Reflections on Goalposts

ByDanish Pastry

Reflections on Goalposts

A recent autumn storm caused the destruction of the metal goal fame in our garden. The small goal with the weather-beaten net had fallen into disuse. But I liked it seeing it there on the grass. I suppose I half-expected, half-hoped, it would be used again. Once, it was a father and son thing and had been constructed carefully from a nice set of plans. At the time, it impressed both son and daughter no end. But that was then, this was now.

One of our trees, blown over by the recent high winds, caused the goal frame’s final demise. As I unscrewed the twisted metal I thought of the hours of innocent fun it had given us. It had been the scene of many goals and not a few great saves. My son, who is soon off to uni, smiled thoughtfully as I mentioned that this was the end of the ‘goalposts of childhood’. Perhaps he knew what I meant.

My own childhood goalposts had been ‘doon the back’. Drawn with chalk on the red brick of the ‘sausage wall’ at one end, and on part of the ‘wash hoose’ at the other. Many a league, Cup and international match was played out between those goals on the Dennistoun dirt. We once put on a parallel version of a historic England v Scotland match while the real match was being played at Wembley. Jim Mone sitting on one of the dykes had a transister radio to his ear. As we played our match he chalked up live score updates on the wall — our Twitter and FaceBook anno 1967. What a day.

We did use a pile of jackets up on the old Dennistoun cricket pitch, but only rarely. Mostly, we played on the red gravel surface at the Finlay Drive entrance. That pitch was fitted with real goalposts — like the ones they had at Hampden. Or so we imagined.

These sentimental memories of receding years accompanied my removal of the ruined metal goal frame. But, as you can imagine, it seemed an almost symbolic act. For fans of Scottish football the ‘goalposts’ that once defined the game of our football childhoods — have not only been moved, they’ve been been twisted and mis-shapen out of all recognition.

The past decades have seen a fundamental change in the way our game is run and governed, at home and abroad. Money is now king and sporting consideration is a luxury we sometimes have to put to one side — or at least, so we’re told.

At the risk of stating the obvious, sport, if it is to mean anything at all, has to be based on clearly defined rules and principles. These rules must be applied equally to all the participants, they are certainly not optional extras. However, to misquote and paraphrase George Orwell, ‘all teams are equal, but some teams are more equal than others’ — at least, when it comes to Scottish football.

The efforts by the SFA to re-interpret rules to fit the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers FC in 2012 have left most of us scratching our heads. Much of the Scottish media has backed up the SFA’s efforts, something which has added to the general confusion and chaos. In fact, it’s become clear that the death of Rangers, as we knew them, has been such a traumatic event that it must be denied. The authorities and media seem to have been so besotted with one club that its loss is out of the question. And so, it’s been gifted a bizarre kind of immunity from liquidation and death that implies its on-going existence, long after it drew it’s final breath.

This situation has opened the door to a legion of businessmen on the make. They have been allowed to perpetuate the myth, with SFA blessing, that they ‘saved’ Rangers. And their unwavering message is, that they can only succeed if fans keep giving them their hard-earned cash. To those outside the blue bubble it looks like a huge con trick. If the only source of real money in football is the fans, then the Ibrox faithful have been royally fleeced.

How different it could have been if the former club had been allowed a dignified end. A year out of the game would probably have allowed fans to restart a newco of their own. They could have applied for entry into the professional leagues along with the other clubs waiting in line. Chances are they would have been given special dispensation, and walked straight into the bottom tier. Of course, they would have claimed to be the continuation of the spirit of the previous entity — but would anyone have argued against that? How different it could have been if the rules governing the game had been respected. The SFA may even have kept their dignity intact and the press not felt obliged to print half-truths, falsehoods and lies.

You’ve got to wonder why Dunfermline and Hearts fought so desperately to avoid liquidation. After all, the Scottish football authorities now seem intent on convincing us that liquidation has little or no effect on a football club. Even past sins, such as wrongly-registered players are as naught — if, at the time, they were thought to have been registered correctly. By this logic, we have to ask: if a ‘company’ running a ‘club’ bribes a referee, will retrospective action will be taken against the ‘club’. The players and the club, after all, will have done nothing wrong. And since the referee was not known to have been bribed, and not struck off, he was qualified to referee the match in question, at the time. Using the SFA thought process, the result would probably be allowed to stand. Personally, I’m not sure I follow SFA logic. They’ve ‘moved the goalposts’, and (you saw it coming) bent them into an unrecognisable shape.

Which brings me back to our garden. The old metal goal frame is waiting to be driven down to the local re-cycling centre. The twisted metal and worn-out net are useless. Ruined by forces beyond our control. There is no interest in a replacement at present. Perhaps, if we have grandchildren, they will show an interest in football. If they do, I’ll build a new set of goalposts. They’ll be straight and true, the way the goalposts of childhood should be. The way goalposts should always be.

About the author

Danish Pastry author

4,642 Comments so far

John ClarkPosted on3:27 pm - Jan 12, 2014


upthehoops says:
January 12, 2014 at 3:24 pm
‘….So why, when people are actually moved during a game for safety reasons, do they not want to report it?.’
——-
Same old reasons:
intrinsic bias
fear

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on3:38 pm - Jan 12, 2014


For all that it was, in reality, a registration embargo, were not those signed players fielded, on a rota base, as trialists?

As for Fergus, God Bless him, one of the factors he stated as being important to his vision of Celtic, was the potential to increase the number of people coming through the gates.

We were getting, perhaps, 15-20k attendances. He knew that there were more fans out there, who had stopped coming, for one reason or another. He eventually sold 50k season books.

Over at Ibrox, they are, according to their own figures, pushing 36-40k STs ; so they are effectively maxed out.

Where are the additional 30- 40k seat fillers going to come from, and where would they put them?

Incidentally, I read today that Fergus is planning a visit to CP this Spring, to mark his 20th. Anniversary.

I hope that they will take the opportunity to inaugurate the Fergus Mc.Cann Stand in his honour.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on4:20 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Cluster One says:
January 12, 2014 at 3:08 pm

“It would have been easier, certainly a lot less expensive, to go bankrupt but everybody got paid….Fergus McCann
===========================
Yet we still have an underlying view in this country that Rangers are superior to all other clubs in every aspect, on and off the field. They particularly specialise in the areas of morality, honesty and dignity, which makes me wonder why they didn’t find a way to pay off their creditors, no matter how long it took.

View Comment

BigGavPosted on4:21 pm - Jan 12, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:
January 12, 2014 at 12:31 pm

Mr Wallace`s first act is to disclaim he has even heard of Whyte or Green. This is a mindboggling statement from a former football club CEO
——–

Good post Goosy, but actually it wasn’t Wallace but instead the (virtually anonymous) chairman David Somers who said “Until I joined the board a mere four weeks ago yesterday, I had never heard of Charles Green, Imran Ahmad, Craig Whyte, or any of the other characters in Rangers’ history”.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on4:28 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Why am I getting a feeling that Ally is hiding something that has been mentioned at his meetings this week ,not the cutting of playing staff ,thats a given ,just who will be going is the question,no I think one of his close backroom staff will be going ,one of two.

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on6:54 pm - Jan 12, 2014


FIFA says:
January 12, 2014 at 1:59 pm
—————————————–
The answer to your question is simple – there are no “Rangers” men who would dream of investing £100,000 never mind £1M to save their club.

The only people who have invested post-liquidation have done so with other people’s money – that’s the Rangers way and always was.

Paul Murray hadn’t 2 beans to rub together, and the same goes for Brian Kennedy, Jim McBillionaire, Frank Bling & Billy Boy Ng.

In fact the only guy who had the money and decided not to invest was Bill Miller whose finance guy took one look at the books and said “this doesn’t add up and won’t ever add up if the intention is to seek top flight soccer”.

Oh and of course I forgot the convicted criminal Dave King except he’s not got that much money left and any bail out he might try to assist with would only be shortlived.

And perhaps you were missing the biggest point of all, Diouf & Defer were only ever going to hand over the carcase to someone connected with Craig Whyte.

54 (would be saviours) to 0 (chance of avoiding Admin 2)

PS – a VERY good source tells me McCoist’s pay cut is in fact only a deferral; let’s see if any of the MSM is man enough to ask the question.

£54 (per 30mins) to £27 (per 30 mins) allegedly

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on6:57 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Anyone Remember This Classic – It Seems So, So Long Ago.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/craig-mather-tells-ibrox-fans-were-living-within-our-means.1374081570

Craig Mather tells Ibrox fans: we’re living within our means
Wednesday 17 July 2013

New Rangers chief executive Craig Mather has moved to reassure fans that the club is living within its means despite recruiting a number of new players over the summer.

Rangers’ past financial problems were well-documented when they were forced into administration, followed by liquidation of the old company.

Mather said: “People are talking about the signings we have made and we’ve agreed deals to bring in seven players so far but in comparison to last year’s wage bill, it’s less this season.

“Yes, we’re bringing more people in but we’ve worked hard to ensure from a financial perspective we’re living within our means.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on7:41 pm - Jan 12, 2014


I’m minded to imagine back when the breakdown billionaire “looked under the hood” for a hefty Duff an Duffer fee at the “data room” and emerged horrified.
Would it, if it still existed now be called “the doom box” and what would the reflection on the flickering screen portray.
Possibly Munch’s Scream?
NOT MILLER TIME ?
Any suggestions. its a slow day.

View Comment

FairBairnPosted on8:06 pm - Jan 12, 2014


One thing which has bothered me since the announcement of liquidation of Rangers is the concept of TUPE. I had understood that this applied to a going concern which had been bought over. In the case of Sevco Scotland, they were a new company, therefore all employees of Rangers could have been made redundant with perhaps only Government aided redundancy payments available.
This would have been the worst case for the normal hardworking bow of the boat workers, and would have left Sevco Scotland with nobody, except those who wished to start employment with the new ‘Clumpany’. I think that TUPE was a bit of slieght of hand to kid on a lot of people. Maybe I have the wrong info and everything is as it should be.

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:21 pm - Jan 12, 2014


FairBairn says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:06 pm
0 1 Rate This

One thing which has bothered me since the announcement of liquidation of Rangers is the concept of TUPE. I had understood that this applied to a going concern which had been bought over.

TUPE applies where all or part of the undertakings of a business are transferred to a new entity. In this case, the undertaking of running a football club out of Ibrox was transferred, whether a new club or not. They would have opened themselves up to all sorts of legal issues had they tried to deny TUPE.

http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/briefings/219TUPERegsUpdate2010.pdf

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:22 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Bella Caledonia seems to have unearthed an embarrassment to a few people, and heartache for a half billion more. Unfortunately I’ve no idea where this document came from or how to find more information. PMGB has re-tweeted it so if more twitter savvy people would like to check it out it might prove enlightening. Graham Spiers might not be the only one of the MSM with knowledge of what Liquidation actually means should they be presented with this classic piece of (what would appear to be) evidence 😀 Apologies if link doesn’t work.
_________________________
Bella Caledonia ‏@bellacaledonia 59m
Oh dear, that is really quite entertaining. RFC lawyers stating the club ended on the 14/06/12. pic.twitter.com/9pV7CVSrIL

View Comment

ianagainPosted on8:33 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Allyjambo
Board musings pre LNS perhaps?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:03 pm - Jan 12, 2014


@ianagain

I get the impression it’s a bit more than that. It would appear to be a précis of RFC’s lawyers legal argument against the validity of imposing sanctions on Sevco, their argument/defence being that RFC ceased to exist on 14/6/2012 and Sevco/TRFC didn’t become a football club until August so they can’t be responsible for RFC’s ‘crimes’. It would appear, from this document, that the SFA were more intent on perpetuating the same club myth than RFC’s/TRFC’s lawyers were. As we don’t know, at this stage, what the document actually is, it’s difficult to gauge it’s value in the never ending argument. If it is a genuine document (and I don’t doubt Bella Caledonia), however, it does show just how keen the guardians of our game were/still are to defy anyone, even RFC’s lawyers, who uses legal argument that might prove awkward to their plans to get a Rangers into the top flight as soon as they can!

View Comment

FairBairnPosted on9:20 pm - Jan 12, 2014


scottc says:

January 12, 2014 at 8:21 pm

Thanks for the PDF from Unison and for your input, however, my opinion remains the same, that Sevco Scotland weren’t bound by TUPE, i.e. they had a choice. Quote from Unison PDF
“Insolvency
….
BUT, if a new employer does
not take on the workforce,
employees will be due
payments in respect of notice,
unpaid wages and redundancy,
which can be claimed from the
government.
…. ”
Therefore It seems to me that Sevco Scotland had a choice, admittedly between a rock and a hard place, but they could have re-employed the high earners at a more sustainable salary if their targets had been Rangers-minded enough to join the new orgonisation. I believe it was their choice to use the legislation, but that the crucial parts turned to dust.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:27 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Allyjambo says: January 12, 2014 at 9:03 pm
—————————
This was covered a long time back. It came from LNS’ initial hearing that looked at the issues at hand and was published on 12 Sept 2012.

Michael McLaughlin of DWF Biggart Baillie represented both the Oldco and the Newco at the preliminary hearing and it was he who argued that the club ceased to be a club on 14th June 2012, thus the SPL had no jurisdiction over Newco. Also that Newco. could not be held accountable for RFC’s past misdemeanours and that Newco had never been members of the SPL. The SPL, for reasons of their own said that this date was 3rd Aug 2012.

Oddly LNS did not make a determination on who was right, simply stating that the date didn’t matter as the issues he was dealing with pre-dated both dates.

View Comment

smallchangePosted on9:47 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Increasingly known in ‘dancing’ circles as – ‘The Sevco Sidestep’. 🙄

Coats’ on I’m on night shift. GN all.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:54 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Re the suggested proposal for tomorrow’s SPL board meeting.

I feel there are a few angles to it that merit discussion.

First and foremost it is quite a severe change so I’m surprised that it has received no coverage at all – charlotte’s doc dump made it quite clear that it was to be discussed between clubs prior to tomorrows meeting so that if it was to be formally proposed it would pretty much be a done deal.

So, obvious question first. Is it up for the vote or not?

Next question. It was a fairly marked change for Charlotte in my eyes. It was technically potentially very damning yet didn’t seem to favour Rangersness in any way, from any side, quite the opposite in fact. For this reason I warmed to the notion late last week that Charlotte had presented it to support her notion of duplicity at the hands of the SPFL and how that duplicity could come back to bite re the 250k charge. The significance for tomorrow’s meeting was almost an after-thought, on her part at least. So at least in focussing on 1 team to the complete ignorance of the other 41 is at least consistent, but not typical. I said on Friday that I believed this resolution actually played into the spivs hands since it would mean they could literally use non-promotion ands even relegation as a lever to ‘assist’ season ticket sales and even a rental agreement to think of just two.

Next it has a fairly crucial under-riding principle that one or two 😀 have mentioned here; that of the eternal club. If I read the proposed resolution correctly it is basically saying that clubs – and remember they are talking about the formal thing wot is a formal member of their league, not just a brand that 40,000 turn up to support – is indeed immortal. That is a fairly major diversion from, well, common sense basically. In itself, given the authority figures involved, that isn’t a huge surprise. But, as well as a break from common sense it also defies common logic as regards a league competition. What it does it formalises a situation where a club could, god forbid, deliberately, god forbid some more, take on unsustainable debt presumably to win the thing (why else?) then newco away from the debt leaving the eternal club intact with an extra honour added. Not withstanding the nonsense legal position of that statement, it creates a massive hole in the legislation that of course now needs filling.

Hence, I assume, the urgent need for this resolution to plug said self created gap. Of course, they could just have said that if you go to admin and emerge per CVA you continue with the associated slaps on the wrist. If you fail to achieve a CVA then you’re goosed and can reapply as and when you’re fit to. Most of us stupidly thought that was the case. But, if you’re too big to fail, don’t worry we’ll hold your hand. Again most of us of an experienced age were not surprised by this notion either but it would reasonably have been thought that it would be subject to some kind of qualification. Some thing like having to mark the event in some way, the easiest one would have thought being you can’t call yourself the same thing – thus the record books show Rovers for however long then The Rovers thereafter or some such.

But no. Again this gap, and I stress this self created gap, needs filling with another punishment apparently. The generally accepted one in the proposal seems to be that you can’t win promotion through over extending yourself. That is fairly serious but given the nature of the ‘crime’ and the deliberate slaying of the common sense response to the statement ‘ emerging from liquidation’ it seems appropriate – since it would seem to disincentivise newco-ing at its roots. The extent of which is unclear of course since all the examples given, incredibly given recent history, relate to teams newco-ing and also struggling to last place, or at best a play off place. Apparently no thought has been given to what happens if someone wins the damn thing. That, one last time, sparks my curiosity again. I mooted the possibility that perhaps Charlotte with her mysterious agenda had perhaps omitted the paragraph, “What if you buy lots of good unaffordable players and win the league?”

I’ll sign off by saying that even if this significant, if entirely unnecessary bit of legislation is being developed, I hope its being developed by all of the clubs with the common good in mind – whether I personally agree with that common good or not is neither here nor there. So why the big secret?

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on10:07 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Regarding Mr McCoist’s assertion that he does not know how much money is left in the Rangers bank account.

Unless I am mistaken, I believe that when Rangers went to the wall and just before the asset sale to the newco, Mr McCoist proclaimed to the press that the next time [when the club has new owners], he would keep a close eye on the money, and thay he would not let the new owners of the Club [his words not mine] destroy Rangers again.

Does anyone else remember this?

If my recollection is true, then it would appear that Mr Mccoist is not that great at looking after the club he loves.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on10:21 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Green was so adamant about TUPE because the wanted to try to apply it to the players and seemed to think that it gave the employer some sort of rights, rather than the employees.

He apparently believed that he could force people into working for a new club, which in turn he thought could allow him to sell their registrations to other people.

Had Rangers been debt free in the SPL the players who walked away would have been worth a lot of money, even if sold cheaply. Several million pounds.

There are two fundamental issues with that. Firstly the employee does not have to join the new business. They can if they choose to, on the same terms, but that is entirely up to them. Secondly, with the liquidation their registrations reverted to the national association (further proof that the club died but that’s another issue).

I think he genuinely made a total mess of that aspect. Similar to Ticketus thinking their rights survived insolvency in Scotland.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:49 pm - Jan 12, 2014


Decent article from Ewan Murray in advance of tomorrow’s SPFL meeting. It starts off looking at the Hearts situation, but goes on to highlight the basic issues of transparency and accountability lies with the clubs themselves. I think these are arguments are in line with the majority of TSFM posters.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jan/11/hearts-scottish-prefessional-football-league

Change is needed in Scottish football for sound running of clubs
Transparency and stronger governance should replace draconian sanctions for poor balancing of the books

Heart of Midlothian’s latest plea to the Scottish Professional Football League for the relaxation of a transfer embargo is irrelevant in a broad context. The only benefit such clemency would offer the Edinburgh club – who are already relegated from the top flight in all but name – is towards a group of young players who have visibly been physically and mentally battered by the rigours of this season.

Two embargoes and a 15-point deduction were imposed on Hearts after the onset of administration. Owing to subsequent on-field troubles, debate is now raging as to how fair or otherwise such sanctions were and if they reasonably correlate to how other clubs have been or will be treated.

Soft targets, such as the Hearts manager Gary Locke, have predictably been hit upon.

All such discussion misses the point. For too long, those presiding over Scottish football have been unable either to understand or handle the issue of cause over effect. Their logic is back to front. If there is to be one positive and wider benefit to Hearts’ miserable situation, that scenario has to change.

Any time a new set of legislation appears in relation to clubs tumbling into financial difficulty, trumpeted news relates to stiff sanctions as opposed to preventing those situations occurring in the first place. When a club enters administration or finds itself in an alternatively bad fiscal predicament, supporters – and many chairmen – scramble for the rule book to deduce an optimum punishment. While a practice not unique to Scotland, a sense of vengeance is the overwhelming one.

It is not as if the Scottish game needs reminders that mismanagement can have ruinous results: from the age-old trauma of Third Lanark to more recent circumstances involving Rangers and Hearts, financial chaos has routinely engulfed this scene.

Even now, a scratch beneath the surface illustrates the extraordinary lengths some clubs will go to when seeking to protect a nominal amount of money. Others make little secret of the fact they are operating with little or no financial leeway.

Hearts deserved some form of punishment, of that there is no question. The occasionally mooted line that the club itself should not be penalised on account of the behaviour of individual owners is a spurious one. Yet it is curious that nobody involved in the running of Hearts over the past 15 years – and certainly the past five – has been targeted by Scotland’s football authorities. That sends out a dubious message in itself. Hearts are actually fortunate that one group of supporters recognised a dangerous road towards oblivion back in 2010 and are now within touching distance of taking control of the club.

The simple thing here would be to lambast either the SPFL or the Scottish Football Association for not following one German lead which is attainable. That is, clubs must submit detailed financial figures every March before being granted permission to participate in the following campaign. Mid-season checks also take place to ensure projections have not arrived from the realms of fantasy.

It is the kind of information any financial director at a Scottish club can and should supply. The appointment of central auditors or regulators would carry a cost, but an unquestionably worthwhile one. Other aspects, such as media and security provision, are wrapped into a licence application.

It is clubs, rather than Scottish football’s battle-weary administrators, who would resist such progress towards open book-balancing and financial fair play. Transparency remains worryingly rare despite horror tales from the past. Years ago, Jim Farry’s SFA ran football as an autocracy; now member clubs call every shot even to the extent they actually determine what they should and should not disclose to a governing body.

There must be, There must be, however, a general acknowledgement that external scrutiny and control has become a necessity. It would represent a wholly positive legacy and a much-needed one.

So far, the SPFL as a reincarnation of the Scottish Premier League can hardly be considered a roaring success. There is no title sponsor, its Under-20 league is a borderline irrelevance and when the sceptics are preached to about supposedly high crowd figures in relation to population, the fact Celtic routinely include at least 20,000 non-attending season ticket holders in their official figures is pertinent. That public relations trick is of obvious benefit to supposed allure of league itself.

A bigger boost would arrive from stronger governance. On Monday, the SPFL’s board should finally acknowledge that.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on11:05 pm - Jan 12, 2014


“The occasionally mooted line that the club itself should not be penalised on account of the behaviour of individual owners is a spurious one.”

I think that particular argument is specious rather than spurious but at least he is close.

I won’t bother quoting the tribunal ruling on Falkirk again, but it does sum things up rather nicely. The actions of certain people who hold specific positions within an organisation are the actions of the organisation. The two cannot be separated because it suits their customers.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:47 pm - Jan 12, 2014


easyJambo says:
January 12, 2014 at 10:49 pm
‘..The appointment of central auditors or regulators would carry a cost, but an unquestionably worthwhile one…’
————
Provided always that they were not like the best administrator in the world, of course.

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on11:55 pm - Jan 12, 2014


jimlarkin says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:32 am

Is it too much to allege that Mackenzie and Bryson actually “worked together” ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I suspect it will have been done between third parties thus creating deniable distance.

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on12:23 am - Jan 13, 2014


Tif Finn says:
January 12, 2014 at 1:32 pm

I think the difference between a transfer ban and a registration ban is kind of splitting hairs.

Of course Rangers could agree contracts with people, no-one could stop them doing that. They could employ those people. However they could not have the player registered with them, allowing them to actually play competitive football.

I would argue that it is the registration which is bought and sold, which is transferred from one club to another. So it was really a transfer ban, they could not have the registrations transferred to them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You don’t need to argue. What you say is how it works.

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on12:51 am - Jan 13, 2014


John clarke says:
January 12, 2014 at 11:47 pm

easyJambo says:
January 12, 2014 at 10:49 pm
‘..The appointment of central auditors or regulators would carry a cost, but an unquestionably worthwhile one…’
————
Provided always that they were not like the best administrator in the world, of course.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Agreed. It is the bureaucrats at the SFA who need to be brought under control and made to serve the clubs and the national team. This is the same organisation who picked the Scotland team by committee right up until the late 50’s

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on12:57 am - Jan 13, 2014


Long Time Lurker says:
January 12, 2014 at 10:07 pm
Regarding Mr McCoist’s assertion that he does not know how much money is left in the Rangers bank account.

Unless I am mistaken, I believe that when Rangers went to the wall and just before the asset sale to the newco, Mr McCoist proclaimed to the press that the next time [when the club has new owners], he would keep a close eye on the money, and thay he would not let the new owners of the Club [his words not mine] destroy Rangers again.

Does anyone else remember this?

If my recollection is true, then it would appear that Mr Mccoist is not that great at looking after the club he loves.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I can’t understand why you would attack Young Alistair like this. He doesn’t care about money – if he did he would have checked his managers contract before he signed it for how much he was on to. He has already said he didn’t even look at that and I for one believe him.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on6:30 am - Jan 13, 2014


To expand on the “punished enough”, some football authorities actually do ensure the proper governance is done as required by UEFA – unlike the SFA.

Despite finishing 11th in the Bundesliga 2, Duisburg were relegated to the regional leagues . Why? Well anyone interested in someone ensuring teams are properly licensed as per Ewen Murray’s piece above may like these articles. Shows someone applying rules, a team appealing and then gracefully accepting the punishment. Not for a crime deemed just short of match fixing mind you. Also there was an absence of French translations of bigotre and suggestions of kicking while down etc……..amazing! This is one of the many reasons why German domestic football is in much better shape than EPL or La Liga…………

http://www.dw.de/second-tier-duisburg-face-relegation-after-league-license-denied/a-16848711

The German football federation DFB on Wednesday announced the football league’s licensing committee said Duisburg had not met the May 23 deadline for financial requirements for next season.

The club confirmed the news in a statement on their website, saying they “remain convinced, however, that they have fulfilled the conditions and obligations” set forth by the league. Duisburg, who finished the season in 11th place, still have the opportunity to appeal the ruling before an arbitration panel within one week of receiving a written decision from the football league.

Should court rule against Duisburg, the northwestern club would be relegated instead of SV Sandhausen, who ended the second division campaign in 17th place. Duisburg last played in the German top flight during the 2007-08 season.

The reaction from Duisburg officials was total surprise.

“This is a catastrophe. I have no idea how this could have happened. We had assumed in the last week that we would still receive the license,” stadium investor and former club president Walter Hellmich told the DPA news agency.
There are no words. The decision came completely out of the blue,” said Duisburg sporting director Ivica Grlic to the “Express” regional newspaper, adding that he still thought the club would get its license after appeal.

Just a week earlier the mood around Duisburg was optimistic. The club had said it had avoided financial collapse and filed the appropriate paperwork just before the deadline. Duisburg officials had apparently been working anxiously for days to bridge the club’s approximately three million euro ($3.89 million) financial gap.

The club’s managing director Roland Kentsch, however, expressed some doubts about correcting Duisburg’s finances at the annual club members’ meeting earlier this month.

“I can’t promise that we’ll do it,” he said. “If we can’t satisfy the conditions in time, insolvency would be inevitable.”

In 1963, Duisburg, then known as Meidericher SV, were a founding member of the Bundesliga. Led by legendary coach Rudi Gutendorf, the club finished a surprise second, their best result to date. Duisburg have also finished runners-up four times in the German Cup, most recently in 2011.

http://www.dw.de/msv-duisburg-denied-league-license/a-16895204

MSV Duisburg denied league license

German second division club MSV Duisburg have been denied their league license. They will probably spend next season playing third-tier football, while SV Sandhausen are saved from relegation.

An arbitration court dismissed MSV Duisburg’s appeal for their league license after a six-hour meeting in Frankfurt on Wednesday, effectively relegating the club.

“We all feel empty and sad. This is a bad day for MSV and football,” said Duisburg Chairman Jürgen Marbach.

There had been several complaints about the license documents submitted by Duisburg, including a computation error and supposed unfair credit terms from sponsors. The league association’s licensing committee decided the financial mistakes were grounds to refuse the club’s playing status in the second division.

“It wasn’t enough, we have to accept it. It was a fair trial and it was not hopeless,” said Duisburg’s attorney Horst Kletke. “It is sad for MSV, but the arbitration court rejected the suit.”

Duisburg, who finished last season in 11th place, are the first club from Germany’s first or second tiers to have their license denied since then-second division Tennis Borussia Berlin in 2000.

The winners amid Duisburg’s misfortune are the southwestern club SV Sandhausen. Despite finishing last season in 17th place, they will avoid relegation.

“We are thrilled,” said Otmar Schork, the club’s director, told broadcaster Sky. “Now we can make plans with certainty.”

Sandhausen President Jürgen Machmeier added: “This is something totally special for us. This is as rare as winning the lottery, what’s happened to us.”

Duisburg last played in the Bundesliga during the 2007-08 season, but must now prepare for a probable spot in the third tier.

Fans had reacted angrily when news came late last month that Duisburg might lose their second division license, with some staging a protest at the club’s grounds. Following the arbitration court’s ruling, Marbach appealed for calm.

“I hope that like in the last few days, it remains peaceful,” he said.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:16 am - Jan 13, 2014


GeronimosCadillac says:
January 13, 2014 at 12:57 am

If my recollection is true, then it would appear that Mr Mccoist is not that great at looking after the club he loves.
==============================
Only recently it has become clear McCoist thinks the policy on spending since 1986 is just the way it is at Ibrox. I just wish someone from the media had the balls to challenge him on who he thinks should fund it, because the club are incapable of doing so themselves. Does he think a state owned bank should simply hand them a £100M overdraft facility never to be repaid?

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on9:48 am - Jan 13, 2014


I appreciate that this may be of interest only to Celtic supporters on TSFM, but is it just me that finds it strange that there is little or no coverage on the BBC or STV on Celtic’s youngsters efforts last night in Turkey. I’m waiting on a pile of “just you” comments 🙂 or TD’s

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:10 am - Jan 13, 2014


GeronimosCadillac says:
January 13, 2014 at 12:57 am
Long Time Lurker says:
January 12, 2014 at 10:07 pm

Regarding Mr McCoist’s assertion that he does not know how much money is left in the Rangers bank account.

Unless I am mistaken, I believe that when Rangers went to the wall and just before the asset sale to the newco, Mr McCoist proclaimed to the press that the next time [when the club has new owners], he would keep a close eye on the money, and thay he would not let the new owners of the Club [his words not mine] destroy Rangers again. Does anyone else remember this?

If my recollection is true, then it would appear that Mr Mccoist is not that great at looking after the club he loves.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can’t understand why you would attack Young Alistair like this. He doesn’t care about money – if he did he would have checked his managers contract before he signed it for how much he was on to. He has already said he didn’t even look at that and I for one believe him.
============================================================
I think some are being a bit hard in Ally – I mean in order to keep an eye on the money there has got to be some to start with.

However a word of caution for Ally: I hope he has read his amended contract carefully as this one hasn’t been drawn-up by Rangers Men like the old one before the spivs even took control 😉

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:16 am - Jan 13, 2014


briggsbhoy says: January 13, 2014 at 9:48 am

I appreciate that this may be of interest only to Celtic supporters on TSFM, but is it just me that finds it strange that there is little or no coverage on the BBC or STV on Celtic’s youngsters efforts last night in Turkey. I’m waiting on a pile of “just you” comments 🙂 or TD’s
—————————————-
Are you really looking for or expecting wall to wall coverage of Celtic’s “winter break” while there is otherwise a full programme of SPFL football? I think that I along with most non Celtic fans couldn’t give a toss about Celtic’s trip.

However, I do watch a lot of youth football and I’m delighted to see Calvin Miller getting an early opportunity to play for the first team just two days after his 16th birthday. It would be typical of the Scottish media to hype up the coverage and put the spotlight on young Calvin, but he (and Celtic) would be better served if he is allowed to develop without the weight of expectation placed upon him by the media.

By the way, I do think he is the best prospect I have seen in the 15-17 age range in years, and that includes the likes of Ryan Gauld, Alex Harris, Tony Watt, Jamie Walker, John McGinn etc.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:17 am - Jan 13, 2014


upthehoops says:
January 13, 2014 at 7:16 am

Only recently it has become clear McCoist thinks the policy on spending since 1986 is just the way it is at Ibrox. I just wish someone from the media had the balls to challenge him on who he thinks should fund it, because the club are incapable of doing so themselves. Does he think a state owned bank should simply hand them a £100M overdraft facility never to be repaid?
======================
Isn’t McCoist just following the infamous “Walter doctrine”, under which any side playing out of Ibrox can spend, spend, spend other people’s money, regardless of any and all economic realities? According to Saint Walter, that’s just the way it is at Ibrox. And then to think that that clown was the chairman of a PLC. It really beggars belief.

And the fact that Walter was welcomed as chairman by “ra peepil” with open arms just tells you something about the level of blind stupidity in bear land. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single critical post regarding Walter as chairman on any Rangers forum.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:31 am - Jan 13, 2014


easyJambo says:
January 12, 2014 at 10:49 pm

Decent article from Ewan Murray in advance of tomorrow’s SPFL meeting. It starts off looking at the Hearts situation, but goes on to highlight the basic issues of transparency and accountability lies with the clubs themselves. I think these are arguments are in line with the majority of TSFM posters.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jan/11/hearts-scottish-prefessional-football-league
================================================================
It’s a good article in that it is thought-provoking. However there are a few bits missing: How does the new Uefa financial fair play regulations fit-in and does the SFA/SPFL actually have the guts to act on a report on club accounts especially when it comes to any deemed too large to fail.

One thing that disappointed me was the reference to Celtic’s declaration on non-attending ST holders in match day attendance figures. Afaik this is common practice throughout Scottish Football and I raise the point not as a paranoid Celtic supporter but as a worried Scottish Football supporter who believes the game is already on the slide as far as Scots are concerned. Many, without a strong team affiliation, would rather watch English football or elsewhere. And increasing numbers of youngsters are becoming involved in all sorts of ‘new’ sports either as participants or watching.

Scottish Football suffers not just lack or money and talent but a total failure to market and renew the game and the paying punters are drifting and I honestly don’t think the SFA or any of the suits have the vision or ability to halt the slide let alone reverse it.

We need people at the top who not only have integrity and ability but magnificent vision – sadly there is little sign that we can attract them or even want to as they would obviously be outsiders and their first and most vital task would be to sweep away the the dead-hand of the Hampden Blazers and Suits.

Turkeys don’t vote for Xmas unless they don’t know what’s coming.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:51 am - Jan 13, 2014


Smugas says:
January 12, 2014 at 9:54 pm

Re the suggested proposal for tomorrow’s SPL board meeting. I feel there are a few angles to it that merit discussion.

First and foremost it is quite a severe change so I’m surprised that it has received no coverage at all – charlotte’s doc dump made it quite clear that it was to be discussed between clubs prior to tomorrows meeting so that if it was to be formally proposed it would pretty much be a done deal. So, obvious question first. Is it up for the vote or not?
==========================================================
Next question? And if no statement is issued on the subject will any of the SMSM ask if it was discussed and if it was what was the decision. And was it discussed by the clubs prior to today’s meeting with what outcome ❓

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on10:58 am - Jan 13, 2014


Where to start with Jackson’s claptrap in today’s record 🙄 🙄

———————————–

Is the treatment of Hearts fair? Absolutely not.

Must it continue unabated and without mercy? Sadly, there can be no other way.

What we are currently witnessing at Tynecastle is unedifying, bordering on inhumane.

Gary Locke has been forced into a position where he has no choice but to flog the life out of his youngsters who are now dropping to their knees in the utter exhaustion of fighting what has been, from the outset, an impossible task.

They are only half way through but Hearts are goners already.

And the more squeamish may very well feel like looking the other way for the second half of this season as they stagger and stumble towards their own demise.

This is heartbreaking cruelty in every conceivable way.

But Scottish football must not be allowed to avert its gaze. Not for one single second.

Rather, it should be strapped into a seat and forced to sit through every gory moment of this collapse.

Scottish football has done this to Hearts and now it must watch every last consequence of its actions, no matter how harrowing it may become.

Promising young players may be left broken in spirit and body. They may be cast aside and unable ever to fully recover from the traumas of this campaign.

So be it. Locke too may never be the same again given what he has had to endure in this, his first ever managerial post.

Already his credentials for the job are being debated and dissected. In some cases, he has been dismissed as some wet behind the ears, lame duck of a boss who has neither the know-how nor the work ethic to save Hearts from their fate.

This picking on Locke is savage and unnecessary and almost wholly unfounded. After all, how can any reasonable assessment be made on Locke’s qualities or otherwise as a manager when he has been placed in a position which leaves him almost entirely unable to manage?

Unlike his peers, he can neither buy new players nor even loan them, which means he must make do with what little he has on the books.

And yet, so sparse is his squad that Locke is not afforded even the most basic managerial prerogative of choosing a starting XI. He has no choice but to count heads and send them out. No matter if these players are suffering from loss of form or even fitness.

Locke’s only option is to run these youngsters into the ground until the time comes when either Hearts are unable to fulfill their fixtures or, in order to keep up the pretence that they are still a functioning football club, filling up maroon shirts with school children and sending them out to be humiliated by grown-up professionals. All in the name of sporting integrity.

Under these circumstances it is simply not possible to judge Locke’s managerial merits one way or the other. He is not managing Hearts. He is merely enabling them to keep up this pretence until the club has taken its last breath in the top flight.

Anyone who cannot acknowledge that their fate was predetermined before he had given them his first team talk must be a fool. Yes, Locke is learning on the job and will have made mistakes along the way. Of course he will.

But by depriving him of so many of the fundamentals of football management, we make his human error almost redundant. The truth is, there was never any hope for Hearts. That was part of the deal.

When this club limped over the line last season to stay in the top division at the expense of Dundee, they knew administration was on its way. We all did. It’s all been a charade ever since.

The new rules which were drawn up to deal with insolvency events were designed not just to punish offenders but to throttle them.

It had to be this way because of the appalling blood lust with which Rangers had been treated the previous year.

Had level heads been applied to the financial meltdown at Ibrox then Rangers would have been helped back up from the gutter in which Craig Whyte left them. Instead, they were trampled down and kicked to the kerb.

The urge to maximise the damage Whyte had done quickly became overwhelming and, in many cases, it was led by downright malevolence.

Neil Doncaster, the chief executive of the then SPL, wished to apply some logic and reason to the debate for no other reason than it made business sense to protect Rangers. Perish the thought, maybe even to help them in their darkest hour.

But he was shouted down by the baying crowd that had gathered around him.

And now, as a result of this mob mentality, Hearts are paying the heaviest of prices for the roguish actions of their own former owner. There would be uproar among Rangers supporters in particular if it were any other way.

Craig Whyte’s actions at Ibrox made Rangers an easy target
This residual need for revenge is understandable. They believe their club was wronged and so they will demand parity across the board. Even if it reduces Scottish football to a bloodbath.

In fact, so bitter have some of them become that they would wish it to be so. They make no attempt to hide their delight at the suffering of others and nor should they be expected to as Rangers is their only concern.

But if Scottish football is to correct itself then it must transcend this kind of small-minded tribalism.

For the greater good, it must also be prepared to accept that mistakes have been made and that, now they are being repeated, the youngsters of Hearts are being brutalised.

With more than half a season gone, they have still not unshackled themselves fully from the 15-point penalty with which they set out.

Twenty-two games into this mission impossible, with just 16 more to go, Hearts are marooned on minus two. Locke is unable to call for reinforcements. It’s about to become unwatchable. But watch on we must.

And maybe when it is over – when Hearts have been crushed, lying there, limp and lifeless on the floor – then Scottish football will have cause to reflect and to confront itself.

To ask itself how it got into such a dark and mean state of mind. To look inside itself in search of empathy and common sense.

And then to find a better way for the future before more vulnerable clubs and more innocent young players are forced to suffer as Hearts have this season.

Yes, there must still be stiff deterrents in order to keep the game safe from the next Whyte or the next Romanov. But there must also be a realisation that the current penalties are draconian and hurting all the wrong people.

While Whyte and Romanov escape unscathed, the players and supporters they left behind continue to pay for all of their sins.

And while so many old scores are being settled, Scottish football continues to hate itself to death.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on11:00 am - Jan 13, 2014


ecobhoy says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:51 am

Next question? And if no statement is issued on the subject will any of the SMSM ask if it was discussed and if it was what was the decision. And was it discussed by the clubs prior to today’s meeting with what outcome ❓
======================
Presumably all 42 clubs have been involved in any discussions. So I find it astonishing that not one single club has seen fit to let its supporters know what is going on. Never mind the SMSM, every club has a website, and so a direct line of communication to its fan base. What’s going on in this country? Is it a conspiracy of silence? It looks to me as though the authorities and the clubs are happiest when the fans, who actually pay all the bills, are kept totally in the dark.

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on11:07 am - Jan 13, 2014


In a few months time the largest ever sporting event to take place in Scotland will kick off in Glasgow and I’m really looking forward to watching as many of the events as possible either live or on the telly.

One of the venues being used for the Commonwealth Games is Ibrox Park which will host the rugby sevens so I was concerned to see pictures on twitter at the weekend of parts of the Ibrox roof coming loose and sections of the crowd being moved to safer areas.

Surprisingly, given the potential impact that this could have on the success of the Games, this incident has had little or no publicity in the press. Has any journalist thought to pick up the phone either to RIFC plc or the Commonwealth Games organisers to ask if the roof will be repaired before the events start? Are there plans in place to move the rugby sevens to a new venue if required?

Several months ago Charlotte published emails which indicated that spending on on-going repairs at Ibrox had all but ceased. I wonder what assurances RIFC plc have given to the games organisers, under the contract to host the rugby sevens, regarding the health and safety of spectators and the suitability of Ibrox to host a major sporting event.

At the very least I hope that the games organisers have picked up the phone to ensure that the money they are paying RIFC plc to hire Ibrox as a venue is well spent. Over to you David Grevemberg.

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on11:12 am - Jan 13, 2014


50. easyJambo says:
January 12, 2014 at 10:49 pm
============================

Half decent article but as often the case, the comments below are interesting and often more informative.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:21 am - Jan 13, 2014


Bill1903 says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:58 am
‘….Where to start with Jackson’s claptrap in today’s record .’
———-
Jackson demonstrates to the fullest degree his support for cheating in sport and a capacity for distortion of truth that nearly matches that of the SFA ,SDM and CW , and a propensity for dog-whistling matched only by McCoist.

He is a disgrace to his ‘profession’.
There are opinions, and perspectives- and then there’s Jackson’s lunatic ravings .
Bad cess to him.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:34 am - Jan 13, 2014


Bill1903 says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:58 am

TD for article Bill, not for your flabbergast 😯 at posting it .
I’m always unsure about the protocol in these situations.

View Comment

cowanpetePosted on11:36 am - Jan 13, 2014


GeronimosCadillac says:
January 13, 2014 at 12:51 am
It is the bureaucrats at the SFA who need to be brought under control and made to serve the clubs and the national team. This is the same organisation who picked the Scotland team by committee right up until the late 50′s
=================
I implore everyone to read this book [ My Father and Other Working Class Football Heroes by Gary Imlach] about Stewart Imlach who played for Scotland in the 58 World Cup. You will shed a tear about the way the SFA treated scottish footballers back in 1958. Some players who traveled to Sweden to play for THEIR and OUR country ended up paying out of their own pocket because in these days the SFA only paid a player expenses if he actually got onto the pitch. A fantastic read, especially his fight with the SFA to get a “cap”.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on11:37 am - Jan 13, 2014


easyJambo says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:16 am

I don’t disagree with your comments but the fact that there wasn’t even a mention of the fact that they were in a game or got beaten in it I found strange. I didn’t know a number of the young players playing but I hope that those such a the guy you highlight are Scots.

View Comment

cowanpetePosted on11:40 am - Jan 13, 2014


briggsbhoy says:
January 13, 2014 at 9:48 am
I appreciate that this may be of interest only to Celtic supporters on TSFM, but is it just me that finds it strange that there is little or no coverage on the BBC or STV on Celtic’s youngsters efforts last night in Turkey. I’m waiting on a pile of “just you” comments 🙂 or TD’s
====================================
You see there was a full SPFL programme of matches this weekend. Except of course Celtic chose to postpone their match and fly off to play some huge prestigious tournament in Turkey.
You reap what you sow my friend. I am sure the millions of Celtic fans in Turkey had a rerr weekend though.

View Comment

Carl31Posted on11:41 am - Jan 13, 2014


ecobhoy says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:31 am

Eco,
How many journalists (using the word in a loose sense) have attempted to write about the ailments or worse of Scottish club, national or international football as a whole, instead of continuing with view(s) or agendas that are centred on one or a the few clubs?

Much of what is written in various places is sensible but so many of these folk seem incapable of not reverting to type eventually.

Just on the ST v each match attendance issue. I wonder when any of these guys criticising might come up with a better solution? As you say, it is standard practise to declare STs sold as attending as and when the match occurs. Its disappointing that the article seems to mention only Celtic. Does Mr Murray have a better way?

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on11:56 am - Jan 13, 2014


cowanpete says:
January 13, 2014 at 11:40 am

Well aware that there was a full card on over the weekend and the news on these games should take precedence over everything else but not even a single line under the Sports section I found strange. I wasn’t looking for a full match report BTW, an acknowledgement of the score would have been sufficient but there wasn’t even that.

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on12:06 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Down in the last few paragraphs of the daily Sevco reports today it was said that Ally “couldn’t even fill his bench this Saturday”

Wikipedia tells me they have a playing squad of 27 so that’s one helluva injury list

Surely the CEO sees through this nonsense

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:14 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Is it just me or is the TSFM site very slow today..?

@Bill1903… You had me going for a bit there until you mentioned the ‘appalling blood lust’ rangers suffered, being kicked back to the gutter.. Maybe you can elaborate on those phrases giving examples of how rangers were appalling treated? Any mention of relegated to the bottom tier etc will be duly ignored.

Rangers situation and the jambos regards registration embargo are similar granted but at the time rangers had a squad of around 41 if memory serves including a number of boys late teens, early 20s. I take it from what you are saying the jambos do not have that luxury… Rangers also started in the lowest division where opposition would be much weaker. So equal comparison is difficult to make. Hence why I have no idea why you even bring in the rangers situation.

What punishment would you suggest for teams who have not lived within their means, overspending chasing success when other clubs in the same competition have had to curtail excessive spending?

I agree the Scottish football authorities should do more… Weren’t HMRC struggling to trace back Romanov’s past business deals to figure out where he made his money, could the SFA not have used that probe to delay his takeover until they knew he was clean? How many times were the jambo’s players wages delayed? Were the accounts properly analyzed by the sfa (maybe another rangers comparison you failed to mention)?

Generally teams in admin would not be allowed to make signigicant spends anyways. I sympahise with your plight but find it hard working out a fair deal for clubs who have lived above their means for a sporting advantage only to find that they are well and truly hosed when their rich benefactor hits the skids.. I wish the jambos all the best, maybe the early blooding of the youngsters will turn out to be a good thing for the club.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:25 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Eco/Neepheid – Thanks re the SPFL resolution. I was beginning to think I was paranoid – and obsessed!

The situation is summed up perfectly in the Daily Record article Bill lists above. (there’s a word association not featured much on here, Daily, record, perfect). The lead sports writer has written his dog whistling piece complete with kicks and gutters and Whtyes and only just stopping short of saying we’re all in the huff because they used to beat us on the park. Well we are, but I suspect we’d differ on the reasons.

No, seriously, here he is writing chapter and verse on (well rewriting history actually, but apart from that) the inappropriateness of rules and hasn’t mentioned todays meeting and the possible proposal at all – the proposal to change the very rules he is complaining about. Is he unaware? Is he scared to say? Is he scared to say why the rules had to be changed? Does he know its not happening, nothing to see here?

I demand to know.

ps. Had to laugh (sorry AJ, stick with me here) at Hearts “lying lifeless on the floor.” That’ll be lifeless, but not dead (liquidated) then? 😈

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on12:28 pm - Jan 13, 2014


“And maybe when it is over – when Hearts have been crushed, lying there, limp and lifeless on the floor – then Scottish football will have cause to reflect and to confront itself.”

Whilst it is not pleasant to see the young Hearts lads struggling every week I think it’s a case of ” what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. These lads will come out the other side of this season a stronger more experienced and cohesive unit which will stand them in good stead for a quick return to the Premiership.

Scottish football did not do this to Hearts – Hearts did it to Hearts and all that is really happening is that, painful as it is, the business is being restructured to ensure the club lives within it’s means without the reliance on a sugar daddy and stiffing HMRC. In one form or another a Hearts will survive because their supporters are actively taking steps to make sure it happens. Good luck to them but I can’t have too much sympathy for a club who won a Cup whilst using public funds to achieve it.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on12:56 pm - Jan 13, 2014


briggsbhoy says:
January 13, 2014 at 11:56 am
… but not even a single line under the Sports section I found strange. I wasn’t looking for a full match report BTW, an acknowledgement of the score would have been sufficient but there wasn’t even that.
——
Compare and contrast with pre-season games, where a fellow can read all about Celtic & Rangers friendlies, but struggles in a similar way to yourself in finding even the scores of friendly games involving any other Scottish club on tour in Holland, Austria, etc. in the MSM.

Jimbhoy – it took me a few paras, but I think Bill was quoting the DR article rather than espousing his own viewpoint. I got suspicious when I saw his post was more than two lines long and thought, “that canna be Bill writing all that!”. 🙂

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on12:57 pm - Jan 13, 2014


ecobhoy says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:31 am

Scottish Football suffers not just lack or money and talent but a total failure to market and renew the game and the paying punters are drifting and I honestly don’t think the SFA or any of the suits have the vision or ability to halt the slide let alone reverse it.
————————————

The failure to market is an interesting one, Eco. As I wrote in an earlier post, for much of the 20th century, football clubs never had to market themselves as the MSM did it for them with the sports pages. In recent years, some clubs have taken to advertising their own games (West Ham and Fulham are two examples as they buy space in the Metro) and I know that Thistle did try it (and may still do so).

The trouble clubs have I believe is not just that they fail to market themselves, but that the product is effectively losing quality while fan expectations and demands are increasing. How can you market a club on a losing run? You can try the old, “come along and give them a lift” angle but how often?

As for quoting season ticket holders in crowds being a “standard”, I disagree. A few years ago, this was a major topic amongst yep the Firhill faithful and some investigative analysis was done which came to the conclusion that the use of non-attending ST numbers was very common at the top levels in the SPL (think top two historically) and far less common as you go down the table and into the lower divisions.

Like you, I fear for Scottish football, however, I see no future which does not include a significant shrinking of the professional game. Remembering the day when Thistle went full time, I reckon if they go back down to the Championship, I will probably see the day when they revert to a mix of full and part time as this is the only sustainable model in my opinion given the income streams at that crowd level.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:13 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Bill1903 says:

January 13, 2014 at 10:58 am

Like you, I consider Jackson’s TRFC PR piece to be a load of claptrap, or worse.

Like so many PR people he seeks sympathy for one entity, then tries to transfer it to the entity that he is representing. Firstly Hearts are in the dire straits they find themselves in through no one’s fault but their own, and fully deserve the penalties handed out. No argument from me there. The sad thing, and the only reasonable point Jackson made in his pathetic ‘article’, is that the players, young Scots players, are struggling and could have careers, and their health, ruined by a situation that’s not of their own making. His sympathy for Gary Locke is well placed too, as he is suffering while equally innocent.

If he’d left it there, or even offered a reasonable solution, it might have been a reasonable piece. But, true to form, he transfers it to PR for TRFC, suggesting that only Whyte was to blame, doesn’t even mention David Murray, suggesting that ‘Rangers’ suffered their fate, for the same ‘crime’ as Hearts.

We all know that RFC/TRFC not only fell into administration then into liquidation, but were guilty of far greater crimes (no quotation marks required there) for which they were barely penalised or suffered meaningful or commensurate consequences. We know, too, that the SFA/SFL (as was) allowed them to delay their only meaningful penalty and then to facilitate turning a 12 month registration embargo into what was, effectively, a one month embargo (Jan 2013). As far as I can recall, no justification for any ‘facilitating’ of TRFC has ever been offered, just announced in ways that suggest it’s quite reasonable. If I remember correctly, TRFC would have been able to field a team of 11 players all over the age of 21 from the pool they had prior to signing Ian Black etc, not quite the same as only having 3, irrespective of what division they were playing in.

If the SFA/SPFL wanted to help Hearts to help their youngsters, they wouldn’t have much difficulty in justifying it (not suggesting they should). They didn’t even bother with justifications for helping TRFC, perhaps this comparison would have been more fitting for Jackson, or perhaps a journalist, to use as the main point of such an article.

View Comment

tearsofjoyPosted on1:39 pm - Jan 13, 2014


JimBhoy says:

January 12, 2014 at 12:07 pm

29

0

Rate This

Quantcast

@FIFA howdy mate… I think TUPE rules suggest an equal benefits package must be put on the table,
==============================================================================

TUPE rules & regs aside , is there anyone out there who can provide some insight into the Sevco scenario whereby it is clear from the outset (well , it was on TSFM anyway) that the new business could not possibly afford to pay the salaries due to TUPE’d individuals. I have been TUPE’d twice myself (not an unpleasant experience 😆 ) but I work for US multi nationals that didn’t suffer a catastrophic reduction in income. In Sevco’s case , everyone knew their income would be substantially diminished from day 1.

Does TUPE only apply to individuals who agree to join the new company ?

Are there not ANY circumstances under which TUPE can be waived? ie Sevco willingly took people on with expectations that Sevco gets SPL football. That all falls down when newco has to start at the lower & appropriate level. But if TUPE is to be applied there is a possibility that the long term outcome for Sevco is bankruptcy ? It seems a little contradictory in that TUPE was devised to protect employees T&Cs but then in this case , it’s possibly going to destroy the club ?

I’m only asking about TUPE and it’s application in employment law. Sevco’s longevity I don’t care about.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on1:45 pm - Jan 13, 2014


FFS!

right, just read the START of the Jackson article….not sure i can get much further

“Gary Locke has been forced into a position where he has no choice but to flog the life out of his youngsters who are now dropping to their knees in the utter exhaustion of fighting what has been, from the outset, an impossible task.”

come oan tae f..k man!!

it’s football they are playing, young boys, doing nothing else but playing and preparing for a game – at that age they could play a game every other day without skipping a beat

so, don’t give me any nonsense about them being on their knees…..physically, they are fine. However, yeah, what will the current situation does to them mentality is a different question.

well, maybe some of them will shrug their shoulders and say “sod this, it’s not for me” and will be lost to the game and some of them will realise the game isn’t all about being Leo Messi or Ronaldo and getting £500k a week and dating models/pop/movie stars and they’ll jsut get on with it.

They;ll dig in and work hard – and through hard work will come it’s reward

Sure, it might not be enough to help hearts remain in the SPL, but it will give them a bloody good grounding for going into the championship and maybe coming straight back up – bolder and wiser.

And some of them might even find that their displays will win them a move – back to the premiership or even down south

but, it will give them an education which if they are smart they will learn from.

As for the SFA…..why not simply delay the registration embargo until next year, i believe that no one would mind that!

What is the position with Hearts being able to play trialists? i am sure it must be the same as Sevcos this summer – would love to see clubs loaning hearts players for a few games this month to play “as trialists” (not actually sure that can be done – as players need to be out of contract

but surely hearts could line up a number of out of contract players and give them a shop window for 3 games

if they can play 2 trialists at any one time, for a maximum of 3 (or is it 4 games) then if they could find 8 guys without clubs they could give them a run out over the next few months to ease their burden – i for one wouldn’t mind and i don’t expect the SFA/SPFL to complain

View Comment

erniePosted on1:47 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Counting ST holders as being in attendance is not the norm. If you look at Aberdeen’s attendance (for example) last season you’ll see a couple of crowds that are less than the ST’s sold. Sad but true.
In any event it appears to be a bit of a red herring and it also seems to be reserved as whataboutery for the big two. Who else would care if they sell 34,000 ST’s and only half turn up?
btw, I’ve had an ST for about 40 years and have been to about half our home games this season as is about normal for me nowadays, does this make me a flawed person?

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on1:56 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Carl31 says:
January 13, 2014 at 11:41 am
========================

I thought a lot of clubs, at least top league clubs, had installed new electronic entry systems so you enter by season book card or a ticket you buy outside the entry gate which are read by scanners. Surely these systems will show who enters either by ST or buying ticket on the day? To add ST number to this would then be adding figures they shouldn’t and if the system can count STs separate from those bought on the day then surely they should just be giving these figures and not adding on any more. The total ST count shows how much money is brought in over a season by this method but shouldn’t be used for anything more than this.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:09 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
January 13, 2014 at 1:45 pm
1 0 Rate This

FFS!

right, just read the START of the Jackson article….not sure i can get much further

“Gary Locke has been forced into a position where he has no choice but to flog the life out of his youngsters who are now dropping to their knees in the utter exhaustion of fighting what has been, from the outset, an impossible task.”

come oan tae f..k man!!

it’s football they are playing, young boys, doing nothing else but playing and preparing for a game – at that age they could play a game every other day without skipping a beat

so, don’t give me any nonsense about them being on their knees…..physically, they are fine. However, yeah, what will the current situation does to them mentality is a different question.

well, maybe some of them will shrug their shoulders and say “sod this, it’s not for me” and will be lost to the game and some of them will realise the game isn’t all about being Leo Messi or Ronaldo and getting £500k a week and dating models/pop/movie stars and they’ll jsut get on with it.

They;ll dig in and work hard – and through hard work will come it’s reward
========
A great post, NTHM, which sums up my feelings precisely. Most of these lads are getting a chance to play in the top division, a chance they might never have had otherwise. I don’t think they’ll be complaining. At the worst, they will never play in the top league again, but at least they’ve been there. Which otherwise, they probably wouldn’t. But some will catch the eye of another team, or make their mark with Hearts and become a legend, or whatever. They are not boys- they are all men, young men, ok, but physically, playing football a couple of times a week at that age is simply not a challenge. Getting tonked every week isn’t nice, but if you can’t hack that, you don’t have what it takes anyway. Jackson is a complete nonentity, who has no idea what he’s on about. The current situation, dire though it is for Hearts fans, and I really do sympathise with them, is simply a golden opportunity for the younger players.

View Comment

BangordubPosted on2:11 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Ok, For the Share price watchers we are down by 2.5p today so far- 26p latest and still heading south.
“One wheel on my wagon………..”

Rangers International Football Club PLCRFC:LSE
26.00
2.50 / 8.77%
25.19k
71.11%

View Comment

FinlochPosted on2:18 pm - Jan 13, 2014


A couple of things about Journalism, The BBC and matters Tynecastle.

The Jackson article today is puerile and playing to his usual knuckledragging gallery.
I’ve been a long time Tynecastle season ticket holder and while Gary and Billy currently have to make and mend I also acknowledge that we won stuff we wouldn’t have won and shouldn’t have won if we’d run our club as an honest business.
I’m not a fan of the last three regimes who used Hearts as their personal plaything/publicity engine/ cash generator (and I have been very close to one of them).
The club has been a basket case for years – (anyone remember the wee favour SDM did for Waldo by buying Dave McPherson?)
I’m not a ST holder any more and my kids have lost all interest in all things Tynie but I still hope Hearts get an agreement with Lithuania and that Bryan Jackson pulls Hearts through.
However I think the eventual way forward will be without Tynecastle and may even be through the Lowland League because we won’t get a 5 way agreement if we become a new club.
I can also say it would be manifestly wrong if Hearts have their transfer ban overturned today or receive any special favours in the future from the likes of RCO and his cabal.
The Hearts community will take their pain and I think come back stronger as a community club and not the personal chattel of a property developer, a pie magnate or a Lithuanian with a deeply flawed business plan.

Now Jackson and his nonsensical piece and his regularity on the BBC
I just don’t know how, or why Jackson gets a regular gig on The BBC as an expert.
But when you see the other rabble they allow to spout their bile on air like Chic with his sneaky wee leaks and biases or their rent-a -quotes like Patey and his ilk says to me that there is an editorial bias deeply endemic in BBC Glasgow.

Scotland needs a strong Hearts and an honest BBC.

We’ll get Hearts sorted out in time but I’m not sure we’ll ever get an honest BBC while it is headquartered out of Glasgow.

View Comment

tomtomPosted on2:24 pm - Jan 13, 2014


If I may be allowed to enter the debate on crowd numbers and ST holders.

In the grand scheme of things the actual number of people who actually attend any match is irrelevant. Did Albion Rovers £1 min entry on Saturday generate any more money than they would normally have got. Yes, it’s a fine attempt at boosting the crowd but if the actual cash collected was less than normal how does that help the club. Similarly Celtic (or any other club) claiming crowd levels that are clearly at odds with the actual attendance means very little. Distributing lots of free tickets can also influence the crowd numbers without any significant benefit to the club.

If an author sells 10,000 copies of a book and only 5,000 actually read it then the publishers will quite rightly claim the 10,000 sales as the popularity of the book. The author doesn’t really care as he gets paid on the strength of the 10k figure. However if the author only sells 200 copies and they all go to local libraries then 10,000 people may read the book without the author getting a proportionate payment. In essence it’s the turnover of any club that really matters – no matter how the figures are dressed up.

View Comment

McCaig`s TowerPosted on2:29 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Finloch says:

January 13, 2014 at 2:18 pm

I just don’t know how, or why Jackson gets a regular gig on The BBC as an expert.

They would be better off with Bryan Jackson. He would have a few tales to tell.

View Comment

CarntynePosted on2:30 pm - Jan 13, 2014


A demolition of today’s article by Keith Jackson in today’s Daily Record.
=============================================================================
by Jim McEwan

11:17 AM on 13/1/2014

In all the years of reading the DR I haven’t ever read such absolute, arrant, nonsensical, drivel laden, contrived and farcical tosh.

‘The residual need for revenge is understandable’. Perhaps to you Mr Jackson but to anyone with even the most modest understanding of the facts, there is no justification for such feelings at least not towards anyone other than the club’s own management.

The SFA dished out a 10 pt penalty to a club that went into Administration, lighter than Hearts, and a transfer embargo that is entirely appropriate for a club which can’t pay its bills. Lord Nimmo pronounced Rangers guilty of grave misconduct and then fined them a risible and incredibly lenient, by past precedent, punishment. Rangers failed to come out of Admin and went bankrupt and the SFA speeded through an unprecedented licence transfer and queue-jumped them back into the league.

They weren’t relegated they were aided in starting again quickly, something which we all understand the reason for but you seem to find it explains the desire for revenge.

‘They make no attempt to hide their delight in the suffering of others, nor should they be expected to’. What a ridiculous statement to make. It’s just wrong on so many levels of decency.

Yes, I know that Celtic fans have taken great delight in Ranger’s travails its perhaps understandable but is it to be condoned as ‘quite right too’ which the thrust of your remarks suggest?

As for the lurid ‘appalling blood lust’, what on earth are you talking about? If any club goes bankrupt it will face exactly the same outcome, so if Kilmarnock were to go bust for example and were to start again, do you believe they would start at the bottom tier? Of course they would.

You knowingly encourage the view that it was a plot against Rangers and their restart in the bottom tier was the product of a vendetta, when in fact it was a simple consequence. You mention small minded. Look no further than the nearest mirror for a prime example of same.

As for the limp and lifeless, broken in spirit and body youngsters, what unremitting balderdash, look at the average age of the Dundee Utd squad, it’s younger!!

Hearts fans rejoiced when their team they couldn’t afford thrashed a club that lives within its means, Hibs, in the cup final 2 years ago, the punishment they are suffering for what is effectively cheating is absolutely just.

You should be ashamed of this essay in appeasement, but we expect no less from you.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:34 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Finloch says:
January 13, 2014 at 2:18 pm
‘..I just don’t know how, or why Jackson gets a regular gig on The BBC as an expert.’
——-
Certainly not there on any kind of journalistic merit.
Perhaps his step-sister Kirsty put in a word for him?
Someone must have because he’s certainly not there on any kind of journalistic merit.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:35 pm - Jan 13, 2014


I thought it might be relevant to put down some thoughts on why football companies go to the trouble of proposing CVAs when they are so rarely used in other industries.

In Scotland, only a tiny proportion of insolvent companies ever propose a CVA. I cannot immediately lay my hands on reliable numbers but in 2011, only 3.5% of company insolvencies in England involved a CVA. I suspect the percentage in Scotland will be lower. And yet in one industry (football) every time a company goes into an insolvency regime, a CVA is proposed. Why?

There are drawbacks to proposing a CVA. The first is that the outcome is uncertain. The second is that you won’t ordinarily be walking away from all of your debt (as would be the case with other insolvency “exits”).

The key difference between a CVA and any other insolvency regime is that, if approved, a CVA will mean that the limited company itself survives the insolvency. Here it is important to draw the distinction between the business that a limited company carries out and the limited company itself. Usually the motivation for attempting a CVA (despite the drawbacks) is because there is something about the limited company itself that needs to be “saved”.

In my experience, almost invariably, this will be because the limited company holds a licence or permit that is valuable but which is not freely transferable. If it were transferable, no one would go to the trouble of proposing a CVA with all of the hassle and uncertainty of outcome that that involves.

An insolvency practitioner, when appointed, will look at the available options and decide upon a course of action that will be designed to maximise the return to creditors.

Usually the best way of ensuring the highest possible return to creditors is to sell the business that is carried on by the company as a going concern. However, in certain types of business, it is not possible to sell a business as a going concern. One example is an airline.

In order to operate an airline business you need certain licences from the Civil Aviation Authority (“CAA”). Those licences are not transferable. It makes perfect sense for those licences not to be transferable. You don’t want me running an airline – I am simply not competent to do so.

So, in the insolvency of an airline, even if I were to submit the highest bid to an administrator, and the administrator accepted my bid, I could not lawfully carry on the business the day after I purchased because I do not hold the requisite CAA licences. Neither does the “business” that I have bought. The licences belong to the company from which I have bought the business. The reality of course is that in those circumstances, I simply would not make a bid to buy the business at all, because I know that I will be unable to run it thereafter.

Indeed we can go a step further back. An administrator will not consider trying to achieve the sale of the business as a going concern in those circumstances as no one will offer to buy. An administrator will strike a going concern sale off the list of options very early in the process. That leaves two options.

The first is to propose a CVA and the second is to sell the assets of the insolvent company on a break up basis.

The first, if achieved, means that the limited company continues with its existing licences and its business can continue. The second leads to the end of that limited company (ultimately through the dissolution of the limited company and its striking from the Register of Companies) and also the end of the business that that company carried out.

I suspect that you can see where I am going by now. Football companies are a bit like airlines. They hold certain licences that, unlike other business assets, cannot be transferred to whoever the administrator chooses.

If a CVA is approved, then the company is back up and running. Theoretically that means that those who have been responsible for taking the company into insolvency remain in control.

In fact, what usually happens is that some third party will have agreed to provide the finance for the CVA. That is usually the person who would have been the purchaser of the business if a going concern sale were possible. That person will wish to acquire the shareholdings of the existing shareholders. (In most cases a share purchase agreement would be entered into that would be conditional upon a CVA being approved, so that, as and when the CVA is approved, there is a change of share ownership). That would require an agreement to have been reached with the existing shareholders.

A difficulty arises if the existing shareholders are unwilling to transfer their shareholdings (and why would they unless they receive a payment?). No purchaser is going to be prepared to fund a CVA if they cannot then get control of the limited company. That gives the incumbent shareholders a “ransom” position.

The Scottish Football authorities had hitherto been unprepared to countenance the possibility of a purchaser acquiring the business and assets and also the licences (in this context the appropriate term would be “memberships”) thus circumventing the existing owner’s “ransom” position.

I can recall one instance where the incumbent shareholder was refusing to deal with the only party that was prepared to put forward any sort of funds towards a football CVA. If that party could not get control of the shareholding, it would not fund the CVA and so a break up sale would occur, leading to the demise of that particular team. This difficulty was raised with the appropriate football authority. It was suggested that it was necessary for the relevant rules to be changed to allow membership transfers, otherwise this team would die. The response was along the lines of “rules are rules” and “if we allowed this, there would be nothing to stop every team in Scotland running away from their debts”.

There you have it.

I think that what we are now seeing is that the football authorities want their rules to apply except when they don’t want them to apply. Their issues however are that:-

(i) they don’t know what their rules should be; and

(ii) they don’t currently know when and in what circumstances they will want to bend/ignore/shred those rules.

Maybe I am wrong on point (i). Maybe they do know what they want their rules to be, but they don’t want the same rules to apply to all of their members.

That’s the problem with rules. If they are written down, other people can see what they are.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:51 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Carntyne says:

January 13, 2014 at 2:30 pm

Good post, Carntyne, but one correction, if I may. Rangers received their registration embargo, not as a result of not paying bills, or falling into administration (followed by liquidation) but as a result of using income tax and NIC contributions to pay their players’, and others’, salaries. If I’m not mistaken, the only penalty handed out to RFC as a result of their insolvency event was the 10 point penalty, which was meaningless in the position they were in. Everything else was as a result of some other factor, ie Liquidation, use of EBTs, non-payment of income tax and NIC and so on…

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on3:11 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
January 13, 2014 at 2:35 pm
——————————————————-
That was an interesting and enlightening piece. Only slight comment is on when rules are written down other people can see them. In football it would appear that even past precedent has no influence when certain ‘interpretations’ of the rules are required.

To stick with your analogy about licencing I pray that the CAA never becomes as corrupt as some of the suits in Scottish Football as the consequences could be dire indeed.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on3:12 pm - Jan 13, 2014


tomtom says:
January 13, 2014 at 2:24 pm
5 0 Rate This

If I may be allowed to enter the debate on crowd numbers and ST holders.

In the grand scheme of things the actual number of people who actually attend any match is irrelevant. Did Albion Rovers £1 min entry on Saturday generate any more money than they would normally have got. Yes, it’s a fine attempt at boosting the crowd but if the actual cash collected was less than normal how does that help the club. Similarly Celtic (or any other club) claiming crowd levels that are clearly at odds with the actual attendance means very little. Distributing lots of free tickets can also influence the crowd numbers without any significant benefit to the club.

If an author sells 10,000 copies of a book and only 5,000 actually read it then the publishers will quite rightly claim the 10,000 sales as the popularity of the book. The author doesn’t really care as he gets paid on the strength of the 10k figure. However if the author only sells 200 copies and they all go to local libraries then 10,000 people may read the book without the author getting a proportionate payment. In essence it’s the turnover of any club that really matters – no matter how the figures are dressed up.

=========================================

yes, to the clubs and their day to day business, it matters not, all that counts is income.

However, for us lesser mortals – fans, pundits, MSM, commentators – it is a good gauge of the state of teh game

Why are so many paid up members of teh Celtic support not turning up every week? Clearly it’s not down to finances – as they have already paid.

It’s not down to “no Rangers” as this is not a new thing with large numbers not turning up

And it’s not as if Celtic aren’t winning trophies – as they are.

Is it Celtic FC themselves alienating themselves from customers? or the standard of the game? issues with the SFA or football in general?

One other reason for reporting the higher figure is because it makes it look like a popular “product” which will help gain advertising and sponsorship revenue etc. Which in turn affects the bottom line of the business.

We are told that Armageddon is upon us, it would be nice to see what the actual attendance is every week as well as the number of tickets SOLD (not freebies)

but, we are just customers, why should we get to know the state of the game.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:13 pm - Jan 13, 2014


CampbellsMoney

A good comparison model and explanation of the importance of getting a licence or in football’s case a membership.

For Rangers the SFA played a key role in granting membership in the 5 way agreement that carries definitions that raises questions set out at

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=12716240&t=8837773

Was it all camouflage for Rangers and their supporters or did it have to be the same club to get money owed to football paid or a mix of both?

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on3:19 pm - Jan 13, 2014


john clarke says:
January 13, 2014 at 2:29 pm
==========================

I don’t recall the post referred to so can’t say if it was snidey or not. Howver there surely is a point that this only benefits the bigger clubs and above all (as the biggest club) Celtic as they have the name to get into a tournament where they’ll at least break even and can afford the travel expences. For smaller clubs it’s unlikely they could do more than arrange a friendly not too far away and even then would probably lose money.

There’s no blame attached to Celtic of course for taking advantage of the situation but you can’t really say the ruling is for the benefit of all the clubs. There’s the argument re resting players but clubs in the bottom 6 for instance can’t really afford to lose impetus by missing games especially as other clubs may pick up points against them (the old adage points gained are better than games in hand).

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:37 pm - Jan 13, 2014


coineanachantaighe says:
January 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm
‘….but you can’t really say the ruling is for the benefit of all the clubs. ..’
————–
I agree with you of course that the better-heeled clubs are likely to be able to arrange relatively lucrative matches.
The question then is whether any club should be allowed to arrange for such matches to take place after the start of the domestic season.
Personally, I think probably not.
But, as you say, while the ruling is as it is ( and, presumably it is as it is by agreement?) then clubs that are able to use the rule should not be criticised.
This blog has an interest in playing by the rules as they are. 🙂

View Comment

Blindsummit63Posted on3:42 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Hello all.

I have been following with interest, as we all have I suspect, the ongoing decine in the RIFC share price.

I’d like to get the views of the more AIM and Stock Market savvy of you on some of the potential outcomes of this if it continues to plummet at the current rate.

For instance, is there a price level (or rate of decline), or a level of market capitalisation, at which the share dealings would be suspended, or can it continue to drop to fractions of a pence?
Would this suspension be carried out by AIM? Or by RIFC themselves?

What are some of the other implications for RIFC if this fall continues? Are there operational impacts? Or does it have no bearing on operational matters. Does it put the assets at risk in any way? Doubtful I suppose if they are not mortgaged.

Many thanks in advance for any feedback on this 🙂

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:47 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Bangordub says:
January 13, 2014 at 2:11 pm
‘…..we are down by 2.5p today so far- 26p latest and still heading south.”
——-
‘ .. Sell! Sell! Sell!…” was the cry in that great wee movie ‘The Million Pound Note”

View Comment

bobferrisPosted on3:55 pm - Jan 13, 2014


Did Albion Rovers £1 min entry on Saturday generate any more money than they would normally have got. Yes, it’s a fine attempt at boosting the crowd but if the actual cash collected was less than normal how does that help the club.
————————-
Rovers chairman John Devlin, whose idea this was, tweeted last night, “Crowd increase of 125%, gate receipt increase of 160%, café/shop/add-ons increase of 165%”. The crowd against Montrose earlier in the season, on a balmy August afternoon, was only 311. Quite a jump to 718 on a day that was cold to begin with and got a helluva lot colder. I was there and was quite taken aback at the size of the crowd. I paid £10 btw, was intending to pay £8 but forgot to take a fiver and didn’t fancy asking for change at the turnstile!

Regarding ST holders always being counted, the Hamilton Accies secretary told me that they only count those in attendance but this included everybody – directors, ballboys, members of the press, tea ladies etc. Quite sobering to realise that an Accies home crowd of 1000 probably only has around 800 actual Accies fans present.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:00 pm - Jan 13, 2014


blu says:
January 13, 2014 at 3:37 pm
‘…You’re not a fan of Tam Cowan then?@
——-
Ach, Tam’s all right, and he is extremely quick, and he and Cosgrove have worked very well together over the years.
(And it was Cowanpete’s post that I referred to, which put Tam’s name and his silly Trabzonspor comments into my mind.)

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:01 pm - Jan 13, 2014


bobferris says:
January 13, 2014 at 3:55 pm

So say 50 tea ladies, ball boys etc that leaves 150 members of the press. I don’t need to ask who they were playing!

View Comment

Comments are closed.