A Blog by James Forrest for TSFM
I am a socialist, and as a socialist I believe in the fundamental goodness of people. Some people find that hard to believe when they read the stuff I write.
I published my first novel recently, on politics and the corrupting nature of it, and it is a deeply cynical book, a book where no-one has clean hands come the end. What has surprised some of those who’ve read it is that I didn’t focus on the lies and smears of the right, but the hypocrisy and deceit of those who claim to be of the left.
Corruption, you see, doesn’t respect political boundaries or points of view. It’s like rainwater. It finds every crack, and gets in there.
My political beliefs revolve around two apparently paradoxical elements; the belief in the inherent decency of people and the need for a strong, and powerful, state. I believe the second underpins the first, and this brings me into conflict with a lot of people, some on the left and some on the right. Too many people see the state as inherently evil, as something that interferes too much in the lives of ordinary people. As something suffocating.
Yet the state exists to protect us. It exists to provide a safety net. It exists to regulate and to oversee. If the state is made up of bad people, if the gears of society are captured by those with malicious or selfish intent, the results are obvious; war, corruption, chaos.
The vast majority of our problems in the modern age can be neatly summed up in two lines from Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming”, which I used to open my novel. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
We live in a time when those who are protecting their own interests have assumed such power that they’ve cowed the rest of us. They have become a law unto themselves. They have changed the nature of the game, because they have sapped our will to the extent some barely put up a fight anymore. The weak get weaker, and the strong use their strength to crush the rest even more. It is a vicious struggle, a downward spiral.
Society is held together not only by the endeavour and common interests of its citizens but by a collection of laws. We elect the people who make those laws. They do so in our name, and we can remove that right every four years. That is a powerful thing, and we do not appreciate it enough. The present corruption exists because we allow it to exist.
The people around me continue to puzzle over my uncommon interest in the affairs of a football club on the west of Glasgow. My own club plays in the east end. I tell those who ask that my primary interest in the goings-on at the club calling itself Rangers is no longer about football; how could it be, after all? With promotion this year they are still a full two divisions below us, emasculated, skint, weak and unstable. If we were fortunate enough to draw them in cup competition the match would be over, as a tie, by the halfway point … in the first half.
In footballing terms they are an utter irrelevance.
Rangers is more than a football club to me. They are a symbol. Their unfolding calamity is an on-going outrage. What is happening there, what is being allowed to happen, is an offense to decency. It is a stain on the face of our country.
In short, it is a scandal. It is a scandal without parallel in sport.
Yet it’s not just a sports story either. If it was, I might not be so focussed on it. What is happening at Rangers is a colossal failure of governance. It is a damning indictment against the very people who are supposed to oversee our game. It is a disgraceful abrogation of responsibility from those at the top, those who claim to be “running things.”
If this is not a failure of governance it is a result of corruption at the heart of our national sport. It says they are bought and paid for, and I will say no such thing here.
So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. We’ll say instead that what they are is weak, indecisive, inept and disconnected from reality.
It reminds me of our political class, which has become insular and ignorant about what the public wants, and what it needs. It’s not a wonder parties like UKIP can achieve national vote shares of 25% at local elections. Nigel Farage strikes me as a dog-whistle politician, the kind who knows how to appeal to a select group of voters. He is little different to Charles Green, the man who beguiled Rangers fans into handing over large amounts of money, because he was “standing up for the club.” It is easy to do what he did, easy to do what Farage is doing.
Real leadership requires toughness. Say what you like about the Tories, but they have that in spades. Yeats was right about the worst being full of passionate intensity. Green was. Farage is. Cameron and Osborne personify it in their political outlook.
It is easy to be cowed by blunt force politics, and by “tough talking Yorkshire men” and venomous speeches about “strivers and skivers.” The politics of divide and conquer is the oldest form of politics there is, and it’s no surprise to see it practiced by some of the vested interests in the game here in Scotland. Yet, lest we forget … something significant happened last year. The maligned and the ignored, the weak and the voiceless found something they never realised they had. They discovered that, in a very real sense, the power was in their hands.
Last year, the fans rose up when the governing bodies and the media went all-out to save Rangers from the self-inflicted wounds caused by a decade of cheating, malpractice and ineptitude. I have no problem calling that what it was.
What happened at Rangers seemed incredible, but it was all too predictable, and some of us had been talking about it for years before it hit. The Association seemed caught in the headlights but it would amaze me if they really were as insular and ignorant as they appeared. They must have known how bad the outlook was for Rangers. They just chose to ignore it.
They were aided and abetted by a thoroughly disreputable media, a collection of cowards and compromisers, charlatans and frauds, masquerading as journalists, but who long ago laid aside any claim to be bold investigators and settled for commenting on events as they unfolded. More often than not, with their ill-informed opinions, sometimes due to weaknesses in intellect and others wilfully ignorant, they failed even in that.
Entire newspapers became PR machines for crooks and swindlers. They aided in the scam because they didn’t do their jobs, some because they were lazy, some because they were incompetent and others because they wanted a seat at the table and were willing to sacrifice whatever integrity they once had in exchange for one.
That all of this was embraced by the Rangers fans is amazing to me. They trusted when they should have been asking questions. They closed their eyes, covered their ears and sang their battle tunes at the top of their voices so they wouldn’t have to hear anything they didn’t like. As incredible as I found it then, and still find it now – and now, even more so, when they have already seen the results of it once – I find it pathetic too, and I do feel pity for some of them.
A lot of these people are genuine football fans, and nothing more. They have no interest in the phony narrow nationalism, or the over-blown religion, or the notion of supremacy which manifested itself in a ludicrous statement from McCoist when interviewed recently on Sky.
Some of the Rangers fans look at their team of duds, kids and journeymen, they look at a boardroom of cowards and crooks, they look at a failing manager in his first (and last) job in the game and at a dark future and are not in the least bit impressed by, or interested in, the chest-out arrogance espoused in those ridiculous words “we are the people.” They know full well that their present crisis was made by men like McCoist, and they understand that pretentious posturing is not an act born of strength, but a scrambling around in the gutter, and a symptom of weakness.
They understand their position, and they hate it. And because they care about Rangers, because they value the club, because they cherish those things that made it a great Scottish institution, they want that back. They understand that before the Union Jack waving, Sash singing, poppy wearing, Nazi saluting, Orange element became the public face of their support Rangers meant something else, and that, above all things, is what pains them the most.
People do not hate Rangers. When the country appeared to turn its back last year, they were turning the back on favouritism and the bending of rules. Yet it would be a lie to say that there is not an element of dislike in the gleeful mockery of many rival fans.
But they don’t hate Rangers either. They hate the version of it around which a certain section of the support continues to dance. They hate the version which hates, and so too do many, many, many Rangers supporters, and they definitely deserve better.
David Murray chose not to openly challenge that version. Indeed, he encouraged certain strands of it to flourish and grow, with his “Britishness Days” and his effort to turn the club into the “team that supports the troops.” Other clubs have done as much, if not more, for the British Army than the one that plays out of Ibrox. Other clubs have given more money. Other clubs have lent their support to those on the front lines. They just chose to do it with respect, and with class, and with dignity. They chose to do it in private, understanding that there eventually comes a tipping point between looking after the ends of the soldiers and using them to promote your own.
The army has not battened on to Rangers. Rangers has battened on to them, and although it is unclear when an altruistic motive became darker, what started out as a gesture of solidarity is now used to entrench division and promote a notion of superiority.
Craig Whyte took over from Murray and immediately understood the lure of the “dog whistle.” He knew too that the media would accept whatever he told them, without question, and as he spoke up for “Rangers traditions” he made sure the lunatic fringe was well onside. He met face to face with the hard-core extremists in the support first and made them his praetorian guard. They spoke up for him until the day the club entered administration.
So, whereas Murray pandered to them and Whyte used them to further his own ends, it was only a matter of time before someone suggested to Charles Green that he could use the same tactics to win over the support. He went even further and blatantly promoted and encouraged this mind-set, and stoked the hate and nonsense to frightening new heights. The same people who cheered Whyte to the rafters jumped on board the Big Blue Bus and the results are clear.
Through all of it, the ordinary Rangers fan has seen his club buffered against the rocks, battered, broken, smashed to smithereens and sunk. Now there’s a big hole in the side of the lifeboat, and they are terrified that further tragedies await.
They are right to be concerned. Much of the media is still not telling them what they need to know. The people in charge of their club – the owners who have lied, the former hack who covered up the truth about Whyte and now acts as a mouthpiece for Green, the “club legends” who are content to sup with the devil and take his greasy coin when they should be standing toe-to-toe with the fans – are trying to silence those members of the press who do have facts to present.
How many times now have media outlets been banned from Ibrox for daring to report the truth? The manager who demanded the names of a committee last year defends those inside the walls who are desperate to keep secret the things that are going on. He is either an unprincipled coward, or he is, himself, bought and paid for. The fans suffer for it.
The “inconvenient truth” is still being kept from them, and this denies them any chance to play an active role in their club. Indeed, it is all too possible that they’ve passed a point of no return, and that their club is heading for a new liquidation event and it can no longer be stopped.
In either case, their power has been eroded to the point at which they must feel they have nothing left to do but stand back and watch what happens next.
They are wrong. I am a socialist. I believe in the inherent good of people. I think the ordinary decent Rangers fans are the only people left who can save their club … and the means by which they will do it is as simple as it could be.
They must stand up for “big government.” They must embrace the need for a “strong state.” They must lobby the SFA, and they must trust the SFA and they must get the SFA to follow its own rules and thereby save them from any further harm.
There is a tendency amongst some Celtic fans to see our governing bodies as pro-Rangers. If it is true then those running our game are ruining Scottish football without benefiting the thing they love more. The incalculable harm that has been done to Rangers in the last 20 some months is a direct result of the subservient media and the willingness of the football authorities to be “deaf, dumb and blind.” Those who believe this has actually helped the Ibrox club have not been paying attention in class. It has irrevocably scarred them, and it may yet have played a hand in destroying them once and for all, as a force if not as a club entirely.
For years, the SFA sat and did nothing as a club in their association operated a sectarian signing policy. They did nothing whilst the fans sang sectarian songs. In their failure to act they strengthened those elements of the Rangers support, instead of isolating, alienating and eventually helping to eliminate those who saw that club as a totem pole of division and hate. Their failure over EBT’s, and their lack of scrutiny, led to one of the greatest scandals in the history of sport, and I say that with no equivocation at all. The testimony of their registrations officer in the Lord Nimmo Smith investigation was a disgrace and in years to come it will rank as one of the most disreputable and damaging moments in the association’s history.
The most egregious failures of all were the failures in the so-called “fit and proper person” tests, which allowed first Whyte and then Charles Green to assume controlling positions at Ibrox. They will pass the buck and say the responsibility lies with the club itself, in much the same way as they are content to let the club investigate itself at the present time, but any neutral who looks at this stance knows it is unprincipled and spineless. It’s like letting the defence set the terms at a trial. It is foxes investigating the chicken coop.
It is a blueprint for corruption, and a recipe for disaster.
It is now too late for the SFA to declare Green “unfit”, as it was too late when they finally slapped that title on Craig Whyte. He and his allies own Rangers, and they control its destiny. They can push the club to the wall if they choose, in the final extremity, if that gets them what they want. The time for changing that is past. The damage has already been done. The barbarians are not at the gates. They are inside the walls, and sacking the city.
The SFA will be forced to punish Rangers for the sins of the owners, for the second time in as many years, and whilst it is right that the club face up to that, all the better to send a message to other clubs and other owners, the SFA cannot be allowed to slither off the hook here as though this was none of their doing. Green will skip off into the sunset. Craig Whyte has yet to pay his fine. These people never cared about Scottish football and they don’t care now.
The SFA are supposed to. Our governing body is supposed to govern, for the good of the whole game, and not as a support system for a single club. What they have allowed to happen on their watch is absolutely shameful and if the people responsible were men at all, with any sense of accountability, they would resign en masse.
They can pretend ignorance, but only the truly ignorant would accept that. Craig Whyte was not inside Ibrox a week before RTC and other sites were dismantling his entire business history, with some of the people here doing the work the SFA would not. Whyte himself claims to have made the governing bodies aware of the scale of what was facing the club, and they did nothing at all. Heads should have rolled a year ago.
In October of last year, on this very site, I posted an article in which I wrote:
“Which isn’t to say the due diligence matter isn’t worrying, because, of course, it is. Again, no-one is going to convince me that the SFA has conducted proper due diligence on Charles Green and his backers. No-one will convince me they are satisfied that this club is in safe hands, and that the game in this country will not be rocked by a further implosion at Ibrox. They failed to properly investigate Craig Whyte, because of lax regulations requiring disclosure from the club itself, regulations which are just a joke, but they can be forgiven for that as the press was talking sheer nonsense about him having billions at his disposal, and a lot of people (but not everyone!) were either convinced or wanted to be convinced by him.
To have witnessed what Whyte did, to have witnessed the Duff & Phelps “process” of finding a buyer, and having Green essentially emerge from nowhere, with a hundred unanswered questions as to his background and financing, for the SFA to have given this guy the go ahead, only for it to blow up in their faces later, would annihilate the credibility of the governing body and necessitate resignations at every level. There would be no hiding place.”
There are times when it is fun to be right, but this is not one of them. It is dispiriting and disquieting to have been so on the nose. It scares the Hell out of me, as someone who loves football in this country, to have seen this matter clearly when the people running our game apparently either did not or chose to ignore very real, very obvious, concerns. The Internet Bampots had no special insight or access to information that was denied those at the SFA. We just weren’t prepared to ignore it and pretend that it wasn’t there. There was too much at stake.
I have become convinced that things will never change until the Rangers supporters join us in demanding the full and unabridged truth here. They need to come out from under the bed, and confront their fears. They need to be willing to take the consequences, so that their club can emerge clean from this, and start again, with all this behind them.
And it can all happen with one simple thing. The application of the rules.
The existence of laws comes down to a simple principle; they protect society from those elements within it who are interested only in their own selfish ends. We may cry out at those rules and regulations we see as “restrictive”, but the law was not made to restrict our freedoms but to protect them. Had the SFA years ago acted against Rangers sectarian signing policy, and the songs from the stands, the club would not have mutated to the point where there was no help on hand when they needed it the most. Let’s not kid ourselves about this; Whyte and Green were only able to grab control because the club itself has a dreadful image which put off respectable and responsible buyers. The SFA could have helped change that perception years ago and did nothing.
The SFA could have conducted its own investigation into who Craig Whyte was. They could have asked David Murray for full disclosure when he was running up £80 million of debt, a sum of money that is beyond belief for a single club in a small provincial backwater league. Had they had the guts to do that the club would never have spent itself into oblivion and forced the hand of Lloyds, which led indirectly to their ignominious end.
The SFA could have fully investigated Charles Green and the means by which he took control, instead of rushing through a license. His emergence at the last minute was transparently suspicious and designed to force them into a quick decision, but they did not have to bow to that pressure by making one, without being in possession of the facts, as it is now 100% clear they were not.
Had they asked for every document, had they insisted on legal affidavits and personal securities from investors (and this would have been perfectly legitimate and is common place in other licensing areas) none of this would have come to pass. After Craig Whyte they had a moral responsibility to the rest of the game to get this one right and their failure is without parallel in the history of Scottish football.
As the club hurtles towards a new abyss, names are cropping up which should send a shudder down the spines of every honest, genuine supporter of not only Rangers but every team in the land. The SFA claims that a strong Rangers is essential for the sake of Scottish football, but they have been extraordinarily lax in protecting that club, and therefore the game, from destructive elements. Craig Whyte and Charles Green had dubious personal histories, and the acquisition of the club itself was mired in controversy and scandal. Yet it was allowed.
Neither Green nor Whyte were known to have operated outside the law, yet neither was worthy of trust or stood up to scrutiny. Neither man should ever have been granted the status as fit and proper persons to assume a role in our national sport, and if it is true of them what can we say about the three men who are, presently, being touted as the Great White Hopes for a bright, new Rangers future; Dave King and the Easdale brothers?
King recently cut a deal with the South African government over an on-going dispute over taxes. In other words, he pled guilty and accepted the central plank of their argument; that for years he was engaged in wilfully with-holding vast revenues from their Treasury. The media does not like to put it like that, and the SFA seems willing to ignore it utterly, and this would be scandalous enough. But it does not stop there. HRMC rules – as well as the SFA’s own governance documents – actually bar him from serving on the board of the new club.
Last but not least, aside from being an admitted tax cheat, King is also awaiting trial in South Africa, having been indicted for corruption, forgery and fraud – 300 charges in total. Yet as recently as last week, we were told that the Association was willing to look at him and consider representations from his lawyers. This is almost beyond belief.
If Dave King’s position is untenable, and he is yet to be convicted of a crime, what can we say about the position of the Easdale’s? One of the two brothers, Sandy, has already served jail time. He is a convicted criminal, a fraudster nonetheless, who’s “victim” was the same Treasury who are appealing one case involving the old club and liquidated it entirely over another. This is precisely the kind of “businessman” the fit and proper person test was supposed to weed out, and if the SFA holds its nose here the reek will stink out the halls at Hampden for decades. If King or the Easdale’s are judged fit and proper, then who exactly is the test for? What exactly do you have to do to fail it? How do we explain the existence of laws, when these are not applied?
Pascal says “Law without force is impotent.” The SFA’s weakness has allowed one version of Rangers to destroy itself, and has allowed an existential risk to another. If the next power at Rangers resides in South Africa or Greenock I can say with some certainty that the Association is engaged in an even more dangerous roll of the dice, because the surfacing of fresh scandal will be an ever present risk, and will be of the sort no-one will survive.
The damage to Scottish football will take years to heal. The Scottish game has been through enough trauma. It does not need more. It barely survived the last calamity to hit Rangers. The rest of us should not be forced to pay the price of the next one.
The greater damage will be done to Rangers itself. If the Green crisis ends in another collapse – as it well might; another administration event is a certainty, and another liquidation is a much more likely prospect than it was before 14 February 2012 – the club will once again have to start from the bottom, and this time the reputational damage will be impossible to repair. The club faces internal strife, sporting sanctions, and criminal investigations. The last takeover might be declared a fraud. the Whyte takeover will almost certainly be. The share issue might be invalid, as well as criminal, and the people involved may well end up in jail. Lawsuits could follow from investors, there could be as yet unknown consequences from the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal (thank you Brogan Rogan for pointing out what those might be) and a host of other issues.
Rangers fans must be the loudest voices here. How do you want the world to view your club in years to come? Do you want one to be proud of, or one forever associated with the shame and disgrace of these days gone by? The one which bailed out on its tax obligations. The one with supporters who disgrace your very name. The one which allowed Whyte and Green to take you to the cleaners and send you to the wall. The one which handed over control to one convicted criminal and another awaiting trial. Do you want to be reborn clean, or mired in the muck?
David Murray destroyed your financial stability. He made it so no bank would issue you a line of credit and no investor of note wanted to buy. Craig Whyte liquidated you. Charles Green has cast the future of the Newco into doubt and acted in a manner which has annihilated your credibility with the financial markets for decades to come.
Between these three men, they have taken everything from you, and the press and the people who run the game here, as well as some of your own blindly ignorant fans, have allowed them to do all this and more. Now they conspire to hand the keys to Ibrox to other men of questionable character, who will wreck further havoc on the reputation of the club.
The Scottish Football Association has damaged the game it was supposed to protect, but above all else their greatest failure of governance was a failure to protect one of its biggest clubs from its own excesses and those of its owners.
Rangers fans, the SFA have betrayed your trust, more than the trust of any other club. What you must insist on now is full disclosure and transparency from the powers that be in Hampden. The SFA has to end the charade of allowing your club to handle this in-house. They must hand everything over to an outside agency – whether a legal one, or a footballing body like UEFA – and they must demand co-operation and answers, and threaten to withhold the license if they don’t get them.
You must not be afraid of that. You must embrace it. The men with their hands on the gears at Ibrox are motivated by money, and nothing more. If the license is withdrawn their “investments” are worthless. They cannot risk that.
You must demand that the rules on fit and proper persons are applied, and where necessary even made stronger, to prevent your club falling into unclean hands. You must demand that they protect your reputation from further damage, by getting this all out there and acting accordingly, even if that means your club does not play football for at least a year.
You must be willing to suck it all up, knowing that what will emerge is a Rangers which has been cleansed and moves forward with honour, and dignity, led by custodians who treasure it rather than those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The Rangers Standard has recently emerged as a genuine voice for those in your support who are sick and tired of what Rangers has become, and want it restored to something that is worthy of the love and respect in which you hold it. On that website, there are discussions about the kind of club you seek to be and about whether the institution of Rangers is about more than just football.
If that’s how you feel about it then you know it is about more than how many titles the club can claim, about more than just results on the park, about more than just the game. Rangers, like Celtic, is an idea. It has to be something you are proud of.
I am a socialist, but one with a fevered imagination and a tendency to write very dark things. This piece won’t have been good reading for some of you (perhaps all of you haha!) but I think there’s more hope in here than in other things I’ve written.
In spite of everything that’s come to pass, I still believe. I believe in Scottish football. I believe in our system of football governance, even if those who are working in it are failing on some level.
In society, as much as we strain against them, laws exist for our protection. To fail to enforce them is to leave us at the mercy of those elements who would do us harm. The rules of football ensure the protection of all clubs, not just a few.
The failure to enforce the rules has never had graver consequences than here in Scotland. The irony is that bending and breaking them has hurt the one club those violations were designed to help. It cannot be allowed to happen again.
The rules must be applied without fear or favour.
The best must find their conviction, and their passionate intensity once more.
James is a co-editor of the On Fields of Green Blog http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/
Celtic Paranoia (@CelticParanoia) says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 12:34
No, and now you’re being silly at best.
If you had included my very next sentence in that post it might have helped answer your apparent question. But don’t let that stop you from blocking out all non-positive posts about your club if it makes you happy/paranoid.
paulsatim
@ 10:13
Sorry but, that made me smile 🙂
Celtic Paranoia (@CelticParanoia) says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 13:13
You can make all the assumptions you like, Mr Paranoia, but I appreciate the head of steam you’re working up there.
However, I have no idea what the coaching regime at Celtic was like under Strachan, nor the psychology of Barry Robson. What I can tell you is that he was the most embarrassing diver I have ever seen at United, and that when he moved to Celtic he became a much better diver, albeit I saw much less of him so could not say if he dived any less or not. I was particularly looking out for him as an ex-player I had fond and infuriated memories of, and was interested to see how his theatrics played at one of the Old Firm. Turned out they disappeared.
Maybe he just grew up, or maybe someone at Celtic had a word with him. If the latter, I wish somebody at United had done the same several years earlier.
I believe it was Sir Alex Ferguson who expressed the perfectly reasonable explanation that if Man Utd had more of the possession, were attacking more, and were in the opponents penalty box more then it was perfectly simple why they got more decisions in their favour and more penalties.
And also, if the opponents are on the whole slower and less skilled then they are more likely to commit a foul. Not because they are more dirty players, or are cheating, simply that they are not as fast and not as good. their tackles are less likely to be well timed or well made.
Put the two together and you have certain teams appearing to get more decisions in their favour.
I’m sure that happens in England, Spain, Italy , Germany and everywhere else. Look at SPL teams playing lower division clubs in the cup for example. I’m quite sure those teams feel that the referee was biased in favour of the “big” club.
paulmac2 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 11:58
I’m impressed that you can honestly lay claim to Henrik Larsson’s thought processes! Quite a privilege.
@ Celtic Paranoia
OK maybe it’s just the bad blood between my club and oldco that makes certain examples stick in my mind. But decision bias in favour of your club has always existed. The problem is that you only care about the decisions that went against you in OF games
Here’s just a few
The ridiculous over reaction to snowballgate
Assault on Gordon Strachan
Dodgy penalties in both games in April ’80 when we needed to win both to win the title – still did though 😉
The excuses for referees that were Eddie Smith and Willie Colum
Stokes challenge on Jamie Hammill
Boruc karate kick on Dargo
Balde heads ball out for a goal kick, Celtic get corner and score (against Well?)
Haining sent off for being fouled by Venegor of Hesselink
Balde’s obvious handball in Cup FInal v Pars, not given
McManus scoring with his hand against Falkirk
Sending of off Fyssas after a dive by Maloney
Juanjo versus Lennon
McStay punches Vrto, both sent off despite Vrto having only committed a nothing foul
Andy Webster elbowing himself
That’s not to mention umpteen unpunished challenges from Balde, Hartson, Sutton, Aitken, McGrain, etc, etc
To balance out the Richard Gough quote, Frank McAvennie:
When you’re playing against the big teams you don’t get the decisions. When I was at St. Mirren we didn’t get some of the decisions we should have got. We never got any against the Old Firm
chipm0nk says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 13:37
Good points, chipm0nk. The pathetic bleating of fans about how such and such a team gets more penalties than they do is never backed up by any credible evidence. I’m not saying some teams don’t get more than their fair share, I just don’t know and neither does anyone else. Citing individual mistaken penalty awards doesn’t prove anything apart from that referee made a mistake or that player conned the ref.
It’s perfectly reasonable to expect the Old Firm to have been awarded many more penalties than their rivals in the past decades as they have been so utterly dominant in that time and consequently spend a lot more time in their opponents’ penalty areas.
madbhoy24941 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 11:51
You don’t think Larsson ever cheated? Ever? I’m incredulous that you could believe that of any player.
I find it hard to take an opinion seriously when he who holds it is unable to find any fault in their heroes, individual or club.
It’s that kind of attitude that has landed the Ibrox club’s followers in the woeful position they find themselves, but the same principles apply to fans of all other holding companies/clubs/collection of assets.
Night Terror says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 13:48
It’s perfectly reasonable to expect the Old Firm to have been awarded many more penalties than their rivals in the past decades as they have been so utterly dominant in that time and consequently spend a lot more time in their opponents’ penalty areas.
____________________________________________________________________
No it’s not. It’s just another theory not backed up by any credible evidence.
Also, picked this up off another Club’s fansite – but to be honest it could have come from any non-OF team:
====================================================================
It’s not even the high profile dodgy decisions, it’s the drip-drip-drip of constant low-level cheating by the refs (and cheating is what it is) that stops the non-OF teams from competing :
– the throw-ins and corners that go to them whenever it’s not clear who touched it last (or even sometimes when it’s very clear that it was them)
– the neverending persistent fouling they can get away with whereas our players get booked for their first or second challenge
– the constant offsides given against us, compared to the way the flag stays down if it’s them attacking in a similar position
– the constant intimidation of the referees that’s goes unpunished, swearing at them, shouting in their faces, even pushing them without red or even yellow cards, imagine non-OF players getting away with that?
Someone mentioned not being able to get any momentum going – that sums it up nicely. You get on the attack, they foul you, no foul given – they’re on the attack and not you anymore. They’re on the attack, you win the ball fairly, foul given – they remain on the attack when it should be you attacking. Happens time and time again throughout a game. Cheating plain and simple.
Hi TSFM,
I’ve tried to post a couple of times without success – the last one was just after the St Mirren vote regards reconstruction when CE gave it the big licks and you came out to defend – am I on a banned list or something?
I currently do some work with a company who used to employ Mather (then called “The Slaver”) and have a few snippets / anecdotes to contribute.
Cheers.
@zerotolerance1903
I don’t recognise your points as being part of my perception of the game.
Fans are dreadfully prone to confirmation bias and only remember the ills they perceive being done to their club. I’ve seen us play one of the OF and had no complaints about the fairness of the result. I’ve seen us play other clubs and seen us have a run of terrible decisions against and for us.
I’d be interested to see an analysis of refereeing decisions for certain clubs, but as I’ve never ever seen one…
I do have fond and bitter memories of a certain Mark DeVries goal celebration for United against Rangers (as was) when he was booked for checking with the referee and linesman that the goal was not to be disallowed.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 13:55
…the constant intimidation of the referees that’s goes unpunished, swearing at them, shouting in their faces, even pushing them without red or even yellow cards, imagine non-OF players getting away with that?
——
Right enough, you’d never have catched Willie Miller trying to influence the referee. 🙂
The fact is, everyone knows that the OF got the decisions (except the odd one, so that they’d have something to throw back at you).
OF(il) fans will be mostly unable to see this. You’ll always give your own team the benefit of the doubt – I know I always did.
And aye, Larsson turned into a right fairy in the box. Super player to watch, but everyone knew he’d go down if a defender breathed on him and there was a chance of a penalty or free-kick around the area. Again, CFC fans probably won’t see that, but everyone else certainly did.
To all the Celtic fans busily TDing posts that are discussing dodgy decisions in favour of their team, consider this:
Are the non-OF fans reacting to the fact that the “big team” tends to get more than their fair share of decisions or the fact that fans of one of said big teams wants to deny that they do?
paulmac2 says:
The best player you will ever see who knew exactly how to gain a foul or Pen….was Alan Shearer…if you get teh chance have a look…he knew exactly were a defender was…and he admitted that in the box he would simply wait for the contact and offer no resistence whatsoever!
all pros do it…the best know how to do it well…whether we like it or not…that ain’t cheating..
—————————————————————————————————————
I agree with the above apart from the last bit. Agreed regarding Shearer, as a pundit he is worse, calls a penalty for everything and anything. Is going over without sufficient force in the challenge not cheating? I’m not so sure. There is also the caveat that if a defender is booting lumps out of you for 90 mins and and the striker is a bit cute in the last minute to win the game….well ok these things happen.
The Premier League was brutal in the past and it had to change, but sometimes I think players can play for the pen/free kick rather than just play the ball, yes most do it…..that don’t make it right either. I think NT’s original point was that PP is being hounded for doing something everyone does….he just did it badly, but the intent amounts to the same.
As others have pointed out there is a bias towards big clubs, yes it is the crowd, and also the share of play, but also the power of big clubs to pressure refs….Man U being a good example, most officials would rather not be the subject of SAF’s hairdryer on the back pages, anyone who thinks SAF did not use and abuse this situation is deluded. It is a similar situation with all big clubs, they have power and influence built into their very core. So if you are a fan of a ‘big’ club, don’t expect us diddies to ignore this fact any time soon….it is the price you pay to counter balance the perennial trophy wins. (you still get the best deal! 😉 )
This is an article I wrote on why Rangers & Celtic get the lions share of decisions. Its a couple of years old now>>>>>>>>
Human Referee’s unfortunately can’t be the impartial, objective arbiters they want to be and want us to think they are. And, if we expect them to be we’re likely to be dissapointed. Here’s why the old firm get the lion’s share of decisions ….
I’m no behavioural psychologist but I am involved in Marketing and part of that is understanding why people make decisions they do. So I’ve an interest and an understanding of this. Plus, I’ve read many books like Blink (Malcolm Gladwell), Influence, etc. which all point to the same systems/processes in the brain for decision making.
Deep within the human brain lives the amygdala. It is the most primitive part of the brain and we can’t consciously access its wisdom. Its circuits fire faster than other parts of the brain and it is separate from our conscious brain. Its sole purpose it to keep us safe, and prevent us from taking risk.
Now imagine this – Rangers forward flying into the penalty box at Ibrox. Defender tackles – huge scream . Referee who hails and works in the central belt, who’s family goes to school there and who’s a human (and probably a brain – though that is debatable). Amygdala kicks into action. Mouth starts expelling air, hand starts to go up. Conscious brain kicks in trying to make sense of the situation – starts confirming that it was a penalty because the ball moved. Didn’t it?
Well that’s the funny thing, the conscious brain is now under pressure to confirm what the amygdala told it –and can actually over rule information coming in via your senses. All designed to give you the best chance of survival. Get you out of the situation and into safety. Don’t argue this IS happening says the amygdala! And worse, the hippocampus (concious brain) stores this away for use next time, effectively programming the same behaviour for next time.
So penalty it is then. And the next time too.
Referee’s cheats? Not consciously. In fact not even deliberately. They’re human, designed to work the same way as you and me and this is the way split second/emergency/high stress decisions work.
The best way to manage this is to train them in decision making for example like Shoot/No Shoot research going on at Abertay University in Dundee, sometimes known as amygdala retraining.
It’s definitely not to say ‘ok referee’s you’re always right’, because they can’t be and there should be an understanding of the science that underpins decision making at the top of Football because this would lead to a long-term improvement rather than you can’t ever criticise us …. so 19th century.
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here…
TSFM appears to be finished early for the weekend, so I’ll say it for him….
nothing will be gained by debating refereeing decisions for/against their team and this is not the place for it
please return to your own clubs supporter forums for such chat.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 09:26
16 0 i
Rate This
===============================
JMcD? AKA “The submarine”??
OOOPS! Way too late with that one… 🙁
I seemed to remember the late great Bob Crampsey doing some sort of analysis of penalties and cards in OF games. In searching for it I found the following:
Celtic’s paranoia over refereeing is typical of Old Firm rivalry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/feb/26/celtic-paranoia-refereeing-old-firm
Debates over which team got what are common, but the timing of Celtic’s leaked complaint to the SFA just muddies the waters
Text message of this week: “All Scottish tournaments from 1890 to 2002. Red cards – Celtic 575, Rangers 622. Yellow cards – Celtic 1522, Rangers 1777. Penalties for Celtic – 1027, for Rangers 895. Penalties against Celtic – 328, penalties against Rangers 459.”
The good news is that some individual with too much time on their hands sat down and worked this all out in an attempt to solve a petty argument. The late Bob Crampsey, a giant among Scottish football broadcasters and journalists, is credited with producing the above statistics. As a Third Lanark supporter, it seems safe to assume Bob had no prior agenda.
Still, the very fact Crampsey, or anyone, felt compelled to trawl through what basically represent historical irrelevances highlights much of the nonsense attached to the Old Firm. The paranoia – neither set of supporters likes that term much – the obsession as much with the opposition as their own team and the desperate rush to claim that success has arrived despite every conspiratorial force in the world. Quite often it is highly amusing, at other times utterly tiresome. A debate regarding which team got what, when they got it and what the consequence was could drive a member of the temperance society to drink.
Step forward Celtic, who this week entered into highly dubious territory by a poorly timed leak of sensitive information. It was BBC Scotland who claimed the scoop on Wednesday evening, quoting a “Celtic source” thus: “We are considering contacting the SFA to highlight our concerns at some of the major decisions we feel have gone against us this season. The refereeing performances are a concern and a frustration to us.”
The tear-jerking stuff followed. Poor Robbie Keane is suffering in the SPL because he is simply too fast, added Celtic’s Deep Throat. “It seems that officials are struggling to keep up with his pace. Several key offside decisions have gone against him purely because of his speed.”
So there we have it. Anyone who can complete 100 metres in under 12 seconds needn’t bother with Scottish football. Just as well the bold Robbie is only here for a few months. Meanwhile, reports that Usain Bolt will run the line at upcoming Celtic games are apparently wide of the mark.
More serious, of course, is the timing of Celtic’s veiled message. Referees in Old Firm encounters are scrutinised more seriously than the expenses of your local MP; poor Dougie McDonald has just had the intensity on his own performance this weekend multiplied tenfold. Which was probably the source’s wish with a Celtic trip to Ibrox beckoning on Sunday.
Celtic are perfectly entitled to raise concerns about referees, as is every other club, even if their own players and management team is more worthy of criticism for their efforts to date this season. The intriguing aspect of this case is that the club’s chief executive, Peter Lawwell, has done so in writing to the Scottish FA with an understandable insistence that such correspondence is treated in the strictest confidence. It doesn’t look very clever for Mr Lawwell when someone at his own club feeds such information to the media, a matter rightly alluded to by George Peat, the president of the SFA.
“We find it disappointing and somewhat bizarre that, in the build-up to an Old Firm derby, an unnamed Celtic ‘source’ would seek to exert additional pressure on match officials,” Peat said. So the governing body are clear; this was an entirely deliberate ploy.
There are secondary yet important issues to this case. It is strange, for example, that the team manager, Tony Mowbray, has not elected to raise any concerns with the SFA. The association insist Mowbray is the only manager in the SPL who has not, as is accepted procedure, phoned the SFA’s head of refereeing development for a chat regarding individual cases. Given Mowbray’s tetchy relationship with the Scottish media, you would get long odds on him being behind the BBC’s information – something the manager would be entitled to be slightly miffed about.
Mowbray has better things to occupy his mind, one would hope, as he attempts to break his Old Firm managerial duck. The dynamic of Sunday’s game has changed slightly on account of the postponement of Rangers’ game against St Johnstone last Saturday – a Celtic win at Ibrox would edge them to within four points of their old foes – but it remains by far the biggest 90 minutes of Mowbray’s short tenure.
Given the failings of Celtic so far this season, it would take the delusional to believe they could overhaul Rangers at the summit of the SPL if a home win occurs this weekend. Ten points, with a game in hand, should be a definitive advantage for Walter Smith’s men.
Rangers’ strength lies in players who are familiar with this fixture and basic defensive strength. Kris Boyd and Kenny Miller will also fancy their chances against a makeshift and porous Celtic defence. Celtic’s can be found in attacking prowess, typified by Keane, Diomansy Kamara, Marc-Antoine Fortuné and Aiden McGeady, who is available again following suspension. Joking aside, the speed of Keane could and should present a meaningful problem for the 39-year-old Davie Weir.
With any luck, such issues will prompt Monday’s conversation. There is quite enough resting on this fixture without the kind of deep-rooted analysis of referees, which reasonably minded people can do without.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 14:04
TSFM appears to be finished early for the weekend, so I’ll say it for him….
nothing will be gained by debating refereeing decisions for/against their team and this is not the place for it
please return to your own clubs supporter forums for such chat.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Correct and I am the first to admit there is refereeing bias in Old Firm v Diddy team games.
Are the non-OF fans reacting to the fact that the “big team” tends to get more than their fair share of decisions or the fact that fans of one of said big teams wants to deny that they do?
—————————————————————————————————————–
Good question Zero!
I take NTHM’s point – he’s right and we really should keep such discussions to the fan boards.
However, I would venture to suggest that every supporter regardless of team, has at least one (or as we’ve seen today a LOT more than one 🙂 ) time that they keep within themselves as a perfect example of cheating being visited upon his or her team – and will not hesitate to bring it up whenever the opportunity arises.
Today just happens to have been one of those opportunities.
Oh Dear
Jon Daly broke the hearts of thousands of Dundee United football fans when he lined up a move to Rangers.
And the skipper has now come in for sickening sectarian abuse through the internet.
But the taunts haven’t come from Tangerines supporters — they’re from fans of the Irish striker’s new club.
Yesterday the Evening Telegraph revealed Jon Daly would play his last game for Dundee United on Sunday and is expected to sign for Third Division side Rangers next week.
One fan of the Ibrox club reacted to the news by posting on Twitter “**** off Jon Daly” and adding a sectarian slur.
The tweet has been shared dozens of times across social media sites and online football discussion forums.
The original poster then hit back at critics by defiantly repeating more sectarian phrases.
Another poster earlier promised to welcome Daly to Ibrox with a rendition of a song about the potato famine and said he was “not welcome”.
Daly’s Wikipedia page was also altered to state that the striker had “sold his soul”.
When the Evening Telegraph contacted Jon Daly the footballer declined to comment on the social media posts.
United fans defended Daly.
Mark McMahon, secretary of the Federation of Dundee United Supporters’ Clubs, said the tweets were “painfully sad”.
He said: “Jon has been a great servant to Dundee United. He has been a standout captain and represented the club really well.
“He’s won the Scottish Cup and led us into Europe and it will be tinged with sadness when Jon plays his last game for us on Sunday.
“I think it is painfully sad that in this day and age that a guy’s country of origin or religion matters a jot.
“I know certainly from a Dundee United point of view that we will be sorry to see Jon go.
“And the vast majority of supporters will join me in sending their best wishes to him and good luck for the future.
“Only Jon will know inside if he will be able to take that sort of criticism.
“It’s a shame.”Dundee United star targeted by bigots
torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 10:26
BBC News – Why is violent crime so rare in Iceland? http://bbc.in/YZ1o8F
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
……Is it because only Farmfoods is open on a bank holiday ..?
Don’t post much,keep up to date though.I’m going to leave this alone for a day or so in the hope the bias thread has moved on;its pointless,we all have hard luck stories.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 14:10
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m trying to get off this subject – honestly – but every time I see examples like yours then they have to be challenged. You should have picked a better one than this – given the outrageous display Dougie McDonald and his assistants gave that afternoon.
As the article said, McDonald would be under scrutiny. Pity it took another seven months to have him scrutinised out the door.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142046684/dont-tell-murray
charlotte returns !
We’re off again:
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 1m
CW v Ticketus appeal. He forgot to mention this email exchange,so here’s a free reminder you scallywag. Implications?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142046684/dont-tell-murray …
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 14:04
Well said
nevilleprat says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 14:29
Wise move, couldn’t agree more.
+++++++++
My only input.
I’ve mentioned it before, there isn’t one single player who enters a field of play doesn’t try and cheat or gain an unfair advantage and you expect the referees to get it right every time! A decision has to be made in an instant and you may not even have seen it properly, play can move quicker than the eye. For a linesman to call perfect offside decision he would need to be skelly eyed with one eye on the guy in possession and the other on the players attacking the goal. By the time you have watched a ball been hit and then caught the forward play people have moved. Tell me what player hasn’t pulled a shirt, made a bad tackle and claimed innocence, claimed for a shy that wasn’t his, claimed for an offside that wasn’t, going to ground on a tackle kept a leg high in order to trip an opponent. All this and poor referring decisions are part and parcel of the game and having TV evidence will make no difference because how often on MOTD do the pundits argue with the benefit of TV evidence. Chill guys chill and take all this stuff elsewhere for debate. Those who criticise referees out to try it out for a day but all the nonsense is what keeps the debate going and the interest in football in pubs and blogs up and down the country.
I don’t know what Jon Daly’s options are , although they seem somewhat limited, however on a footballing basis only, Rangers is a poor choice.
The so called “big signings” for SFL3 had a terrible time of it. There is nothing to suggest things will be any better this time around.
The Sandaza signing was trumpeted as a coup, and indeed he was a good SPL player. However a few poor games and he was targeted by the support. He didn’t have the additional problem Daly will have to face. Add in the huge uncertainty over the entire future of the club, and it seems a very strange choice to make
I can’t help but think Daly’s agent should be working a bit harder to give him a better range of options
Okay children. Please stop the ref stuff. It’s getting tiresome and clogging up the blog.
Anything further will be removed.
parmahamster says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 14:36
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 14:10
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m trying to get off this subject – honestly – but every time I see examples like yours then they have to be challenged. You should have picked a better one than this – given the outrageous display Dougie McDonald and his assistants gave that afternoon.
As the article said, McDonald would be under scrutiny. Pity it took another seven months to have him scrutinised out the door.
______________________________________________________________
I knew I should have edited out the last 2/3 of the article as it wasn’t really relevant. I only wanted to share the Bob Crampsey stats.
For the record, I also thought McDonald had a shocker that day and I don’t doubt as the more favoured big club Rangers generally got more than their fair share in OF games.
Happy to let it lie now.
mullach says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 10:59
What are the FSA licenses. Didn’t know the FSA issued licenses,
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 11:21
Yes plus:-
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/doing/do
The FSA has now become two separate regulatory .
The Financial Conduct Authority can be found at http://www.fca.org.uk and the Prudential Regulation Authority at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk.
Archived versions of the FSA site are available at the National Archives.
“You need to establish whether your firm’s proposed business requires you to apply for authorisation to carry on regulated activities”
Anyone can check:-
The FSA Register
search our Register for firms, individuals and investment schemes that are, or have been, regulated by us.
Go to the FSA Register
The Register is a public record of all the firms, individuals and other bodies that we regulate. Find out how to use the Register and what to consider when searching for a firm, individual or investment scheme.
Our Register has information on all firms that are, or have been:
• authorised by us;
• registered to conduct regulated activities; or
• provide certain products or services in the UK.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 11:41
Back on the subject of FSA/FCA licensing.
It would no doubt be easier for Whyte to acquire a company that was already licensed than to convince the regulator that a new venture of his should be approved to carry out regulated activities.
I would imagine that he would have to also not take a role that would require him to meet the FCA’s approved person test!
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Even if he acquired a Company which carried out regulated activities he would still require approval from that company’s Compliance Officer (fit and proper test) and you are right he would not be able to take any Controlling Director role.
Ianjs, Ex.compliance (Insurance) retired.
Charlotte’s out of her bed 😉
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142046684/dont-tell-murray
re; http://www.scribd.com/doc/142046684/dont-tell-murray
is this more proof that octopus/ticketus were “in on it”…a la mr ‘grier’, who craig whyte claimed knew what was going on and indeed was “helping/advising” during the takeover from SDM ?
ianjs@ 15:06 separate regulatory BODIES. oops
Am I missing something regarding the relevance of Paul Hassall in CF’s tweets? Who he?
torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 14:56
We’re off again:
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 1m
CW v Ticketus appeal. He forgot to mention this email exchange,so here’s a free reminder you scallywag. Implications?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142046684/dont-tell-murray …
______________________________________________________________
So, we’re saying that ticketus (as part of Octopus) has had a longer relationship with Whyte than has been public.
Interesting to have confirmation but it has been long suspected and posters such as newtz has been telling us this for a while.
CW has not (yet) used this as part of his defence with Ticketus. Why? Becuase they’re part of one choreographed performance? Because he hasn’t needed to yet? Bacause does not want this known for some other reason? Because he wants Ticketus to drop it without going to court again?
Hassall’s a journalist isn’t he?
Which Murray aren’t we telling? David?
Someone with a twitter account may want to ask PH for his reaction.
https://twitter.com/Paul_Hassall
I bet it’s this Paul right here:
http://www.sjpp.co.uk/dornworth/
Isn’t there a SDM connection with St James’s Place – the wealth managers for the very wealthy when it comes to hiding stuff and being very aggressive when it comes to tax planning. In fact didn’t they have some bother recently?
I don’t understand the relevence of that email.
People included on the mail:
Paul Hassall – company unknown to me
Phil Betts, Craig Whyte of
Ross Bryan & John Thorpe of Octopus – the company everyone knows is behind Ticketus. So what?
Sam Jermy – never heard of him
Leon Clarance – financier, involved in Film Funding – a popular “investment” for footballers recently http://www.motionpicturecapital.com/our-people/leon-clarance
CF has named her Scribd upload “Don’t Tell Murray” but I don’t see any reference to a Murray in that exchange.
It may indicate a link between film financing and the various sub-trusts or whatever they’re called in the Ticketus/Octopus deal structuring.
Doesn’t film-financing have a history of just being an elaborate tax dodge which pays up to the investor either way, irrelevant of whether the film investment makes them any money?
I guess that email should be read alongside the ones published by Mark Daly between Betts and Bryan and Grier of Duff & Phelps.
You know the ones where he said he didn’t know about the Ticketus deal but it was shown that he did!
@zerotolerance
Betts knew of Ticketus involvement – big deal. I don’t see what that email specifically adds in itself. Certainly not related to CW & Ticketus court case.
Night Terror says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 15:10
I think it was established that he is a chum of Wulston Early, which links him to Mr Whyte
Was there ever any doubt that Betts knows Whyte?
Boring, until this means anything.
That St James Place lot – apparently partially owned by Lloyds Bank.
If I´ve got the wrong Paul Hassall, I apoligize.
If there is any doubt, a quick tweet could help clear it up.
Did someone mention St James Place ………… Over on Paul McC site I gave the link to …….. Metro Bank ………… as I said at the time ………. CG has broken the circle ……. !
Now who is Manchester United Charles ?
Re the Jon Daily signing for TRFC.
We all know it is a short career and players need to earn as much as possible in a short period but………How much money would someone need to be handed to accept the racist and boggited rants that he knew fine well would follow his putting pen to paper?
He is obviousley not a stupid man and I am sure he has good advisors but again is earning a few extra quid going to be worth all the bile aimed at him from the ‘fans’ of his new club?
Night Terror says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 15:37
Was there ever any doubt that Betts knows Whyte?
Boring, until this means anything.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But what it also says is Hassall KNOWS about the Rangers deal – not heard a rumour or a somebody said type comment – How does he know?
The RB email also says “I think it would be in our interests to ensure Paul does not reference us with the deal”. RB has silenced Sam Lermy at his end and he is asking CW/PB to use the channels available to them for someone to speak to Paul about the need for client confidentiality. Who do we know who could speak to Paul?
Charlotte is busy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142055727/what-murray-knew
I think it was Nat King Cole who first sang “Unforgettable” and that could be the anthem for new Rangers CEO Craig Mather.
Movingly in one of today’s “downmarket tabloids” (as Jim Traynor used to refer to it), Craig tells of the unforgettable experience of his first Rangers – Celtic game that has never left him and inspired him to invest in the new company last year.
That match was so unforgettable in fact that he can’t remember the result , the score or the scorers (if any). It was he says when he was about 12, so that’s 30 years ago.
So maybe it was New Year’s day game of 1983 which Celtic won 2-1, Craig?
Or does the last day of that season when Celtic won 4-2 ring any bells?
Or what about the November 1983 game which Celtic won 2-1?
Still nothing, Craig?
That was about the bleakest period in the history of the old Rangers – nearly as bleak in fact as the present period is in the history of the new one…..
54 (moving stories about Craig Mather) to nil (effect)
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 2m
Then again, here’s further evidence of others who knew just what this charlatan had demonstrated in the past. http://www.scribd.com/doc/142055727/what-murray-knew …
Captain Haddock says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 12:33
paulmac2 says
I too worked in Possil, and one of my first sights was seeing a dog walking around with a half brick in its mouth.
Lots of questions raised…..
was it for protection?
was it to show off?
was it to threaten other dogs?
did it collect half bricks?
had it already eaten the other half?
you may think of others..
Enjoyed my time there in community education (mostly)!
…………………………………
Sounds like Possil……
Or my first visit to the Saracen head during a lunchbreak….sat down pint on the table…bang pub door kicked in…guy dives in picks up my pint and downs it in seconds….nobody bothered to tell me the local alcoholic did this on a regular basis and to avoid sitting there…
torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 16:02
——————————————
So AJ pops in the paper yesterday going on about a cancer at the heart of the football club and lo and behold today we get an email exchange in which AJ is ridiculed by CW’s advisers (who of course knew nothing of the Ticketus deal – other than what they reveal in this exchange)
Maybe Charlotte is actually plain old David Murray in drag??
torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 16:02
…………………………….
Ok I’m now curious as to who it is that has access to these emails.
I’m noticing that Charlotte has referred to the MBB/GEF/CW/Our Hero as a ‘charlatan’ in that last tweet. A tactic to throw us off our assumption that this is CW himself or someone in his camp?
Assuming these documents are genuine, did Mr Whyte present them as evidence in his Ticketus case? If not, will they form part of the appeal?
paulmac2 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 16:14
…………………………….
Ok I’m now curious as to who it is that has access to these emails.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Me too – but whoever it is – keep ’em coming!!. It’s all starting to unravel and make more sense now!!
I think one can conclude from these documents that neither Minty nor Ticketus/Octopus can reasonably claim to have been duped by Whyte. Ticketus did so in Court.
One might also wonder why Duff & Phelps, who appear to have known exactly how the deal was done, acted in the way they did towards Ticketus in the administration process and why Ticketus have taken the actions they have since.
@newtz – all part of a script? Or the consequence of CAG breaking the circle?
Just wondering but how can TRFC sign anyone this window?
“A player who has signed a pre-contract agreeing to join another club at the conclusion of his existing contract may only be registered for his new club after the expiry of his current agreement and within the Transfer window”
Doesn’t the embargo expire at the end of the transfer window meaning that they can’t be registered within the transfer window?
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 16:34
As I understand it, they can employ and pay Ronaldo just now if they want, they can’t register them to play until the embargo expires
Could only stay away couple of hours;see we’re back on track.Good.
@jockybhoy
Erm, by reading your words and understanding them is how I got that from what you wrote. I’m still getting it.
Dunno, maybe waiting for a contract to expire and signing as a free agent doesn’t count as a transfer under the embargo rules?
Anyway, while having a look for an answer, I did find this:
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/8342844/Rangers-boss-Ally-McCoist-set-to-be-handed-30m-once-transfer-embargo-is-lifted
30million! The arithmetic is unconventional: £10million IPO cash plus £20million from Season Tickets somehow. Watch out, SFL2.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 16:34
Just wondering but how can TRFC sign anyone this window?
“A player who has signed a pre-contract agreeing to join another club at the conclusion of his existing contract may only be registered for his new club after the expiry of his current agreement and within the Transfer window”
Doesn’t the embargo expire at the end of the transfer window meaning that they can’t be registered within the transfer window?
—————————
‘Agreeing to sign’ does not equate to having signed a pre-contract.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 16:32
I think one can conclude from these documents that neither Minty nor Ticketus/Octopus can reasonably claim to have been duped by Whyte. Ticketus did so in Court.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One can indeed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One might also wonder why Duff & Phelps, who appear to have known exactly how the deal was done, acted in the way they did towards Ticketus in the administration process and why Ticketus have taken the actions they have since.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wasn’t that just a quirk of Scots Law being different to English Law as regards the rights to the sale of seats not being enforcable in an Administration under Scots Law and therefore Ticketus were left with a simple debt. In other words D&P had no choice.
i think an earlier post of mine was removed for being facetious…
fair enough, it was a slow day and i wasn’t being entirely serious…
that’s me had the naughty step and lines on this blog…
thank goodness the belt (tawse) has been banned or i’d be in big trouble…
should i phone my wife and tell her i’m in detention?
Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 16:57
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 16:34
Just wondering but how can TRFC sign anyone this window?
“A player who has signed a pre-contract agreeing to join another club at the conclusion of his existing contract may only be registered for his new club after the expiry of his current agreement and within the Transfer window”
Doesn’t the embargo expire at the end of the transfer window meaning that they can’t be registered within the transfer window?
—————————
‘Agreeing to sign’ does not equate to having signed a pre-contract.
===========================================
Luckily TRFC have the right man on hand for such a situation:
Celtic Collectibles @CollectCelticFC 35m
Craig Mather the new Sevco CEO is also an agent.This breaches FIFA and SFA rules.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 16:34
Depending on where you got this;
“A player who has signed a pre-contract agreeing to join another club at the conclusion of his existing contract may only be registered for his new club after the expiry of his current agreement and within the Transfer window”
It would mean TRFC can sign as many players as they like, during the transfer window, but as they can’t register them, they’ll be paying their wages but won’t be allowed to play them until the second half of next season. That is if the SFA/SFL stick to the rules…and they wouldn’t break the rules would they?
Extract from today’s Vanguard Bears article, [won’t post link].
================================================
This latest article is actually not a bad read, relatively speaking, and quite honest/accurate about the fans’ perspective on the TRFC debacle. [It does veer a bit in the last couple of paras though.]
“…Not satisfied with embarrassing us with their conduct this board seem to be at ease with misleading this support as well.
Therefore you will not find me criticising any Bear who decides to withhold season ticket money whilst our current board behave in a manner befitting squabbling schoolgirls…”
y4rmy says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 12:28
Re: The ‘Chosen One’ email.
“Why is the domain part of Charles Green’s email address redacted”?
“Why is redacted spelled wrong further down”?
————-
Just catching up so haven’t seen other responses yet.
Might it be that domain name would incriminate Charlotte.
Misspelling might induicate done in a hurry or (for conspiracy theorists, of which I am one), made to look like it was done in a hurry.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, May 17, 2013 at 17:16
…
Celtic Collectibles @CollectCelticFC 35m
Craig Mather the new Sevco CEO is also an agent.This breaches FIFA and SFA rules
===================================
Is that why Mather’s title is ‘interim CEO’ then ?
He’s not ‘CEO’, so not breaking the rules ? 🙄