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

jimlarkinPosted on1:18 pm - Dec 21, 2012


scottc

. . .SDS and Scottish Fans would like to congratulate Rangers Supporters Trust
for playing a part

in securing 12% of the Club’s shares
for the fans (as reported in the Daily Record).

——————————————————————————————————————

ok, i see what you’re getting at

PLAYING A PART in securing 12% of the “clubs

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on1:25 pm - Dec 21, 2012


shield2012 says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 11:09
1 15 Rate This
Yes “they are often the main topic of conversation on a blog
relating to Scottish Football?”. However, it’s more often than not, the death of Rangers that is the topic of conversation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We’re Scottish. We enjoy a good wake. 😀

But you make a valid point. The way The Rangers conduct themselves as the club begins its quest for honour(s) will inevitably be a hot topic of conversation given the conduct of the previous inhabitants of Ibrox. But there are other topics and the Hearts situation is certainly one of them.

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on1:28 pm - Dec 21, 2012


jw hardin says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 10:50

…SDS and Scottish Fans would like to congratulate Rangers Supporters Trust for playing a part in securing 12% of the Club’s shares for the fans (as reported in the Daily Record).
———————————————————–

12% of the clubs’s shares?

2 things…

The club wasn’t floated the holding company was…or are we expected to accept the club and Company are NOW one in the same?

Secondly…12% for £250k…wow…that suggests a total of £2.1 million has been invested in shares in the holding Company?

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on1:28 pm - Dec 21, 2012


shield2012 says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 10:35

“The Scottish Football Monitor” led me to believe we’d be discussing Scottish Football, while all I’ve seen is upset regarding the team from Govan.
—————

The title is a tad misleading, thats for sure!
======================================================================
I’m assuming you have not bothered to read the contributions on this thread asking for ideas about how Scottish Football could be improved. There were many constructive contributions from fans of many clubs.

Rather than complaining let’s have your ideas on the very subject you want to discuss. How good is that?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on1:53 pm - Dec 21, 2012


on the shares front and making money from buying shares.

i don’t know very much about the financial markets.
i bought shares in celtic, which are “worth” less than 1/3rd of what i paid for them.

what i cannot understand, is why shares in sevco would be “worth” more than celtic’s.

so, on the basis of a shares “worth”, we have to go on the basis of the shares are only
“worth” what “value” – the purchaser and seller agree on.

the sevco shares were “valued” at 70p ?

yet chuckles and many others got theirs for £0.01 and maybe other prices from anywhere between £0.01 and £0.70 ?

so, how can this new company sevco be “worth” £45million
and celtic be “worth” £30million?

obviously, there are the assets and trading money-flow. money going in and out.

this is to me is the nuts and bolts of it.

remember chuckles said they had no external debt.

it is the internal money flow within sevco which will be where the money goes.

this and the share “dividend” to shareholders.

taking starbucks as an example.

do starbucks not allegedly have various “internal” levels of internal workings.

starbucks uk take the cash in.

they allegedly have to pay starbucks uk holding company board for the use of the name.

theyallegedly in turn have to pay starbucks holding company (europe) for the licence fee to use the name.

they allegedly in turn have to pay starbucks holding company (bermuda or british virgin isles) a licence fee tor a licence to use the licence.

then they allegedly have to pay starbucks (america) the parent company for the licence to licence to licence to use the licence etc

so that is possibly what the craic with sevco is.

the money will be “paid” internally to the share owners

View Comment

bluPosted on2:18 pm - Dec 21, 2012


paulmac2 says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 13:28

jw hardin says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 10:50

…SDS and Scottish Fans would like to congratulate Rangers Supporters Trust for playing a part in securing 12% of the Club’s shares for the fans (as reported in the Daily Record).
———————————————————–

Secondly…12% for £250k…wow…that suggests a total of £2.1 million has been invested in shares in the holding Company?

=======================================================
The 12% figure is provided by Charles Green to the DR as part of the total shares breakdown in an article yesterday. That figure represents the full take up of the public sale as a percentage of the market capitalisation figure at admission to AIM (as supplied by Green – the LSE doesn’t provide a market cap figure just yet). The RST figure as a percentage Rangers International estimated value is closer to 0.6%. That doesn’t represent the investment by all fans of course but we’ve no way of knowing what the fans’ investment is, just how much new money was taken in from the public sale – around £5.1m.

I think Supporters Direct should have been more explicit about what the RST investment was as that’s what they were supporting.

View Comment

RiddriePosted on2:35 pm - Dec 21, 2012


angus1983 says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 11:52
=============================

Trying to compare TSFM to the RangersMedia site says everything you need to know about your post.

View Comment

ordinaryfanPosted on2:37 pm - Dec 21, 2012


nawlite says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 13:03
12 0 Rate This
While I am one of the frustrated many who have tried and failed to get answers from the MSM and SFA etc by way of e-mail and letter, I am not a fan of this boycott idea. It feels too much like what bullies do and this blog is quick enough to castigate others who boycott to get their way.

I know there’a feeling of powerlessness against the ‘might’ of the MSM ( I have posted previously on that), but we either stay true to our principles or lose the moral high ground in my opinion. I believe it would be much better to absolutely pack out Tannadice on the day, with the away end full of supporters of all clubs wearing their own club colours. This helps United, helps charity and should help us with some publicity, given the Sky coverage. If some banners could be prepared as to why we’re doing it; questions to the SFA; to Yorkie etc that might give us some visibility.

Thoughts? TDs?

……..

I too am against boycotts of games. What I would say though, is when supporters are asked to buy into a corrupt system and renew season tickets again, they are perfectly within their rights to say no thanks.
Supporters should simply notify their own Clubs that as it stands, without drastic intervention and the implementation of the changes that were promised before the last take up of season tickets, fans will not be putting their hard earned money up again until they actually SEE visible change, starting with the sackings of Regan, Ogilvy, Doncaster and Longmuir.

View Comment

RiddriePosted on2:42 pm - Dec 21, 2012


vforvernacular says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 13:14
=============================

The thrust of your post is spot on, just don’t expect any Rangers fans to have a change of heart over the worry of the club’s standing or reputation.

They don’t think in those terms.

‘We”ll show everybody who’s in charge and put them in their place” is more like their mindset.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on2:43 pm - Dec 21, 2012


paulmac2 says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 13:28

The club wasn’t floated the holding company was…or are we expected to accept the club and Company are NOW one in the same?
——

Even better – the shares are in the holding company (RIFC plc) of the holding company (TRFC Ltd) of the Club (Rangers) !

What a wizard wheeze! 🙂

View Comment

bluPosted on2:47 pm - Dec 21, 2012


riddrie says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 14:35

angus1983 says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 11:52
=============================

Trying to compare TSFM to the RangersMedia site says everything you need to know about your post.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Riddrie, apologies if I’ve got you wrong but, for what it’s worth, I think that angus the sheep has consistently tried to offer balanced opinions and has fairly challenged posts that were no more than sweeping generalisations or ‘fly-kicks'(does McCoist, A get copyright on that?). I think that the blog benefits from the challenge to be factual and to provide evidence for assertions made.

View Comment

RiddriePosted on2:48 pm - Dec 21, 2012


embarrassinglyneutral says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 12:47

I think the biggest story on the share issue is that £17m institutional investor money was spent, i.e. the guys who really matter. The world is run on institutional investors. Your and my pensions are in what they buy.

I don’t know why they bought Rangers shares…
============================================

Perhaps if you click on the following link it will give you some idea why some think Rangers share issue is a wee moneymaker…

http://tl.gd/ke7p6a

View Comment

angus1983Posted on2:51 pm - Dec 21, 2012


riddrie says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 14:35

Trying to compare TSFM to the RangersMedia site says everything you need to know about your post.
——

I’m really pleased to hear that.

Thank you for possessing sufficient intelligent thought to understand what I said.

View Comment

RiddriePosted on2:55 pm - Dec 21, 2012


blu says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 14:47

Riddrie, apologies if I’ve got you wrong but, for what it’s worth, I think that angus the sheep has consistently tried to offer balanced opinions and has fairly challenged posts.
===========================================================

I’m not commenting on all of angus’ posts.

I just find the assertion that a post on TSFM, no matter who its from, suggesting that this site can be compared in any way with RangersMedia site to be laughable.

If you haven’t been on there give it a try.

View Comment

bluPosted on3:10 pm - Dec 21, 2012


riddrie says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 14:55
I’m not commenting on all of angus’ posts.

I just find the assertion that a post on TSFM, no matter who its from, suggesting that this site can be compared in any way with RangersMedia site to be laughable.

If you haven’t been on there give it a try.
=======================================================
riddrie, I thought that Angus’ post at 11:52 in response to shield was a clear rebuttal and challenge to the earlier assertions made by him (shield). As far as I can see angus didn’t actually compare the sites.

View Comment

whulliePosted on3:29 pm - Dec 21, 2012


To Shield 2012.

RFC and laterally TRFC are fond of using catchphrases. RT, RN, R forever. We don’t do walking away etc. Their latest fixation is their overuse of the word “obsession”.

It is my opinion that your contributions are largely about obsession. You use language and terminology that less erudite fans don’t but other clubs fans apparent obsession seems to be your point.

No amount of declaring this will stop fans of other sides looking closely and commenting on an almost daily diet of quotes, soundbites and statements emanating from Ibrox and apparent deafness at Hampden.

The percieved injustices are so numerous that they merit the myriad of comments.

Charles Green and others that pander to TRFC fans are rightly questioned because they are the ones who are supplying the ammunition to the commenters. It appears to me that there is an appetite for brinksmanship in most of what CG says and he revels in it. It is this sort of rhetoric that keeps TRFC fans on side.

The favourable treatment of TRFC/RFC(IL) and the failure of governance are fair game on this page. The fires are stoked from within Ibrox itself, and, it would seem, backed by Hampden and the press. So we respond.

My own primary gripe is with the footballing authorities and the MSM. If we can affect change in their thinking then great. If not, we will try to affect changes in personnel. Either way, those changes can subsequently deal with issues at Ibrox.

That is our right. That is our aim.

If you want to use posh words to scream “obsession”, then that is your right.

I, and others will continue to “monitor” and comment on percieved wrong doings undermining Scottish football.

View Comment

vforvernacularPosted on3:44 pm - Dec 21, 2012


And so the trolling nonsense derails the debate…….

View Comment

SeniorPosted on3:50 pm - Dec 21, 2012


OK, I see comment on here suggesting some people are not in favour of the boycott, and fair play to them. While realising one will never get 100% agreement on any initiative, I think it only fair to the contributors on this forum the opportunity to vote yea or nay for the proposed boycott. It is imperative that we get overwhelming support from the forum members before we embark on this particular initiative. If we do not have that level of support I think it only proper to withdraw the initiative and hope that other members have a more effective way of dislodging those corrupt time-servers at Hampden. I doubt it!
.
Thumbs up/Thumbs down?

View Comment

troyblainPosted on3:51 pm - Dec 21, 2012


It seems to be that we have arrived at a situation were anyone stating the bleedin’ obvious and the factual situation regarding Sevco are at risk from verbal intimidation at best as Montrose found out.

Nobody will speak about this in the press or newspapers, nobody will hold a different view. In football phone ins anybody querying the current sevco status are toid they are obsessed whilst those with angrier agendas such as boycotts and the rest are given airtime to state their views.

how we wrestle back free speech is anyones guess but it starts with the bodies in charge of our game enforcing rules and protecting our clubs players and individuals.

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on3:54 pm - Dec 21, 2012


vforvernacular says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 15:44

And so the trolling nonsense derails the debate…….
—————————————-
Then again v, the current topic is ‘the Dismal Art of Whataboutery’, so it’s actually ON topic!

View Comment

vforvernacularPosted on3:57 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Senior says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 15:50

OK, I see comment on here suggesting some people are not in favour of the boycott, and fair play to them. While realising one will never get 100% agreement on any initiative, I think it only fair to the contributors on this forum the opportunity to vote yea or nay for the proposed boycott. It is imperative that we get overwhelming support from the forum members before we embark on this particular initiative. If we do not have that level of support I think it only proper to withdraw the initiative and hope that other members have a more effective way of dislodging those corrupt time-servers at Hampden. I doubt it!

===========================

Although some have said they don’t like the idea of a boycott or would be against it on principle I’m sure all would allow for the discussion to continue and for some proposal to be drafted.

Then each of the various issues we want to raise and the timing and use of things like boycotts etc can be debated on their own merits. Some who are against the idea of a boycott may even come around to it if they feel the end justifies the means. And of course better suggestions may also be made when we get into details….

View Comment

vforvernacularPosted on3:59 pm - Dec 21, 2012


TW (@tartanwulver) says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 15:54

vforvernacular says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 15:44

And so the trolling nonsense derails the debate…….
—————————————-
Then again v, the current topic is ‘the Dismal Art of Whataboutery’, so it’s actually ON topic!

========================

Ironic to see isn’t it?

View Comment

manandboyPosted on4:06 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Meanwhile, CO has had a busy morning.

He’s probably just happy to have found something to do.

THE COURIER .CO.UK

home>Sport>Football>Div 3Div 3
Elgin chairman fined over Gers ticket fiasco
21 December 2012 1.33pm.

Elgin City chairman Graham Tatters has been fined £1,000 by the Scottish Football Association following the Rangers ticket fiasco.

The Irn-Bru Third Division meeting between the two clubs, which was originally set to take place at Borough Briggs on November 25, was postponed after Elgin sold too many tickets for the match.

Tatters was subsequently charged with breaching a disciplinary rule for “Not acting in the best interests of Association Football by knowingly distributing tickets … in excess of the maximum capacity of the ground at which the match was scheduled to be played.”

He admitted the rule breach at a disciplinary hearing yesterday, where a £5,000 fine was imposed, with £1,000 payable within 30 days and £4,000 suspended for the rest of the season.

“Not acting in the best interests of Association Football . . .” – who does that make you think of?

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on4:09 pm - Dec 21, 2012


http://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/index.asp?tm=2&nid=4400&cd=2012

Dundee United confirm prices for the ‘boycott’ match v Green’s team, and usurp the official position of the Ibrox club by announcing ticket sales to away fans.

“opposition fans are always welcome at Tannadice”

In full:

21 December 2012
Following advice from the Scottish FA and discussions with Rangers, ticket prices for the 5th Round Scottish Cup tie on 2 February have been set at £15 Adults and £5 Concessions. A section of the stadium will be reserved for those Rangers fans who wish to attend.

As a point of principle, in the exceptional circumstances whereby we had been instructed not to sell any tickets for this match to away fans, Dundee United had requested the Scottish FA to allow the Club to waive certain conditions of the Rules of the Scottish Cup, under the powers available to them. Although the matter has been considered in some depth by the Scottish FA and their legal advisors, we have now been informed that they are unable to intervene in this matter. In the best interests of the competition, Dundee United will adhere fully to this advice.

Subsequently, reduced admission prices have been agreed in a constructive dialogue with Rangers.

Dundee United Director Derek Robertson said, “While we remain disappointed with the position of Rangers in respect of not taking any tickets for this match, we will not make any statements which may inflame the situation, particularly to avoid encouraging any hostility between our two sets of supporters. Now that ticket prices have been agreed, we hope that everyone can now focus on what matters most; a game of football. For the good of Scottish football and, indeed, the Scottish Cup, we would urge all parties to move on and look forward to the prospect of a terrific Scottish Cup tie in February.

Although Rangers do not wish to take a ticket allocation for this match, opposition fans are always welcome at Tannadice and we will be happy to reserve an appropriate section of the stadium for any Rangers fans who wish to attend this fixture.”

An announcement on the arrangements for ticket sales will follow in due course.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:16 pm - Dec 21, 2012


embarrassinglyneutral says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 10:48
32 10 Rate This

Can I ask – why is this blog discussing the Rangers share issue? I don’t see the relevance. Hearts are borderline out of business, and have had a be all and end all share issue. A team in the top tier of Scottish football and the issue is being sorely under represented on a Scottish Football Montior. That is the key issue of the moment, and we should be discussing it in detail.
————

As I see it the demise of RFC is still very much THE issue here because it affects so many other key issues in Scottish football. It’s perceived to affect every club, especially the ones who paid their taxes while trying to keep up with the big-spend trend at Ibrox.

The Hearts story is absolutely relevant, as they also appear to have been living beyond their means in order to achieve success. However, that story seems to be unfolding unhindered in full view. The RFC situation went on for years and years with not a lot being put in the public domain, not voluntarily at least. They’ve also re-appeared an almost exact replica – Harry Houdini style – boasting a rude economy. So it’s far from resolved.

I suppose Hibs fans might be the ones you’d expect to be most miffed, and most focused on the Tynecastle situation. If Hearts had not freely spent the way they did they may never have won that Scottish Cup. In view of that you could ask, was the 2012 Scottish Cup won fair and square?

PS great alias by the way, describes me quite well too actually 🙂

View Comment

embarrassinglyneutralPosted on4:31 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Danish pastry – thanks, I went through several versions before settling on that so glad I made the right choice!

The thinking behind my question though was that there seems to be an underlying desire on here that the Rangers share issue failed. I understand that the demise of RFC is the major issue that has defined commentary on Scottish football over the last year and beyond. But I think we must be careful when talking about “the ones who paid their taxes”, because by the very nature of the inception of this blog it refers to something which was found to be, for the most part at least, tax “legal”. Hearts also were found to have an outstanding tax bill by HMRC, which is on a surface level very similar to what Rangers were actually guilty of. If this blog seeks to be fact based, partisan free and seeks to do a job that the mainstream media fails to do, then it must do so on an all equal basis. Because otherwise, any battle is over before it has begun, and we’ve already defeated ourselves.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on4:33 pm - Dec 21, 2012


What was the advice sought by United from the SFA – whether they could do what Mr Green asked and not sell tickets to away fans? Perhaps it’s in the Rules that you have to make x amount available?

In which case, a superb piece of spin by United. Sounds like they were told they had to make tickets available in order to avoid a rule breach, but the gracious manner of their statement makes it sound like they’re being magnanimous. Magnanimous, d’ye hear? Yes, magnanimous. And a little bit patronising … in the nicest possible way. 🙂

View Comment

angus1983Posted on4:37 pm - Dec 21, 2012


embarrassinglyneutral says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 16:31

… must be careful when talking about “the ones who paid their taxes”, because by the very nature of the inception of this blog it refers to something which was found to be, for the most part at least, tax “legal”.
——

In the interim, that position could be argued in the Big Tax Case.

However, it doesn’t stand up so well when considering the capers of last season’s non-payment of anything to anybody at all, including tax and NI.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:38 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Alternative to boycott ?
==================

Just had a brain wave…and it’s that radical it just might work !

Like most (?) I thought at least the threat of boycott of a Scotland game would be required to gain attention from the SFA – although it does feel a bit uncomfortable suggesting the same action that TRFC has promoted against DUFC. And it feels ‘negative’.

So, why not try to get our message across in a positive way: a simple, clear message that we want radical change at the SFA – and where the fans can see a tangible, positive result in the short-term.

Ogilvie has intimitated in the MSM that he intends to stand for re-election as SFA President, [yes, I know !].
I believe re-election is due in February.
So, why don’t we start a campaign to have Turnbull Hutton elected SFA President ?

I appreciate that in the first place he would have to be willing to stand, but he comes across as the type of character who would see it as his ‘duty’ for the benefit of Scottish football.

Agreed, Turnbull is of mature years, [and also very experienced], so maybe he could be the interim SFA President – to steady the ship -before handing the reins over to a suitably “non-conflicted individual who will be able to do the job”.

I don’t know how the voting system works for electing the SFA President, but if there was a groundswell of public opinion wanting Turnbull elected – and this message was reinforced within individual clubs – it would shirley even force the MSM to ask questions ?
Why does the public not want Ogilvie ? Why does the public want Turnbull ?

Possibly, even some TRFC fans would be supportive, as they also seem to be dissatisfied with SFA.

So my wild suggestion is Turnbull Hutton for SFA President in February.

It would be a highly visible action to show that fans demand change at the SFA, and Turnbull could be the honest, transparent facilitator who could start the ball rolling.

View Comment

embarrassinglyneutralPosted on4:39 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Yes, but that was my point – the predecessor to this blog, RTC, considered the “Big Tax Case”. The non payment of PAYE by Craig Whyte happened afterwards.

View Comment

embarrassinglyneutralPosted on4:43 pm - Dec 21, 2012


StevieBC – why Turnbull Hutton?

Also, how the frig do you do the thing where you quote a little bit of the previous person’s post / name? Is it just copy and paste or is there some fancy blog trick that I just don’t know how to do, much like Zangief’s spinning piledriver before the days of analogue sticks?

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on4:57 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Can we take Longmuir’s comments as the SFL’s ringing endorsement of financial mis-management, over-spending, non-payment of debts and taxes? Does he speak for all SFL’S clubs?

View Comment

iamacantPosted on5:00 pm - Dec 21, 2012


embarrassinglyneutral says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 16:43

Turnbull Hutton – the man who stood on the steps of Hampden and called them all corrupt.

Guess what, the board could not deny it and Mr Hutton has not been brought to task by them over his comment.

Campbell Ogilvie – the president who accepted an EBT and is still conflicted. The man who says he cannot do his job properly and he has brought this on himself. The man who transferred his RFCIA shares to his wife while president of the SFA.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on5:14 pm - Dec 21, 2012


neutral … I just cut and paste, though I see other people seem to have mastered proper quoting.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:25 pm - Dec 21, 2012


embarrassinglyneutral says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 16:43

StevieBC – why Turnbull Hutton? …
=============================

Just back in – and iamacant has answered your query, thanks.

So, en, would you want a change of SFA President, whether it was Turnbull or someone else ?

View Comment

stuartcosgrovePosted on5:28 pm - Dec 21, 2012


FIFA today announced the three nominees for the FIFA Fair Play Award 2012. In alphabetical order, the contenders are:

The Guatemalan Football Federation (GFF), for giving a clear signal that unfair behaviour and match-fixing will not be tolerated in football. The GFF thoroughly investigated three national team players charged with match-fixing and banned them for life in Guatemala based on the findings of a special investigation committee. The ban was then extended worldwide by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

The Turkish club Eskisehirspor, whose nomination was proposed by the supporters of Scottish club St Johnstone following a Europa League second qualifying round tie. During the game in Turkey, a St Johnstone player became injured as Eskisehirspor went on the attack. This attack resulted in a corner, but as it had come about when the opposition were down to ten men, Dede of Eskisehirspor gave the ball back to St Johnstone.

The Uzbekistan Football Federation, for showing that fair play and competition are not mutually exclusive, but complement each another. The clubs and national teams of Uzbekistan collected the most fair play points in the Asian Football Confederation in 2012. Points are awarded or deducted on the basis of red and yellow cards received, positive play, respect towards opponents and the referee and the conduct of the officials as well as of the crowd.

The three nominees have been selected from a list submitted by the bureau of the Committee for Fair Play and Social Responsibility chaired by H.R.H Prince Ali Bin Al Hussein and Senes Erzik.

Each year, FIFA commends persons or institutions for their fair play, an issue that has always been of crucial significance to world football’s governing body. FIFA aims to promote the principles of fair play through projects and campaigns.

http://www.fifa.com/ballondor/news/newsid=1976444/index.html?fb_action_ids=4064059967470&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=facebook_like_button&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%224064059967470%22%3A314527071984682}&action_type_map={%224064059967470%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map={%224064059967470%22%3A%22facebook_like_button%22}

View Comment

embarrassinglyneutralPosted on5:30 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Well I think it is beyond doubt that Ogilvie has to go – no other person in any walk of life could admit to being unable to do their job for almost a year and then not only keep their job, but seek to retain it. With regard to Turnbull Hutton – I jumped to a conclusion, which was that he was mentioned simply because he took an “anti-Rangers” stance. That wasn’t the reasoning, as stated he “called them all corrupt” – if the reason he was put forward is because he called out the corruption within the SFA, then that makes him an obvious choice so well called.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on5:46 pm - Dec 21, 2012


embarrassinglyneutral says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 16:31
2 0 Rate This
Danish pastry – thanks, I went through several versions before settling on that so glad I made the right choice!

The thinking behind my question though was that there seems to be an underlying desire on here that the Rangers share issue failed. I understand that the demise of RFC is the major issue that has defined commentary on Scottish football over the last year and beyond. But I think we must be careful when talking about “the ones who paid their taxes”, because by the very nature of the inception of this blog it refers to something which was found to be, for the most part at least, tax “legal”. Hearts also were found to have an outstanding tax bill by HMRC, which is on a surface level very similar to what Rangers were actually guilty of. If this blog seeks to be fact based, partisan free and seeks to do a job that the mainstream media fails to do, then it must do so on an all equal basis. Because otherwise, any battle is over before it has begun, and we’ve already defeated ourselves.
——-

I agree on the whole, although someone more qualified than I will no doubt be able to quote chapter and verse the actual amounts of tax left unpaid.

Regarding ‘the ones who paid their taxes’, that was an oblique reference to Vlad who was pretty outspoken about it:

“They stole taxpayers’ money, violating the rules of honest competition between the clubs. And for that were not even stripped of second place in the league table.

“And it was all happening while they desperately wanted to push Hearts into bankruptcy through the tax authorities and the league. They plotted conspiracies in our club and tried to spread panic.” (The Scotsman, 18 Feb 2012)

I believe you are right about the underlying desire. Some people dislike TRFC because of what they have been and are associated with. No love lost there. Others no doubt wish it to fail because it could be perceived as natural justice on a club that has appeared to ‘cheat the system’ and get away with it. You can understand both points of view, but as you indicate, in an ideal world we should all be wishing TRFC well and every success. And I think the majority would, if TRFC didn’t look so much like a massive tax dodge. It’s a sad situation.

The ill will is probably being interpreted by TRFC fans as hate, though in it’s basic sense I think it’s animosity towards the authorities and the injustice of it all. You don’t have to be posh to be privileged 🙂

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:03 pm - Dec 21, 2012


angus1983 says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 16:33

Tickets for Sale
For any match to which admission is wholly or partly by ticket or by cash admission at the turnstiles, the visiting club shall have the right to claim admissions up to 20% of the spectator capacity of the ground, in which case the supporters of the visiting club shall be accommodated in an area of the ground which is agreed by both clubs and the Police authorities after having taken cognisance of the Safety at Sports Ground Act, 1975, where appropriate. The exercise of such right shall be subject to the following conditions:–
(a) Except in the case of a replay the right is exercised within three days of the date on which the ballot is made.
(b) In the case of any replay, the right is exercised immediately after the drawn game.
(c) The visiting club shall be responsible for payment of all tickets asked for and allotted.
(d) The visiting club shall ensure that any tickets which are not required, together with a remittance for the total allotment, are in the hands of the ground club at least twenty-four hours before the time of kick-off.
(e) If any of the tickets which are so returned are subsequently sold, an appropriate refund will be made by the host club.
The tickets which are allotted to the visiting club, if numbered and for reserved positions, shall be equal in position to those retained by the host club.

View Comment

BayviewGoldPosted on6:04 pm - Dec 21, 2012


StevieBC says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 16:38

As an east fife supporter can I say: no I will never agree to a Rovers man being in charge! just joking 🙂 excellent proposal assuming he would accept.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:05 pm - Dec 21, 2012


stuartcosgrove says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 17:28
5 0 Rate This

FIFA today announced the three nominees for the FIFA Fair Play Award 2012. In alphabetical order, the contenders are:

The Guatemalan Football Federation (GFF), for giving a clear signal that unfair behaviour and match-fixing will not be tolerated in football. The GFF thoroughly investigated three national team players charged with match-fixing and banned them for life in Guatemala based on the findings of a special investigation committee. The ban was then extended worldwide by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee …
———-

Inspiring stuff Stuart, about time we heard some positive, feel-good stories. Wasn’t aware of that incident in Turkey, but the match didn’t get a whole lot of coverage …

View Comment

BayviewGoldPosted on6:10 pm - Dec 21, 2012


stuartcosgrove says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 17:28

Surprised to see the SFA weren’t nominated for their charity and help of a failing club and assistance for our newest partners in the SFL, oh well maybe next year. Good story from both the Saints and Eskiwhatstheirname point of view.

View Comment

spanishceltPosted on6:15 pm - Dec 21, 2012


I posted on Wednesday that in my opinion the share price by close of trade today (Friday) would by lucky to be 50p.
I was wrong and openly admit it, however I am still confused why the price is anywhere near where it is.
This “cash rich” business claims to have raised 22million and have it sitting in the bank but that will not last long when you take into account.
Repayment of initial investors plus profit
Other “internal” debts
Trading in the region of 10million per year loss.
Intending to buy property adjacent to stadium for 5.5million
Intending to buy Albion car park at x million.
Ticketus and Whyte ?????

Although I got it wrong today I still stand by my prediction when answering another post that by February the price will have crashed.

This thing has stunk from the start and still does.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:21 pm - Dec 21, 2012


TEST

Also, how the frig do you do the thing where you quote a little bit of the previous person’s post / name? Is it just copy and paste or is there some fancy blog trick that I just don’t know how to do, much like Zangief’s spinning piledriver before the days of analogue sticks?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on6:56 pm - Dec 21, 2012


angus1983 says:

Friday, December 21, 2012 at 14:43

paulmac2 says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 13:28

The club wasn’t floated the holding company was…or are we expected to accept the club and Company are NOW one in the same?
——

Even better – the shares are in the holding company (RIFC plc) of the holding company (TRFC Ltd) of the Club (Rangers) !

What a wizard wheeze!

———————————————————————————–

in referance to my post earlier.

that’s where the money is to be made for these “investors” who own RIFCplc and TRFC. and the club. 3 tiers of money levels to get the money out and into their pockets.

from the bottom – the club pay costs and expenses to TRFC. this could very well include the costs to use the name.

i.e the franchise costs.

bottom –
Club pays
TRFC

TRFC pays
RIFC

so the money is getting to the investors at different levels.

well done to them.

View Comment

redetinPosted on6:59 pm - Dec 21, 2012


spanishcelt says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 18:15

I posted on Wednesday that in my opinion the share price by close of trade today (Friday) would by lucky to be 50p.
I was wrong and openly admit it, however I am still confused why the price is anywhere near where it is.
______________________________________

spanishcelt, the stockmarket is populated by people that have an opinion on share price and what it will do. We are mostly wrong because the prices are set by market makers (MMs). The MMs are a band of robb….err, strike that, … of traders who hold a share float and brokers who deal with the buyers and sellers. Sometimes the MMs have a big order they want to fill at a certain price. As they make their difference between their buy and sell prices (the bid and offer prices) they are quite happy to set the price so that they can make their deal. The small punter is generally helpless. There is really no point in trying to guess.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on7:02 pm - Dec 21, 2012


spanishcelt says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 18:15

I posted on Wednesday that in my opinion the share price by close of trade today (Friday) would by lucky to be 50p.
——

Well, there hasn’t really been much movement – there seem to be some folk buying a few shares (Xmas presents?) but they’re obviously willing to pay the going price at the moment. Most are only forking over a small amount of cash for 50 or 100 shares.

It appears to me, inexperienced as I am in such things, that people aren’t putting them on the market just now. Lack of supply, and not that much demand … therefore the price is being maintained in the meantime.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on7:06 pm - Dec 21, 2012


jimlarkin says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 18:56

bottom –
Club pays
TRFC
——

Aye, Jim, but who are the “Club” and how can they pay anyone if they don’t actually exist as such?

I mean, they can’t have a bank account if they’re just a, kind of … figment – a cultural memory. A product of someone’s imagination … What are Rangers? I demand to know etc …

View Comment

john clarkePosted on7:44 pm - Dec 21, 2012


StevieBC says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 16:38
‘……..So my wild suggestion is Turnbull Hutton for SFA President in February..
——
I suspect that the revered Turnbull may already be 70 years old, and therefore not eligible for nomination to office as SFA president under the rules.. ( Not that rule-keeping has been a particular strong point for the SFA!)

View Comment

iamacantPosted on7:53 pm - Dec 21, 2012


john clarke says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 19:44

jc, Mr Hutton is a sprightly 66, born June 1946

View Comment

goosyPosted on8:03 pm - Dec 21, 2012


angus1983 says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 19:02
but they’re obviously willing to pay the going price at the moment. Most are only forking over a small amount of cash for 50 or 100 shares
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
angus
So called trades in minor amounts i.e. deals valued at under £500 are most likely between Market Makers who carry a small float of shares for this very purpose and have negligible dealing fees
The reason why these “trades” are displayed is to signal to potential investors what the up to date Buying a selling prices are
So if you really want to know which trades were between Buyers and Sellers you have to ignore trades below say 700 shares
Those that remain may or may not be genuine depending on whether well know Spivs are associated with the Company owning the Shares
If a Spiv wants to rig the market by giving the pretence of real trades then he will buy shares from himself and then sell them to himself under a different trading account
The RIFC share trading platform will be a Spivs playground until they have squeezed it dry.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I posted previously that the real aim of the flotation was to put a holding co above TRFC so that TRFC dealings could be conducted secretly by the parent co
The only known unknown is how they will exploit TRFC to line their pockets. It won`t be confined to share dealing now that multiple Spivs are involved
All sorts of perfectly legal wheezes are likely
With a holding co in place people will never know until it as too late. The Gullible have already forgot that Whyte`s RFCG claimed £27m from RFC when the actual LBG debt his holding co cleared was £18m. An extra £9m in 9 months
Heres a simple legal wheeze
RIFC instruct TRFC that all ST money will be held by RIFC not by TRFC and doled out as appropriate.
This gives them control over a pot of money they can siphon out of TRFC as soon as possible
They could immediately siphon off cash by “borrowing” from another Spiv co at moneylending interest rates. The high interest rate could be used to justify money disappearing out of RIFC. Concurrently RIFC could “invest” the borrowed money in a Spiv orchestrated venture doomed to fail. A Spiv Floating Charge holder then snaffles all the RIFC money when the failed co is liquidated.
There are literally endless variety of ploys for milking TRFC
And all the ploys can be kept secret because they are done by the RIFC Board not by the TRFC Board

View Comment

john clarkePosted on8:07 pm - Dec 21, 2012


iamacant says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 19:53

‘..jc, Mr Hutton is a sprightly 66..’

Excellent. Thanks for that. Does any RR poster know him well enough to find out what his view would be on seeking/accepting nomination?

Not that I imagine that this blog in itself would have any rights to nominate- but I am attracted to the idea floated earlier that many SFA members might just be open to suggestion that clearly had the support of the general run of fans and who was not compromised by former allegiances to ‘big’ clubs.

View Comment

csihampdenPosted on8:08 pm - Dec 21, 2012


stuartcosgrove says:

Friday, December 21, 2012 at 17:28

……This attack resulted in a corner, but as it had come about when the opposition were down to ten men, Dede of Eskisehirspor gave the ball back to St Johnstone.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Or given the Scottish pronunciation of his name, maybe he just mis-hit it? 🙂

Well done to St Johnstone fans for making the nomination despite the adverse result.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:33 pm - Dec 21, 2012


goosygoosy says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 20:03
3 0 Rate This

This gives them control over a pot of money they can siphon out of TRFC as soon as possible
They could immediately siphon off cash by “borrowing” from another Spiv co at moneylending interest rates. The high interest rate could be used to justify money disappearing out of RIFC. Concurrently RIFC could “invest” the borrowed money in a Spiv orchestrated venture doomed to fail. A Spiv Floating Charge holder then snaffles all the RIFC money when the failed co is liquidated.
There are literally endless variety of ploys for milking TRFC
And all the ploys can be kept secret because they are done by the RIFC Board not by the TRFC Board

What devious mind you have Goosy! But do you really believe they would try something like this? A slow steady siphon cold also work, rather than a smash-and-grab?

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on8:33 pm - Dec 21, 2012


I really fail to see why CW is mentioned in the demise of ragers ,IMO he was drafted in long after the peepil knew that ragers demise was the only way left .
To me CW was sourced to oversee the end (or if you are a fantasist the continuation )of ragers ,so for me CW has played his part very well ,with the only hiccup being his manager being so inept that he failed to secure European football in any guise and because of this CW had no option but to rob HMRC to allow the club to see out the season.The fact that CW said he had told the SFA/SPL in October last season that ragers were skint tells ME all I need to know about their integrity and part in what went on.
So IMO rather than being the one to blame for the demise of ragers CW played a pivotal role in the illusion we see before us .I assume he has been well paid for the role, if not then more fool him ,as if he was to be the fall guy for the peepil he should have charged a large chunk of what they ran away from (see the creditors list and broken contracts ).

I have always said that when ragers died their would be another club formed to fill the void that was left behind and I even see why they would have been given a place in the bottom of the Scottish league system , if this had been done then I would have moved on long ago ,instead what I have witnessed from this farce has left me disillusioned with the game I loved ,so much so that I thought I would not be attending another SPL game .I will move on when the justice has been delivered and every club is told that the rules apply to them all without fear or favour .

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on8:36 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Malaga given Euro ban for not paying football debts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/dec/21/uefa-malaga-european-ban

View Comment

angus1983Posted on8:45 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Cheers for that, goosy. That’s what I’ve learned today, then. 🙂

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on8:58 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Re the Montrose apology
IMO before apologizing for anything Montrose should have demanded the exact status of SEVCO 2102 from the SFA and then if they were given proof that sevco 2012 and ragers were indeed the same club they should have issued their apology ,not before .I hope the next club to think they are a different club and state so, takes that stance and produces the proof ,one way or another then we can all act accordingly

View Comment

parmahamsterPosted on9:02 pm - Dec 21, 2012


TW (@tartanwulver) says:

Friday, December 21, 2012 at 20:36
___________________________________________________________________________

Since the start of the 2011-12 season, Uefa has implemented a monitoring of clubs’ finances, the first of three seasons in which clubs will be required to show they are aiming towards breaking even on their football-related business as a condition of entry to the Champions League and Europa League.

A Uefa statement said: “Uefa’s club financial control body has taken its first decisions due to the presence of significant overdue payables. The club [Málaga] is excluded from participating in the next Uefa club competitions for which it would otherwise qualify for in the next four seasons.”

Five other clubs face similar one-year bans during any of the next three seasons unless they can convince Uefa they have cleared the stipulated debts. They are Hajduk Split and Osijek from Croatia, Rapid Bucharest and Dinamo Bucharest from Romania, and Partizan Belgrade from Serbia.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So why haven’t the events in Scotland which kicked off on February 14th 2012 featured on UEFA’s radar?

We’re all well aware of CO’s role in things, is is not time we took a closer look at David Taylor and his input?

Just wondering…..

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on9:13 pm - Dec 21, 2012


angus1983 says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 19:02

spanishcelt says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 18:15

I posted on Wednesday that in my opinion the share price by close of trade today (Friday) would by lucky to be 50p.
——

Well, there hasn’t really been much movement – there seem to be some folk buying a few shares (Xmas presents?) but they’re obviously willing to pay the going price at the moment. Most are only forking over a small amount of cash for 50 or 100 shares.

It appears to me, inexperienced as I am in such things, that people aren’t putting them on the market just now. Lack of supply, and not that much demand … therefore the price is being maintained in the meantime.
========================================================================

I’m no expert on stocks and shares and if I had my way markets would be made illegal. However, that said there is no real liquidity in AIM shares generally because it’s good for raising seed capital where institutions take a punt and sit it out to see how things go, hoping to make big bucks. There are rarely huge volumes of trades.

Of course there could also be no liquidity because in reality very few people actually control the shares.

View Comment

goosyPosted on9:23 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Danish Pastry says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 20:33
,,,,,,,,
do you really believe they would try something like this? A slow steady siphon cold also work, rather than a smash-and-grab?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Danish
You may well be right and the siphoning goes on for years
It all depends on whatever scams are chosen to siphon out the money There will be dozens available given the large number of Spivs on board.
The first aim is to take control of next year’s ST money away from TRFC and its cosmetic “Board”.
If RIFC can`t wait because they only got £3m cash from the fund raising they may mortgage some STs in Jan to get by. This can be done without TRFC Board approval just as Whyte did it without RFC Board approval
The various siphoning scams will not be publicised to shareholders. They will be chosen carefully to avoid a legal requirement to consult shareholders i.e. An RIFC board decision will be legal

One frequent ploy of this sort of Spiv (used by Whyte) is to put back the date of the annual accounts at the last minute, then delay publication until Co House get involved then liquidate the business before any accounts are published So a co is born, lives and dies with no accounts whatsoever
I reckon RIFC will not publish a set of accounts until every legal avenue to delay has been exhausted. By then TRFC may have been sold to another holding co and RIFC are out of the picture.

In Spivland
Exploiting the law with no moral compass is the name of the game

Is there hope for the Bears?
One glimmer of hope is a genuine fan representative on the RIFC Board
However the Spivs will resist this suggestion simply saying it is inappropriate.if severely pressed RIFC might concede a fan representative on the TRFC Board

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on9:43 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Parmahamster
Maybe because Sevco 2012 have never been on Uefa’s radar as they are a new club and have never played in a Uefa tournament and won’t for at least 3/4 years ,there would be no need to sanction ragers as they were to be liquidated and would soon no longer exist .

View Comment

ClashCityRockersPosted on10:12 pm - Dec 21, 2012


“I said I see no joy, I see only sorrow
I see no chance of a bright new tomorrow

So stand down Campbell, stand down please, stand down Cambpell
I say stand down Campbell, stand down please, stand down Campbell”

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5gK7yv52o4)

Humble apologies to The English Beat for my editing of their lyrics, but the opening two lines of the “Stand Down Margaret” section of the song (linked above for those who like a wee bit of Ska) just resonates.

A musical stance against the decadence at Hampden perhaps.

View Comment

buckfastswallierPosted on10:12 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Two things from the pit here that gnaw at my bones:

1. Charles Green’s description of Sevco’s finances, i.e., no debt, money in the bank and comparing this to other clubs with debt as if he has managed Sevco to this position in the same manner as the other clubs he alludes to.

2. Campbell Ogilvie still in position. Is there any other job in the world, other than banking, in which his conduct would be accepted? Indeed, perhaps that is the comparison we should draw on- the banks. The metaphor is the same one that was run with Rangers, TOO BIG TO FAIL. Look where that logic leads us- the criminals get off but the rest of us lesser mortals go to jail.

I think both of these reasons are why Sevco and Rangers have dominated this blog, they are a sign of the times, people are realising how much ‘life’ is shafting them, those with the means are protecting themselves at the expense of others- no matter how lowly- there is a shift in understanding of where power lies in the world and how it has been used.

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on10:12 pm - Dec 21, 2012


jonnyod on Friday, December 21, 2012 at 20:58
 6 2 Rate This
Re the Montrose apology
IMO before apologizing for anything Montrose should have demanded the exact status of SEVCO 2102
_____________________________________

Jeez, not another one!

Sorry, Jonnyod, accidentally TDd you trying to copy your post.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on10:19 pm - Dec 21, 2012


goosygoosy says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 21:23
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Is there hope for the Bears?
One glimmer of hope is a genuine fan representative on the RIFC Board
However the Spivs will resist this suggestion simply saying it is inappropriate.if severely pressed RIFC might concede a fan representative on the TRFC Board
=======================================================================

Surely after what happened last time Sir Walt would blow the whistle on any shenanigans?

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on10:23 pm - Dec 21, 2012


buckfastswallier says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 22:12

I think both of these reasons are why Sevco and Rangers have dominated this blog, they are a sign of the times, people are realising how much ‘life’ is shafting them, those with the means are protecting themselves at the expense of others- no matter how lowly- there is a shift in understanding of where power lies in the world and how it has been used.

=========================================================================

Excellent point.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:26 pm - Dec 21, 2012


Have just logged on and there are 666 comments, Bogsdollox was number 666!!!

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on10:36 pm - Dec 21, 2012


flocculent apoidea
no probs TD you back for misuse of the blog 🙂

View Comment

dedeideoprofundisPosted on10:45 pm - Dec 21, 2012


goosygoosy says:
However the Spivs will resist this suggestion simply saying it is inappropriate.if severely pressed RIFC might concede a fan representative on the TRFC Board
——————————–
Is this possible, as the shares the fans bought were in RIFC, not TRFC?

View Comment

goosyPosted on10:53 pm - Dec 21, 2012


dedeideoprofundis says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 22:45
Is this possible, as the shares the fans bought were in RIFC, not TRFC?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

We need to ignore integrity, business ethics ,morality, loyalty etc when dealing with Spivs.
The only thing they consider is whether company law can be circumvented
Nothing else
Anything legal is possible with Spivs if it serves a purpose

Legally you can be a Board Director without owning any shares

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on10:59 pm - Dec 21, 2012


jean7brodie says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 22:26

Have just logged on and there are 666 comments, Bogsdollox was number 666!!!
==========================================================================

hehe – I logged back on to read your utter waste of the interweb.

View Comment

ordinaryfanPosted on11:04 pm - Dec 21, 2012


embarrassinglyneutral says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 16:43
5 14 Rate This
StevieBC – why Turnbull Hutton?

………….

Hutton is the man for the job. He is a man who has stood up for our game when others were too fearful. He has proven to be an honest, intelligent man with dignity and integrity.
We can trust this man. He has shown that he has the best interests of the game and supporters at heart, and has proven that he will not be intimidated or bullied.
I would love to see this man in charge, has more than earned the opportunity IMO.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on11:07 pm - Dec 21, 2012


angus1983 says:

Friday, December 21, 2012 at 19:06
11
0
Rate This
jimlarkin says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 18:56

bottom –
Club pays
TRFC
——

Aye, Jim, but who are the “Club” and how can they pay anyone if they don’t actually exist as such?

I mean, they can’t have a bank account if they’re just a, kind of … figment – a cultural memory. A product of someone’s imagination … What are Rangers? I demand to know etc …

———————————————————————-

i agree with you angus.

but, to the investors in sevco, it does matter.

as i said, it’s the “franchise” type operation [copyright – the falkirk stadium announcer]

the “club” is charged by the holding company TRFC to use the name, badge, stadium, etc

the holding company (TRFC) is charged in turn
by their holding company (RIFC)
for the use of the name stadium, website, media statements, for money “loaned” from the parent company etc…(make up any reason to “charge” a fee)

this is all “internal” debt/charges.

it’s similar to say starbucks or mcdonald’s.

they pay money to use the name and maybe in some places – rent the building. from the holding company.
this holding company, is in turn, owned by another holding company. (% of same directors)
who take their cut of the dosh by way of charging for use of the name, company logo, headed paper etc.

this holding company does the same
– charges the holding company for using the holding company to hold the company and for using the company name, company logo, etc, etc

each different level of the franchise, taking a cut from the dosh by way of “fees” and “charges”.

that is why it was important to have all the different holding companied, so the money can be siphoned off legally and efficiently and internally.

it’s a great system. that’s why the falkirk stadium announcer was spot on when he said it.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on11:21 pm - Dec 21, 2012


jimlarkin says:
Friday, December 21, 2012 at 23:07

This is where this blog gets silly. Any proof to back up your post would be good.

View Comment

Comments are closed.