The Real Battle Begins?


Ianagain says: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 13:10 0 0 …

Comment on The Real Battle Begins? by Celtic Paranoia (@CelticParanoia).

ianagain says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 13:10
0 0 i
Rate This

Current position.


London Stock Exchange allowing Chuck to fly his fairy story kite about “world’s most successful club, 54 league titles, 1972 ECWC blah blah” under “Description of Business”

Celtic Paranoia (@CelticParanoia) Also Commented

The Real Battle Begins?
Going back a bit to the return of Dorin Goian…

torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 11:31
6 0 i Rate This

One high wage earner to return?.

I loved the irony of the following:

“He contested an 88th- minute winner for Juve Stabia in a 3-2 defeat so strenuously, he manhandled referee Maurizio Ciampi, who promptly sent him off”

Don’t the Italians know this is perfectly acceptable?? Although you do need to be wearing a blue jersey at the time

Recent Comments by Celtic Paranoia (@CelticParanoia)

The Existence of Laws
Reilly1926 says:
June 10, 2013 at 4:05 pm


Whyte didn’t pay the bill and as an excuse to stall HMRC he then questioned its legibility.

Whyte didn’t pay the bill on the basis it was too difficult to read? 😉

The Existence of Laws
finchleyflyer says:
Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 16:09
4 0 i
Rate This
Re today’s payroll information from Charlotte . . . combine that with the signings Sevco have made recently, plus the fact that they’re named as being interested in every Tom, Dick and Van der Harry out there (the latest being ex-DUFC boys Gomis and Bauben), it continues to be impossible to square the circle on income v expenditure at Ibrox. How the hell are they doing it? How can they convince sensible blokes like Jon Daly that they’re good for the money?


If “sensible” guys like Jon Daly are getting all their information from the MSM then I don’t think they will need much convincing.

All he’ll see and hear about is moonbeams and creative interpretations of rules, regulations and the new doublespeak – “red tape” that constrains Ally’s ability to use £20million warchest to bolster his squad.

Remember this site, like the RTC predecessor, is 99% crap that doesn’t make it into the MSM so the PR machine does the convincing for them

The Existence of Laws
ozyhibby says:
Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 15:45
6 5 i
Rate This
I have no problem with you having a go at Hearts financial mismanagement or that or UBIG or Vlad personally, but I would be interested in your reasoning that “Hearts may have stolen the money”

If that was the case then it would be Hearts being pursued by the authorities and not Vlad.

If you wish to make the case that Vlad stole the money which he subsequently invested in Hearts, then fine, but please don’t misrepresent the facts. That’s one issue that upsets so many people on the blog when the MSM does it. So let’s not have individual posters doing likewise.

That’s like Sevco fans claiming it was all Craig Whyte’s fault and nothing to do with them.
Vlad was the controlling mind at Hearts and Hearts were the beneficiaries of the alleged stolen money.
If the money was indeed stolen, then it was done by Hearts owner in order to finance Hearts. How you can say it’s nothing to do with Hearts amazes me.

The article you posted a link to made no mention of Hearts.

It’s like posting a link to a story stating that David Murray is accused of embezzling money from MIH and saying it’s evidence of Rangers using stolen money.

It’s a bit of a leap of faith – or agenda? – to add 2 and 2 to end up with the bold statement that Hearts have been using stolen money.

This may be the case but you have not presented any evidence of this. As others have said, you are free to present a case with a bit of evidence to convince the users of the site, rather than come on with some half baked sabre rattling conclusion jumping

I’m sure if Vlad was embezzling money from Ukio he probably had better use for it – more likely his sky rocket than throwing into a Hearts shaped financial drain.

The Existence of Laws
Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:16
0 0 i
Rate This

Night Terror says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:05

Fine in theory, but for ‘club’ read ‘owner’.

In the recent public cases, an individual or group with a majority shareholding has been the party making the decision to sell. There is no guarantee the motive of the seller aligns with the best interests of the club.

Good point, CP. Hadn’t thought of that.

Maybe the SFA should be in charge of F&PP after all.

Oops, hit post too soon there…

Of course there is a distinction between the owner of the shares and the running of the club.

It’s pretty hard to prevent anyone buying shares in a club – especially if they are available on a public exchange.

Dave King might own shares in RIFC but if he were to try and appoint the ghost of Brooks Mileson as CEO, one would hope the Ibrox club’s board would find such an appointment would not pass their F&PP test by a significant enough margin to merit self-certifying the appointment with the SFA.

It would be very entertaining to see the SFA trying to prevent a club owner from selling his shares at a huge profit to a new investor with a chequered past because she did not pass the SFA F&PP test.


Horses for courses I suppose.

I don’t think this approach would be very successful for airline pilots. Let’s wait until you crash a plane before we strike you off!

You make a lot of salient points and I’m sure if any RFC owner was prevented from selling up to a spiv “billionaire” purveyor of moonbeam warchests there would be an outcry in the Scottish media.

Whether it’s an initial approval process, ongoing regulation or both – the bottom line is we aint going to get any of it with the current office bearers at the SFA who have done everything to circumvent existing regulations.

It could be argued that the Whyte and Green spivvery witnessed over the past 24 months could have been prevented to a large extent by simply applying existing rules.

So for me that should be the starting place – a fit for purpose (not promotion of Spiv FC interests) organisation that acts with transparency and objectivity, rather than introducing new criteria that will never be adequately discharged.

By jove I think the unstoppable force stopped and the immovable object moved!

The Existence of Laws
zilch2 says:
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 15:09

I agree we are discussing a hypothetical model here for implementation at some point in the future when the heavily and less heavily conflicted incumbents have been removed

About the author