THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

Avatar By

Here’s the challenge when it comes to sanctioning clubs for …

Comment on THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight by Barcabhoy.

Here’s the challenge when it comes to sanctioning clubs for fan behaviour.

1 Minor Incidents can be hugely exagerrated through social media and press coverage.
Take the recent statement by Club 1872 blaming celebrating Celtic fans for Celtic players being attacked, racially abused and having dangerous objects thrown at them. Now even allowing for the fact that the statement was made by the Moron’s moron Craig Houston, it received disproportionate coverage in the msm, virtually none of it ridiculing the shameful nature of the statement.

In the same statement Houston claimed damage to Ibrox stadium in a pathetic attempt to equate half a dozen broken seats with the £80k of wanton vandalism deliberatley carried out by Rangers supporters at Celtic Park
Now anyone with a more than a single brain cell can see through Houston’s lies and bitterness, however his claims were published in the MSM and as far as i’m aware have not been ridiculed by journalists in the papers that published them. They therefore become unchallenged outside of social media, and down the line gain a currency of “fact” amongst those who don’t know better

2  Serious incidents can be downplayed by press coverage

Graham Spiers aside not many in the MSM are prepared to report on the large scale singing and chanting which breaks the law in this country. As another example take the Scottish Cup Final of last season. If you only got your news from the MSM , then you would believe all 11 Rangers players were attacked on the pitch . We know that’s a lie, and at most it appears a single player was the victim of a single attempted assault.
However the media have largely ignored the actions of a large number of Rangers fans who went onto the pitch intent on committing violence. Those who didn’t ignore it, enthusiastically bought in to Jim Traynor’s fabrication of a valiant band who were only intent in defending their players.  

There may be other incidents involving fans of other clubs which could be used to illustrate the points above. The issue though is we can’t allow the MSM to determine what is and isn’t a serious incident. Most journalists , i think, wouldn’t deliberately  mislead, but there are  clearly enough who would based on their track record

Barcabhoy Also Commented

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
Despite the fact I’m posting from California and as such I don’t believe Contempt of Court is enforceable , I intend to respect the spirit of the law and avoid comment on the Whyte Trial

So I’ll restrict my thoughts to a couple of other topics

Dermott’s pref shares and his Divi make sense from an investment perspective. Club 1872 should take note. Their rush to fund projects and invest in worthless shares betrays their naivety. It’s not surprising they  are being taken advantage of and are being hijacked .

Invest emotionally if you must, but at least have the brains to protect yourself .

LNS
I disagree a little with the view that the perceived Bampot position is as stated above. I agree it’s held by a lot , but not all. My view is that LNS was flawed and was a sham set up by Doncaster. However if the SC uphold the appeal and set aside the COS verdict then I don’t see grounds to demand it being overturned 

Obviously if the SC uphold the COS position then LNS should be set aside in my view

There is already evidence , under oath in a court of law , during a criminal trial, that demands at the very least an enquiry along LNS lines , but without the terms of reference set by Doncaster 
There may be more of a similar nature that comes from further evidence . Which means it’s probably wise to hear it all before concluding what should be done next 


Recent Comments by Barcabhoy

On Grounds for Judicial Review
Fisiani,

Celtic aren’t employing a QC . The fans are. 

Celtic have direct access , as a member of both the SFA and the SPFL. They have already succeeded in a committment from the SPFL to a wide ranging enquiry . We await the terms of reference of that enquiry. However it will not include the potential to set aside the LNS enquiry, according to Rod McKenzie

Hence the need for the fans to ask a court to do so.The basis is LNS was not provided with relevent evidence of use of unlawful or irregular tax schemes . LNS , by his own words , said he proceeded on the basis that these schemes were lawful. He also stated that the SPL had rules to prevent breaches of Sporting Integrity and he found Rangers guilty of that , but not in a manner that provided Sporting Advantage.

Based on what was hidden from LNS plus what has been ruled on by the Supreme Court , that conclusion by LNS looks fundamentally flawed

The SFA have failed completely in their role as protector of the game. I have no doubt whatsever that Celtic want fundamental change there. However at this stage the fans don’t have a specific decision that the SFA have made , in regards to the Sporting Advantage , that was the subject of an independent panel, and therefore open to a JR request 
I agree that the non decisions described above by BRTH should be the subject and included in an SFA commisioned fully independent review . However as yet they have decided a 3 monkeys approach is all we are getting . Lets see if Celtic get enough support from other clubs on this one 


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
1 The SPFL has guaranteed TV revenue for 3 years
2 Many clubs have record season book sales
3 Debt has been removed in most clubs
So ??
Why have SPFL clubs been silent so far , with the exception of Celtic , on the implications of the Supreme Court verdict
The argument is made that many are working hard just to make ends meet.
Fair enough , but when was that ever not the case in Scottish football.

 Are we to believe that there will never be an environment where clubs have an appetite to get Four-square behind the notion of Sporting Integrity ?

 
That can’t possibly be the case , otherwise why bother having a rule book .
Some clubs though are in relative robust financial health, their supporters have dug deep to help finance recent achievements.

 Don’t they deserve the respect , from club directors , of ensuring their club is treated exactly the same way as every club. Not every club bar 1

 
I’m looking particularly at Hearts , Aberdeen, Hibernian and St Johnstone. You have no excuses for silence , certainly not personal ambition for positions at the SFA or SPFL.
Do you really want your legacies to read :

 
I was scared to do the right thing in case we jeopardised some ticket revenue.
So I turned a blind eye to the actions of the authorities and 13 years of rule breaches by a member club “

 

That’s what you want to tell your grandchildren ?

If Clubs can’t speak out when they have guaranteed revenue, record fan support , are debt free and succesful , when CAN they be trusted to put Integrity at the top of their list of priorities…….or even on it .


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
LNS Though did comment on the Tax Case. He explicitly stated that as far as his enquiry was concerned the EBT’s were lawful and as such were not a breach of league rules
That is an important point. If the use of EBT’s in relation to their legality/lawfulness/regularity was a matter of no consequence , then LNS had no need to address them. The fact that he found it necessary  to comment on their legality is telling.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a breach of rules to use tax schemes which are irregular , unlawful , illegal or any of those categories 

Yet there has not been a single enquiry into these tax schemes. Is this because guilt had already been admitted by Rangers ? Is it because it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion that sporting advantage was gained ?


Time to Make Things Happen
Chill Ultra

How do you reconcile your statement that Res 12 was a board controlled project with the fact it’s only in the public domain because of the efforts of the requisitioners ? 


Small Price to Pay?
Firstly , Let me congratulate both guys involved in the most recent podcast. For these things to be worthwhile , two elements are non negiotable. You have to ask the key questions and you have to have someone answering who has appropriate expertise and answers in a non partisan manner
The questions were exactly the one’s needing to be asked and the answers were knowledgeable and relevant.

As a comparison , the performance of Richard Wilson on BBC Sportsound ,on the same subject, was beyond laughable. It was partisan and it was ignorant of the facts and reality. Wilson functions to convey the views of the Rangers board, which the BBC may see as useful given their current dispute. However Wilson is an embarrassment to an organisation which should always strive for balance. 

Journalists get a lot of stick on this site, sometimes with very good reason. There are though excellent journalists in Scotland who work hard to present the facts in a fair manner and who’s opinion pieces are not influenced by PR or personal favourites. They don’t deserve to be bracketed by a lightweight like Wilson

On the subject of the podcast , i’d only add that it was revealing that the judgement exposed the incestuous nature of the relationship between King and the Rangers fan groups who now control Club 1872. This is supposed to be an arms length organisation who’s role is to hold the board to account, to protect fan interests and to ensure that the club is not exposed to the type of toxic control which has been the overriding feature of previous regimes.

 The below quote from the Takeover Report shows the incestuous nature of this relationship. In fact it could be reasonably claimed that these fans were as much a part of the concert party as Taylor , Leatham and Park

It was no doubt for this reason that on 2 January Mr King emailed Mr Graham of the Fans Union reporting that “I got all Artemis and Miton and 500K from River and Mercantile” 

 

Nobody will need reminding that Chris Graham was rewarded for his part in this concert party takeover with a seat on the board. We can laugh at Graham’s inept performance , laugh at his unquestioning approval of every regime, and condemn his racist and sectarian behaviour. However he still holds significant influence on Club 1872 at a time when a neutral and questioning fan group is badly needed.

King has the likes of Wilson and Graham to fight fires, but their credibility is zero outwith King loyalists. 

The TAB report adds another layer of challenge , it isn’t a minor issue. As David stated in the podcast , it appears clear that King does not want to make an offer. 

 As stated earlier, the Executive’s ruling was given on 7 June 2016 and on 2 August 2016 Mr King indicated to the Executive that he wished this Committee to review its ruling

 
He will though have to choose whether to comply in full or to ignore the TAB ruling. Complying will require him to demonstrate he has the available funds of close to £11 Million to buy out all shareholders outside of his fellow concert party members. Should he ignore the TAB then King should be finished as Chairman of Rangers , although i’m sure Richard Wilson and Chris Graham will push the self serving button one more time to downplay the real nature of this ruling

Talking of self-serving.

The SFA should have a significant problem on their hands . Their decision to approve King as fit and proper has been exposed as foolish. They ignored the words of a High Court judge in South Africa that King was a glib and shamless liar Nd could not be taken at his word. However they now should be considering King’s behaviour as Chairman of Rangers

i quote

  The Committee is in no doubt that this was a self-serving email designed by Mr King to cover his tracks and to give the false impression that his own acquisitions and those of the Letham “consortium” had not been co-ordinated

 

Be clear on this . The Takeover Advisory Board are accusing King of fabrication and deception, in his capacity as Rangers Chairman

then we have this 

 It is unfortunate that this matter has taken so long to come to a head but the Committee is satisfied that the delay is very substantially attributable to the lack of co-operation afforded by Mr King to the Executive’s investigation. That same lack of co-operation has continued to characterise Mr King’s dealings with this Committee.

 

It is clear that King continues to behave in exactly the same manner in his capacity as Rangers Chairman as he did when the South African Judge called him a glib and shameless liar.

Stewart Regan has proven himself a weak and ineffective CEO , however even he should be moved to take action over King’s behaviour in his capacity as Rangers Chairman


About the author

Avatar