Comment on Spot the difference? by Big Pink.
I think brth has put it very well, and he echoes my own thoughts. Like TSFM said earlier, what King does for that club is their problem, and he may, or he may not be their saviour.
However, as far as I can see, there is no difference in terms of media sycophancy between King’s accession, Whyte’s or Green’s, so what has changed from four years ago until today?
If an Ashley backed TRFC can’t get credit at the bank (and remember that in David Low’s opinion there is NO credit available for football clubs anywhere) without personal guarantees from directors, how will King change that? Murray and Gilligan or Douglas Park don’t have the resources to stand as guarantors, so unless King coughs up some cash he will never again expect to see, no change on that front.
In many ways we have come full circle. If you swap out David Murray with John Gilligan (and I STILL haven’t worked out what he brings to the party), you have pretty much the same bunch of people who got Rangers into the culture of ducking, diving and cheating the exchequer, leading to its ultimate demise.
Yes I know that it is easier to be objective if you are not a Rangers fan, but what has changed today? Are the Rangers fans really so badly handicapped with short-term memory loss to such an extent that this escapes them?
As far as I can see the only thing that is possible to change is attitude. The trouble is that the same board personnel were so impotent when it came to managing fan expectation that liquidation became inevitable. The fans might forget that, but the “other people with money” who King will need sooner rather than later? They won’t forget. People with money seldom do.
In order for King to succeed, he needs to urgently manage those fan expectations, and consequently be able to convince those other people that his pan can work. On thing he has in his favour is a compliant media pack, but it will still be a difficult tightrope to walk for King.
I really wish I could wish him well, but the other thing that hasn’t changed is an institutional refusal to accept that the original club treated Scottish football very badly. Given that the same people who started the EBTs are back in charge, that is less likely than ever to happen.
Big Pink Also Commented
Spot the difference?
March 6, 2015 at 9:31 pm
… Back in the day many opposed Fergus and it wasn’t because he saved my club but because of his hard-line stance against sectarianism within Celtic’s support …
We don’t often agree eb, but as a fanzine editor who supported the FM stance on bigotry, we found ourselves in some pretty scary situations with that constituency of people you refer to. I agree 100% with your analysis.
It is inevitable though, given Fergus’s success, that a degree of revisionism is employed. Strangely you can never find anyone who didn’t like him 🙂
Having said that, I could name you a team and a half of ex-players who still actively hate the very mention of his name in conversation – but that’s got nothing to do with bigotry 🙂
Spot the difference?
My view of the Lambias and Leach situation is this;
The terms of the recent loan restructuring agreement included SD having two nominees on the board. Seems to me if they both resign this week and are replaced by two others, Ashley has probably reached an agreement with King & Co.
If they are both voted off at the EGM though, surely that will be a breach of the terms of the loan contract, leading to blood on the boardroom walls unless Mike’s £10m is coughed up immediately?
Or am I missing something?
Spot the difference?
I am as happy to have a go at the press as anyone, but to imply that Andrew H is harbouring a foaming at the mouth desire to see his own club (Rangers) back on top is as wide of the mark as the Bears Den accusations that Chic Young is a Rangers hater.
Smith’s article is I agree crazy, but he’s no more a Rangers fan than you are.
Recent Comments by Big Pink
We are starting to put together our schedule for the radio thing. Content is important, and we are looking to solicit your assistance in lots of ways – including in the first instance some ideas for sport-based programmes.
The phone-in and interview format is fairly well established as a the bread and butter of the medium, but we are looking at ways to bring a fresh perspective.
Discussion on the blog is fine – although some the MSM outlets could nick good ideas 🙂
You could also mail me direct at email@example.com
The Cat NR1
Were the clubs willing parties to a fraud on Scottish football, or were they victims themselves?
If the former, that does beg the question as to whether there is any point in carrying on.
Yes there is – because the real battle here is between the clubs and their ‘customers’. The clubs can in fact do as they like. They have no emotional attachment to the sport in the way the fans do. Everything is settled by a cost/benefit analysis. This particular one deemed that following the rules correctly was the downside of the argument.
They justify it by dressing the SFA up as some kind of quasi legal guardian of the game, when in fact it is just a trade association – a cartel used as a blunt instrument to con the punters.
The Sevco 5088 Ltd/Sevco Scotland Ltd court cases may throw some light into the dark corners of Hampden’s Star Chamber.
So might we. We are still not done.
The evidence suggest strongly that the clubs are less concerned with the integrity of the game than we are.
The final outcome is dependent on our resolve. That is not in doubt at SFM. The question is;
“Are there enough of us?”
John Clark 13th March 2016 at 1:11 pm
A priceless observation from Chick a few minutes go: ” Robert Burns died in 1796. He was closer in time to Hibs’ last Cup win than we are”.
Don’t know what point precisely he was trying to make, but it left the rest of the Sportsound chaps stunned in amused speechlessness!
I suppose that just demonstrates that Chic is as good at arithmetic as he is at telling the truth.
Give that he was born around 1954 that takes him to within 52 years of Hibs’ last cup win.
Burns is an outlier at 106 years.
Did anyone point out to Chic that it was in fact the League Cup today.
Chirpy chirpy cheep cheep indeed!
Apologies. Haven’t yet had time to respond, due to a current and very raging bout of man flu
However I will try to do so over the weekend.
Turnbull Hutton’s attitude to the new club being given precedence over Spartans et al was that by any reasonable measure, and given their extraordinary fan-base and facilities, TRFC would have been given the spot anyway. In his view, the authorities pragmatically exercised their powers of discretion to short-circuit the entry application process.
In retrospect that became crucial to TRFC in their continuity myth-building, because the gap, even though it existed, was easier to Band-Aid over because of that fast-tracking.
I won’t rush to criticise TH too easily though. He was not too fussed over the minutiae of the OCNC debate, but he was steadfastly against what he saw as corruption in the SFA and SPL and was appalled by the calling to arms of the mob by McCoist and others. And he didn’t just pay lip service to it either. He was a consistent and generous donor to SFM, because he shared our view that in order to call itself a sport, football had to structure itself on the basis of as level a playing field as possible.
Whenever I doubt the merits of our case, I think of Turnbull on the steps of Hampden accusing the SFA of corruption – and the subsequent absence of a visit from the Compliance Officer.
Like all good serial offenders, the SFA avoid battles they can’t win. No engagement with TH, no engagement with the Res12 group, no engagement with the SPL over their expulsion of a 140 year old club.