Reflections on Goalposts


Thought 2 You don’t really need a left back, especially one …

Comment on Reflections on Goalposts by Smugas.

Thought 2

You don’t really need a left back, especially one who does’t want to come anyway. Sellers are widely touted as, whats the term?…knackered. They knock back your bid which is strangely made public. On the last day do you a/ go in higher and risk the wrath of your support if he’s a dud? b/ Go in same again with your poker face on – possibly, again question why or c/ stick in 500k take it or leave it.

The bears won’t be happy if there’s a cash shocker round a corner. Dangerous, dangerous game of bluff this one.

Smugas Also Commented

Reflections on Goalposts
When I first got up to speed with the rangers story, the RTC version having gotten fed up with the official version, my immediate thought was “that’s a guy deliberately crashing the bus.” I have be honest, if this is more than bluster (and he has previous for that) my immediate gut reaction is exactly the same. The difference this time is, is he on the train, or is he on the platform? This is after all the mother of all squirrels, the one that all the dogs will chase and the wagons are guaranteed to circle against.

Reflections on Goalposts
ecobhoy says:
January 29, 2014 at 1:03 pm

Rangers could be fighting to get rid of Craig Whyte for another 10 years, warns former Ibrox chief Charles Green.

If I could just rework the sub headline

“Rangers could be fighting to get rid of Craig Whyte for another 10 years, warns one of the two Ibrox men who screwed him out of Rangers and into 25m hellhole”

Could someone talk me through the rest of it?

Reflections on Goalposts
I’d disagree that Wallace’s international career has stalled in the 3rd div. Without checking actual call ups I would argue that we have seen more 3rd division caps recently than for quite some time!

Their has been a distinct lack of high level International fixtures, particularly where results meant, for instance, qualification for something important. Remind me? Who’s in charge of that department of our game?

There’s a stat for you. With all that’s happened in the last 30 months or so of Scottish Football and the only guy I can immediately think of out of a job is Levein?

Smith – choice
Longmuir – put it this way, didn’t look disappointed!

Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  

About the author