The Real Battle Begins?


The SFA does not carry out fit and proper persons …

Comment on The Real Battle Begins? by iceman63.

The SFA does not carry out fit and proper persons tests. SR confirmed this.

Such tests are now explicitly the responsibility of those selling the club. Green’s was carried out by D and P (standing in for Whyte) so the fit and proper tests by the SFA has been delegated by them for the purposes of this share issue to Green himself. So when he says the SFA fit and proper persons’ test has neen carried out, he is technically correct – for the purposes of the SFA the person conducting thosde tests is CG himself.

Now that’s what I call governance!

iceman63 Also Commented

The Real Battle Begins?
We are now in the midsts of darkness.

Uttering the truth in this little country will lead you to face threats and intimidation and a stream of lies from our supposed free press in reply. As for the authorities, civil and football they seem hell bent on transforming lies into truth – and ignoring every breach of law, every breach of footballing law – investigation upon investigation by police, footballing authorities, the charity commission all stalled seemingly indefinitely – and all to save a vile institution with a revolting following.

They are not the blooming brown shirts or some terrorist gang – they are a bunch of thugs and wide boys who need to be taken in hand by the appropriate authorities – I won’t hold my breath.

The Real Battle Begins?
Time for the SFA for the sake of public order and sanity to issue a clear and unequivocal factual statement of the status and origins of the Newclub, coupled with the contents of the 5 way agreement, then time to haul CG and McCoist in for their rabble rousing nonsense and ban the pair of them for the rest of the season. The SFA needs to get its act together or risk complete meltdown. Sitting ostrich-like, head deep in the manure pile you created is no solution.

The Real Battle Begins?
The referee issue to me is about far more than ropey on field decisions. Dallasgate,Dougiegate andd Babydallasgate all inndicate a wider rottenness of arrogance, dishonesty and a complete refusal to be held up to any independent scrutiny. Like the rest f the governing bodies the governance of referees is closed unaccountable and seemingly corrupt.

Recent Comments by iceman63

To Comply or not to Comply ?
The war was lost in 2012 when fans went to games after the monstrous cheating that destroyed the fabric of the game by allowing a clearly ineligible organisation to enter the league against all precedent and rules. I chose thennever to return. Everything that has happened then has served to confirm my view. Football in Scotland ended in 2012 as it ceased to be a game with rules. Everything since has been a charade and an exercise in deceit and fraud.
The SFA itself is manifestly the guilty party here. It knew from 2003 onwards that Rangers were cheating and chose actively to facilitate and reward that cheating. The SFA itself should be taken to the CAS by member clubs for fraud and corruption in an unprecedented and systematic fashion.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
There is manifestly some bad news from the SFA or SPFL regarding Rangers which Dave King knows is coming. The Euro licence seems the most likely. What he is seeking is to discredit Scottish football governance and then denounce the bad news, claim he is blaneless and set the rabid elements of his support against the governing bodies. He is simply trying to bully them into not sanctioning his club. Sadly, for Dave, I suspect the SFA hands are tied byUEFA here and a repeat of last year’s dodgy licence issuing will not be forthcoming. Consequences may be many fold here. The end game looks in sight and Dave intends to go down by razing everything in his path as he departs.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Jim. Phil has stated, correctly, before other sources that the present incarnation of Rangers are reliant on other sources of finance beyond generated income to survive; he has never predicted imminent. Immediate collapse,merely an ongoing snoring up of a club in a permanent financial crisis. Such is the financing at Ibrox, indeed, that at any point, if external lifeline supplies of cash are not maintained, or if loans are requested to be repaid, then the entire venture can fold, very quickly. I think this is, self evidently the case.
He stated, correctly before other sources that Alistair Johnson was lending money to Rangers, he stated that distress funding was being sought before the Close brothers deal, and he has stated that Johnson will be resigning, and wanting his money back and two other directors will follow.
Now if past record is to be a guide to future success we shall await developments. He does get things wrong, the stadium updates being an obvious example, and stuff happens which he seems to have literally no knowledge of.
I suspect he uses a lot of stuff in the public domain, hears whispers and may sometimes put two and two together to make twenty two, but he does, it seems to me have some insight into events and happenings within Ibrox, which the rest of us don’t, albeit I remain cautious and fairly sceptical of some of his claims, as I am with pretty much everything I read.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
FWIW I feel that managers complaining and girning is part and parcel of football. It can be a personality trait of the manager, Levein and McCann spring to mind here although Jim McLean in his heyday must surely be the king of greetin-faced managers, genius though he undoubtedly was, or can be calculated and effective,to provoke reaction,to deflect legitimate criticism, stir up opponents or to gain a psychological edge, Ferguson, Mourinho, although less so recently where he seems simply to complain ad nauseam, Jock Stein, Jock Wallace spring to mind.
Rarely is a genuine grievance resolved by managers beating their gums. Some managers don’t seem to complain at all,

Generally moaning from managers should largely be ignored on all sides, as invariably it produces vastly more heat than light.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
I am not a particularly complex or clever individual, but surely for an entity to be “strong”, it must first be “viable” and then “stable”.
Rangers may or may not be able to cobble together a strong first team next season, which may or may not be able to compete with Celtic. I think it unlikely, but even if we assume that with an additional 9 – 10 million of borrowing ( from where I will leave at present) the rangers team is then able to be competitive on the park with Celtic,  it will still not be a strong Rangers, it will be a Rangers that is technically insolvent, struggling to remain a viable enterprise, which its previous incarnation failed to achieve , in the end, and will be highly unstable.

It seems to me that Rangers should be focussing firstly on remaining viable, by stabilising its finances, secondly on building some stability by coherent forward planning based upon a break even business plan, and only then attempting to develop a genuinely “strong” club.

About the author