Staying On The Problem

By

I was quite surprised to read the stats on Rangers …

Comment on Staying On The Problem by Mark C.

I was quite surprised to read the stats on Rangers consecutive home ties and the allegations of bias, especially considering as a few people have pointed out that so many Celtic/Hearts/Aberdeen/Hibs players, managers and legends have been involved in the draws over the years, its really difficult to imagine them being complicit in any cheating.

However to the stats and a number of comments regarding Rangers having a home tie in the last 8 draws.  It appears its not that strange.  Hibs managed to get 10 home draws in a row between 2007 and 2010 in the Scottish and League Cup.

26th September 2007 – Hibs 2 v Motherwell 4
12th January 2008 – Hibs 3 v Inverness 0
3rd February 2008 – Hibs 0 v Rangers 0
26th August 2008 – Hibs 3 v Morton 4
11th January 2009 – Hibs 0 v Hearts 2
26th August 2009 – Hibs 3 v Brechin 0
22nd September 2009 – Hibs 1 v St Johnstone 3
9th January 2010 – Hibs 3 v Irvine Meadow 0
6th February 2010 – Hibs 5 v Montrose 1
13th March 2010 – Hibs 2 v Ross County 2

Also, and for those interested in more stats around home draws in the top 2 cups in Scotland, according to Soccerbase, which seems to be very up to date and independent, over the last 10 seasons since 2006/07 season, Ross County lead the way with 71% of all Cup Ties played at home (not including any replays)  Hibs are second with 70% drawn out of the hat at home.  Rangers (and if you leave the same club argument to 1 side for now) are at 56% with Celtic on the opposite side at 44%.

None of the above come anywhere near Edinburgh Citys bias in the draw though.  16 of their 18 ties over the last 10 seasons have been drawn at their home ground.  A massive 89%. 

So, do the SFA, SPFL and all the past players have a bias towards Edinburgh City, or Ross County, or Hibs, or is the argument that its just teams that play out of Ibrox ?

Or perhaps, it really is just the luck of the draw ?

Recent Comments by Mark C

Small Price to Pay?
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 21:36 God Almighty man! They said what they said because they were determined to ‘save Rangers’ regardless of truth!

Im glad you cleared that up JC.  Im 100% confident in my stance now that its opinion and not fact.

Even IF, it is in direct contradiction to MY OWN opinion.  Something i can live with.


Small Price to Pay?

 
NORMANBATESMUMFCFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 16:58 
Before quoting statements from our rancid governing bodies, remember they are entirely conflicted and when the need arises have no qualms about lying to achieve their desired result. These money grabbing, morally bankrupt individuals will be trumped by the rule of law and they will be shown up for what they are

 
.

I get that.  If JC was accusing the SFA of telling a bare faced lie on the membership then fair enough.  The way I read it was that he was saying i told a bare faced lie about the membership transfer.
I am happy for him to clear that up but again i would suggest that unless anyone has 100% evidence that the SFA 2 statements are absolute lies then the idea that the membership was new is an opinion.  And not a fact as stated.

“Either way both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts. “


Small Price to Pay?

 
SMUGASFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 16:33 
Sorry I don’t follow (again – you’ll find that’s a recurring theme with me on here!).  Why is the secured finance arguement flawed?  And I don’t see how arguing the point assists your old club confusion arguement either.  And just to to continue the theme…if the BMW in question was Colin Macrae’s and he had won the world championship with it, and you’ve bought the motor (having checked the HP is cleared) does that make you world champion?

 

I never said it made your argument flawed, i was acknowledging that the original point was flawed.  To point out the flaws, i made an equally flawed statement, knowing it was flawed to make the precise point that was made yesterday about half truths.

I didnt actually comment on your point but as you have asked then quite simply its not comparable. Buying a car with outstanding HP or houses with outstanding mortgages is completely different from what happens in business be it straight forward sales, distressed sales, sales from administration or sales whilst in liquidation.  Its just daft to compare them.  It once again enforces the point made that “both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts.” 


Small Price to Pay?

 JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 13:57 The new club in the SFL did not get ‘Rangers’ share’ in the SFA.They got the share in the SFL that the old Rangers forfeited by suffering the big insolvency event of being put into Liquidation.It  was in virtue of being accepted into the SFL that the new club was automatically admitted to the SFA membership.The lie that somehow the particular ‘Rangers’ share’ was ‘transferred’ is just that- a bare-faced lie constructed so as to give the impression of ‘continuity Rangers’.That is the very essence of the ‘Big Lie’.That’s where the 6th Floor people tried to work the con.Now, please go away and do some reading, and thinking.

 
Firstly, my humble apologies for daring to have a different opinion to you on the membership.  My opinion is born from actually doing some reading so in relation to your “opinion” on the matter can you explain why the SFA said:

“Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.”

They then went on to say:

“We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club. “

How can that be any clearer.  Its in black and white.  The SFA membership was transferred and is not a “bare-faced lie” as you have described.


Small Price to Pay?

 NORMANBATESMUMFCFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 11:56  Slight flaw in your argument Mark C, as the buyer of the BMW would be liable for any finance secured on the vehicle and purchasers of 2nd hand cars are advised to do a credit search on the vehicle for this very reason.Leaving behind debt and carrying on as if nothing has changed is rather difficult to achieve…..

 

That is not a flaw in my argument at all.  It is precisely the “argument” im making.  

Each statement is a half truth that only serves to further confuse the issue.

JOHN C Genuine question  if Rangers in current form “was able to become for the first time a member of the SFA.” why was the existing membership transferred in continuity and why wasnt a new membership issued ?


About the author