Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton

Avatar By

Scapaflow says: May 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm Ranger’s fans can identify …

Comment on Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton by ecobhoy.

scapaflow says:
May 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm

Ranger’s fans can identify themselves as Ranger’s fans, whatever the corporate origins of the team in blue playing somewhere in the Glasgow area. I only stipulate that they take all the history, you can’t celebrate the British Empire, without also owning the castration of the Mau Mau, going to war with China so we could sell their citizens illegal drugs etc etc etc
I have been at pains to make it clear that the view I expressed is my personal view of my club and I am well able to separate my emotional Barbara Cartland side from my legalistic personality’s view of a football club and I would have thought any regular poster on here might have noticed that in my postings.

It goes without saying that my legalistic view is identical for all clubs – there should be no exceptions. But I believe my personal view is mine and I am happy for any other fans to have their personal view if they wish to.

And I don’t accept that Rangers Supporters need to be the conscience for all the ills of the British Empire and Colonialism which IMO were arms of Capitalism.

Considering that Glasgow was the 2nd City of the Empire for a spell in the 1800s when it expanded enormously and grew rich off the back of the British Colonialism we have to accept that a high percentage of the Scottish population has benefitted from Empire Trade.

Indeed Clydeside Shipyards did enormously well building ships for the US Confederate States and in supplying munitions which were paid for in cotton picked by slaves. A very dark part of Scottish History and the British soldiers in Kenya weren’t just Rangers Supporters but also supporters of a large number of other clubs.

As to China many of the original large banks and merchants established there were founded by Scots and built on the opium trade. Few hands are clean from the blood of Empire and we all need to recognise that history and all our complicity in it and not just Rangers fans.

ecobhoy Also Commented

Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
twopanda says:
May 11, 2014 at 6:06 pm

BDOs next missive – sort of `18 month review` – should appear [link] on, about or before 22 May – Is 18 months a fair timescale? – I don`t know.
I doubt if anyone outwith the actual investigation could give an informed answer to that one. I’m afraid we’ll just need to wait and see and, in the meantime, get on with our normal lives.

Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
Barcabhoy says:
May 11, 2014 at 6:08 pm

Ryan Gosling

Your response very very clearly in my view shows a clear attempt to minimise criticism of Murray. What you are doing is a very well established PR strategy. Agree that a subject has transgressed and then spend much more time and effort in attempting to show that whilst guilt is established ( impossible to argue otherwise) the crime is nowhere near as bad as is generally claimed.
Absolutely on the button BB ❗

Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
covethistlestolemypitch says:
May 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm
ecobhoy says:
May 11, 2014 at 3:47 pm

“generally Scots expect a higher moral standard than a lot of people”

Hmm. Scots are just as moral or immoral as any other nationality. I’m surprised to see such talk on here.
And I’m surprised to see that any poster on here would be ‘surprised’ at another poster having the temerity to express what appears to be a contrary opinion.

And in terms of whether Scots have a different kind of morality or not I would think our total rejection of Thatcher and her poll tax experiment does indeed display we have strong moral values.

Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
Couldn’t agree more!

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.

About the author