The Offline Game


Corrupt official June 8, 2016 at 13:18 The Guardian have cancelled the …

Comment on The Offline Game by nawlite.

Corrupt official
June 8, 2016 at 13:18
The Guardian have cancelled the Res 12 advert in rather mysterious circumstances.
That is truly unbelievable in a democratic society. This needs brought to wider attention – local MPs? Decent journalists? Could someone who is on twitter bring it to the attention of Alex Thomson?

nawlite Also Commented

The Offline Game
I’ve just emailed my local mp. I don’t know quite what I hope he will do about it, but it is so concerning to me that some ‘powers that be’ seem to be trying to hush this up. Why would that be the case?!?
We can’t say for sure that it’s outwith the Guardian, but that could be inferred from the CQN article. Why would that be the case?!
If ‘powers that be’ can effectively (so far) hush this up, what are the possibilities of other matters more important than football being similarly hushed up?!
The CQN article is a scary read!

The Offline Game
Matty RothJune 7, 2016 at 08:31

Matty, For the past week or so, I’ve been keeping an eye on a thread over on the Bears Den about the launch of a new strip for season 2016-17. It seems it was due to be out last Thursday, but some days before that there were rumours that it was being pulled. Lots of debate on whether this was good (Rangers refusing Ashley permission to use the IP on strips he wanted to sell) or bad (Ashley refusing to allow Rangers to sell strips because he has a 7-year contract). Bottom line is that the strip wasn’t launched and hasn’t been yet with no confirmation from the clumpany as to why this happened. 
Lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth that they can’t buy all 3 strips to wear on their summer holidays, then you get the others telling them they shouldn’t be buying kit anyway as the money doesn’t go to TRFC*. Some sensible ones commenting that it may threaten the deals with Puma and 32Red if their brand isn’t seen on new kit like they would with a normal clumpany.
It looks like the populist move of ‘humiliating’ Ashley by pulling out of the contract (as spun) is causing some ructions.

The Offline Game
May 19, 2016 at 15:02
Incidentally, Bert Kassies has changed his mind about whether UEFA would award Rangers the oldco’s coefficient points from 2011-12; he now thinks they will, because that’s what they did with Derry City. It may however escalate the question of RFC(IL)’s eligibility to gain those 2011-12 points in the first place.
Stevo, if that’s true it indicates UEFA must be treating them as the same club (which is, of course, wrong imo).
If they are to be seen as the same club, however, that surely means they’ll be excluded because the same club still hasn’t paid the Overdue Payable which has been the subject of such debate on here recently. I couldn’t get a straight answer on this out of Darryl Broadfoot a week or so back. All he would say was that “all potential European participants have been notified to UEFA as per their regulations.”
When I pressed him on my point about FFP Article 66 being applied to the ‘same club’ (1 The licensee must prove that as at 30 June of the year in which the UEFA club competitions commence it has no overdue payables (as specified in Annex VIII) towards its employees and/or social/tax authorities (as defined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 50) that arose prior to 30 June.) he would only reiterate that details had been submitted to UEFA but refused to answer my direct question “Did the SFA’s submission mention the overdue taxes?”
If the cup final is decided in favour of TRFC, at that point we must all very quickly be emailing UEFA pointing out that TRFC must be treated either as a new club, or be excluded due to the Overdue Payable outstanding since at least 2011 (earlier if you agree with TOG’s view). 

Recent Comments by nawlite

Enough is enough
EB, you state that the SFA’s rules allowed them discretion to transfer the membership. Just for clarity – is your reason for doing so purely to clarify for others on here that the SFA did not break their rules in allowing the transfer? I.e. a warning not to claim the SFA breached their rules?
Or is your reason for stating it an argument that the transfer of membership allows the current ‘Rangers’ to claim that it is the same entity as the ‘Rangers’ currently in liquidation?

Enough is enough
AS, you need to remember that as far as the SFA is concerned there’s no uncertainty ‘cos Dave said he would put the money in! So that’s awrite then.

Enough is enough
If Dorrans’ signing was after the accounts cut-off, then I can only see Cardoso, Pena, Herrera, Candeias and Morelos signing for a fee according to TransferMarket. Their fees listed there total only £7,380m not the c£10m shown in the accounts. Anyone any ideas?

Enough is enough
Given that Dave doesn’t have any control, I’m wondering who the nice person at NOAL is who keeps sending TRFC money out of the goodness of his heart?!?

Enough is enough
Tris, you say “Celtic wouldn’t be risking very much if some more equitable model was introducedThey’d still have more money than most.”
Of course they would………but only most in Scotland. That’s my point – why would they weaken themselves against the ‘big’ European clubs whom they have ambitions to better or at least compete with? You suggest they should because somewhere down the line they MIGHT need to improve due to increased competition from better domestic clubs. Seriously? “Let’s weaken ourselves against the clubs we’re aspiring to match in the hope that years ahead we MIGHT get better and they (keeping all their money) don’t”!?!?!?!
Let’s be realistic. You can’t expect a business/club to do that.
I want better competition and improving standards in Scottish football as much as anyone, but the more naïve comments I hear, the more I’m convinced that it can only be done by somehow forcing UEFA to drive it from the top down (or, as you say, the bubble bursts and we start from scratch).

About the author