The Case for a New SFA.

Avatar By

Of course, should this be proved, the SFA will undoubtedly …

Comment on The Case for a New SFA. by Smugas.

Of course, should this be proved, the SFA will undoubtedly revisit the Pinsent Masons investigation and burn it.

Cynical, moi?

Smugas Also Commented

The Case for a New SFA.
I too will be offering a toast with a cheeky wee Spanish Rioja.  I’m still in Scotland obviously but it seems as good an excuse as any! 

The Case for a New SFA.
Oh absolutely Tayred which is why I propose spending zero (since Sky have done it already) and fixing the biggest black and white calls first – lampards non goal against Germany in the WC always being the one that is cited since I think someone calculated that within 3 secs something like (I forget the figures now but say) 1bn knew that it was a goal and only the referee was allowed to be kept in the dark.

Yes there is then a debate about to what extent you use it to be had – I saw mention of the Griffith handball in the cup semi the other day for instance – where do you start and stop with open play decisions, but that’s not a reason to ignore the already available in situ evidence on hand for the big black and white calls.

The Case for a New SFA.

Tayred said

What does come out of this is a clear picture that TV evidence while solving some dilemmas (goal/no goal being clear), it muddies the water on some areas and creates new dilemmas that weren’t even a problem before.

Which is why I don’t understand the instant clamour for millions to be spent on goal line technology, football’s equivalent of TMO and so forth.

In modern times we have a situation for so-called big games where highly advanced instantaneous tv coverage is already available for pennies that allows a situation where every fan in the ground can watch a replay, but only the referee can’t. That is patent nonsense.

I’ve never bought into the notion that it is unfair on the “big” club since the little one doesn’t get the same coverage. Surely its better to be right maybe 40% of the time (and 100% right in the, by definition more important, big games) for the big decisions such as the goal line calls for negligible outlay than persist with the present situation which will only get worse.

My only concern would be that it would make the referees in the big games lazy.

Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  

About the author