by Stuart Cosgrove for the Scottish Football Monitor
In the early years of the new millennium, ‘The Battle of the Saints’ was a First Division encounter. Both St Mirren and St Johnstone had been relegated and were among the favourites to return to the spiritually suffocating SPL. Winning the First Division title was a mixed blessing. It provided a football moment that old firm fans could only dream of – an open-top bus round. But victory meant you were back in the SPL, a league that had been shaped for the benefit of the two big clubs.
Television revenues were skewed, there were no play-offs, only one team could be relegated and the voting structures would bring shame to a tin-pot dictatorship. It was a league you could never realistically win and so never fully enjoy. I remember being in the ‘Wee Barrel’ a traditional football boozer near St Mirren’s old Love Street stadium. It was soon after the St Johnstone drug scandal. On 5th January 2001, George O’Boyle and his teammate Kevin Thomas had been sacked following allegations that they had used illegal recreational drugs. They had allegedly been caught taking an “unidentified white powder” at the club’s injured players Christmas Party at That Bar in Perth. The drugs scandal undermined St Johnstone’s much peddled identity as a local family club. A bitter industrial dispute unfolded and widespread dressing-room unrest. The team’s form catastrophically dipped. Inevitably, St Mirren fans were delighted to play host to such a “scandalised” and “drug-addled” club. Football fans relish the misfortune of others with almost satanic glee. So the Buddies cheered sarcastically when any Perth fans went into the Wee Barrel’s less than salubrious pub toilet. They made pantomime sniffing noises interjected with animal impersonations and at times it sounded like a famer’s convention had turned into a massive cocaine bender. I vividly remember that one St Johnstone fan became so enraged that he blurted out the unforgettable phrase ‘Aye but what about Barry Lavety?’ Further back in 1995 the St Mirren striker Lavety had been arrested for using the then ‘designer drug’ ecstasy making him the first footballer of the acid-house generation. In this short, pithy response outside a toilet door in the Wee Barrel, all the gut instincts of football spectatorship came to the surface and all the components of what was later to become known as ‘whataboutery’ were laid bare.
Whataboutery pre-dates the internet but it has been kindled by it. The web has transformed the way we talk and think about football. Suddenly and profoundly new forums for discussing the game quickly followed. Facebook was launched two years later in 2004, Twitter joined the social media firmament in 2006 and by 2012 and Scottish football’s summer of discontent the micro-blogging platform had 500 million active users. The rise of social media invoked an ‘epistemological break’ with previous eras of spectatorship and with other forms of media and communication. For the first time ever, fans had a way of instantly communicating, of answering back and disagreeing with each other in real-time. Whataboutery is a dismal art that can be defined by three often sub-conscious characteristics – a refusal to engage with the question at hand; an attempt to deflect the discussion on to others and a failure to engage with the morality of the subject.
Go on any web forum today and you will find many debates are pock-marked with whataboutery. The financial meltdown of Rangers is the most recent and most virulent example. What about Hearts they owe the taxman? What about Dundee they’ve gone bust twice? What about Leeds, Middlesbrough and Portsmouth? Sadly, the misdemeanours of others is an unstable platform on which to mount a moral defence and celebrating victory in a tax tribunal about complex offshore loan-trusts does not magically airbrush away tax-debt involving VAT and PAYE. Nor does whatboutery explain why already rich footballers should enjoy the moral right to hide behind complex off shore tax schemes, irrespective of their legality. Every football fan at some time in their life has felt a deep primal urge to defend their club. We are emotionally instinctive creatures and quick to play the martyr. But however passionate you are about football – and I would count myself as ‘combustible’ – being loyal to your club does not permit disloyalty or contempt for the institutions of a fair society.
Not surprisingly, the origins of the term whatboutery can be traced back to the sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland. Last year I met the journalist and blogger, Mick Fealty who is one of the driving forces behind the blog forum Slugger O’Toole, a site that has bravely tried to provide a platform for localism and for non-sectarian political discourse in Northern Ireland. It is often cited as the place where the term whataboutery was invented. Taking its lead from Slugger, the online dictionary wikitionary defines whataboutery as “responding to criticism by accusing one’s opponent of similar or worse faults.” Recently, at the height of rioting in Belfast in the aftermath of Belfast city council’s policy shift on flying the union flag, a major local newspaper the Belfast Telegraph said in a trenchant editorial – “For everyone who cares about democracy; who wants an end to sectarian posing and mind games; an end to mindless thuggery; an end to immature reactions to complicated issues; an end to whataboutery ….” An end to sectarian posing and mind games – how refreshing would that be? The recent case of Anthony Stokes is a case in point. Most fans would concede that Stokes is a fool to have associated himself with the Real IRA and criminal elements within the Dublin republican scene. But some fans – believing they were supporting their club and its Irish origins – are hard-wired to romanticism and a re-hashed history. Nothing that Stokes has done is either romantic or historic – it is grubby and pathetic. Nor is deflection acceptable either. Yes of course Andy Goram has associated with some fairly disagreeable characters but that does not absolve Stokes of responsibility. Celtic manager Neil Lennon has been unambiguous about that. Stokes is on a final warning and rightly so. Whataboutery is the glue of entrenched opinion. It cultivates extremes rather than subtleties, and favours glib comment over deeper dialogue. That is why TSFM should always be vigilant about the forum slipping into whatabouterty.
It seems almost banal to say it, but you can be a supporter without being a supplicant. You can be Rangers daft without endorsing morally bereft tax loopholes, you can want Neil Lennon to enjoy a life free from intimidation without defending complicated film investment schemes; you can relish a goal by Garry O’ Connor without admiring his self-defeating lifestyle, you can be a big Jambo but still expect staff to be paid on time, you can be a Red Ultra without having to urinate on videos of Gazza and you can soak up the atmosphere in the Dundee Derry, without cushioning its sectarian associations. And, yes I do know that there was once a dairy behind the goal at the Derry End – but when fights erupted in the 1970s, it wasn’t lactic pasteurisation they were fighting about.
Football fans can be emotionally passionate yet hold on to moral values. We can be vocal without being vacuous. We can be diehard fans without being robotic ideologues for our club. Many of us have found ourselves tied in knots trying to defend our clubs and in some cases defend the indefensible. The roll-call of whatboutery in Scottish football would shame a mature society. There’s defective flat-screen televisions in Manchester; hearses at Celtic Park; programme notes at Montrose; unidentified white powder; porn peddlers in the 1980s, Joanna Lumley’s love-life, urinal-videos in Aberdeen; Leigh Griffith’s unique contribution to fatherhood; Hugh Dallas’s emails; Maurice Edu’s car and Lee Wallace’s air-rifle. They are surreal and seemingly endless.
As new technologies surround us daily, whataboutery has gone digital and online disputes are now frequently backed up by a stream of phone-footage, rogue tweets, photo-shopped imagery and spectacularly desperate analogies. We live in the white-heat of social media where whataboutery goes on ad nauseum and in perpetuity. It is the dismal art of the web and a habit we have to overcome if Scottish football is ever to find a settled democracy. The financial collapse of Rangers has brought us to a cross roads. Unless there is some kind of rapprochement and an ‘appliance of compliance’, then whataboutery will last for many more decades to come. Whataboutery is a defence mechanism which allows fans and the clubs they support to avoid moral responsibility. But it need not be like that. In February 2007, Scottish football was given a simple lesson in how the game could be run if we could look forward. It was a cold and wet night at Fir Park during a midweek Scottish cup tie. St Johnstone’s Jason Scotland was unexpectedly targeted by a small band of racist Motherwell fans. By most reasonable accounts of the events, a gang of right-wing casuals taunted the player with monkey chants. Season tickets were not valid and many fans were not in their regular seats. But within a few minutes, groups of decent Motherwell fans turned on the racists, shouted them down and alerted the police.
Online there was a brief and half-hearted flurry of whataboutery. Some denied it had happened, others said that Jason Scotland was “playing the race card” and a small vocal minority argued it was Airdrie fans. This is an unfamiliar twist on an age old deflection. Blaming phantom support from elsewhere is quite common in Scottish football, although it is usually the demonology of Chelsea, Millwall or England fans that are cast as the mysterious villains.
Whatever the motives of those that posted their defence of Motherwell, the whataboutery was short-lived and brought to a shuddering halt by a simple, prompt and unambiguous apology. In an official club statement, Chairman John Boyle said: “These people should never show their faces at Fir Park again and they have no place in football,” adding “We are utterly appalled by this behaviour by a small group of people who have tarnished the name of our club. We are writing to Jason Scotland and St Johnstone today to apologise for this disgusting behaviour which is totally alien to all of us.”
Motherwell had scripted a blue-print for change. Rather than deflect attention elsewhere or dispute the minutiae of events, clubs, fans and officials have to become “better at being wrong.” When there is a clear injustice, evidence of wrong-doing or powerful proof that mistakes have been made, then it is no longer acceptable to hide from the moral consequences. Apologise and pay the price. That applies equally to all of us and there is no hierarchy of importance. No special cases. The SPL may have a history of gifting privileges but common decency does not.
Stuart Cosgrove
Stuart Cosgrove is a St Johnstone fan. He was previously Media Editor of the NME and is now Director of Creative Diversity at Channel 4, where he recently managed coverage of the Paralympics, London 2012. At the weekend he presents the BBC Scotland football show ‘Off the Ball’ with Tam Cowan. This is the second of a trilogy of blogs he has agreed to write for TSFM. The first was about the era of Armageddon. He writes here in a personal capacity.
Great to see you back Stuart.
Dear Santa
Can you bring me a new MSM and not a make believe one.
Also can I have an SFA with real men in it and not puppets.
And more people like Stuart
Ho Ho Ho
instead of “whataboutery” it should perhaps change to “Ingnorame”, can someone in the MEDIA at least answer this….
1. what ‘entity’ was founded in 1872 and incorporated in 1899?
2. If the CLUB is the same legal entity, where in the “asset sale” is the “CLUB” listed?
There has been a concerted effort in the media, no doubt driven by self preservation (literally) to conceal the facts or diffuse and confuse with legalese.
We can discuss all day the rules and regulations and how they were changed to assist a particular team…. it is a circular argument with differing opinion.
You will never change the minds of those who refuse to believe, but the “FACT” is that the *Rangers we see today is not the entity that was founded in 1872, incorporated in 1899 and now liquidated in 2012.
It may look the same, talk the same, threaten the same, continue with its traditions of hate and bigotry for some, but it is not the same!
The above has been put to all ‘leading’ journalists – ALL have refused to answer!
Protecting their own interests or lives? Living as men or as mice?
“Twitter joined the social media firmament in 2006 and by 2012 and Scottish football’s summer of discontent the micro-blogging platform had 500 million active users”
Stuart, why did you not mention that the RFCIA global fanbase are all on twitter?
Now back to business. What happened to the share issue?
wjohnston1 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 13:41
Now back to business. What happened to the share issue?
—–
Shurely “Whatabout(ery) the share issue?”. 😉
Good piece, Stuart.
Well done again Stuart, once more it proves ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’
OT
Eureka! ! I have it! What about ‘Goodwill Rangers 2012’
problem is, for whataboutery to be defeated, then any player/club/supporter breaking the rules needs to be punished – or at the very least challenged and rules put in place to prevent a repeat.
So long as players/clubs are treated differently and rules aren’t applied equally – then there will always be whataboutery.
And once again, we are left to look at the role of the SFA in all of this – they are badly letting the game down and i don’t see any leadership or even any inclination to change things coming from the sports “guardians”
And I do realise the clubs are the SFA, and the clubs don’t seem to have any real interest in addressing the situation either – if we are being honest, the clubs and the SFA don’t really deserve our support just now.
Unfortunately Stuart it often ends in whataboutery because of the information vacum which allows fans to make up there own assuptions and stories.
Can you ask your fellow journalists why they will not press the SFA on the details of the five way agreement?
While you are about it ask why no one, and I mean no one, within the entire journalistic community of Scotland will counter the ‘same club’ myth with a few basic questions such as;
Why did ‘The Ranagers’ have to apply for a licence to play football if they are the same club?
Why are ‘The Rangers’ named ‘The Rangers’ if they are Rangers Football Club?
Until journalists stop peddling party lines and do their job responsibly then fans sites are where fans will go to discuss the main stories and whataboutery will live forever.
But then again cynical old me thinks that is precisely the way the media want it.
By the way liked tthe blog.
At the risk of offending the “New Blog Off Topic” Police, just came across this piece (apologies if a re-post):
——
http://brokermandaniel.com/2012/12/12/rangers-f-c-picts-scots-nutters-only-ipo/
Rangers F.C. Picts, Scots & “Nutters” only IPO
Posted on December 12, 2012 by Brokermandaniel
Rangers Football Club, the Scottish team that has spent the last two years in financial disarray, are about to float on London’s junior stock exchange (AIM) in a listing led by investment bank Cenkos.
Rangers is set to raise up to £27m via an initial public offering on the Alternative Investment Market, according to their ipo documents registered with the London Stock Exchange. The proceeds “will be used for strengthening the player squad, improving and developing the club’s properties and facilities”. Yeah right!
In 2011, the club was taken over by Craig Whyte, a businessman who served a seven-year directorship ban from 2000. By early February 2012, with no end to the a tax dispute in sight and questions raised over Whyte’s suitability as owner, the club was placed in administration. It emerged shortly after that Whyte had funded his takeover of the club by securing £24.4m from ticket agency Ticketus in return for future season ticket revenues. Whyte has now been red carded for life; banned from Scottish football.
In January, the club’s shares were suspended on Plus Markets, the UK exchange for small and often illiquid stocks, after it failed to file accounts on time. Rangers have “Free transfered” out Cairn Financial as their Plus NOMAD and signed up a new AIM “striker”Cenkos (COSTING SEVERAL MILLION) who will play up-front when they list on Aim. Kick off for the listing is 8am 18 December 2012 cheered on by an expected full house of 38,528,571 New Ordinary Shares.
There’s nothing new here. UK football clubs listing have a chequered history. Scottish club Celtic, listed on Aim in 1995, were trading at 280p in 1999 & now trade at 39p. Manchester United, one of the world’s most successful clubs, listed in August on the New York Stock Exchange for $233m. The stock is currently struggling to get back to its $14 ipo price.
Rangers are in the midst of the most turbulent financial period of the club’s 140-year history. So why would any sane investor shore them up. You are literally throwing your money away. Better to buy a season ticket & tout it for the games then give to a bunch of champagne guzzling footballers.
In June, current chief executive Charles Green bought the club’s assets for £5.5m as the club entered administration. Fellow Scottish clubs forced the ‘newco’ to begin life in the Scottish third division, where it currently sits TOP in the table. Commentating on the IPO, Green said: “From the time we acquired the business and assets of Rangers FC, we indicated our intention to list the Company and provide our fans with the opportunity to invest in their club. I am delighted that our plans are coming to fruition.” I bet he is. There’s only one way this is going to go and that’s the Celtic FC way. Placings upon placings and an ever dwindling share-price. You’d have to be mentally unstable to invest here. Or press-ganged by a bunch of delusional, wide-eyed crazy Picts !
Stay well away this IPO is for “nutters” only!
——
However much I agree with the sentiment of your article reality bites and I feel I must disagree with the thrux of your argument on this basis…
…the legal profession have based their legalese on “Whataboutery” for centuries.
However, they like to phrase it as… PRECADENT!
After having McCoist urging bears to get buying as the main item on its sports slot last evening, STV was strangely silent about the Sevco share issue in its lunchtime news today.
The IPO is a major news story in the west of Scotland, particularly with the deadline having just passed. Not to have included it in today’s bulletin is nothing less than censorship of bad news. The news editor thought it worthwhile to include a few minutes footage of youngsters writing to Santa, yet failed to give even the briefest update to the 500 million Sevco fans out there.
Tommy says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 14:17
0 0 Rate This
After having McCoist urging bears to get buying as the main item on its sports slot last evening, STV was strangely silent about the Sevco share issue in its lunchtime news today.
The IPO is a major news story in the west of Scotland, particularly with the deadline having just passed. Not to have included it in today’s bulletin is nothing less than censorship of bad news. The news editor thought it worthwhile to include a few minutes footage of youngsters writing to Santa, yet failed to give even the briefest update to the 500 million Sevco fans out there.
=========================
STV only broadcasts to 1% (at most) of the sevco fanbase
I’m sure Rangers TV (available on the WWW, Sky, Virgin, Freeview, Android and Iphone, apple tv, google tv etc) will have an interview with their Lord and Master green telling them of the good news…….War with Eurasia!!!
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 14:06
get yiir barge poles….errrz yiir last o’ the barge poles, err nnnow…3 fur ah pown..aaah!!
Stuart
I’ve witnessed supporters of many clubs ‘doing the right thing’ over the years. Scotland supporters themselves have done a grand job of self policing over the years (with the exception of a few media people misbehaving in Paris at the World Cup ahmm!)
Almost against the odds, supporters have come up trumps time and time again.
They have been roundly let down by the Scottish football authorities, time and time again.
Why is Campbell Ogilvie still in a job? What is the point of supporters attempting to be fair, to see the other point of view, to point out unacceptable behaviour, when the worst offenders at the moment are the people who allegedly run the game?
“Whatever the motives of those that posted their defence of Motherwell, the whataboutery was short-lived and brought to a shuddering halt by a simple, prompt and unambiguous apology. In an official club statement, Chairman John Boyle said: “These people should never show their faces at Fir Park again and they have no place in football,” adding “We are utterly appalled by this behaviour by a small group of people who have tarnished the name of our club. We are writing to Jason Scotland and St Johnstone today to apologise for this disgusting behaviour which is totally alien to all of us.”
========================================================================
If only Charlie Green could follow this excellent example when dealing with his Bogots
Lots of good points in this Blog post, lets be careful not to mistake whataboutery for pointing out blatant inconsistencies, favouritism and bias though.
Just reading Paul McConville and had a wee thought.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/charles-greens-last-hurrah-for-the-rangers-share-issue/#more-2777
T’Rangers fans appear to have a beef with Dundee Utd that they were charged twice (or 1&1/2 times) for the same game.
Presumably Rangers Shareholders must have a beef with Mr Charles for charging them twice for the same shares being that he is telling us all it is the same club?
bogsdollox says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 14:37
If only Charlie Green could follow this excellent example when dealing with his Bogots
……………………………………………………………………………………
Its one thing for Motherwell (or any club) to turn away a handful of supporters but its another thing telling tens of thousands not to come back.
Boyle looked at a situation where to say nothing could cost more decent fans than would be lost be stating the offenders were not welcome.
On the other hand Green (and the SFA ) knows that its only the momentum from the hate brigade that keeps the whole thing moving, they go and the rest just withers and dies.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/charles-greens-last-hurrah-for-the-rangers-share-issue/
spanishcelt says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 14:46
bogsdollox says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 14:37
If only Charlie Green could follow this excellent example when dealing with his Bogots
……………………………………………………………………………………
Its one thing for Motherwell (or any club) to turn away a handful of supporters but its another thing telling tens of thousands not to come back.
Boyle looked at a situation where to say nothing could cost more decent fans than would be lost be stating the offenders were not welcome.
On the other hand Green (and the SFA ) knows that its only the momentum from the hate brigade that keeps the whole thing moving, they go and the rest just withers and dies.
======================================================================
I don’t think Boyle made the kind of calculation you suggest. When faced with unacceptable racism he made the correct decision to oppose it.
However, I accept your point that for non diddy teams the calculation is a financial one but that makes their decision cynical and even more unacceptable.
I presume that McCoist will need to widen the net when looking for new signing targets now that Messi, Xavi and Puyol have signed new long term deals with Barcelona. What to do with all that money raised from the share issue?
‘Whataboutery’ is an essential part of debating, since it is usually based in some historical truth which is pertinent to the topic under discussion. If it was not for the ‘whataboutery’ at the end of last season, the SPL and SFA would have got away with the parachute plan. The fans reminded these august institutions that there were rules to be abided by and other teams in the past who had been dealt with according to said rules is a prime example of the positive effect of ‘whataboutery’.
Although said ‘whataboutery’ is not so useful at solving problems, it is however a useful tool to find out where the root of the problem lies.
Talking about ‘Slugger’ I think their ‘playing the man’ is a great wee rule to keep things on topic, but again I’ve seen it abused as well.
Bogsdollax – by non diddy teams do you mean teams plying their trade in a top tier of football?
If so, that is ok since we would hardly say a 4 month old club “languishing” in SFL3 has any history of being a non diddy club. Unless history of being a non diddy club can also be purchased…………
Thank you Mr. Cosgrove, for a new thread, and a re-vitalised argument.
‘ Whataboutery ‘, has no place, as the circumstances are completely unique.
No-where else in the world would we have to argue such patently obvious facts ( with regard to football, obviously ; I am in, and abhor,the situation of Burkina Faso ).
The key to change must be the media. If we cannot change the public perception through acessible information, such as the printed word, then we must make our voices heard ; not louder, but with eloquence and reasoned argument.
If only we had access to a Free Press, we could shape this Country’s destiny.
If only we had journalists unafraid to ask questions.
If only we had honest reporters willing to subject themselves to threats and intimitadation…
If only this also applied back home in Scotland…
Definite gap in the market for a new type of Greetings card…………A “So Sorry Rangers” card. The current Stationery market does not cater for any such item, and given yesterday’s latest apology from Montrose F.C. it should be obvious to budding entrepreneurs in the Stock Market that these cards could rake in a fortune.
Think of the revenue which would be created for the Post Office, and other Private delivery services. After all we, every single one of us, owe the club and Charles Green in particular a sincere apology.
Internet Bampots, Bloggers, Fans of other clubs, Purchasers of a particular book, Every single person who “Kicked them when they were down”… In all Millions of people would surely buy these cards and send them to Charles just in time for a fresh start in The New Year.
We could reason that we were “Duped” by some nasty people on the Internet, and now given the incredible success of the Share issue as promised by Sir Charles, just learn some manners and respect for the man.
Whataboutery was always an admission of guilt – its sole purpose being the mitigation of that guilt by invoking the guilt of another. Like the kid complaining to the teacher “it wisnae just me” – the clearest admission of guilt teachers ever get!
The truth about the share issue must be coming soon. The dismal response by berzzes ( quite right IMO) will amount to about 2 mill it seems ( my guesstimate was 4-5 so they’ve underwhelmed even me). This will put into some kind of sharp relief exactly how much the institutions are actually in for for their “17 million” investment. less than 7 mill and SEVCO are effectively bust – upwards of 11 might see them through the season. What is clear is that in order to survive someone else will have to be prepared to pump in at least 20 million over the next 3 seasons ( assuming the 17 mill has actually been paid – if not then 20 mill plus the shortfall) and no-one has shown themselves willing and/or able to do that. Their survival is precarious in the extreme – and will be pretty much for the next 5 – 6 years – even in a best case scenario.
I think it will be curtains for SEVCO by the summer – and only some serious drip feeding will get them to that stage – and some desperate shenanigans will ensue to create yet another “Rangers” for next season – then possibly another the season after and even the season after – the fifth incarnation in 2015 might be the one that survives. But rest assured the SFA will continue this pantomime long after this Christmas season and a couple of others have passed.
Whatabout a card for So Sorry Celtic!! Sorry couldnt resist
Stewart
Whilst the inability to admit wrong doing has pervaded the football scene for our lifetimes, the apparent inability of those supporting The Rangers to not only deny any wrongdoing and take responsibility for it, but turn themselves into the victims of a perceived wrong doing is truly perplexing to those for whom the admission of wrong is the natural (or should that be taught?) thing to do. The Rangers supporters’ scrupulous use of the words of the law to justify what they have been part of not being wrong whilst avoidance of the underlying principles at play (sporting integrity) has been quite noticeable.
It is almost what defines the two opposing football cultures in the unfolding saga of The Rangers and the rest of Scottish football..
I touched on the inability to admit wrong in this article on Truth and Reconciliation. at
http://celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=596:nothing-to-see-here-timmy–move-on&catid=45:season-2010-2011&Itemid=80
and from comments from the opposite side in recent times I have come up with the theory that the inability to admit wrong and the unwillingness to do so are the results of religious teaching that are part of ongoing thinking whether one practices the taught religion of childhood or not.
The Catholic tradition of contrition, confession and absolution in this lifetime differs (as I understand it) from The Protestant one of (maybe) contrition, confession but certainly no absolution which is the gift of God according to that tradition.
See http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Hist/H-0501.htm
Whatever the theological arguments if one is taught about forgiveness of sins in this lifetime then the conditions for admitting wrong are much more likely to be present than if the teaching is only God can provide absolution, since that puts forgiveness into the realms of the hereafter rather than the here and now.
Put another way if a person thinks they are going to be treated with justice and mercy and forgiveness if they admit a wrong in their daily lives, are they not much more likely to admit to that wrong than if they have to wait a lifetime to find out and then may NOT be absolved with terrifying consequences?
In those circumstances “it wiznae me did it” is perhaps a lot more understandable even though the crumbs from the cookie from the empty jar are around one’s mouth and half the cookie is still in one’s hand?
The inability to admit wrong is certainly a point well worth raising because without that admission what is the truth cannot be agreed and so a wrong admitted. Without a wrong there is no place for forgiveness to put its healing powers to work.
This idea of course takes the whole debate into a theological area that would best be considered by the relgious minds of our society if it has any merit, but it looks to me that had there been a bit more admission of wrong doing and contrition on the part of the Rangers men instead of justification and denial, there would have been considerably less animosity towards their situation.
whataboutery…………Charles Green…..suggesting the SPL stole The Rangers money and that they should boycott the Dundee Utd tie.
not a word from the SFA…but not slow to pick up on Kenny Shields
————————————————————–
The Compliance Officer has issued the following Notice of Complaint:
Alleged Party in Breach: Kenny Shiels, Kilmarnock FC
Date: On or around Thursday 13th December 2012
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:
Disciplinary Rule 68 (Making comments in media interviews that impinged
upon the character of a match official, Andrew Dallas, by stating that
Andrew Dallas had “fabricated” evidence for and during a Judicial
Panel Hearing on Thursday 13th December 2012 and that he had acted in a
“manipulative and devious” manner in respect of alleged misconduct
by Mr Shiels at the match on 24th November 2012 between Kilmarnock FC
and St Johnstone FC.)
Disciplinary Rule 71 (Not acting in the best interest of Association
Football by making improper comments of an insulting nature in media
interviews stating that Andrew Dallas had “fabricated” evidence for
and during a Judicial Panel Hearing on Thursday 13th December 2012 and
that he had acted in a “manipulative and devious” manner in respect
of alleged misconduct by Mr Shiels at the match on 24th November 2012
between Kilmarnock FC and St Johnstone FC.)
Principal Hearing Date: Thursday 10th January 2013
Mr Shiels has until Thursday 27th December to respond to the Notice of
Complaint.
Rule 68: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or
other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the
jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, shall in an interview, a ‘blog’ on
the internet, on a social networking or micro-blogging site, or in any
other manner calculated or likely to lead to publicity (i) criticise the
performance(s) of any or all match official(s) in such a way as to
indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official; or
(ii) make remarks about such match official(s) which impinge on his
character. For the avoidance of doubt this rule applies (i) whether
reported to the Scottish FA by a referee for misconduct or otherwise,
and (ii) where remarks are brought to the Scottish FA’s attention, or
of which the Scottish FA becomes aware, by whatever manner or means.
There shall be a presumption that any material published in such manner
was published in the name of and/or with the authority of the person or
body bearing to have published the material.
Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official,
other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the
jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best
interests of Association Football. Furthermore, such person or body
shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a
combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening,
abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
FURTHER INFO:
The determination from Mr Shiels’ Disciplinary Tribunal on Thursday
13th December can be found on the following link http://bit.ly/RBRgiH
The Loving Cup.
==============
After the superbly cringeworthy speech last New Year by errr, aye, errr, the MBB,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dJpf3zOXd4
I am really looking forward to Charlie’s effort next week – and no doubt his heartfelt welcome to his new, fellow shareholder(s)…
[He hasn’t sold the Cup has he…? 😉 ]
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 15:44
Whatever the theological arguments …
——
Jimmy Carr on the telly last night (a repeat, naturally):
“The Bishop of Durham has been offered the job of Archbishop of Canterbury. He’s made up. And so’s his religion.”
Ach – if we’re going to get wur posts deleted for religion, might as well get a wee joke in while we’re at it, eh? 🙂
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 15:57
Indeed but its no about relgious beliefs but about what why we think the way we do and blockages to reaching a more civil society..
Its just a pity that the word relgion and two of them had to be named to make the point.
Good joke btw.
…And another thing ;
Amongt todays Sevco legndary quotes :
” We could play them as trialists. I don’t know the legalities of that…and I’m sure there are one or two people who will tell is if we make a mistake “.
A quote from Ally McCoist, who meant to say,
” We won’t do anything else illegal, because they’re watching and we might get caught “.
sorry to go off topic – can anyone confirm when Sevco may be eligible to play in Europe for the 1st time?
I think it’s 2017/208 season and here is my reasoning
The UEFA license require 3 years audited accounts – not simply to have a birthday cake with 3 candles on it?
Sevco won’t have audited accounts until November 2013 – which would be used for their entry APPLICATION into Europe around March/April 2014 for the 2014/2015 season (as they only have 1 years accounts, it would be rejected)
So it would be march/April 2017 before they had 3 years audited accounts to support their application which would allow them to play in Europe for the season 2017/2018
No?
Great blog.
Stuart, a question was put to you on Your Call(8/12/12) about wether you believed that RFC(then) TRFC(now) were the same club?
Your answer was that they are the same club, as was the same reply from Tom English.
Can you tell us in your own words on this blog why you believe this to be, as most people on this blog and i include myself, clearly know that they are not the same club.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 15:46
whataboutery…………Charles Green…..suggesting the SPL stole The Rangers money and that they should boycott the Dundee Utd tie.
not a word from the SFA…but not slow to pick up on Kenny Shields
————————————————————–
The Compliance Officer has issued the following Notice of Complaint:
…
Rule 71: A recognised …club, …team official…under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times act in the best interests of Association Football…shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
=====================================
Obviously missing the point of Stuart’s thought provoking blog, [I’m bad !], but could Shiels be the one to invoke the ‘whitaboutery defence’ to embarrass the SFA ?
Taking Rule 71 above as one example, could he, [or a smart lawyer if allowable], argue the case that the SFA disciplinary procedures are effectively null and void, as the organisation has lost its moral authority due to inconsistent – and selective – application of the rules ?
Agreed, it would be a highly contentious approach, and which would not endear Mr. Shiels to the bears, but it would interesting to see how the SFA dealt with him.
And if he really wanted to be a pain in the butt to the SFA, he could get his punishment – and then he can freely take his case to the Court of Session.
Well, a certain football club went to the CoS recently – and this did not attract any punishment at all from the SFA, [or UEFA], for taking their complaint to a civil court.
[I am presuming CoS costs would be prohibitive in this individual case, but shirley the option of a CoS appeal – without attracting further punishment from the SFA – has now been established ?]
Moderator, sent that too quick before finishing and spell checking, my apologies.
“Whataboutery” – Two wrongs do not make a right.
paradisebhoy says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 16:40
0 0 Rate This
“Whataboutery” – Two wrongs do not make a right.
=========================================
it doesn’t, but if the 1st wrong is left unpunished, where is the deterrent to others?
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 16:29
Once they have audited acocunts for the years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 will they be able to apply for entry into European competitions. That should be somewhere in the season 2015-2016, so that they should be able to play in Europe in 2016-2017.
I would expect them to try and negotiate an earlier entry, based for example on audited interim accounts per 31.12.2014 and / or conditional participation in Europe in 2015-2016 subject to audited accounts for 2014-2015 being delivered prior to, say, 30 September 2015.
Was going to reply to someone at the Scotman telling us all the authorities believe they are the same club but it seemed to long.
“The SFA has already confirmed the club’s continuance by transferring the license.”
Transferred from who to who? If its the same club then surely there was no need to transfer the license.
Also if History was bought then T’Rangers must be the same club that was second in last years SPL. Regardless of where they ended up playing last year that second place entitled them to enter league and Scottish Cups in later rounds. However both SFL and SFA made them start at the bottom. Why did Rangers fans not kick up a stink about not being given their right to byes into the latter rounds if they were the same club.
Scottish Cup
Round Three
The clubs which, in the PREVIOUS season, were members of The Scottish Premier League and those clubs finishing in The Scottish Football League First Division league positions one to four, shall be exempt from playing in Round Three of the Competition.
League Cup
For the First Round the thirty lowest placed clubs of The Scottish Football
League and The Scottish Premier League at the end of the PRECEDING
season, which are not participating in the UEFA Club Competitions, will
play a single tie on the ground of the first named club. This Round will be
“seeded” and the “seeds” will be the fifteen highest placed clubs at the end of the preceding season. The fifteen winning clubs will qualify to play in the Second Round.
4.3 For the Second Round, the seven lowest placed clubs of The Scottish
Premier League at the end of the PRECEDING season will be inserted into a
ballot with the winners from the First Round. This Round will be “seeded”
and the “seeds” will be the eleven highest placed clubs at the end of the
preceding season. Those clubs will play a single tie on the ground of the
first named club. The eleven winning clubs will qualify to play in the Third
Round.
I can see why in their hearts supporters see it as the same club, playing in the same stadium, with the same strips and the same manager. However legally and by what appears to have been applied ‘officially’ by the SFL and SFA for this years cup competitions they are a new club.
We know the reason they are feart to come out in the open and tell the truth.
Anyway let them think they are the same club because following that logic if LNS finds them guilty they will have to take what punishment is given.
But hey wait a minute Mr Charles says his club has never been a member of the SPL, so they must be a new club.
Then again……………………………………..and so it goes on.
Not the Huddle Malcontent
I believe it will be 16/17, there is a 6 month interim grace period. If I’ve read the licensing requirements correctly. They do also have to qualify, which would involve winning the Scottish cup as they will not be in the top flight until 16/17 at the earliest. So 17/18 is more likely.
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 15:57
14 0 Rate This
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 15:44
Whatever the theological arguments …
——
Jimmy Carr on the telly last night (a repeat, naturally):
“The Bishop of Durham has been offered the job of Archbishop of Canterbury. He’s made up. And so’s his religion.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aye, but what about all of the other man-made religions? Eh? Eh?
insidewinger says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 16:46
————————
Sevco were born in May 2012 and their year end will be June 2013. Normally audited accounts would be available anywhere between 3-6 months after that. Basically, they have to have them by November so that an AGM can be held by the end of december 2013 (6 months later)
Those accounts – 2012/2013 would be needed in March april 2014 to support an application to play in europe in season 2014/2015.
as the application process is in March/April of the year for the following year, i don’t see how speeding up the publication of the accounts would help – as they wouldn’t be asked to submit them until the March following their year end.
So, if it is to be 3 years full audited accounts to support their uefa license application, the earliest they can present that is in march 2017 for the 2017/2018 season
and that is of course assuming they win the scottish cup in 2017 or finish in a uefa spot in the SPL (a competition they refuse to enter) in 2017
Lord Wobbly says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 16:57
Aye, but what about all of the other man-made religions? Eh? Eh?
——
Dinna start, min. 🙂
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 15:44
‘..had there been a bit more admission of wrong doing and contrition on the part of the Rangers men instead of justification and denial, there would have been considerably less animosity towards their situation.’
—
That is undoubtedly so.
But the more I think about things, the wrong-doings of the business-men running the dead club pale into insignificance,almost, beside the serious dereliction of duty and the abandonment of professional integrity by the Football Authorities, and are ultimately less damaging than the baffling, much more heinous and unforgivable prostitution of themselves by the general run of our media men.
Stuart Cosgrove has done us another service by helping to keep the discussion above the level of mere inter-fan, inter-club squabbling. (Although, as others have already observed, ‘whataboutery’ can sometimes be the citing of precedent in the attempt to get even-handedness.)
Last week 3 articles linked by reconstruction were posted on “The Herald” forum by a passionate daily contributor with the good of all Scottish Football at his core. Overnight the articles vanished via editorial censorship. The following morning, with the issue of censorship being out with his control, the contributor indicated his grave disappointment to me & made it clear he would not return where he was not wanted.
Dr Cosgrove has alluded many times to the wilful impotence of Scottish Mainstream Media. Perhaps this censorship also comes under “whataboutery” ? What heinous event would occur if a broadsheet published reasoned analysis composed by their customers ? Would it be because it would embarrass the Journalists, maybe the Sports Editor or perhaps even The Editor ? Or might it be because the whole cabal are cut of the same self preservation cloth & arrogantly will not publish anything in their toys that comes close to exposing the truth ?
A strike of the Dictators sword has cost “The Herald” forum considerable reputation. Consequently, a few powerful contributors are now looking for a new home…
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 16:29
I’m not so sure about the date for audited accounts but by the time they are eligible the so called Financial Fair Play rules will be in force.
If, judging by reports on here, they will have made a loss year on year since inception then it will be interesting to see if a licence is granted.
But there I go again expecting rules to be applied.
paulmac2 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 13:16
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 12:32
7 0 i
Rate This
From RM … how to quickly double the money you extract from simple bears:
—
“No biggie . . . but i went through the online payment there to make a £500 payment, when i got to the end it said ‘payment was unsuccessful, please return to Rangers website’ (or thereabouts)
so i did it again, this time it took me to the final page and payment was accepted, all good.
just checked my bank there and it looks like it took £1000 (fly bassa Charlie) but my email confirmation is just for £500 (confused), don’t mind if it ends up being £1000 but i’d like some sort of confirmation.”
——————————————————————
Maybe explains why Green is uncertain as to the final take…
It’s been unsuccesful try again…
It’s been unsuccesful try again…
It’s been unsuccesful try again…
£2k later…thanks
How many will ask for their cash back?
– ———————————————————————————— –
sounds like previous –
previously it was a premium rate phone number,
so the phone call alone could cost maybe £5 to £10 ?
[and i’m sure there is the occasional her too]
as someone else posted – a fool and his money . . .
According to FF, in an interview with Tom English in June, Sir Charles Green stated, “This (the IPO) is the fans opportunity to have a say” and went on, “If the fans buy the shares and don’t like me then they can sack me. That’s the way I’ve structured it”.
Power to The Peepul indeed.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 17:03
Not following you here: **So, if it is to be 3 years full audited accounts to support their uefa license application, the earliest they can present that is in march 2017 for the 2017/2018 season**
Surely 2012 -2013, 2013- 2014 and 2014 -2015 represents three years of accounts, so that they could come to UEFA in March 2016 and apply for entry in 2016 -2017?
The last 2 lines in Stuart’s blog are as follows:
Apologise and pay the price. That applies equally to all of us and there is no hierarchy of importance. No special cases. The SPL may have a history of gifting privileges but common decency does not.
Whatabout 5 way agreement
Whatabout special CONDITIONAL licence
Whatabout Sevco being a new club with NO history and everyone agees
Whatabout MSM asking questions that really mean something
No SPECIAL cases. Well maybe just one.
justshatered says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 14:04
——————————————-
To be fair…Stuart’s mate Tam Cowan did cover this last week I believe…when he made reference in his DR column to The Rangers being a new club since ermmmm 2012…
I’ve been wondering whether Tam required the usual 2 day advice provided by the anti-terrorist squad on what you need to check before opening envelopres and going to the lavy etc…and whether he had the usual 24/7 SAS type sitting at the end of his bed every night?
Perhaps off the topic of the blog, but if the Share Issue has been the dismal event that it appears to be shaping up to be, could that see (ironically) the TRFC fans stock rise in the eyes of this blog?
I think we all thought that they would be seduced by the potent mix of victimhood and ‘traditions’ that Charlie was trying to serve upto them. I know you can argue about timing and such like, but it does appear as though they wouldn’t be lead by the nose into dropping their hard earned cash into Charlie’s pension plan en masse.
I would think slightly better of them, anyway…
timeforjustice1 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 16:29
Great blog.
Stuart, a question was put to you on Your Call(8/12/12) about wether you believed that RFC(then) TRFC(now) were the same club?
Your answer was that they are the same club, as was the same reply from Tom English.
Can you tell us in your own words on this blog why you believe this to be, as most people on this blog and i include myself, clearly know that they are not the same club.
_________________________________________________________________________
Thanks timefor justice.
…..To be honest I have several competing thoughts. Probably at the heart of it is the differentiation between legal or trading entities: companies, consortia, holding groups, trading arms etc which fall under the areas of fiscal, fiduciary and financial laws. On the other hand the emotional associations with a club, where they play, club colours, fond memories, agonising defeats, great comebacks, favourite players and waiting anxioulsy to find out who you have drawn in the next rounds. The first set is rational – the second is emotional. For the many thousands of people who have returned to see Rangers play, they are being driven by the emotional. It is their club and no amount of complex company law will convince them otherwise.
I read this blog frequently and know the arguements inside out – but I do not think that the ’emotional attachment’ theory is quite as easy to dismiss as some think.
Today the former St Johnstone midfielder Charlie Adam passed away. When he signed for us we were the ‘worst team in Britain’ at the bottom of the lowest league and had barely survived a significant insolvency event. We were ‘rescued’ only because of supermarket trade-off swapping land in near centre Perth for land on gifted farmlands on the periphery of the city. A group of largely incompetent businessmen had nearly killed my club and with it the memories I shared with my now dead uncle who had taken me to Saints as a kid. Those memories are more powerful in my mind than the legal documentation that underpins the club. The new stadium doesn’t have the same atmosphere, we lost crowd numbers on the way and we have never won the Scottish Cup. But we are still from Perth, play in blue and are called Saints. They are my club.
My uncle is buried on the half-way line at the East Stand side opposite our seats. Its where he will always lie.
…And what better place for a great man to be buried. For those that like their Latin our club crest is the sign of St John – Agnus Dei – the Lamb of God. We have had an unbroken company history since 1884, we have survived some tough times but for the first four years of our history we were a bigger team than Celtic. I like to think of Saints as – the Truculent Lambs.
Thanks for your courtesy it speaks volumes for the blog.
Radio Clyde News@RadioClydeNews
We understand Rangers are set to reveal the club’s share issue has raised around £22million with approx £5million coming from fans.
If the tweet is correct, then I think it is a good result for Chuckles (and his initial investors)regardless of whether or not the Bears are being ripped off.
MSM reporting that The Rangers fans have taken up 50% of a share offering they previously reported was over-subscribed.
stuartcosgrove says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 17:42
3 0 Rate This
timeforjustice1 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 16:29
Great blog.
Stuart, a question was put to you on Your Call(8/12/12) about wether you believed that RFC(then) TRFC(now) were the same club?
Your answer was that they are the same club, as was the same reply from Tom English.
Can you tell us in your own words on this blog why you believe this to be, as most people on this blog and i include myself, clearly know that they are not the same club.
_________________________________________________________________________
Thanks timefor justice.
…..To be honest I have several competing thoughts. Probably at the heart of it is the differentiation between legal or trading entities: companies, consortia, holding groups, trading arms etc which fall under the areas of fiscal, fiduciary and financial laws. On the other hand the emotional associations with a club, where they play, club colours, fond memories, agonising defeats, great comebacks, favourite players and waiting anxioulsy to find out who you have drawn in the next rounds. The first set is rational – the second is emotional. For the many thousands of people who have returned to see Rangers play, they are being driven by the emotional. It is their club and no amount of complex company law will convince them otherwise.
I read this blog frequently and know the arguements inside out – but I do not think that the ‘emotional attachment’ theory is quite as easy to dismiss as some think.
Today the former St Johnstone midfielder Charlie Adam passed away. When he signed for us we were the ‘worst team in Britain’ at the bottom of the lowest league and had barely survived a significant insolvency event. We were ‘rescued’ only because of supermarket trade-off swapping land in near centre Perth for land on gifted farmlands on the periphery of the city. A group of largely incompetent businessmen had nearly killed my club and with it the memories I shared with my now dead uncle who had taken me to Saints as a kid. Those memories are more powerful in my mind than the legal documentation that underpins the club. The new stadium doesn’t have the same atmosphere, we lost crowd numbers on the way and we have never won the Scottish Cup. But we are still from Perth, play in blue and are called Saints. They are my club.
My uncle is buried on the half-way line at the East Stand side opposite our seats. Its where he will always lie.
…And what better place for a great man to be buried. For those that like their Latin our club crest is the sign of St John – Agnus Dei – the Lamb of God. We have had an unbroken company history since 1884, we have survived some tough times but for the first four years of our history we were a bigger team than Celtic. I like to think of Saints as – the Truculent Lambs.
Thanks for your courtesy it speaks volumes for the blog.
……………
I can see the logical side to there being an “emotional” link between old and new. But that is as far as it goes. It certainly galls me when most of the MSM, the SFA, SPL & SFL and now even UEFA recognised body the ECA spend their time spreading disinformation and pretend that there are genuine links that makes TRFC a legally and sporting recognised continuation of the RFC, which is clearly untrue and literally not possible.
With Hearts share offer ending tomorrow, an open letter from Vlad to fans of his basketball team in Lithuania has just surfaced.
I think the above is confirmation that Hearts problems are due to Vlad now being unable, rather than unwilling, to finance Hearts, or anyone else.
I don’t think it is particularly good news for Hearts as it is increasingly looking like several players will be sold or released as free transfers in January.
stmiley
MSM reporting that The Rangers fans have taken up 50% of a share offering they previously reported was over-subscribed.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Does this mean that the £10 million pounds expected is now £5 million pledged.
so 10,000 fans bought shares at £500,
What about the other 499,990,000 fans from the world wide web.
Was it a case of “computer says no”
Auldheid @ 15:44
You say:
“Whilst the inability to admit wrong doing has pervaded the football scene for our lifetimes, the apparent inability of those supporting The Rangers to not only deny any wrongdoing and take responsibility for it, but turn themselves into the victims of a perceived wrong doing is truly perplexing to those for whom the admission of wrong is the natural (or should that be taught?) thing to do.”
———————
Those speaking for children said in 2010:
“Survivors of child abuse by Catholic clergy in Ireland have expressed disappointment with the pope’s apology for the scandal.
Victims criticised Benedict XVI’s letter of apology because it did not directly address the long history of concealment by Irish bishops of sexual, physical and emotional abuse by priests, nuns and Catholic orders.
The campaigning group One in Four condemned the pope for failing to acknowledge that the church hierarchy had attempted to suppress the scandal.”
——————-
For the avoidance of doubt I am an atheist. Not a particularly militant one, unless provoked by the sort of sanctimonious twaddle in your post.
I trust the mods will delete this post and yours asap.
http://twitpic.com/bmzyyd
SouthernExile says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:12
You sir are a disgrace ..whataboutary demonstrated at is scottish/nothern irish best/worst ..
paranoidbyexperience says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:30
SouthernExile says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:12
You sir are a disgrace ..whataboutary demonstrated at is scottish/nothern irish best/worst ..
————————-
Sir, in my opinion the whataboutery is what I responded to…..so best let it drop and have the whole sibthread deleted.
Reporting Scotland saying less than £5m from fans, “disappointing for Rangers”. Well worn reasons trotted out, Ally buying shares as Xmas presents for his children. £17m from “heavy hitting” institutional investors.
… CG will have to start delivering publicly, player wage bills targets to be met, renovation of stadium, merchandise has to bring more money in – replica shirt prices will have to go up.
(Me summarising as the guy is speaking – should’ve been a secretary, me!)
——
As for replica kit prices going UP – I noted earlier today that ther Rangers Store is currently selling every kit at half price!
” I remember being in the ‘Wee Barrel’ a traditional football boozer near St Mirren’s old Love Street stadium”
Stuart
you will be pleased to hear that the ‘Wee Barrel’ is still going, but with less numbers due to the loss of Love Street ( which we lost due to debt…….ahem )
Maybe see you in there prior to the 2nd Feb Scottish cup meeting of the Real Saints and the Fake Saints.
The pub toilet however has not improved since 2001.
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:48
Is the 17m from institutional investors confirmed?
I had a crazy or not so crazy thought – does CG et al need the share issue to fail badly so that BDO do not go after them for the assets?
SouthernExile says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:12
can someone explain to me what the fek that post has to do with scottish football?
wottpi says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 16:49
17 0 Rate This
Clear, irrefutable facts. And the genius part…. they can be used to counter every single argument for the “same club” nonsense.
Well done.
P.S. Please reply to the Scotsman; and the rest of the MSM
BBC Sportsound is tweeting for people to get in touch with their “old firm memories”. Why tonight? What’s so special about 18th December?
The MSM just can’t let it go, can they? Do they have any conception of a life outside “the old firm”?
On second thoughts, I do remember a time when there was a club in the SPL called Rangers . . .
Great post from Stuart, his reminisces of when St Johnstone were struggling brought back to me the reason for my interest in the whole RFC debacle, and that is as a supporter of a small team (but with a proud history) I know that given similar circumstances – no one in the SFA/SFL would have lifted a finger to save my club – it is this injustice that drives the feelings of many non OF fans ( it truly is an ‘old’ firm now)
bayviewgold says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:52
SouthernExile says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:12
can someone explain to me what the fek that post has to do with scottish football?
—————–
It was a (maybe over provocative) rebuttal to the introduction by auldheid of comparative theology onto this site, and his suggestion (as it seemed to me) of moral superiority based on a particular sect’s dogma.
bayviewgold says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:52
3 0 Rate This
SouthernExile says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:12
can someone explain to me what the fek that post has to do with scottish football?
________________________________________________________________________–
Totally agree tommythehat had posts removed for less.
Well ,thats the share issue closed and the money in, where do we all go from here ,downward in my mind ,question is how fast,Charles will drip feed into any projects ,stadium repairs etc and I will imagine milk any funding first that will come through from the commonwealth games next year minimising what he has to stump up in the short term,as for the institutions ,when will they be expecting the first dividend on their cash,in the not too distant future I would imagine,now we enter the maze and Sevco will not come out the other end,,oh well.
Being an analyst at heart I’ve been wracking my grey matter for a while on the same club/new club discussion for a while and I think I might have stumbled upon something and believe it or not it was one of the pundits on SSB stated that a football club could not go bust.
When someone else is next on a phone in ask the following question:
“Why, if ‘The Rangers’ are the same club, have the media in Scotland not investigated the outrageous treatment given to them and laid bare the corruption at the heart of the Scottish game?”
After all they have gone from playing in the SPL to Division 3 in the blink of an eye.
This way they need to justify the decisions taken. If they come out with the holding company going bust then ask the following question; “I don’t understand because it was not the holding company that played in the SPL so how are ‘The Rangers’ in Division 3 if the club has changed hands?