Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?

Avatar By

Graham Wallace looks to be the latest in an increasingly …

Comment on Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ? by Martin.

Graham Wallace looks to be the latest in an increasingly long list of Rangers CEOs to depart Ibrox, feet first through the trap door.

No more one that “struts and frets his hour upon the stage”.

If one were to score this pantomime with suitable evocative music the instrument of choice would be the kazoo, played with comic energy.

If indeed he has gone the big chap with a face like a slice of pan bread will depart with his personal credentials intact and leave behind an environment altogether less sane.

Not that Rangers fans should worry, there is always ” tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow”, a frustrating petty pace I know, on the way back to the place called

And…there is always Longmuir, that could work out well. 🙄

I may have pushed the Shakespeare thing a little bit far here 🙂

Martin Also Commented

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
essexbeancounter says:
September 8, 2014 at 5:57 pm

Happy to take the stage with John, as long as I get the best lines and the biggest dressing room. 😎

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
It seems that Armageddon is back on the menu, Scottish football is about to be obliterated. This will be the end of times, again.

It’s time to batten down the hatches or seek refuge in some far flung corner of the world, we don’t have long to prepare. The great prophet Jackson has spoken, there is only six weeks to go…”Probably”.

If “careless talk of Armageddon proved unfounded back in 2012” this time it’s for real and it’s “terrifying”.

There is so much wrong with Keith Jacksons latest missive but his use of language is at least entertaining.

“Demise” can apparently be “temporary” and then become “quite permanent”.

Just for the record (no pun intended) Demise : A person’s death; The end or failure of an enterprise or institution.

The OCNC conundrum in a nutshell. 🙄

I could go on with this but the regular readers of TSFM are more that capable of picking this kind of thing apart for themselves.

Predictably Mr Jackson, when he eventually gets round to making his point, opts for the sugar daddy solution. Sweet!

“The future of a lot more than Rangers may depend upon it”.

Armageddon; it’s no laughing matter!

Stop sniggering at the back.

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
Keeping the lights on at Ibrox has become a complicated business.

All current shareholders have the opportunity (for want of a better word) to pony up to keep things running and to maintain their holding in percentage terms.

For the average Rangers fan who bought into this at IPO keeping the lights on is probably the main lever in getting them to part with further cash.

For the big investors there are other issues at stake.

Had the Rangers board achieved a vote in favour of disapplying pre-emption rights at the AGM I’m sure we would be seeing an altogether different approach to the market.

The Rangers board don’t really have any option other than to allow existing shareholders to have their say in the only way that counts.

Pre-emption rights is a closed door but the latest move by the board is significant in its scale as it allows the possibility of a shift in a future vote.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Recent Comments by Martin

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
John Clark says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:50 pm

with respect, I don’t think any evidence has been withheld in any recent disciplinary cases.

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
There is it seems a developing question.

Who do we get to judge on issues that occur in football games if we cant accept the view of an independent panel and a process which allows appeal to an equally independent panel?

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
Smugas says:
December 18, 2014 at 10:39 pm

exactly so.

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
TSFM says:
December 17, 2014 at 12:10 am

Yes, everyone needs to grow up. Now.

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
Aleksandar Tonev Appellate Tribunal Outcome
Tuesday, 16 December 2014

An Appellate Tribunal convened in accordance with the Judicial Panel Protocol has considered the following case:

Appellant: Aleksandar Tonev (Celtic FC)
Match: Celtic v Aberdeen (SPFL Premiership) – 13th September 2014

Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:

Disciplinary Rule 202: Excessive Misconduct by the use of offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature.

Outcome: The appeal has been rejected and an immediate seven-match suspension will be applied (with one match having already been served).

Having read through the decisions given, firstly the initial hearing and latterly at the appellate tribunal I think it’s worth noting that the decisions taken and the reasons for them have been made public.

We have The Right Honourable Lord Bonomy to thank for that and his reasons for doing so in a postscript to the appellate tribunal decision are worth noting.

“There has inevitably been ill-informed speculation about the reasons for the Disciplinary Tribunal deciding to uphold the complaint and impose a seven match suspension. Against that background the Appellate Tribunal consider that it would be in the interests of the parties, in the interests of the wider football community and in the general public interest to publish this decision and the terms of the original Disciplinary Tribunal decision, thus ensuring that any debate is informed.”
I have no firsthand experience of the evidence given or any knowledge of Aleksander Tonev as a person but I am persuaded that those who passed judgement at the hearings did so fairly having considered the matter within the terms that the rules provide.
The suspension from playing football for seven matches also seems appropriate and within the rules.

Perhaps the Right Honourable Lord Bonomy had Twitter in mind when he wrote his postscript.

Immediately after the Appellate decision had been made all manner of opinion apppeared.

Polls were being conducted and questions raised.

Should Aleksander Tonev be sacked? Are the SFA equipped or appropriate in dealing with issues of racism? It’s wrong to convict someone of racism on no more that the evidence of his accuser?

I’m paraphrasing but you get the idea.

Going back to the original judgement it’s worth taking a look at the complaint in question.

Disciplinary Rule 202: Excessive Misconduct by the use of offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature.

The result of the tribunal is damning in its conclusion, there is no place for this kind of abusive language in football and the penalty imposed is appropriate.

The question of whether or not Aleksander Tonev is a racist is not one that was asked of the judicial panel nor should it have been.

The judgement given and supported at appeal is limited to Disciplinary Rule 202 and applicable penalties.

If anyone wants a wider judgement on this the SFA is not the place to go. Those who have given their time and experience to the case have completed their task, thoughtfully and incisively.

If you apply their answer to a different question you are likely to run in to problems.

I’m not sure TSFM is the place for me to comment further on this. So I’ll leave it at that.

About the author