Comment on The Case for a New SFA. by macfurgly.
Homunculus 16th October 2015 at 7:00 pm #
The Case for a New SFA.
Quiet, so I’ll fill a space.
There will never be a court verdict in Scotland that goes against “Rangers” interests as perceived by those who make these decisions.
That is not to say that the 2012 and 2011 sales were not fraudulent, although , in my opinion, CW has a defense for the 2011 one.
This is unraveling backwards and will finish up with the “Real Rangers” in the hands of RRM.
Other than on here, and similar sites, there is no opposition to this, and there is no influence to be brought to bear.
With respect, I think I am stating the obvious. Pardon me for my certainty – I am old(ish).
BP above is right; self interest through cash determines the view of the clubs that make up the SFA and SPFL. CFC, my team, are the most complicit. We, through our representative on the footballing board could have, behind the scenes, brought influence to bear in 2012 and since. There was a long discussion on RTC and since, about whether or not CFC’s silence was through fear of SMSM/ “public” reaction or ulterior motive – I think that is now answered. We didn’t oppose the survival myth and now PL talks about £10 million losses. We are promoting the OF brand and as someone above said the others are 2nd class citizens. That’s the way it is: that is the way it has been, I think, since SDM went belly up. That is PL’s job – to maximise income, however he thinks it can best be done. I disagree with him on the current strategy, but I’m not CEO.
Why does KJ get airtime? Why does Sportsound always produce a panel to perpetuate the survival myth or whatever the party line is? Because that’s what the Establishment want.
Why are you surprised?
I must admit I’m a bit surprised that JC did not expect this. Nothing has changed apart from CFC now being in the tent.
While I’m at it, CG could have called his new company Govan Globetrotters and played them in strips covered entirely by enormous stars. The fact that they played football from a stadium bought in a fire sale from a different football company would have made no difference – the idea of allocating them the honours of Rangers would never have occurred to anyone, so why is this myth stiill being promoted, why, and by whom?
Look forward to seeing you all in Perth.
Who Is Conning Whom?
tonyDecember 7, 2017 at 21:47
Thursday, 07 December 2017, 21:40by Rangers Football Club…..
That statement is embarrassingly weak. If Traynor drafted it, and that’s the best he can do, then they are heading down the slope fast from here.
Who Is Conning Whom?
It’s an important moment for the smsm.
They have been humiliated by “Rangers”.
Will it be a moment of enlightenment, an epiphany, or will it be back, shoulder to the wheel, of disseminating “Rangers” propaganda?
There is no excuse now. They have been, wittingly or otherwise, played like salmon, or violins, or violin playing salmon and very publicly so.
Will they choose to risk further ridicule, or is this the moment when they can save face by getting out from underneath and standing up for themselves (and “Rangers” supporters) by exploring and exposing the whole sad charade?
Who Is Conning Whom?
upthehoopsDecember 7, 2017 at 19:59
“Forced to defend their six weeks blanket ‘he’s definitely going’ coverage, they actually said it was Dave King at the Rangers AGM who made them believe it was a done deal”.
Did they consider asking him how he knew that , or could infer that even, when at that point there had been no official contact between “Rangers” and Aberdeen?
Who Is Conning Whom?
DarkbeforedawnNovember 26, 2017 at 11:37
The SFA and SPFL don’t notice because they signed the 5 Way Agreement inviting Charles Green to pay RFC(IL)’s football debts in exchange for being credited with the titles won by that entirely different club and they are still looking the other way. Remember, when Sevco were admitted to Div. 3, Green could have changed the name to Glasgow Athletic, Govan United , Southoftheriver Strollers or anything and played in any colours he chose, self referencing green perhaps. Maybe if the assets had been bought by someone with more than personal enrichment in mind that would have happened, but Green is the one person in this who benefited from the blue hoax.
The effects of that agreement are that:
TRFC / RIFC have had to pay off debts that they had no responsibility for whatsoever, and
RFC(IL) fans have been put in the embarrassing and uncomfortable position of having to go along with a falsehood in the foundation of the new club they want to support.
Even if they wanted to, and it may even be that there are some in the media who are equally uncomfortable about the same club myth, the media outlets have no real choice about how to present the new club TRFC as long as the honours of RFC(IL) remain on the SPFL website.
I don’t know about UEFA, but I imagine whoever is responsible for their club pages simply copied what was on the SPFL site, not suspecting anything untoward.
I wonder if with hindsight even Regan and Doncaster now regret the 5 Way Agreement. Perhaps an insolvency event or better still liquidation at TRFC might finally make it possible to reset the whole thing and give RFC(IL) fans a club they can support without squirming.
Enough is enough
Dave King is only the third case of anyone having been “Cold Shouldered”.
The other two cases are here:
One of them involved persons at Dundee FC as it happens.
Dave King is the first person to have had his case referred to Court for enforcement.
This is important because it illustrates the extraordinary position taken by King.
Homunculus makes a point reminiscent of the EBT case:
“Surely that would be an important enough issue for the Takeover Panel to be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court”.
Is this a possible strategy here?
“If he does decline to make any Order I will be fascinated to read his justification for it”
Indeed, so will everyone else in British industry.
With all due respect to JC and his faithful and accurate reporting, the “may” issue is a nonsense. To decline to enforce the verdict of the TOP is to remove the substance of the 29.9% shareholding rule and open up the possibility of, among other things, a tidal wave of cases of mammoth proportions regarding previous decisions.