The Existence of Laws


Pilgrim1888 says: June 12, 2013 at 8:49 pm However no one …

Comment on The Existence of Laws by neepheid.

pilgrim1888 says:
June 12, 2013 at 8:49 pm

However no one had given any evidence that their club had voted for CO to be re elected. I thought the simplest thing to do was to ask the SFA how the vote had went so I emailed them last night. Today I received this reply

David, in response to your question the President was unanimously re-elected by all members.

Many thanks


Darryl Broadfoot

Good work, Pilgrim,and many thanks. Now I know exactly where I stand and what to do. I must turn my back on Scottish football entirely, since not one single member club of the SFA had the gumption even to abstain. So much for Lawell’s “dignified” silence. Has he bought himself a blazer and some brown brogues, by any chance?

But just think, I (and my money) was there for the taking by any west of Scotland club that was prepared to do the right thing. But not a single club in the whole of Scotland! Not even one. Truly amazing. Now where did I put those golf clubs?

neepheid Also Commented

The Existence of Laws
I would add to my comments last night that I have never suggested that one club only should show some transparency. I think every supporter in Scotland is entitled to hear from the club which they support, emotionally and financially, how that club voted and why.

If the answer is that Osborne was returned unopposed, with no vote taken, then what’s the big secret? Are we too stupid to be told stuff like that? Of course we would all draw our own conclusions, but at least our conclusions would be based on what actually happened. Was it Regan who promised transparency at the SFA, or is it just my imagination? What a joke. But really not funny.

The Existence of Laws
john clarke says:
June 11, 2013 at 8:52 pm
1 0 Rate This

neepheid says:
June 11, 2013 at 7:48 pm
‘..who expects to hear anything from Celtic regarding their position on the election of Ogilvie? ‘
Oh, come on! What would you expect to hear?

a) yes, we wholeheartedly cast our vote in favour

b) we strongly opposed it, but were a minority of one

c) we abstained

d)) there was no vote because no other candidate had been nominated


Yes, one of those four answers would be a start, and their reasons behind the way they voted would also be helpful. I have been a paying customer of the club for over half a century. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to ask to know where they stand on this issue, which is important to me, although apparently not to you. Sometimes silence speaks louder than words, so I will draw my own conclusions if silence is what I get.

The Existence of Laws
EKBhoy says:
June 11, 2013 at 8:16 pm

I suspect the CFC board are too busy quaffing champagne and sticking to carefully thought out business plans and made the correct decision to let the SFA continue to humiliate themselves

I hope they choke on their champagne, having contributed a bit to their bubbly fund over the years. They really have gone down the wrong road on this one, and humiliate themselves and every Celtic fan by their connivance and complicity. There is a lot more to life than money, and I would just love to tell them where to stick their carefully thought out business plans, except I don’t want to trouble the mods on this fine forum. I would prefer to watch Celtic play proudly in the junior leagues, than go along with this farce.

Recent Comments by neepheid

The Case for a New SFA.
Warburton recruits another of the Brentford backroom boys-

Looks like “Moneyball” is coming to Scotland with this one. And is there anyone left at Brentford- apart from former Ibrox Wonderkid Lewis Macleod?

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?

Just saw this after my previous post. It sort of ties in with my own thoughts on where this is going.

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?
I see that the RIFC share price has been on an upward trend for a few weeks now, it has reached 30p today from a low of 24p, admittedly on thin trading.

Am I being too cynical in thinking that the share price reflects the improved chances of RIFC getting rid of TRFC once and for all, while retaining the properties? If that can be done, and soon, then the shares look cheap at 30p. If it isn’t done, then all the future holds for the shares is dilution, as cash calls are made to keep TRFC afloat.

I think the market believes the football side is about to be ditched. I can’t make sense of a rising share price otherwise.

Podcast Episode 2 – Stuart Cosgrove
The Wallace statement just confirms for me that in business terms he is a lightweight, and that he is totally out of his depth in the Ibrox snakepit. Loads of words to say nothing- why not take the opportunity to answer King’s questions? The fact that he doesn’t confirm that the properties are unencumbered, for example, just invites the conclusion that they are, in fact, encumbered. To my simple way of thinking, anyway.

Podcast Episode 2 – Stuart Cosgrove
andy graham (@andygraham66) says:
Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 14:10

Sorry, I have just found the link within your post. Here it is anyway-

About the author