsman
Mark Guidi…………….Sunday Mail
Keith Jackson………..Daily Record
Ronnie Mackay……….The Scottish Sun
Stephen McGowan…Scottish Daily Mail
Gary Ralston………….Daily Record

http://www.scottishpressawards.co.uk/shortlist/index.html

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on9:53 pm - Apr 17, 2014


RyanGosling says:
April 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm
————————————–

I like to think that we are all RTC

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:53 pm - Apr 17, 2014


[Shortlist]
13. Sports News Writer of the Year
Shirley
Charlotte Fakes ?
By a million miles

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:06 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Long Time Lurker says:
April 17, 2014 at 9:53 pm
———————————————————-
We are all RTC.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on10:07 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Mr Jackson appears to be pointing the finger of law breaking at RTC.

I have no ideal how RTC obtained the information in question – frankly I do not care, as it is clear that the public interest was best served by its exposure.

If Mr Jackson is intent on looking at law breakers – he may wish to turn his attention to section 4(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998. In short, this requires that a data controller (the legal entity responsible for determining how personal data is to be processed) upholds all of the data protection principles.

In this regard the seventh data protection principle is of relevance – this relates to information security: i.e. organisations shall protect the confidentiality of personal data for which they are responsible for.

Much of the RTC information was personal data.

Now if MIH/RFC(IL) have lost control over that personal data – then they as data controllers will have breached section 4(4) of the said act, which can carry a monetary penalty notice from the Information Commissioner of up to £500,000.

If I lose a work laptop which contains personal data – then my employer is responsible for the data loss – even if its me who has screwed up.

Keith – if you are looking in, fair enough if you feel that RTC has broken the law then fine. Equally, MIH/RFC(IL) may have also broken the law i.e. the DPA.

Fair’s fair, why not go after all of the law breakers – or is it easier for you to focus on RTC as public enemy number one?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:15 pm - Apr 17, 2014


ianagain says:
April 17, 2014 at 9:32 pm
‘…Mr Justice Newey allowed all the Charlotte material as evidence whether recorded or written and has asked counsel to record it in writing for both parties.
Also it was made known that ALL police interest in the matter was over.’
KJ is more than disingenuous..’
———-
Ianagain, you’re extremely charitable in using the word ‘disingenuous’, which my (1960!) edition of Chambers’s dictionary gives as meaning ‘not frank or open’, ‘crafty’.
It’s not an adjective, therefore, that I would use to describe anyone who told an actual untruth. Such an one would be better described as being hopelessly ignorant and ill-informed OR as being a liar.
If such a one was a journalist, he or she would clearly be out of the running for any kind of award on either count.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:18 pm - Apr 17, 2014


except maybe in Scotland, I should have added.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:27 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Long Time Lurker says:
April 17, 2014 at 10:07 pm

Mr Jackson appears to be pointing the finger of law breaking at RTC…
====================
LTL, your suggestion would probably ‘whoosh’ over Keef’s head.
His brief interaction with RTC and others swiftly betrayed his ignorance of the law.

JC, some would call him a liar, but I couldn’t possibly comment ! 😉
IMO, he is just a useful idiot – amongst many in the MSM – who has played ball with TRFC/SFA/SPFL to ‘remain in the loop’ – but ultimately he doesn’t give a monkey’s about his customers, or the quality/veracity of his ‘output’.

I do hope Tam Cowan – who is hosting the Awards next week – has a few well aimed barbs for Jackson…

View Comment

Cygnus X-1Posted on10:31 pm - Apr 17, 2014


StevIeBC Says:

[Shortlist]
13. Sports News Writer of the Year

David Ferguson…….The Scotsman
Mark Guidi…………….Sunday Mail
Keith Jackson………..Daily Record
Ronnie Mackay……….The Scottish Sun
Stephen McGowan…Scottish Daily Mail
Gary Ralston………….Daily Record

God’s trousers, no wonder print journalism is dying if that bunch are the best in class!!

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on10:33 pm - Apr 17, 2014


RyanGosling says:
April 17, 2014 at 8:17 pm

16

0

Rate This

PTD / Resin lab dog, regarding your posts earlier today on the price of history, I must disagree. You either can buy history or you can’t. The consistent view here, and one I subscribe to, is that you can’t. Therefore you can’t put a price on something you can’t buy.

_______________________________________________

Yes. You can’t buy it. But you can preserve it.

PTD put a figure on the costs of so doing w.r.t. RFC(IL).
If you claim the titles, you must take on the debt they were won through.
A CVA is different because this amounts to a forgiveness of some debt in exchange for payment of part of it… debt is repaid, albeit at a discount, but – importantly- with the consent of the creditors.
So intellectually and morally, TRFC can lay claim to only 2 titles thus far.
As an entity, TRFC haven’t done anything which would allow then to lay claim to any prior RFC titles. It could be argued that payment of restitution to those who lost out in the liquidation might give them a moral (rather than any legal) basis upon which to claim a level of continuity with the former entity. But this isn’t going to happen.
Instead we are subjected to an undignified insistence from the majority of the Ibrox outfit of expropriating titles of another entity that they have no moral basis to claim. Having their cake and eating it.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:54 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Resin_lab_dog says:
April 17, 2014 at 10:33 pm
————————————————————-
Spot on R_L_D 😀

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:01 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Resin, what about the football debts that were paid? Does that mean we get some of the history?!

Please read that as it was intended, full of tongue in cheek. You are one of my favourite posters on here, someone I find myself very easily able to disagree with if I have a different opinion but never doubting your motives.

But all the same, forgiveness of debt notwithstanding, I stand by my original point. You can either buy history or you can’t. Agreeing a CVA doesn’t allow you to buy the history, it allows you to buy the company and thus the history remains unbroken. I couldn’t buy the in-liquidation RFC and claim the history was intact- I wouldn’t have to, it would be perfectly obvious.

I wasn’t going to go so far off topic, but I will just because it’s partially related to what we just discussed previously:

Rangers did not die. An inanimate object cannot die. As a corporate entity it is in liquidation, and as such will be corporately “dead” soon enough. The “assets and business” sale allowed the rangers business to be carried on, and those of us who were rangers fans continued to support this. No matter how many morons, mainstream media outlets and downright idiots claim it is “exactly” the same club, I know who they are, who they were, and who they continue to be, and for my sins I’m still a fan. It’ll piss off some posters here that I’ve stated this bluntly off topic, it’ll piss off the entire rangers media community who banned me for saying this, but this is the way I see it and to be honest, the way it is in real life no matter what anyone says.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:13 pm - Apr 17, 2014


RyanGosling says:
April 17, 2014 at 11:01 pm
——————————————————————
Ryan you are not ‘off topic’ and it’s great that you are still a fan. Can I ask you who you think they ‘continue to be’?

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:23 pm - Apr 17, 2014


John

On reflection KJ did lie given what his paper printed the following day, presumably “skimmed” fro the Drum article by James

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on11:36 pm - Apr 17, 2014


Okay Ryan. It’s a slow night so before the mods remove all these to the bonkers thread…
Interesting that you call Rangers an inanimate object. I’ve heard them called various things that are compatible with that description before, but the only polite ones would be. Football club and a company. As you know, once a football club incorporates l, as Rangers did in 1899, it is exactly the same entity as an incorporated company in Scots law.
Incorporated companies can die. The process is called liquidation and it’s a slow and painful death. RFC is still experiencing this and will do for some years.
The fans are still the same fans that supported the old club. A source of comfort for some, but a source of bewilderment for others and given the songbook hasn’t changed, a source of discomfort and despair for many more.
The players are not the same. Their contracts were moved from one inanimate object to another if they consented, but they were free to leave if they wanted and some did.
The idea as Rangers as some sort of celestial entity is a bit like believing in Unicorns or fairies. It’s a nice dream, but when you grow up and start to live with concepts like evidence, money and the law, you realise that the real world has no place for imaginary entities.
Your new club has 2 lower league titles. That’s a decent return for 2 years in existence. Your old club did win more titles than any other club in the world, but whether it not the last 5 or 6 were won fairly, they’ll never win another one.
You can stamp your feet and put your fingers in your ears and shout SAME CLUB all you like. In the real world, with logic and stuff, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

View Comment

AquinasPosted on12:26 am - Apr 18, 2014


In the UK no company has ever ‘come out of Liquidation’.
On the back of the old Rangers FC Season tickets before this event it stated Rangers Football Club is the Company.
You know what, now I don’t really care, but the SFA? They are not fit for purpose and should be, in my opinion, taken to UEFA (mr Infantino) and scrutinised with vigour!

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:04 am - Apr 18, 2014


RyanGosling says:
April 17, 2014 at 11:01 pm

9

4

Rate This

Resin, what about the football debts that were paid? Does that mean we get some of the history?!

But all the same, forgiveness of debt notwithstanding, I stand by my original point. You can either buy history or you can’t. Agreeing a CVA doesn’t allow you to buy the history, it allows you to buy the company and thus the history remains unbroken. I couldn’t buy the in-liquidation RFC and claim the history was intact- I wouldn’t have to, it would be perfectly obvious.

I wasn’t going to go so far off topic, but I will just because it’s partially related to what we just discussed previously:

Rangers did not die. An inanimate object cannot die. As a corporate entity it is in liquidation, and as such will be corporately “dead” soon enough. The “assets and business” sale allowed the rangers business to be carried on, and those of us who were rangers fans continued to support this. No matter how many morons, mainstream media outlets and downright idiots claim it is “exactly” the same club, I know who they are, who they were, and who they continue to be, and for my sins I’m still a fan. It’ll piss off some posters here that I’ve stated this bluntly off topic, it’ll piss off the entire rangers media community who banned me for saying this, but this is the way I see it and to be honest, the way it is in real life no matter what anyone says.

_____________________________________________________

“Please read that as it was intended, full of tongue in cheek. You are one of my favourite posters on here, someone I find myself very easily able to disagree with if I have a different opinion but never doubting your motives.”

No problem whatsoever. Entirely mutual. I hold you in very high regard and respect. There is a great deal on which we can agree. And where there is contention, respectful disagreement is healthy in building consensus. And consensus is the route to progress.

_______

But all the same, forgiveness of debt notwithstanding, I stand by my original point. You can either buy history or you can’t. Agreeing a CVA doesn’t allow you to buy the history, it allows you to buy the company and thus the history remains unbroken. I couldn’t buy the in-liquidation RFC and claim the history was intact- I wouldn’t have to, it would be perfectly obvious.

Agreed. CVA = continuity. No case to answer.
Liquidation? The history will always be broken. It will always be discontinuous.
Factually it will always exist. It is a question of whose history it is.
The moral right of the new club to associate itself with the history of the old formally is what is in question. The informal link between old and new is inarguable and obvious. Its the fans. And their desire for continuity, and their regret at what happened creates this link. That is a fact.
If wishes were horses, TRFC fans could righteously claim an unbroken link to Bill Struth et al.
But they aren’t and they can’t – in consience- do so. The fact that many do so anyway says more about their conscience (or lack of) than it does about the facts or the actuality.
My contention is simply that if TRFC undid some of the harm that RFC wreaked, then – morally – if not factually they could subsequently be judged by others to become more associated with the history that they profess to care so much about, (except – seemingly- insofar as when it comes to stepping up to the plate and doing something about keeping it in tact, where they have been found wanting thus far.)

Or to put it another way, if you want to hear the end of ‘Zombiegers’ or ‘You’re not Rangers’, TRFC need to grow a pair and start behaving with a wee bit of grace and dignity, instead of bluffing on a 7 high! They should replace the word ‘Pride’ on your badge with the word ‘Fall’

And I am glad you are still a fan. You represent the best of both your clubs. A greyfriars Bobby for RFC(IL) and a reformer when it comes to TRFC. YOU don’t do walking away. Good for you. (You might want to risk a shifty glance sideways at some of the more vociferous and less circumspect of your brethren and have a word in their shell like.)
If I was an Ibrox fan, I hope I would be one like you. I suspect I might not measure up.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on1:12 am - Apr 18, 2014


Aquinas says:
April 18, 2014 at 12:26 am
…………………..
“On the back of the old Rangers FC Season tickets before this event it stated Rangers Football Club is the Company”

As confirmed by David Murray in the published 1999 Club accounts…where he displayed his Companies house 100 year anniversary certificate confirming the club was a 100 year old Company!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:09 am - Apr 18, 2014


My simplistic way of looking at “History” is exactly that. History is something that happened in the past and can’t be changed. It can’t be bought because it is simply a series of events that happened some time in the past.

As far as Rangers is concerned, a team called Rangers won a whole raft of trophies before 2012, when it went bust.

A new club, also calling itself Rangers, having obtained the agreement of the football authorities to use that brand name, has won a couple of lower league titles in more recent times.

I have no problem with fans of the current and previous Rangers incarnations believing or claiming to have conjoined history. Same players, ground, colours etc. It’s the team I’ve always supported etc.

However I do have a problem with those who claim an unbroken history and refuse to acknowledge the demise of the old club.

I know that Hearts had a break in their history between February and April 1905 and that Hibs had a two year break in their existence between 1891-1893. Fans of both Edinburgh clubs claim the history of the original clubs, so it is not unreasonable for Rangers fans to do likewise. Just don’t pretend that the original club has never gone bust and acknowledge that the club that you support now is actually a different one from the one that you may have supported previously.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:17 am - Apr 18, 2014


Having finally got around to listening to David Low ‘ s blog I’m thinking Scottish Football needs two plans.

The first is a short term 3 to 5 year one based on the assumption that league structures and participants will be roughly the same in year 5 as they are this season. Make this season, when it is over, the benchmark.

How will each clubs books look in year 5?

The second would be for the next 5 years assuming Celtic are no longer in the Scottish set up. Don’t worry about where they end up, but look at the projected state of play in 5 years to see what the impact of Celtic’s departure would be in years 6 to 10 and if it is of Armageddon proportions for the clubs left behind, work out what needs to be done in the next 5 years to cushion the blow of departure. Think of it as a divorce but on amicable grounds setting partners free to build a new life without each other rather than abandoning the one left behind to their fate.

Ways of cushioning the impact could be using some CL money to put to solidarity purposes, but that preferably should be a UEFA led decision to help all leagues in countries in a similar position.

If it is TV money that is funding higher CL payouts then divert it to solidarity funding rather than providing a player with another BMW to service. If rich clubs are fined for breaches of FFP use the fines to boost the solidarity funds.

TV money only inflates players wages if it all goes back to participating clubs, so increasing solidarity payouts would be a means of wage control and if UEFA decide rather than a unilateral decision by Celtic to surrender a % of their payout then the impact on European team quality terms would be neutral.

Get UEFA to agree that as long as clubs abide by UEFA FFP rules and standards then the national association borders will no longer apply in 5 years and merging of domestic associations would not be prevented for league governance purposes but associations would retain their country borders for international games.

No more of where would Celtic (or indeed any club)go. let’s start building places they can go by laying the foundations, starting now.

There are many many more clubs without Sheik or oligarch bankers than there are with them. Even Man Utd look poor compared to City and PSG. The Arsenals would wish to isolate the sugar daddy clubs who are the prime source of player wage inflation, so a vote for change at the ECA backed by UEFA has some chance of success.

How many alarm bells need to go off before UEFA decide that enough is enough and start planning for a new set up in 5 years where what are current barriers based on tradition are removed to reflect the advances made in the real world.

We need a vision to work towards and the game in Europe needs it now, without a vision and an agreed goal we simply stumble from one crisis to another like lemmings heading for a cliff thinking they are safe in a tread wheel.

View Comment

gherrybhoy57Posted on4:11 am - Apr 18, 2014


Auldheid 18th Aug 2.17

Your suggestion that the game’s governing bodies should plan 5 years in advance is patently sensible. Most multi billion pound industries try to do just that. They employ strategists and planners to interpret trends in matters which may affect them and take decisions to achieve the most beneficial outcomes.
Sadly, history has shown that the Scottish football authorities do not have the wit or the inclination to attempt such an exercise. It would involve persuading the member clubs and a degree of openness never seen before. Sure, due to the events at Ibrox, the SFA can’t be sure that the establishment club will fulfil their fixtures next season, and they can’t even bring themselves to admit that.
I think your proposals have merit and that most clubs, even if acting out of medium term self interest, should think seriously about them. Let’s hope that the more enlightened club directors lurk on here and perhaps one or two may pick up your idea and take it forward.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on7:17 am - Apr 18, 2014


Where Scottish Football is horribly served by ill informed pundits

Example 1,850

Question on Radio Clyde

” i hear a rumour that David Murray is going to be coming back into Rangers and investing heavily”

Response by Mark Guidi

” yes, i’ve heard that as well. It could well be true as Murray International are doing well again”

Reality

Direct quote from David Murray in MIH latest set of accounts

“As the activities of MIH Group come to a close”

Warning note on MIH accounts by Grant Thornton that MIH have a going concern issue.

Statement by MIH that they are unable to meet their employees pension entitlements.

Going well !! Guidi’s comments make you question every single thing he says. Does he take the trouble to research anything ? , when he is so fundamentally wrong on this. Is he up to speed on any issue ?

When David Murray admits publicly it’s game over for MIH we still have journalists ignorant of that fact and prepared to support wild notions .

No wonder trust levels in the media are plummeting

View Comment

wottpiPosted on7:54 am - Apr 18, 2014


Put your pen down Mr Wallace your time is now up.

Wonder what kind of spin or leaks we will see over the next week before anything ‘offical’ is published?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:55 am - Apr 18, 2014


Auldheid says:
April 18, 2014 at 2:17 am
5 0 Rate This
———

Great suggestions Auldheid. First time I’ve read practical ways to cushion the effects of CFC exiting Scottish football.

What about a Celtic B seeking admission to the SPFL pyramid, though with certain conditions (for example, only Scottish players, no access to top tier)?

Would just seem odd with Celtic based in the East End of Glasgow but having nothing to do with Scottish football.

@Barca, heard that. I thought a caller did set them straight later. The SSB get out is: ‘It’s all about opinions,’ — a latter day version of ‘In the den 1-2-3’ ye cannae touch me 🙂

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on8:28 am - Apr 18, 2014


Resin_Lab_Dog at 1:07am
And I am glad you are still a fan. You represent the best of both your clubs. A greyfriars Bobby for RFC(IL) A Greyfriars Bobby for RFC(IL)Such imagery. Sooperb!

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:37 am - Apr 18, 2014


ianagain says:
April 17, 2014 at 9:32 pm

Lets get this one straight forever.
Myself and James from the Drum sat in the Rolls Court with BDO and counsel for Collyers.
Mr Justice Newey allowed all the Charlotte material as evidence whether recorded or written and has asked counsel to record it in writing for both parties.
Also it was made known that ALL police interest in the matter was over.
KJ is more than disingenuous as one of his colleagues reported the same fact the following day.
Despite the FACT he was not in court.

Different alleged ‘leak’, Ian. Some of the RTC info has been alleged to have come from a leak at HMRC and this is what the police were supposedly investigating in that case. Nothing seems to have come of it though and it must be over a year now since the investigation was announced.

View Comment

Comments are closed.