The Existence of Laws

Avatar By

Neepheid says: Friday, May 24, 2013 at 11:22 I don’t see …

Comment on The Existence of Laws by wottpi.

neepheid says:
Friday, May 24, 2013 at 11:22

I don’t see their problem if they were up against Celtic in the 60′s and it was raining. Celtic fans had to get soaked no matter who they were playing!

==========================================================================
My recollection of Hampden in days gone by was regardless of where you were in the ground and whether or not it was raining it was odds on the bottom of your trousers got soaked with spilled or ‘recycled’ Tennents Lager or McEwans Export.

Mind you the old cans with the seams up the side were handy for me as a kid as you could stand on a couple to get a better view of tha game.

wottpi Also Commented

The Existence of Laws
I appreciate that everyone is getting excited about the CF revelations but let’s face it, are we surprised?

Now it may be the case that provenance is uncertain regarding some of the information. However despite the protestations of Tom English and others the sheer volume of material from various sources, combined with possible legal gagging issues tends to suggest there is far more than a grain of truth in what is being put out to the wider world.

Dress it up in any way you want but the average fan on the terracing now has their suspicions confirmed that ‘those and such as those’ were all working in one way or another to ensure that ‘The Establishment Club’ survived.

We know from the MSM and those inside the game, current and ex managers and players along with the majority of pundits, have also most to a man have supported not only the survival of T’Rangers but that they should be in the top division and they voiced that whenever possible. Many a chairman was probably of the same view but it was only fan power that stopped then allowing Sevco into the SPL or Div 1

Only a few outside the cabal – Phil Mac, Daly, Thomson have offered an alternative story and even then Daly and Thomson are more interested in the corporate governance and tax avoidance issues than football matters.

Nobody sitting within Scottish borders has dared take a hatchet to the forest of thorns surrounding both Ibrox and the national stadium. English and Spiers, to an extent, have voiced their concerns but where a chain saw is required they have produced nothing more than a key ring sized souvenir penknife. Attractive to look at but insignificant, blunt and not fit for purpose.

We also know that the football authorities have wanted to see ‘the club’ survive. I personally have no problem with that. After all it should be their job to try and ensure that their ‘member clubs’ flourish and gain entry into as many competitions as possible.

However for God’s sake just tell us how it is. The rules were never applied without ‘fear or favour’ and everything was done and every loophole explored and exploited to ensure both the oldco and newco took to the field.

Just let the ‘highly conflicted’ re-elected President stand on the steps of Hampden and tell us that is how it is but at the same time tell the rest of us not to worry because the exact same time and effort will be put in to save any other club who find themselves in a similar predicament.

Fans of other clubs have always felt the whole show has been rigged for ages, so just confirm that this is how business was done and let them decide on whether or not to turn up week after week.

Dare I even suggest that what is required now is ‘Transparency’ from all, as opposed to weasel words and hiding behind legal niceties otherwise this will rumble on for years to come.

Frankly, what harm can it do because unless there is openness, honesty and change, people are already walking away from both newspapers and the game alike.


The Existence of Laws
Tom Enghlish on Paul Murray

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/football/rangers-paul-murray-calling-for-core-values-1-2912290

Versus

m English: ‘Paul Murray’s bid was well-meaning but not based in reality’
Published on Sunday 4 December 2011 01:32

PAUL Murray, the former non-executive director of Rangers, raised his head above the parapet in The Scotsman yesterday when expressing his concerns about the way the club is being run by Craig Whyte, his old foe from the takeover process earlier in the year.

This column has given short shrift to Murray in the past – and especially to his cohort, Alastair “No Surrender” Johnston, the great show-boater of the old guard.

That is not to dismiss Murray’s concerns over Whyte. He’s entitled to be uncertain about Rangers’ future and worried about Whyte’s stewardship. There is so much secrecy and inconsistency surrounding Whyte that cynicism is not just an understandable instinct, but a necessary one.

The contradictions are many. In October, Whyte gave an interview to STV in which he stated that he nothing to hide in his professional life. An hour later a BBC investigation revealed that Whyte had been disqualified from being a company director for seven years. At the outset of his ownership he rubbished the possibility that Rangers might go into administration. Now he is saying that it has always been an option. He said from day one that he would appeal should the HMRC decision go against the club, but he appears to have changed his mind on that one. In the wake of the BBC documentary he stated that he was going to waste no time in suing the broadcaster, but it seems he has not taken that step yet. He might yet, of course.

There is a suspicious air around Whyte and much of it is of his own making, born out of his determination to keep his business affairs as private as possible. When he is asked to name a couple of his companies that he is particularly proud of and then refuses to name them, people are entitled to wonder what he’s all about. The mystery creates an information vacuum that then gets filled with speculation. Informed speculation, some of it. But the fact is that, when it comes to Whyte (his money and his motives), a lot of what is out there is little more than guesswork.

His merits as Rangers’ owner can only be judged in time. This is where this column and Murray go our separate ways because there are things that Murray says that just don’t stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

First of all, Murray expresses surprise at the talk of Rangers, potentially, going into administration. “I am puzzled that administration is even being discussed,” he said. “The HMRC tax tribunal will not deliver a decision until well into next year so at the moment there is no tax liability to pay.”

Puzzled at administration being discussed? Hold on a second, there. Johnston, his big mate on the old board, was talking about administration away back in April. In fact, he got himself embroiled in a controversy about whether or not he stated the club could, in a worst-case scenario, actually go bust. “Yes, if there is an excessive (HMRC) judgment against us then we might not be in a position to pay it,” said Johnston on 1 April. “But I never said the club would go bust as a result of it. The very worst thing that could happen is that we lose the case and, as a result, could be looking at going into administration.”

So it was OK for Johnston (and by extension, Murray) to talk about administration but, when Whyte does it, Murray is “puzzled”.

He’ll have to explain that one.

And, while he is at it, he might enlighten us further on his supposed counter-bid for the club and why he waited and waited and waited before he did something, which, effectively, was nothing. According to Whyte, it amounted to a “five line e-mail sent from his Blackberry” when the Whyte deal was as good as done. Sir David Murray, it is understood, gave it no credence whatsoever, nor did Lloyds Bank.

And nor would Johnston have given it the time of day had he applied his own rules to his mate’s offer. Johnston wanted transparency, but the Murray bid supposedly involved a £25 million share issue underwritten by a businessman whose name he would not reveal, with other backers coming on board as well. He wouldn’t name them either. The “bid” also stated that Lloyds would only be paid off in stages, this despite Johnston having earlier stated that a prerequisite of any takeover was that Lloyds were paid off in full and removed from the Rangers landscape permanently.

Murray’s solution to the HMRC issue was to get Sir David to pay whatever bill came the club’s way. Lovely idea, but unless he is an expert in hypnosis there was no way Paul Murray was going to get the then owner to agree to that. So his “bid” was probably well-meaning but not based in reality. Meanwhile, Whyte was ploughing on and doing a deal. It’s not a deal that Paul Murray or Johnston like and Whyte is not a man they have faith in, but the alternative was that Sir David kept the club – and they didn’t want that either.

The fact is that, when Johnston came in as chairman, the mission statement he set out for himself was to find a new owner who would liberate the club from the grip of Lloyds Bank. Johnston found nobody. He failed. Paul Murray failed, too. He had his chance to buy the club and he didn’t take it. He sat and waited and came up with far too little, far too late.

“Everything we said has come home to roost,” said Murray. “I don’t take any pleasure from that. . . Talking about administration, being pursued by suppliers and the possibility of a fit and proper investigation at the SFA. . . it’s humiliating and embarrassing.”

Yes, it’s troubling, no doubt about it. But there was no nirvana option available to Rangers. The club had to accept Whyte’s offer or stick with Sir David and live with the consequences. There was no third way worthy of consideration. Sniping from the sidelines is understandable. For sure, Whyte needs to be scrutinised given the potential horrors that await the club. But to Paul Murray we ask: “What would you have done?” Once the attempted brainwashing of Sir David into accepting liability for a £49m tax debt ended in failure, what was the alternative?

And the answer is, there wasn’t one.


The Existence of Laws
CF tapes

No5 5:45

CW refers to ‘Duff & Duffer’.

I thought people on here/RTC had copyright on that.
Does he have claim to the copyright or he has been watching us from day one 🙂


Recent Comments by wottpi

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 28, 2017 at 13:48

Indeed. And that was my other thought.
Even if Mark Allen does a good job T”Rangers wouldn’t see any cash for any upcoming talent (internal or bought in)  for a god number of years.
To date a good few lads showing talent have been allowed to leave to keep the lights on.
At present the only prospect they have is McRorie who I think has stepped up and performed well when asked.He certainly has confidence and could develop into a decent centre back playing with the likes of Souttar for Scotland.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
I am sure the thought will have crossed other’s minds but will say it anyway.
Celtics ‘free money’ from the VVD  transfer is more than T’Rangers stated  loan requirements to keep the lights on for the next year or two.
Thats the size of the gap between Celtic and the rest of us.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
EASYJAMBO
DECEMBER 22, 2017 at 12:56

Lets just call it 14 February for old times sake and serendipity. 21


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Statement O’clock but on another matter.

ClydeSSB tweeting Murty appointed until end of the season.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
EASYJAMBODECEMBER 22, 2017 at 10:33

Thought that may be the case but was wondering if someone would be trying to get ahead of the game.


About the author

Avatar