The Dismal Art of Whataboutery

ByTrisidium

The Dismal Art of Whataboutery

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.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

796 Comments so far

ShooperbPosted on5:30 pm - Dec 19, 2012


riddrie says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 14:36

Apologies, riddrie. Had a bad day at work, and I think it was more about letting off steam than anything else.

I take your points about the reasons why they shouldn’t be there. The whole thing was a response to those who think we’re being petty in insisting that they aren’t the same team, as if we’re dealing with a 5 year old whose goldfish keeps dying, and it’s alright to let him claim it’s the same goldfish year after year. My post was to illustrate where that would lead if it wasn’t countered.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on5:34 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Yet more curious – white bricks claims to have a source close to BDO and the liquidation process – Blimey!

View Comment

rabPosted on5:46 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Twopanda.

That source wouldn’t be the guy from the RFFF who is on the creditors committee would it?

View Comment

taxlawplebeianPosted on6:08 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Just finished work and noticed that I have a World Record number of TD’s for a 4th tier bampot

View Comment

rapscallionPosted on6:10 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Jonnyod 17:12

I’m all for reasoned analysis & this extents to nomenclature. According to the MSM, this new club has developed saintly proportions yet are strangers to our game. So why not combine both & call them St Rangers 😉 ?

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on6:11 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Here’s another ‘whataboutery’?

Mr Kenny Shiels gets pulled up by the SFA, clearly and rapidly issued with a Notice of Complaint due to his comments in the media that the compliance officer sees as being false (ie ‘lies’).

Mr Charles Green makes many remarks in the media which are clearly fabricated (ie ‘lies’), the same media slants and highlights these comments as fine qualities, and Vincent Lunny gets no work in relation to Green referred to him by his employers.

However, in an interview as he took up his position, Lunny stated “Under the rules an incident can be brought to my attention by any means.”

Could a simple fan like me bring Green’s behaviour to Vincent’s notice, or have his employers made Charles Green an individual who is only answerable to himself?

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on6:17 pm - Dec 19, 2012


rapscallion
Sorry but I think I will stick with SEVCO 2012 thanks 🙂

View Comment

rapscallionPosted on6:24 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Jonnyod 18:17

Wasn’t being entirely serious but I do take your point about consistency of nomenclature.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on6:26 pm - Dec 19, 2012


rapscillion
😉 I think 🙂

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:52 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 13:00

Cheers I added to my list

Ordinairy Fan

We have to about March to get “buy in” from groups representing our clubs, a month to get demands out there and three months to with hold SB sales until the SFA are brought to account.

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on6:53 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Taysider says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 12:45
“IMO the fans own the ‘soul’ of any club”.

Well said Taysider, right on the button. I just hope that you haven’t given LNS ideas though. Did he not say that a club which incorporates is non corporate? Could the language be tortured some more using your imagery? What if (copyright Danish Pastry) the double dealings were done with the non-corporeal body excluding the soul, since it’s owned by the fans. The fans were not involved in the misregistrations saga, case dismissed. Babel is on the horizon.

View Comment

rapscallionPosted on6:54 pm - Dec 19, 2012


jonnyod 18.26

I have my rapscallion moments. Just a bit of banter to lighten the mood but back to serious stuff now.

Quite a few posting today wanting change at the top. I concur with this to the extent I cant see scope for meaningful change without it. Deal with the principal structure & the components will follow. Some are compiling a “wish/to do” list which I think is a good start.

View Comment

troyblainPosted on6:55 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Could the fans make their views known to the SFA at every Scotland home game before and after the game. does anyone know what is happening regarding a new Scotland football manager ? have the SFA closed down for winter ?

View Comment

iceman63Posted on6:59 pm - Dec 19, 2012


@williemacufrey
Babel is not on the horizon. Babel is here. We are in its midsts.

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on7:13 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Did you shove your way to the front again? (:

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on7:15 pm - Dec 19, 2012


iceman63 says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 18:59
1 0 i
Rate This
Ignore the last one.
@williemacufrey
Babel is not on the horizon. Babel is here. We are in its midsts.

Did you shove your way to the front again?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:18 pm - Dec 19, 2012


ianagain says:

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 15:58

and any Dundee Utd supporters

This bit caught my eye.

“Stewart Regan, Chief Executive of the Scottish FA: “We are pleased for everyone involved in this process, and indeed the whole of Scottish football, that a conclusion has been reached.

“There were a number of complex and challenging issues involved but, primarily, the Scottish FA had to be satisfied that the new owners of Rangers would operate in the best interests of the club, its fans and Scottish football in general.”

If I were Dundee United I would be asking Regan how the boycott threat meets what The Rangers agreed to and why the SFA say they can do nothing. There was an agreement, the Rangers have breached it so why are the SFA unable to act?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:18 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Tweet from STV:

@ScotlandTonight: As always we want to hear your view – what do you think needs to change in Scottish football? #scotnight

View Comment

angus1983Posted on7:25 pm - Dec 19, 2012


jonnyod says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 17:12

Refer to them as SEVCO 2012 in any posts ,conversations and correspondence ,especially to the blazers and the MSM .
——

Seems a bit petty to me, and a good way to alienate ourselves from such bodies.

Fact is, they’re no longer called Sevco. They’re called TRFC. Or the company which operates the ethereal Club entity is, at least.

The plan all along has been to ignore the Club=Company thing, and it seems to me they’ve just about succeeded now. General consensus among the wider population is that RFC are still alive and well, have shed their debts and are doing their penance appropriately.

Did you ever really think it would be any other way?

Currently, I’m fine with Scottish fitba. However if TRFC manage to continue the scam and make it back to the top division I fear that may be the point I jack it in.

View Comment

SeniorPosted on7:29 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Boycott Weekend

First of all I am an ordinary member of this forum. If anything can be added to the campaign please do not hesitate to shout, indeed if you think the campaign is foolish or misguided please, again, do not hesitate to shout..
There are a few caveats to mention before we set out the strategy of our campaign.
1. When we decide a weekend we must stick religiously (pardon the pun) to this date. There will be many false promises made to derail the weekend of boycott. If, after deciding on the weekend we are distracted there will never be the same opportunity again to mobilise the troops.
2. The weekend we select may not suit, for a variety of reasons, everybody, but we have to make a judgement call, and this is where we will need leadership. I am prepared to make these calls but if any of you have any better suggestion I am more than willing to defer.
There are a least five hundred members of this forum 99% decent ordinary fans. All that will be asked of you is apart from adhering to the boycott is to email all contacts in your address book with the instructions that we will set out. In that email, to your friends, I would ask you to mention to them if they in turn would forward this email to all their contacts etc. I will ask you all also how best to utilise twitter, Facebook etc. Is there a way of a mass circulation of the info on these sites?
Justshatered 16.03
“ I posted some time ago that what is required is a boycott of the press.
Pick a weekend and a specific paper, notify every supporter’s website, supporters associations, and fanzine that we can find and ask them for their support but most importantly let the paper itself know what is coming”
As you can see from the above the option of a news(sic)paper boycott will also be called for on the weekend specified. The only issue with the above call is, that we boycott all papers on the same weekend – they are all guilty by their silence in defending the corruption that Scottish football administration has become.
There are people on here who are much more adept at using the computer and have a comprehensive list of supporter’s websites, supporters associations, and fanzine sites. I would appeal to those people to please step forward to help disseminate the info to these sites.
In any event we have the Christmas break to fine-tune this historic campaign.
In conclusion I would ask fellow members to give thumbs up/down if you agree/disagree with the proposed campaign.
I

View Comment

SeniorPosted on7:39 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Sorry for those confused about the Boycott Weekend, please see below.

Senior says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 13:56
64 4 Rate This
I’ll tell you what the Nuclear option is,- yes it has come to this – every supporter in Scotland should boycott his own club for one specific weekend. If this does not trigger action then the next boycott should be for two weekends. You may say this is damaging your own club, well you are right, but if this drastic action is not carried out shortly you will not have a club or a structured league to participate in, it’s as simple as that.
The game will start to disintegrate rapidly, giving the way it is being mismanaged. The ordinary supporter must play his last remaining card, there is no other way. If this option is carried out with discipline it will, I guarantee you, have the desired effect. It’s a classical case of ‘being cruel to be kind’.

Senior says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 14:23
36 1 Rate This
Further, I would suggest a weekend at the end of January so as to allow time for the clubs to respond and secondly allow us bampots the time to mobilise – it is our last chance of saving our great game. If every member on this forum were to contact every person they know and every fan-site they have addresses for I think it would make the clubs sit up/ jump up and take notice!
I would anticipate this idea gathering momentum as every decent fan in the country is fed up and feels utterly helpless and frustrated at this detestable corruption.
It is so barefaced, as someone said earlier, that they have even given up on trying to hide it. ARE WE REAL FANS OF THE GAME OR NOT?

View Comment

timtimPosted on7:54 pm - Dec 19, 2012


I am not in agreement with a boycott of the Press ,there are many people who work for
newspaper X that have nothing to do with what is printed in its sports pages so it would
seem unfair to target the whole when only a small segment is the issue.
The main culprit in this would seem to be Ogilvie and the SFA , I am in 2 minds whether
a petition would be worthwhile but I do know that what most people take notice of is a direct attack on their income. The only way I can see of doing this is to boycott Scotland games
but then we are asking the Tartan Army to suffer for the cause .
How much would a billboard in a few strategic areas cost with the message
Campbell Ogilvie -not fit for purpose-go now .?
Tbh the damage is already done and the fix is in and I’m left hoping that the
Mayan prophecy for Friday is not the end of the world but the Greek meaning of Apocalypse
“a disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception” bears the fruits of truth

View Comment

Turnbull DrierPosted on8:05 pm - Dec 19, 2012


I appreciate that this might be a little OT but I see Levin it’s now is now suing the sfa for getting punted…

On topic, I agree that some form of concerted action is required, but a simple message with complete buy in from all supporter groups will be necessary..

View Comment

Turnbull DrierPosted on8:09 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Oops.. The link to the Levin story appears to have gonna slightly wrong.. Hohum…

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:18 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Senior says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 19:29
17 4 Rate This

Boycott Weekend

First of all I am an ordinary member of this forum. If anything can be added to the campaign please do not hesitate to shout, indeed if you think the campaign is foolish or misguided please, again, do not hesitate to shout..
——–

The word boycott has become associated with one team and a lot negativity recently. Perhaps finding an alternative phrase such as Protest Weekend or Protest Against Injustice. Using the word boycott could open the floodgates of whataboutery

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:19 pm - Dec 19, 2012


http://www.investegate.co.uk/CompData.aspx?code=RFC&tab=announcements

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Investegate User,

Thank you for contacting Client Support.

This message is a confirmation of your request taken at 12:51:09 on 19/12/2012 The priority your call has been given is a P3, we aim to resolve your call by 24-12-2012 12:51:06. The timescale that is mentioned is a “worst case scenario” and we would expect that most incidents and requests will be resolved at a much earlier date.

Below is a description of the call and we will look into your issue and be in contact as soon as possible.

Should you need to contact the helpdesk regarding this matter, please remember to quote your call reference number, which is: XXXXXXXXX.

The description of the request is:

Subject: Feedback from ~~~~~~~ for FE InvestEgate

DATE:
Dec 19 2012 12:47 PM
NAME:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMAIL:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COUNTRY:
United Kingdom
INVESTORTYPE:
Investor with a financial adviser or broker
CONTACT NUMBER:
COMMENT:

http://www.investegate.co.uk/CompData.aspx?code=RFC&tab=announcements

You have conflated two separate companies at this link Rangers Football Club plc (now in Liquidation) and Rangers International Football Club, newly formed and floated
WEBSITE:
http://www.investEgate.co.uk
BROWSER:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; ..NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; .NET4.0C; ..NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; Tablet PC 2.0)
REFERING PAGE:
http://www.investegate.co.uk/Contact.aspx

Call logged and assigned to the CLIENTSUPPORT group by TonyTown

If this description is inaccurate or you can provide any more information that would help us to resolve this request, please contact the helpdesk by replying to this email or by telephone on 01483 783939.

Remember to quote your call reference number XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in any correspondence, as this will assist us in providing you with a quick response.

Regards

Tony Town
FE Client Support
7 Chertsey Road, Woking, Surrey GU21 5AB

View Comment

The GlenPosted on8:19 pm - Dec 19, 2012


I think it is important to have this boycott on a different day from the boycott The Rangers are taking part in. Otherwise it could get confusing.

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:27 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Nearly 150,000 shares were traded today in Rangers International on a ‘delayed publication’ basis. This is usually indicative of a single source trying to sell a large tranche of shares and rounding up his buyers before the price is adversely affected.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on8:33 pm - Dec 19, 2012


rab says: at 17:46
twopanda.

rab –no idea mate 😉 – white bricks is known for his class journalistic integrity – so he could have made it all up like the rest of them on cue. Of course the authorities could conduct a full investigative inquiry just to make sure that there hasn’t been a very serious indeed breach of confidentiality that would cause the liquidators and the Court any concerns under the Insolvency Act 1986 [Scotland]. White bricks supports inquiries, so no doubt he will offer his full co-operation as the peerless citizen that he is, and no doubt as he is recently acquainted with the officers in charge of web contretemps things he can confidently give a full and frank disclosure of his `understanding` upon the disclosures to which he refers – and who is, hypothetically speaking that is, may theoretically that is, be involved in such a fanciful fiction 😉

cc LH

View Comment

taxlawplebeianPosted on8:34 pm - Dec 19, 2012


ScotlandTonight‏@ScotlandTonight

As always we want to hear your view – what do you think needs to change in Scottish football? #scotnight

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:49 pm - Dec 19, 2012


timtim says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 19:54

How much would a billboard in a few strategic areas cost with the message
Campbell Ogilvie -not fit for purpose-go now ?…
======================================

That’s an original suggestion tt, and I like it, but would it be better to be positive, e.g.
“Trust & Transparency for the paying fans: Turnbull Hutton for SFA President !” 🙂

IMO, the threat of withholding buying ST’s should be the last resort.
So there would have to be an ‘escalation process’ to show the SFA that the fans want action now – and won’t be fobbed off with some ‘feasibility exercise’ to stall for time.

Suggestions could be;

1) Communication campaign: co-ordinated effort to mail, email, phone the SFA and all MSM outlets to voice our concerns and demands for change.
A simple, clear message: e.g. Ogilvie and Doncaster out now. (?)

2) Unacceptable response from SFA – then suggest a Scotland home game protest/boycott, with plenty of notice given.

3) Unacceptable response from SFA – then encourage protest/boycott of Scotland game.

4) Unacceptable response thereafter, then repeat 2) & 3) for an SPL/SFL weekend.

5) Unacceptable response from SFA: suggest withholding ST monies.

6) Last resort: withhold ST money.

7) Then the SFA hierarchy could be managing an organisation in accelerated, terminal decline – along with their mates in the print MSM !
Paying fans might also be so disillusioned with the SFA at this point that they decide to spend their money and leisure time elsewhere.

If a serious, co-ordinated action was taken, I would guess that a threatened protest / boycott of a Scotland game may force the SFA hierarchy out into the open ?

Anyways, just a few ideas thrown in…

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:53 pm - Dec 19, 2012


“Ogilvie and Regan out”, of course. [Santa: edit functionality please.]

View Comment

smartie1947Posted on8:53 pm - Dec 19, 2012


If we want to show our disgust at the SFA’s failure to grasp the TRFC nettle, then the ideal opportunity would be a complete no-show at Pittodrie on 6/2/13 for the Scotland v Estonia match.
Granted it would be tough on the Tartan Army and local fans and their kids, but it might just get the message through to the heirarchy, if the reasons for non-attendance were well-trailed in advance. ( In any event if Scotland had been scheduled to play Brazil or say Germany it would have been played at Hampden in any event.)
Making this game the opening salvo before any action against one’s local club also signifies that our real anger is against the SFA. Some form of sensible picketing at Pittodrie with banners decrying the SFA’s abysmal non-performance over the last 9 months might also be considered appropriate. I also suggest that each and every one of us should ensure that any tv coverage of the game is also studiously ignored.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:00 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Who or what is white bricks ❓

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on9:05 pm - Dec 19, 2012


justshatered says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 16:03
—————-
Interesting idea, though how workable I don’t know. Personally I avoid a lot of the MSM including web sites anyway so my withdrawal wouldn’t do much – but if the idea could take off it might be effective. Have to be very specific and concentrate on the worst and most easily provable lies to have real effect.

I’d also advocate – not as a one-off but permanently – avoiding all Rangers propaganda and all Rangers games shown on TV. I do/did this anyway (even before newco) but I know a lot of (non-Rangers) folk do watch either to gloat or due to a “car-crash” fascination. But it helps not only finance them but supports the SPL/SFA contention that some form of Rangers is “needed” by the rest of Scottish football.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:10 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Just a bit of light relief…

Where was McCoist on Monday night then…and has he got any red stains ? 😉

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20791740

View Comment

tailothebankPosted on9:12 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Cosmic Haggis
Superb recent post!

View Comment

rabPosted on9:18 pm - Dec 19, 2012


DP

David Leggat ( leggo) is white bricks.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:23 pm - Dec 19, 2012


rab says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 21:18
1 0 Rate This
DP

David Leggat ( leggo) is white bricks.
———

Ah ha. Well, more uh huh, as I don’t think I have ever read anything from that source 8)

Thanks Rab.

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on9:41 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Danish Pastry says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 20:18
——–
The word boycott has become associated with one team and a lot negativity recently. Perhaps finding an alternative phrase such as Protest Weekend or Protest Against Injustice. Using the word boycott could open the floodgates of whataboutery
———————————-
Would that then make us Protestants against the SFA? Would we get TRFC fans to join in or would they Boycott us? Would we then become Protestants against TRFC?

🙂 Sorry but it is getting late …. some good ideas there.

View Comment

rabPosted on9:51 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Im glad to see the use of our consumer power is being suggested again as a way to have our voices heard and concerns considered, its actually very sad that we have to come to such extreme measures just to feel like we can have a say in the game we love, and continue with our support for our collective clubs and communities. Individually we have sent countless emails to various bodies and from my own experience and what i read on here, it seems that very few if any of us have had a reply, never mind a satisfactory response. These various bodies have left us no choice but to seek such extreme measures and the consequencies lie fully with the governing bodies, the clubs, the msm and the sponsors for ignoring our reasonable questions. I would suggest we can see results if we include the sponsors in our campaign. Have a “turn off sky” weekend, “cancel sky month”, “swap coke for pepsi” week, ” gamble with paddy power” day. If the sponsors see a drop in revenue it would sharpen their focus to ask what exactly is the problem and how could it be resolved, they may wish to pull out of a volatile market altogether rather than be involved in co-ordinated campaigns to hurt revenues and the associated negative publicity.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:57 pm - Dec 19, 2012


rab says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 21:51

“swap coke for pepsi week”…
========================

You’ve gone too far there rab… 😉

View Comment

ExiledCeltPosted on9:58 pm - Dec 19, 2012


DP – wear protective clothing before going there – only for the hard of thinking

http://leggoland2.blogspot.co.uk/

View Comment

TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy)Posted on10:01 pm - Dec 19, 2012


scottc says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 20:27
—————————————————————–

The LSE and ii have a list of trades from today and both have less than ninety trades totalling less than half a million pounds. Where are the rest?

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on10:01 pm - Dec 19, 2012


“The phrase used to me was that the BDO men think some of Duff and Phelps’ conduct beggars belief. ”

is leggatt interviewing the dogs in the street now?

View Comment

creepylurkerPosted on10:04 pm - Dec 19, 2012


O.T. But was having a wee conversation with someone about new/same club when a wee fantasy situation came into my head along with a question.
Lets say one of t’rangers myriad of billionare fans(no laughing) who wasn’t happy with Mr Green for some reason, or some foolish non-rangers fan who had won £100m on the lotto decided to pay HMRC X million pounds and un-liquidate rangers to start up his own team claiming all the history for his team. My question is this: What could they sue for, and who could they sue(green, mccoist, t’rangers,SFA?) And would this have any effect on the flotation considering they were claiming to be the same in the prospectus?

Regarding the boycott, why don’t we all chip in for one of these for £150?
http://www.advertiserbay.co.uk/out-of-home-advertising/buy-billboard-advertising.html?target_region=107
Don’t know if you can promote a boycott but you could at least highlight whats going wrong with the SFA or just advertise TSFM, I’d happily chip in a fiver for that!

View Comment

goosyPosted on10:05 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Stock exchange rules

Paying For Shares

When a company issues shares, either to subscribers on incorporation or subsequently, the persons receiving this equity are usually required to pay the company for the shares they have been given.
The consideration given in exchange for its shares is usually cash. i.e., money is paid in to the company’s bank account.
In other instances, the consideration might be in 3 other forms:
1. Shares – Where company A and company B agree to exchange equity in one another.
This applies to the Green Consortium who convert a shareholding in TRFC into a TIRFC shareholding
Meaning no hard cash into the coffers of RIFC
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2. Services – A person or another company may accept payment for their services in the form of shares
This may be how Ticketus investors are being paid off by converting their tax exempt LLP holding.in RFC STs into tax exempt shares in RIFC
Meaning no hard cash into the coffers of RIFC
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
3. Discharge of a debt – A lender may agree to exchange their loan in a company for some of its shares.
This may be how Whyte and Close Leasing are being paid off by converting floating charges in RFC into tax exempt shares in RIFC under a Venture Capital Trust or Enterprise Investment Scheme
Meaning no hard cash into the coffers of RIFC
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Today’s trading resulted in the sp closing at 76.5p against an IPO price of 70p
This is so remarkable it warrants close examination of the trades
Some oddities
The market registered 86 trades
There were 49 trades below 500 shares (total of 6314 shares)
Most likely these trades were between the Trading Floor Market Makers because there were no “real” Buyers or Sellers” around The purpose is solely to set a Buying Price (i.e. a “Bid”) and a Selling Price i.e. an “Offer”) for the next Investor coming along
This leaves 27 apparently genuine Trades between Buyers and Sellers
There were no computerised trades. These are marked “AT” for “automatic trade”. So nobody considered it worth setting up an automatic “Buy” or a “Sell” if an agreed price could be achieved
This is why all of the 27 “real” trades were marked “O” meaning they were activated by a human being requesting a Broker to buy or sell on their behalf
Only 27 trades in an IPO are fairly unusual. The Market usually either likes or dislikes an IPO. So the sp will generally rise significantly or fall significantly during the day ending at a level where the “in an out” day trader has made a small profit and the long term investor has had his fill. If the share is considered a good shorting opportunity then there will be steady selling throughout the day and a n SP fall
In the case of RIFC we had a turnover of 592454 shares (ignoring 6314 for Market Makers). So the 27 real trades represented 592454 shares
Of this total 448659(75%) shares were traded in the first half an hour and 79707(13%) were traded in the last hour
We had an 8am opening offer to sell at 76p and a 4.15pm closing offer to sell at 74p
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Conclusion?
For an IPO offering an excellent shorting opportunity there was a severe shortage of both buyers and sellers today. This enabled relatively few trades to dominate the sp direction during the crucial opening and closing trading periods. Although thin trading may simply reflect the time of the year Day Traders are usually alert to shorting opportunities. They may be holding back because there are insufficient trading days to run a shorting operation before they have to buy the shares they “sold” without owning. So there was no evidence of a shorting operation today. Interestingly in the first half hour after opening, the cumulative number of shares traded above 70p approximately equalled the single trade at 70p which preceded the 8am market opening.
Since this was an “O” trade and not an “AT” trade it means some “Seller” was up early to trade shares before 8am at 70p with another early bird “Buyer”. suggesting a pre-arranged deal. The Buyer could have been a “Market Maker” who, having fixed a Bid/Offer spread above 70p with other “Market Makers” agreed to buy at 70p before 8am. He then quickly sold the same number of shares in dribs and drabs by 8.30am
This pattern could well continue for the next fortnight
I wouldn`t be surprised if the sp was still above 70p on the first day of trading in 2013

View Comment

rabPosted on10:16 pm - Dec 19, 2012


StevieBC

ssshhhh, just tell coca cola we are swapping to their biggest rival, i would have bought a glass bottle of strike cola anyway cos i think pepsi is gash as well. 😀 i will send you a crate stateside if needs be 😀

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:16 pm - Dec 19, 2012


TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 22:01

Rate This

scottc says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 20:27
—————————————————————–

The LSE and ii have a list of trades from today and both have less than ninety trades totalling less than half a million pounds. Where are the rest?
===============================

The trades were circa £350k and 90 sounds about right. No interest really. But all the action has already happened. Chuckles got his dough, or 70% of what he wants back. Its now left to the suckers with the shares to see where the market takes them.

View Comment

thornlyboyPosted on10:28 pm - Dec 19, 2012


goosygoosy@22.05: I’m glad we’re back to the erudite and informed posts about the money (phantom or otherwise), but – apart from being left with my mouth open at the in(s)anity of all this – I am left with one burning question:

What does any of this have to do with football?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:34 pm - Dec 19, 2012


rab says:

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 21:51

A variation on a sponsors boycoyt is again for representative supporters groups to write to the SFAs sponsors to express disatisfaction on behalf of their support at lack of SFA accountability and threaten to blacklist their product if they do not force the SFA to be more accountable (or any variation of that).

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:40 pm - Dec 19, 2012


creepylurker says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 22:04

I’ll chip in too, whatever is needed.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:49 pm - Dec 19, 2012


rab

Check this for a way to tackle the sponsors. It would have had more effect had suggested letter come from supporter groups than individuals but you will get the gist. For non Celtic supporters forget the source and consider the idea.

http://celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=647:keep-playing-uphill-or-restoring-integrity-to-scottish-football&catid=45:season-2010-2011&Itemid=80

The important thing about whatever is done is that enough folk with authority to speak on behalf of the support at large campaign in a unified manner so that the main stream media have to report the disatisfaction and make reasonable demands to gain wide public sympathy..

Once attention is grabbed the SFA cannot ignore sensible demands made with good reason.

That resolution from the CST/CSA came from an Open Meeting with just over 100, not very many but with a representative shield around them it got attention when group spokesmen wee asked about the action.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:52 pm - Dec 19, 2012


To clarify the resolution referred to above was the loss of confidence one to the SFA posted the other day not anything at link supplied above.

View Comment

nickmcguinnessPosted on10:56 pm - Dec 19, 2012


I propose a boycott of anyone who proposes a boycott.
(Yes, even me!)
The concept of supporters showing their “support” by not turning up to support their club is one that baffles me.
And the concept of people I don’t know telling me what newspaper I am allowed to buy is one that annoys me.
No more boycotts! Lots more bampottery!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on11:07 pm - Dec 19, 2012


nickmcguinness says:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 22:56

I propose a boycott of anyone who proposes a boycott…
==============================================

nm, I plan to boycott your proposal to boycott anyone who proposes a boycott… 😉

You are of course correct, and don’t think any reasonable person would be happy promoting such action.

But in the absence of even just a threatened boycott, how can we meaningfully engage the SFA when they have consistently ignored all our attempts to get answers to our questions ?

And the date of the last CEO’s Statement on the SFA website is still ‘April 24th, 2012’.

View Comment

highlandjaggyPosted on11:09 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Have sevco paid the money due to other teams yet , for instance the money still due for jellyfish .

View Comment

RiddriePosted on11:24 pm - Dec 19, 2012


areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 17:30
_________________________________

No problem mate.

Its bloody frustrating I know.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on11:28 pm - Dec 19, 2012


Auldheid says,

I tend to agree with the sentiment, but as others have said, boycotts are crude tools, and we could be accused of much of the same bullying tactics as the sevco fans.

I wonder if a campaign of reasonably written letters to sponsors pointing out that it might not be in their interest to be associating their companies and products with the increasingly negative aspects of both sevco fans’ behaviour and the ineffectiveness of the SFA’s authority over recent events.

The letters could of course also intimate that the brands would become so associated with the same toxicity that many see has developed in the game, that the sponsors would have increasing difficulty engaging with non sevco fans.

I do wonder though that the time is not right, as even though there are instances of well written indignation on this site, it would appear that most fans are not spoiling for a fight just yet, if you pardon the analogy. Personally, i’d like to see what if anything BDO do, what the SPL panel does, and what the league reorganisation will look like. Any or all of these might throw up a suitable catalyst or two for a significant number of fans groups to want to get involved in some kind of action.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on11:44 pm - Dec 19, 2012


goosygoosy

…Conclusion?
For an IPO offering an excellent shorting opportunity there was a severe shortage of both buyers and sellers today. This enabled relatively few trades to dominate the sp direction during the crucial opening and closing trading periods. Although thin trading may simply reflect the time of the year Day Traders are usually alert to shorting opportunities. They may be holding back because there are insufficient trading days to run a shorting operation before they have to buy the shares they “sold” without owning. So there was no evidence of a shorting operation today. Interestingly in the first half hour after opening, the cumulative number of shares traded above 70p approximately equalled the single trade at 70p which preceded the 8am market opening.
Since this was an “O” trade and not an “AT” trade it means some “Seller” was up early to trade shares before 8am at 70p with another early bird “Buyer”. suggesting a pre-arranged deal. The Buyer could have been a “Market Maker” who, having fixed a Bid/Offer spread above 70p with other “Market Makers” agreed to buy at 70p before 8am. He then quickly sold the same number of shares in dribs and drabs by 8.30am

This pattern could well continue for the next fortnight

I wouldn`t be surprised if the sp was still above 70p on the first day of trading in 2013

———————————————————————————————————————-

ok, so what does that mean in numpty [like me] terms that i can understand.

my shares in celtic are “worth” [not to me] less than half of the sevco franchise operation shares.

i do not understand this a we got CL and still in all competitions and got more bits of the cake for next years CL…
is it nick leeson type smoke and mirrors – buying and selling shares he does not own?

View Comment

ordinaryfanPosted on11:45 pm - Dec 19, 2012


http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/8342844/Rangers-boss-Ally-McCoist-set-to-be-handed-up-to-30m-for-new-players-by-chief-executive-Charles-Green-once-transfer-embargo-lifted

View Comment

TSFMPosted on12:21 am - Dec 20, 2012


Kaisercelt. No access to email right now. No posts have been received. Will contact you tomorrow

View Comment

rabPosted on12:34 am - Dec 20, 2012


Auldheid.

Thanks for the link, i look forward to your guest blog.

Ive been fairly active in registering my opinions to the various bodies throughout this saga, but i realise its a lone voice, obviously partisan, scattergun and inconsistent at times and therefore easily dismissed. So im grateful for any help in my bampotification.

We need an agreed manifesto, detailing our issues and how we would like them resolved, and the possible sanctions that would apply if they will not even enter dialogue with us.

Im not seeking to blackmail or bully anyone, but we must at least be heard and addressed, this continuing disregard is not an option. The sponsors must realise that a dissafected support dwindling to zero is not good for business, they should have an appetite to see the customers have faith in the product they are sponsoring. At the moment they are involved in a decling product caused by the utter failure of the governing bodies to answer simple questions or respond in Kenny Shiels timescales to disgraceful accusations by one chairman against member clubs. Eventually the SFA will have to enscribe a name on a trophy somewhere and record it on a list of achievments of an individual club, so why not just come right out and state their position clearly and the reasons why, the delay is causing tensions to rise before the inevitable decision and one sides disappointment is finally revealed.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:43 am - Dec 20, 2012


Captain Haddock says:

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 23:28

You raise animportant point. A boycott is not the objective it has to have an objective first, one that most supporters could sign up to because it asks for something -for example – the underlying principle on which football competition is based – integrity and fair play – to be paramount over all, particularly commercial interests.

It has to come from a credible source or sources and list what evidence of change is required by which time, if no evidence appears, supporters have to make their minds up whether they wish to pay to watch a game where sporting integrity is a clear second place in the minds of those who run the game.If it were not still so this debate would not be taking place. It then becomes a stark choice for all parties to put up or shut up.

A boycott or more accurately a refusal to buy SBs for a competition that no one has faith in is being properly governed is the threat to grab attention.

The time for that threat to become meaningful, as it was this year,is in the lead up to ticket sales, at seasons end even a delay in purchasing would cost clubs and one way to pressure the SFA to act is via the clubs.

Putting something to the SFA as early in the New Year as possible to give them time to respond in order to avoid the threat being carried out makes sense on that basis alone and cannot wait or the threat period without articulation why and what we are threatening for will be past.

I appreciate you are not knocking this personally but all I’m offering here to readers is based on experience of trying to make things happen rather than shovel steam. To quote from a wee favorite item of mine.

“My business is to do my thing, to dance my dance. If you profit from it, fine; if you do not too bad! As the Arabs say,
“The nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens.”

View Comment

rabPosted on1:02 am - Dec 20, 2012


How can there be trust in a governing body that is bloated with supporters and shareholders of a club that wields more power than the governing body itself.

View Comment

BunionPosted on1:15 am - Dec 20, 2012


Ref any boycott, I would suggest that the individual clubs are more than aware that a perceived injustice will lead to another boycott of season ticket sales. I would argue any boycott of our own clubs should only be a last resort.

The current issue is that we are in the midst of a propaganda war with a considerable elelment of the MSM only too eager to perpetuate the myth that is ‘Rangers’ and an unbroken history.

They perpetuate the myth not necessarily because they believe it to be true (other than in the eyes of those ‘Rangers’ supporting journos) but because they believe it holds up sales.

For that reason, any boycott should be directed at the messenger in the first instance.

Have seen tweets recently advocating that SSB simply be ignored and would suggest that this is exactly the stance to take.

It is only when those elements of the MSM understand that it will be more costly to maintain a myth than to denounce it, will we start to see the first of necessary changes.

Second course of action would be a total boycott of Scotland international games to instigate wholesale, democratic change of the entire SFA structure – the placemen must be removed PRIOR to any pursuit of league reconstruction.

This SFA restructuring should also include the refereeing system as it is increasingly seen to be untrustworthy – the continuing Dallas influence MUST be terminated.

Only if the foregoing fail to effect change should we consider boycotting our clubs again.

And, to be honest, if it gets to that stage then we are probably as well giving up the game for good.

View Comment

rabPosted on1:17 am - Dec 20, 2012


£30 million moonbeam pounds in the warchest of armaggedon,
maybe McCoist is going to gazump the unnamed, unknown galaxy bid of £29 million for Gary Hooper.

He’d run amok in div2.

View Comment

Rob PenmanPosted on1:32 am - Dec 20, 2012


Could someone, a company law expert, explain simply what the law is with regards to a business, having gone into liquidation, starting up again. My understanding, which admittedly could be seriously flawed, is that any new company must have a new name that cannot mislead customers to believe that it is the original company. In other words, the new name must be so different to the first that no one could ever mistake the two.

We now have a new company, doing the same trade, with the same customers, from the same premises, wearing the same uniforms and loudly announcing that they are indeed the former company, ‘now, then and forever’, only now they are totally debt free and have 25 million spare cash in the bank. Meanwhile the people that they originally owed money too, receive hee haw.

How can this be? What is the law with regards to a new company?

I have seen various small businesses go to the wall over the years, many of whom did indeed start again, but never in a way that overtly claimed that they were the same company as the one that went bust owing money. Here we have The Rangers, not only claiming to be the same company, but actually using this line as a marketing tool. The media, of course are complicit in this, but really that should not matter if the law prohibits such behaviour.

So, is this allowed and did all the small companies that I referred to earlier, get it wrong?

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on1:37 am - Dec 20, 2012


rab says:
Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 01:02

How can there be trust in a governing body that is bloated with supporters and shareholders of a club that wields more power than the governing body itself.
===========================================================================

Indeed. I’ve been thinking about this and Smugas posted above the outline terms of the five way agreement (as reported in the press). In it TRFC were allowed into Div 3 on certain terms relating to settling football debts and accepting the transfer embargo.

On the matter of “EBT’s” the SFA “reserved it’s position” I assume because the case needs to be heard by the Independent Panel led by LNS. Charlie was quoted as resisting this and “fighting” to retain titles, blah. blah blah etc. ( I think you can be a plain speaking Yorkie without wanting to fight all the time – but hey ho he’s got surrogates for that).

Could it be the case that the SPL/SFA are keeping their powder dry for the “Big one” in January by failing to engage Charlie in minor skirmishes arising from him having a big mouth which tries to provoke conflict with the “authorities”. I accept a major weakness in my thinking is that the current President Unelect of the SFA has the backbone of a jelly fish.

View Comment

ordinaryfanPosted on1:53 am - Dec 20, 2012


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/leaguedivision3/4706256/Titles-are-all-ours.html#ixzz2FYKgyXft

“My position is unchanged. There is no jurisdiction over newco.
“Newco has never been a member of the SPL. We wanted to be, we were refused.
“It’s like any bar. If you’re thrown out, you don’t go back.
“Newco has no engagement whatsoever with the SPL or title-stripping.”

Chuckles logic. Newco: Thrown out of an organisation it was never in.

View Comment

BunionPosted on1:55 am - Dec 20, 2012


bogsdollox says:
Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 01:37

“Could it be the case that the SPL/SFA are keeping their powder dry for the “Big one””

I would hope you’re correct but, when you consider Kenny Shiels is facing considerable sanction for accusing an official of ‘fabrication’ (when said official has been accepted as having submitted false claims) and yet Charles Green effectively goes unpunished for calling other teams bigoted and promotes calls for boycotts of SFA competitions then it would appear most unlikely.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on2:02 am - Dec 20, 2012


Bunion says:
Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 01:15
‘… the placemen must be removed PRIOR to any pursuit of league reconstruction.’
—-
Bunion, you’re dead right.

The ‘conflicted’ history of significant figures on the SFA board, and in the SFL ( and partially in the SPL) has to be dealt with, radically.

We have reached a truly ludicrous state where the whole weight of the disciplinary machine is brought down instantly on an individual player or manager ( hang in there, Kenny), while the arch enemy of Scottish Football is allowed to insult Scottish Football and pour scorn on the SPL and SFA and make allegations about ‘stealing our money’ -without a cheap from the football authorities!

It surely cannot be the case that our club proprietors see no problem with the serpent within their bosom?

The real serpent being , not a particular new club, but the readiness of the footballing authorities themselves, with the help of an unbelievably compliant MSM ( did you hear Douglas Fraser of the BBC the other day acting as PR?) , to give two fingers to any idea of even-handedness in the application of the rules.

Therein lies the corruption: a too close connection of the ‘authorities’ with a particular offender, which makes them ( at best) simple frightened men or, perhaps more likely, too personally partisan to exercise their function ( with the aid of public money, remember!) with integrity.

Frightened, I can accept, up to a point. They know , as we all do,what they they are dealing with.

Partisan motivation? Unacceptable, absolutely.

Ogilvie must go, and very publicly go, as must Longmuir of the SFL, before the SFA board or the SFL can regain any moral authority.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on2:06 am - Dec 20, 2012


Bunion says:
Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 01:15

The current issue is that we are in the midst of a propaganda war with a considerable elelment of the MSM only too eager to perpetuate the myth that is ‘Rangers’ and an unbroken history.

They perpetuate the myth not necessarily because they believe it to be true (other than in the eyes of those ‘Rangers’ supporting journos) but because they believe it holds up sales.

Have seen tweets recently advocating that SSB simply be ignored and would suggest that this is exactly the stance to take.
========================================================================

I think they perpetuate the myth for three reasons.

One they believe that financially without Rangers Armageddon will ensue.

Two – they believe that to get Rangers back to the top league is in the interests of Scottish Football.

Three – and most important of all. Without Rangers their coats are on a shaky nail. For decades “reporting” on the Old Firm has been the only show in town for them.

Andy Walker on SSB tonight was beginning to break under the strain as are most of their panelists because of the lack of Blue- Green “footballing” rivalry (others (HK) call it hatred these days). SSB have a company line that is supportive of the historical continuity of TRFC.

What the fans are serving up to SSB are calls about Oldco/Sevco etc.The Rangers fans phone in and are allowed to talk about “Celtic fiddling attendances 40 years ago”, ” Rangers getting better crowds than Celtic this year”. Celtic fans phone in and talk about “Sevco”, “Tribute Act” etc. It’s almost like its a strategy to reduce the show to a complete borefest to turn listeners off and that more than a boycott will stop them in their tracks because they will lose advertisers. So keep the calls flooding in until the SSB line that all panellists have to subscribe to is broken.
=========================================================================

Second course of action would be a total boycott of Scotland international games to instigate wholesale, democratic change of the entire SFA structure – the placemen must be removed PRIOR to any pursuit of league reconstruction.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The national team are gash why is an organised boycott necessary?
==========================================================================

This SFA restructuring should also include the refereeing system as it is increasingly seen to be untrustworthy – the continuing Dallas influence MUST be terminated.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

He hasn’t been found guilty of anything yet.
=========================================================================

And, to be honest, if it gets to that stage then we are probably as well giving up the game for good.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your choice

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on2:15 am - Dec 20, 2012


Bunion says:
Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 01:55

bogsdollox says:
Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 01:37

“Could it be the case that the SPL/SFA are keeping their powder dry for the “Big one””

I would hope you’re correct but, when you consider Kenny Shiels is facing considerable sanction for accusing an official of ‘fabrication’ (when said official has been accepted as having submitted false claims) and yet Charles Green effectively goes unpunished for calling other teams bigoted and promotes calls for boycotts of SFA competitions then it would appear most unlikely.
=========================================================================

Shiels is an idiot. Cultivated by the media to behave like one because he’s not very bright but helps them get a story in lean Green v Blue times.

Not sure where you get the official accepting he submitted false claims from – link?

Re SPL/SFA locking horns with TRFC now – the locking of horns in January will be with Independent Hearing – subtle difference which will be lost if a big stooshie erupts now over Charlies verbals.

View Comment

BunionPosted on2:27 am - Dec 20, 2012


bogsdollox says:
Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 02:06

Sorry but your point ref keeing the calls flooding into the likes of SSB simply provides justification to them. Ignoring them starves them of much needed oxygen.

Ref boycotting the national team – this is the one action that will most affect, and be noticed by, the SFA heirarchy. Not a boycott of individual clubs – they have now clearly shown that course of action is of no interest to them.

Ref Dallas, both father and son have now clearly been found culpable of questionable activity. Compounded by the defence of the actions of McCurry and McDonald this, from the adjudicators of the game, is both unacceptable and unforgivable.

Without honesty and integrity the game is a sham.

It’s not a matter of choice but survival.

View Comment

Comments are closed.