Comment on Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton by Barcabhoy.
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.
Let me attempt to put my interpretation of your actions to the blog.
1 You are suggesting that the list of six points i made regarding Murray’s behaviour is far fetched. Maybe you could explain why that is, as they all seem to me to be absolutely factual .
2 The actions were selected, because they impact directly on football and on Scotland, and this is the Scottish Football Monitor. Not the Enron/Goldman Sachs/ de Vere monitor
3 It’s telling that you cannot produce a single example of a company either public or private who engaged in all of the disgraceful practices that Murray did. Instead you’re argument is based on dead companies in Texas for one point , an English hotel group for another, you “highly doubt ” another but can’t provide any examples. You then elevate Gretna to the status of a Scottish football institution as another argument !! Finally you throw in a general number of EBT users without giving the example you were asked for .
Don’t you understand that Murray was guilty of each and every point made in my previous post,and your rebuttal has you referencing various organisations none of whom are relevant to Scottish football and none of whom you are able to show indulged in the all of the same practices as Murray. Your response actually confirms how outrageously Murray has behaved and contrary to your intentions it shows how uniquely he acted .
You are making exactly the same arguments that Murray’s acolytes are making. In essence don’t go after Dave as everyone was at it. It’s not a credible position to take. “Guilt is irrelevant where there are multiple offenders” ! That’s clearly the line Murray is pushing or having pushed on his behalf .
You made very loud public noises about Rangers supporters on here getting a tough time. That is true on occasion, but then this blog has had to deal with PR companies trying to hijack the mood of the blog , to protect guys like Murray and King. I am not saying you are doing this, however your responses in attempting to minimise criticism of Murray are familiar in that regard.
You accepted earlier that Murray had behaved disgracefully. Most people, outside of Murray’s paid PR or those who are in fear of what he can put into the public arena, agree he has been a disgrace. In terms of this blog, and Scottish life in general how Enron or any of the others you mentioned , conducted themselves is not relevant. Murray should be subject to a very wide ranging public enquiry.
He has been the most toxic individual in business in Scotland in my experience. I guess we differ in that you seem content to consign his behaviour to the past, where i believe dealing with him severely is necessary as a deterrent to anyone else inclined to cause the type of mayhem that he has.
Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
You keep stating that public companies engaged in the same practices as Murray. That’s an easy claim to make , so let’s see you back it up. Can you give me a list of plc’s who tick all of the following boxes .
1 guilty of tax evasion ( not avoidance)
2 underfund staff pension plans by 50%
3 have hundreds of £millions of loans written off in return for utterly worthless shares
4 sell company assets to Chairman / CEO for vastly under book value / original price paid
5 destroy a Scottish sporting institution
6 where CEO/ Chairman take a £6 million EBT loan
There are lots more area’s of scrutiny ,however you should easily be able to list quite a few plc’s to justify your claim that Murray’s conduct was commonplace , as opposed to my claim that it was uniquely damaging
Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
May 10, 2014 at 7:32 pm
0 0 Rate This
Whats also telling is how many Murray companies were sold whilst being underpinned by contracts with Rangers.
Goldman Sachs have no relevance in a Scottish scenario. RBS & HBOS were also not privately owned. There were serious abuses at these business’ but they are not a valid comparison with Murray.
We are talking about a privately owned business which somehow managed to borrow at 800% of its retained reserves, whilst enabling the owner to draw £10’s of millions in remuneration at the same time as failing to fulfill obligations to employees pensions and bank borrowings.
If you show me a single privately owned Scottish business with the same characteristics , i would be happy to comment. If you can show me the large numbers of such business’ i would be utterly amazed.
Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
Hibernian FC…….where do you start with this.
There will be contributors on here closer to the goings on at Hibs than myself, however let me offer my twopence worth.
The problem starts and ends with Rod Petrie. As unpersonable an individual as i’ve ever met. Now maybe that’s just me, although my view is shared by others of my acquaintance who have had dealings with him. It’s not necessary to have charisma or charm or even an outgoing personality to be successful in Scottish football, but it isn’t a hinderance.
In every deal you should leave something on the table for the other side. When someone you have treated arrogantly previously, is in a position where they are on the other side of a deal , why would they be reasonable ?
Hibs are massive underachievers. Petrie has been a disaster for Hibs for at least 4 years. Leanne Dempster is taking on a poisoned chalice if Petrie retains any executive powers at Hibs. He should be restricted to non executive , SFA related activities. Failing that Hibs will never fulfill their potential .
On Grounds for Judicial Review
Celtic aren’t employing a QC . The fans are.
Celtic have direct access , as a member of both the SFA and the SPFL. They have already succeeded in a committment from the SPFL to a wide ranging enquiry . We await the terms of reference of that enquiry. However it will not include the potential to set aside the LNS enquiry, according to Rod McKenzie
Hence the need for the fans to ask a court to do so.The basis is LNS was not provided with relevent evidence of use of unlawful or irregular tax schemes . LNS , by his own words , said he proceeded on the basis that these schemes were lawful. He also stated that the SPL had rules to prevent breaches of Sporting Integrity and he found Rangers guilty of that , but not in a manner that provided Sporting Advantage.
Based on what was hidden from LNS plus what has been ruled on by the Supreme Court , that conclusion by LNS looks fundamentally flawed
The SFA have failed completely in their role as protector of the game. I have no doubt whatsever that Celtic want fundamental change there. However at this stage the fans don’t have a specific decision that the SFA have made , in regards to the Sporting Advantage , that was the subject of an independent panel, and therefore open to a JR request
I agree that the non decisions described above by BRTH should be the subject and included in an SFA commisioned fully independent review . However as yet they have decided a 3 monkeys approach is all we are getting . Lets see if Celtic get enough support from other clubs on this one
Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
1 The SPFL has guaranteed TV revenue for 3 years
2 Many clubs have record season book sales
3 Debt has been removed in most clubs
Why have SPFL clubs been silent so far , with the exception of Celtic , on the implications of the Supreme Court verdict
The argument is made that many are working hard just to make ends meet.
Fair enough , but when was that ever not the case in Scottish football.
Are we to believe that there will never be an environment where clubs have an appetite to get Four-square behind the notion of Sporting Integrity ?
That can’t possibly be the case , otherwise why bother having a rule book .
Some clubs though are in relative robust financial health, their supporters have dug deep to help finance recent achievements.
Don’t they deserve the respect , from club directors , of ensuring their club is treated exactly the same way as every club. Not every club bar 1
I’m looking particularly at Hearts , Aberdeen, Hibernian and St Johnstone. You have no excuses for silence , certainly not personal ambition for positions at the SFA or SPFL.
Do you really want your legacies to read :
I was scared to do the right thing in case we jeopardised some ticket revenue.
So I turned a blind eye to the actions of the authorities and 13 years of rule breaches by a member club “
That’s what you want to tell your grandchildren ?
If Clubs can’t speak out when they have guaranteed revenue, record fan support , are debt free and succesful , when CAN they be trusted to put Integrity at the top of their list of priorities…….or even on it .
Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
LNS Though did comment on the Tax Case. He explicitly stated that as far as his enquiry was concerned the EBT’s were lawful and as such were not a breach of league rules
That is an important point. If the use of EBT’s in relation to their legality/lawfulness/regularity was a matter of no consequence , then LNS had no need to address them. The fact that he found it necessary to comment on their legality is telling.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a breach of rules to use tax schemes which are irregular , unlawful , illegal or any of those categories
Yet there has not been a single enquiry into these tax schemes. Is this because guilt had already been admitted by Rangers ? Is it because it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion that sporting advantage was gained ?
Time to Make Things Happen
How do you reconcile your statement that Res 12 was a board controlled project with the fact it’s only in the public domain because of the efforts of the requisitioners ?
THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
Here’s the challenge when it comes to sanctioning clubs for fan behaviour.
1 Minor Incidents can be hugely exagerrated through social media and press coverage.
Take the recent statement by Club 1872 blaming celebrating Celtic fans for Celtic players being attacked, racially abused and having dangerous objects thrown at them. Now even allowing for the fact that the statement was made by the Moron’s moron Craig Houston, it received disproportionate coverage in the msm, virtually none of it ridiculing the shameful nature of the statement.
In the same statement Houston claimed damage to Ibrox stadium in a pathetic attempt to equate half a dozen broken seats with the £80k of wanton vandalism deliberatley carried out by Rangers supporters at Celtic Park
Now anyone with a more than a single brain cell can see through Houston’s lies and bitterness, however his claims were published in the MSM and as far as i’m aware have not been ridiculed by journalists in the papers that published them. They therefore become unchallenged outside of social media, and down the line gain a currency of “fact” amongst those who don’t know better
2 Serious incidents can be downplayed by press coverage
Graham Spiers aside not many in the MSM are prepared to report on the large scale singing and chanting which breaks the law in this country. As another example take the Scottish Cup Final of last season. If you only got your news from the MSM , then you would believe all 11 Rangers players were attacked on the pitch . We know that’s a lie, and at most it appears a single player was the victim of a single attempted assault.
However the media have largely ignored the actions of a large number of Rangers fans who went onto the pitch intent on committing violence. Those who didn’t ignore it, enthusiastically bought in to Jim Traynor’s fabrication of a valiant band who were only intent in defending their players.
There may be other incidents involving fans of other clubs which could be used to illustrate the points above. The issue though is we can’t allow the MSM to determine what is and isn’t a serious incident. Most journalists , i think, wouldn’t deliberately mislead, but there are clearly enough who would based on their track record