Scottish Football and the case for a Bismarck!

Avatar By

Jockybhoy says: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 12:28 BTW I put …

Comment on Scottish Football and the case for a Bismarck! by Madbhoy24941.

jockybhoy says:
Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 12:28
BTW I put this up on the Law Thoughts site, but it is on topic so:

Dave King may be a “glib and shameless liar” but he knows a walker-away when he sees one: “I think I was public in saying that [current majority shareholder] Craig Whyte wouldn’t see the season out and I would predict Charles Green wouldn’t see a season out either.” June 2012
————————————————-

Of course, if King was involved from the start and this whole thing was orchestrated then predicting those things would not have been too difficult…

Mystic Meg he is not!

Madbhoy24941 Also Commented

Scottish Football and the case for a Bismarck!
————————————————————————–
The minutes seen by The Scottish Sun said: “The SFA mentioned to the acting chief executive (Craig Mather) that the Rangers board situation needed addressing as the SFA understood information was leaking from the chairman”.
————————————————————————–

Although this is a direct quote from the minutes of the meeting, it is not a direct quote from The SFA. The quote looks more like a MSM type statement with no substance whatsoever. This does not mean the conversation did not take place, but if this critical piece of input was recorded in this way, it is not in line with any professional organization that I am used to dealing with. The people involved in that meeting should have been involved in enough high profile meetings to know that this is not how it should be documented.

So let’s break it down:

1. The SFA mentioned to Craig Mather (Who? When? How? Why?)

– Who in the SFA mentioned?
– In what capacity was he/she acting?
– When or where did this happen?
– What media was used to communicate this concern?
– Why did The SFA feel the need to bring this to the attention of Rangers?
– Why tell Mather without knowing if he is to be trusted?

2. The Rangers board situation needed addressing (Why?)

– Why would the boardroom scuffles be of interest to an independent football association?
– Exactly what was the concern from The SFA?
– What solution does The SFA want to see, exactly what would the perfect solution be?

3. The SFA understood (Who? When? How? Why?)

– From where did they get this information?
– When did this first come to their attention?
– What evidence was shown and how did they obtain that?
– In what planet does a professional organization make a statement to a CEO based on “an understanding” when nobody seems to know what is going on and who should be seen as the good or bad guys?
– Why was this information given to The SFA, what was the motivation?

And the main point for me, the one thing that jumped down my throat as soon as I read it, why would it be in the interest of The SFA to close an avenue of transparency? Why encourage deceit to be hidden and dealt with behind closed doors?

Surely this goes against one of the key principals that guide this sort of governing body?


Scottish Football and the case for a Bismarck!
TSFM says:
Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 18:19
———————————————

Scottish football has to find a way to see past the rivarly when it comes to reporting and as fragile as it may be, this is the only forum where too many or specific partizan comments are seen as unacceptable.

Personaly speaking, I think a forum for all fans of all clubs is almost impossible but somehow, we are managing to keep it together with the help of reasoned argument and strong willed St. Mirren supporters 🙂

Soooooo…. Makes no difference to me if and what type of advertisements are used, do what has to be done to continue the fight.


Scottish Football and the case for a Bismarck!
“Lauryn Hill: Fugees Star Jailed For Unpaid Tax”

Now I understand the circumstances are slightly different (well maybe not with the PAYE monies) but if it is proven that tax should have been paid but deliberately not, those individuals or organisations should be punished in a way that sends a message to others thinking of doing the same thing.

Does anyone think that individual or collective punishments served so far would act as a deterrent to others?

No? Me neither!


Recent Comments by Madbhoy24941

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
With last night’s result and news that The Rangers are paying out more more on another new signing today, we have to question the finances over at Ibrox.

Let us be clear here, last night’s result could happen to any of our teams competing in European competition this or the next years, In fact, we have seen this many times just over the last years. All this crap about being beaten by a ‘bunch of nobodies’ or a ‘team no better than my local pub team’, any team can beat any team on any given day, that is, or at least, that should be football and sport in general. I am always nervous when going into Europe and I will be the same next week, no matter the team, stick 10 men behind the ball and wait for a freak breakaway in the second half of the game is a tactic (quite rightly) used by smaller teams since the invention of the sport.

The real problem in my opinion is that some teams are spending based on future earnings that are not guaranteed. It is ok to speculate based on your attendance figures, based on sponsorship and other incomes that also fluctuate but are at least pretty predictable over a season, we should not however, budget based on qualifying for a specific tournament. When they do not qualify for that tournament, it create issues that can lead to the club finding other ways to cover that shortfall, and in some cases, adopting practices that would be deemed as unfair. This is exaggerated when competing in Europe as the sums involved are pretty substantial.

This is not new, David Murray did it, Craig White did it (even trying to buy someone while in Admin), Charles Green did it, and now the current crop of custodians of the Ibrox club are doing it.

We have rules that govern the sport, they are there to ensure both teams play only with 11 players each, that only the goalie is allowed to touch the ball with hands, to ensure that only players who are eligible to play for that team are on the team-sheet for that specific game, to ensure that players or teams are not disadvantaged by persistent or aggressive fouling or when the ball goes out of play that the game is stopped.

These are basic, universal rules invented to ensure fair play on the pitch, every organization plays by these rules, even if some have different perceptions of what is meant by aggressive.

However, some go further, some organizations adopt strict rules to ensure the clubs and leagues are financially sound, that no individual team can do what they want to buy success, legally or illegally.

So the real question is: Why are Scottish clubs (via The SFA) resisting this?


THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
upthehoopsApril 3, 2017 at 07:25

Take the blinkers off UTH, it was not a post about politics. It was an attempt at humour because the headline has the term ‘GERS’, nothing to do with The Rangers but is very relevant taken in the context of this whole charade.
I never even read the story, I just saw the headline on ‘Newsnow’ and thought “Wow, a game changer”, until I saw what it was really about.
For record, I saved the screenshot as a picture so there would be no automatic link to the political story.


THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
We have all been waiting for this acknowledgement for years….. The best ones are usually the ones that you cannot make up 10


History, Neighbours and Made Up News
StevieBC
September 30, 2016 at 17:28
Looks like DJ is on message: extracted from his ‘ESJ’ column today, with my highlighting;
“…The fans have stuck by the manager and the team through bad runs before and they have enjoyed most of the football that has been on show in the last couple of years. But that goodwill only lasts so long and they need victories now.
I do think it is a must win on Saturday, not just for Mark
————————————————-
Ironically, this comes only days after the same man told everyone on air that Chris Sutton was ridiculous to state that Mark Warburton must win the next two games or his jacket is on a shoogly peg. It’s hard to defend the guy sometimes, as likeable as he might be….


History, Neighbours and Made Up News
jimboAugust 28, 2016 at 06:52 
And we would have two of the best clubs in Scotland back up (HIBS, Dundee Utd.)

—————————-

Why the need to identify the clubs? if they were recognised as two of the best then everyone would know what you are talking about. I think this goes to the heart of the issue within Scottish Football, the people who run the game believe it can only succeed if we have certain teams.
Both teams are not currently two of the best or they would be in the top league, in fact, one of them is already falling behind early in the season and could struggle to get out of there in the next few years. I would agree they are definitely two of the best in a 20 team top league setup but not sure that is what you meant, I think that means they deserve to be in a higher league and I disagree with that.
I would have said, “two of the biggest clubs”, simply because I believe they are, no matter which league they currently ply their trade within. I base that purely on the number of supporters, of course you could look at many other factors like history or potential to win competitions. I think most people would state without fear of contradiction that Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee Utd, Hearts, Hibernian & Rangers are the biggest clubs in Scotland. But are they the best?
I would say, No!
I would also love to have those 2 teams back in the same league as Celtic, but only if they earn the right through winning games. In saying that, I would also like to see a bigger league with only 2 games against the same teams.


About the author

Avatar