Good Evening.
As we ponder the historic vote to create a new Governing body to oversee Scottish League football, I cannot help but wonder what brilliant minds will be employed in the drawing up of its constitution, rules, memorandum and articles of association?
Clearly, Messrs Doncaster, Longmuir and even Mr Regan as the CEO of the SFA will be spending many hours with those dreaded folk known simply as “ The Lawyers” in an attempt to get the whole thing up and running and written down in the course of a few short weeks.
In truth, that scares me.
It scares me because legal documentation written up in a hurry or in a rush is seldom perfect and often needs amendment—especially when the errors start to show! The old adage of beware of the busy fool sadly applies.
It also scares me because the existing rules under which the game is governed are not, in my humble opinion, particularly well written and seem to differ in certain material respects from those of UEFA. Even then, adopting the wording and the approach of other bodies is not necessarily the way to go.
I am all in favour of some original thought– and that most precious and unusual of commodities known as common sense and plain English.
Further, the various licensing and compliance rules are clearly in need of an overhaul as they have of late produced what can only be best described as a lack of clarity when studied for the purposes of interpretation. Either that or those doing the studying and interpreting are afflicted with what might be described as tortuous or even tortured legal and administrative minds.
If it is not by now clear that the notion of self-certification on financial and other essential disclosure criteria necessary to obtain a footballing licence (whether European or domestic) is a total non-starter — then those in charge of the game are truly bonkers.
Whilst no governing body can wholly control the actions of a member club, or those who run a club, surely provisions can be inserted into any constitution or set of rules that allows and brings about greater vigilance and scrutiny than we have at present—all of course designed to do nothing other than alert the authorities as early as possible if matters are not being conducted properly or fairly.
However, the main change that would make a difference to most of the folk involved in the Scottish game – namely the fans— would be to have the new rules incorporate a measure which allowed football fans themselves to be represented on any executive or committee.
Clearly, this would be a somewhat revolutionary step and would be fought against tooth and nail by some for no reason other than that it has simply not been done before—especially as the league body is there to regulate the affairs of a number of limited companies all of whom have shareholders to account to and the clubs themselves would presumably be the shareholders in the new SPFL Ltd.
Then again to my knowledge Neil Doncaster is not a shareholder in The SPL ltd– is he?
I can hear the argument that a fan representative on a league body might not be impartial, might be unprofessional, might be biased, might lack knowledge or experience, and have their own agenda and so on—just like many chairmen and chief executive officers who already sit on the committees of the existing league bodies.
Remember too that the SFA until relatively recently had disciplinary committees made up almost exclusively of referees. I don’t think anyone would argue that the widening of the make up of that committee has been a backward step.
However, we already have fan representation at clubs like St Mirren and Motherwell, and of course there has been an established Tartan Army body for some time now. Clubs other than the two mentioned above have mechanisms whereby they communicate and consult with fans, although they stop short of full fan participation– very often for supposedly insurmountable legal reasons.
As often as not, the fans want a say in the running of their club, but also want to be able to make representations to the governing bodies via their club.
So why not include the fans directly in the new set up for governing the league?
Any fan representative could be someone proposed by a properly registered fan body such as through official supporters clubs, or could be seconded by the clubs acting in concert with their supporters clubs.
Perhaps a committee of fan representatives could be created, with such a committee having a representative on the various committees of the new league body.
In this way, there would be a fan who could report back to the fan committee and who could represent the interests of the ordinary fan in the street in any of the committees. Equally such a committee of fans could ensure that any behind the scenes discussions on any issue were properly reported, openly discussed, and made public with no fear of hidden agendas, secret meetings, and secret collusive agreements and so forth.
Is any of that unreasonable? Surely many companies consider the views of their biggest customer? This idea is no different.
Surely such a situation would go some way towards establishing some badly needed trust between the governing bodies and the fans themselves?
If necessary, I would not even object to the fan representatives being excluded from having a right to vote on certain matters—as long as they had a full right of audience and a full right of access to all discussions and relative papers which affect the running of the game.
In this way at least there would be openness and transparency.
In short, it would be a move towards what is quaintly referred to as Democracy.
Perhaps, those who run the game at present should consider the life and times of the late great Alexander Hamilton- one of the founding fathers of the United States of America and who played a significant role in helping write the constitution of that country.
Hamilton was a decent and brilliant man in many ways—but he was dead set against Democracy and the liberation of rights for the masses. In fact, he stated that the best that can be hoped for the mass populace is that they be properly armed with a gun and so able to protect themselves against injustice!
Sadly, Hamilton became embroiled in a bitter dispute with the then Vice President of the nation Aaron Burr in July 1804. Hamilton had used his influence and ensured that Burr lost the election to become Governor of New York and had made some withering attacks on the Vice President’s character.
When he refused to apologise, the Vice President took a whacky notion and challenged him to a duel! Even more whacky is the fact that Hamilton accepted the challenge and so the contest took place at Weehawken New Jersey on the morning of 11th July 1804.
The night before, Hamilton wrote a letter which heavily suggested that he would contrive to miss Burr with his shot, and indeed when the pistols fired Hamilton’s bullet struck a branch immediately above Burr’s head.
However, he did not follow the proper procedure for duelling which required a warning from the duellist that they are going to throw their shot away. Hamilton gave no such indication despite the terms of his letter and despite his shot clearly missing his opponent.
Burr however fired and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen with the result that the former secretary to the treasury and founding father of the constitution died at 2pm on the twelfth of July.
The incident ruined Burr’s career (whilst duelling was still technically legal in New jersey, it had already been outlawed in various other states).
In any event, in Hamilton’s time full and open democracy in the United States of America would have met with many cries of outrage and bitter opposition. Yet, today, the descendants of slaves and everyone from all social standings, all ethnic minorities and every social background has the constitutional right to vote and seek entry to corridors of power.
In that light, is it really asking too much to allow football fans to have a say and a presence in the running of a game they pay so much to support?
Drew Peacock says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 11:51 am
========================================================
You really like your argument a lot don’t you. A nagging thought in the back of my head tells me there’s something propogandistic about constant repetition.
========================================================
Yes it is quite interesting the repetition used against my position by some posters who continually try to link me with views that aren’t mine and could never be taken to be mine with any objective reading of my comments.
I also tend not to use repetition per se but attempt to respond to posters that I think have a point worth responding to and who have firstly responded to my post. Obviously there will be some repetition in my response but I try hard to tailor my reply to adequately address points they made in their response and I am sure you are able to differentiate between the two.
It would seem that a lot of other posters like my ‘arguments’ as well going by the amount of posts and number of ‘thumbs’ overwhelmingly ‘down’ of course which they invariable seem to generate 🙂
Allyjambo says:
July 2, 2013 at 1:29 pm
It’s really simple in Rangers’ case.
They have decided they will keep 140 years history, 54 league titles and all other trophies won (in spite of all the cheating whilst winning them).
They have decided they will not keep the tens of millions of pounds of debt that they ran up, including money owed to the UK tax payer.
They also wanted to “keep” their place in the SPL but that didn’t work out so well.
So the concept seems to be keep what you like, dump what you don’t and “nae luck” to the victims. The people who actually lost out. In fact, let’s make it worse, let’s rub it in their faces and put things on our shirt and in our stadium which proclaims that we are the same club.
It’s disgraceful.
Gaz’s comments sum it up for me
if the fans want to PRETEND to be the same club – based on some emotional sense of belonging – then the very least they have to do is make a promise to repay those who lost out.
the alternative is to give up the past and the honours they “won” and start as a new “cleansed” club who won’t along the wrongs of the past to revisit them
i’ve seen NOTHING from Sevconians to suggest they want to right the past wrongs or that they aren’t set to repeat the mistakes all over again.
They are certainly behaving like the same club, but that is the ONLY claim they can make to being the same club.
Ecobhoy, sorry, no matter how you try to word it, your concept of a club is just an emotional crutch for you to cling to should the worst happen. Without reparation and contrition, there can be no claim to be same “club”
New blog from Phil
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/all-aboard-the-gullible-bus/#more-3760
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 1:18 pm
eco, have to agree with some of what you’re saying – a club is more than the sum of bricks and mortar and what’s on a spreadsheet. I personally would have no problem if the SFA came out and said ‘Technically they are a new club, but we can understand why fans would continue to regard them as the same.’ it would pull the rug from under the feet of a lot of the rabble rousing, but throw a bone to those desperate for their ‘Rangers’ fix.
The reason that certain individuals are able to stir so much is because they’re able to project this ‘wronged’ ethos, that it’s the same entity, and it’s because of them that this idea of ‘Dead Rangers’ must be perpetuated. If it were just about ‘in the hearts of the fans’ then it wouldn’t be any problem at all. However, If they were the same entity in every way then you can understand why they’d feel aggrieved at what’s happened to them over the past 18 months – IF they were the same entity. Unfortunately that overlaps with the concept of the ‘ethereal’ club that you refer to. I think the majority on here would agree that they would be sympathetic to the idea of Rangers being a continuation, at least in spirit (and the dropping of some of the less salubrious aspects), if it wasn’t for the dubious purposes that this ‘continuation’ is being used for.
You only have to look at the Mathers statement – Rangers were voted out of the league apparently. Which is weird, because from what I recall, Rangers were already out of the league – the vote was whether to allow this new entity to take their vacated place, and yet according to Mathers, the rest of the clubs nefariously got together and voted Rangers out. I’d like him to point out the section of the SPL rules that says ‘Clubs may get together and vote out anyone that they’re jealous of’.
neepheid at 10.58am:
I’ll go for the Caymans. (;-0)
Although the US of A is another possibility.
There is no part of the club which is not part of the company and vice versa. They are the same thing.
Liquidation is final for club and company.
In the case of RFC/TRFC for example, the history is the key. TRFC is a new company. No one disputes this. This new company cannot, obviously, have won anything before it came into existence. As it happens, Ibrox was not sold to developers or another club and the new club resembles the old, but they are not the same.
Had Fergus McCann not appeared and CFC had been liquidated, that is a reality I would have had to accept. I would probably have developed an affection for the new club when it appeared, but to imagine it was the old club would have been to live a lie. When someone dies it can take time to accept that. RFC fans have had that process extended by Green’s nonsense about buying the history. I think fewer believe it now than a year ago.
As fans we often state that we are the club, or part of the club. This is not true. We keep the club in business by supporting it financially, but we are not part of it.
Good luck to HMFC.
neepheid at 10.58am:
———
Los Angeles?
ecobhoy says: July 2, 2013 at 11:51 am
I wasn’t having a go, in fact I agree with your premise that an idea lives on in the hearts and minds of those who don’t want to give it up. That’s lovely. But if the “club” isn’t a practising football team, what is it? A “(football) club” is a concept but without the physical manifestation is it a actually a club? And if they miss a season (or fold, go into liquidation and come out with a few assets but ditch all obligations) are they still the same club? I can claim to be a “fan” of the Red Charioteers team from Ancient Rome (though I don’t make many home games) – re they still a club? Their holding company many have disappeared but I’m still a fan!
As for the purchase of trophies and history – my analogy to that was made some time ago when Nobby Stiles was auctioning his World Cup Winner medal. I suggested I can buy Nobby’s old house and I can buy his medal, but that doesn’t make me Nobby Stiles…
Allyjambo says:
July 2, 2013 at 1:29 pm
“My ‘club’ doesn’t dump the bad and just retain the good – it keeps the lot because that is its history.” is a fine principal on which to base your club, but does the bad include the debt? Would your list of honours include the list of unpaid creditors? Or would it just include victories and defeats, competitions won and relegation if appropriate? This, to me, is the stumbling block in your concept, you either have to take all the bad with the good, or none of the good, ie record of competitions won, and start with a fresh record, and history, which just wouldn’t make sense because, why bother?
===================================================================
I make it clear that my views on the continuing ‘club’ concept which I personally believe in is not meant to either support or attack any position held by Rangers fans on the issue – it is purely my personal opinion and tbh I am quite amazed at the interest and debate it has created.
Of course my club ‘history’ would include any unpaid debts if they arose in an insolvency situation and it is important not to forget that aspect because it would be proof of a failure which might lead to the death of the ‘club’ and lessons should be learnt from it.
Obviously operating/holding companies are legally responsible for debts but if my ‘club’ hadn’t made any clear and audible argument against unacceptable financial operations of the operating/holding company then it would bear a moral responsibility wrt debt.
One of the problems in terms of club ‘history’ was that in many ways it was recorded as an oral tradition but the advent of the internet has provided the opportunity for fans to record their personal experiences and thoughts about all manner of things and it allows opposing fans to similarly record their views – not just on their own club – but on mine as well and they may well contain valuable points worthy of consideration.
So for me the club history contains a wide spectrum of information including debts of the holding/operating companies because they could impinge on the club history. But as to ‘Honours’ I have always tended to view that quite narrowly as titles and awards won and I don’t think I am alone in that.
But, and this is repetition, if Fergus hadn’t acted as he did Celtic would have been bust as I don’t believe Dempsey had a pot to p*ss in when it came to saving the club. So it would have gone into admin and possibly liquidation but I believe it would have continued and carried on in some form. I am firmly of the opinion that their history would have remained intact and I find it hard to believe that a single Celtic fan would dispute that and not support my position.
Although some on here say they would have been happy with Celtic starting with a clean sheet and no history – so I’ll just laugh when I think that 1967 never happened and my team was never the first in Britain to win the European Cup and The Lisbon Lions were never part of Celtic’s history – according to the ‘new’ club history 🙂
There are many other clubs who shouldn’t have a continuous history now and in the future according to the clean history viewpoint. I think it’s very much a minority viewpoint – applied to opponents – but perhaps those who feel so strongly about it should be trying to have the rule books altered to reflect their position if it bothers them that much.
Macfurgly says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:14 pm
1 0 Rate This
neepheid at 10.58am:
———
Los Angeles?
***********************
El Salvador? HMP Barlinnie? USS Enterprise? RFC Liquidated? The possibilities are endless!!
Re: Redundancies
Could it be that there is a deliberate under reporting of ST sales in order to allow the club to make redundancies, blaming the fans AND continue to pay top dollar to selected directors, shareholders, coaches and players.
If the Groucho Club, well known slurping Palace for luvvies and meedja folk or White’s Gentlemen’s Club, founded in 17 cent for toffs, entered liquidation, any start-up as a result of their demise – The New Groucho or Off-White’s, would not be considered the same club. However the history of their predecessors would be fondly remembered, even ‘attached’ to the new club.
beatipacificiscotia says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Can’t swallow some of what you have been writing today. You are not qualified or authorised to speak for all, or any, fans of any club. You are more subtle than the “no surrender” mob but a Rangers propagandist none-the-less. Your arguements don’t stand up to scrutiny when light of hard facts is shone on them.
Don’t pretend do speak for me, or anyone else. You think Rangers 1872 continue, that’s your view. Other people have torn your argument (I believe) to pieces with their views – backed with facts. I’m afraid the weight of evidence is on the side of “dead club / new club”.
=================================================================
My position has nothing to do with Rangers but is my personal position as I have repeatedly made clear. I pretend to speak for no one but myself as a Celtic supporter but am happy to advance my opinions based on what I know and believe to be true.
I truly believe to label me as a ‘Rangers propagandist’ shows the weakness of your position.
As a matter of fact I know that Rangers as incorporated in 1872 will cease to exist when the liquidation process is completed and I have never thought differently at any time so you are simply wrong in your statement about my position.
As to what individual Rangers fans believe in as regard to Rangers as a ‘club’ that is up to them and I have no deep interest in the matter as I happen to think there are more important issues facing Scottish Football.
I have watched with interest the many posters who have either deliberately or through lack of comprehension attempt to equate my personal point of view with the Rangers continuing club position which is not what my personal concept is. It fascinates me to see how important it appears to be, to some, to link me to a position which I don’t hold as a means of attacking that position.
Caveat Emptor says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
El Salvador
————————————-
San Salvador?
I’ll just laugh when I think that 1967 never happened and my team was never the first in Britain to win the European Cup and The Lisbon Lions were never part of Celtic’s history – according to the ‘new’ club history
But your team was the first to win the european cup, they “were” your team, if celtic had died and you decided to follow the team that replaced them, it didnt mean your team hadnt won the European cup, just that the team you now support didnt.
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:41 pm
“..how important it appears to be, to some, to link me to a position which I don’t hold as a means of attacking that position.”
—–
Just what I was thinking.
—————————–
Caveat Emptor says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
LOL. Quite.
Here is something I still don’t get….someone just earlier mentioned the fabled GBP 22 million that was supposedly raised in the IPO.
I am sorry but I have a really hard time finding this claim to have any credibility whatsoever….
Institutional investors? Really? Who else? The fact that we have no idea who has supposed to have put up this money says it all to me.
How is it possible that a Scottish football team who were wearing the carcass of a recently liquidated team …in the Scottish third division can raise anything like that amount of money?
What possible hope of any kind or return for investor is there…especially when the investment seems to be losing at least GBP 1 million every month….
I just can’t believe that anything like GBP 22 million in cash ever existed….which begs the question just what are the true state of the finances?
Can anyone explain this smoke and mirrors act?
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 23m
Redundancies – Rangers 2012 plan probably not implemented due to administration. How perverse.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/151299444/Voluntary-Redundancy-2012-RFC …
Dear TSFM, I know you are away right now, and I hope you are enjoying a lovely break, but I urgently want to change my vote on having separate threads. If this club/company semantic debate between ecobhoy v the rest continues much longer, you have my personal assurance that my head will explode. Or,perhaps more likely, I will go elsewhere. A separate club/company thread would be the ideal solution. Everyone interested could restate their position a thousand times over, with increasing absolute certainty each time. it would be great entertainment for some, no doubt, and I wouldn’t have to think about it all. The fundamental problem is that both sides are talking about different things. Without a common definition of the words being used, this really will go on for ever. It’s being going on for at least 9 months already, and with no end in sight.
jockybhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:25 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 11:51 am
I wasn’t having a go, in fact I agree with your premise that an idea lives on in the hearts and minds of those who don’t want to give it up. That’s lovely. But if the “club” isn’t a practising football team, what is it? A “(football) club” is a concept but without the physical manifestation is it a actually a club? And if they miss a season (or fold, go into liquidation and come out with a few assets but ditch all obligations) are they still the same club?
I can claim to be a “fan” of the Red Charioteers team from Ancient Rome (though I don’t make many home games) – re they still a club? Their holding company many have disappeared but I’m still a fan!
As for the purchase of trophies and history – my analogy to that was made some time ago when Nobby Stiles was auctioning his World Cup Winner medal. I suggested I can buy Nobby’s old house and I can buy his medal, but that doesn’t make me Nobby Stiles…
——————————————————————————————————
Didn’t think you were having a go or I wouldn’t have responded. I think you are starting to get my meaning – of course a ‘football club’ isn’t a physical entity and it’s hard to define it but when you’re at a game and the team are going well and the bhoys are on the attack and score and you hear that roar then you don’t need a definition you know what ‘the club’ means to you as an individual but also as a much wider concept.
Fans don’t initially start with that IMO no matter what history they might have been taught – they need the raw emotional experience and a bit of maturity that teaches them that there is no right to win and that even in defeat you are part of a club with a history that helps you get past the bad bits.
My concept of a ‘club’ is in my head so in the examples you give I would say that if a club stops playing for a season or longer then it’s still possible for me to regard it as the same club as I previously supported but obviously as the gap grew longer then the harder that would be and eventually it would die but my own death would be likely to precede that 🙂
My concept of ‘club’ has nothing to do with the ‘club’ mentions that appear in the SPL, SFL and SFA rule books and it is quite clear from my definition as it doesn’t play ‘association football’ and doesn’t have an ‘owner and operator’. And yet many appear to me to be deliberately confusing what I say with the Rangers position which is totally different.
I will ignore the Red Charioteers analogy as not viable and tbh I think you have missed my meaning with using your Knobby Stiles analogy – perhaps you should look back at what my concept of a ‘club’ is. You’ll see that one of the criteria is that it becomes the receptacle of the club’s history – the purchase of trophies isn’t meant as evidence that a club exists in any particular form but merely as a tangible record of bits of its history and to prevent it being sold off to spivs for £1 and melted down for 50p.
Neepheid – as much as it pains me to say it, all the work and effort into these arguments is also going to waste by as many of us are skipping on by.
Kind of reminds me of the decimalisation arguments that took place – my mother and granny would have endless conversations of butter being tuppence ha’penny when it was less before – this went on into late 70’s by which case it was irrelevant due to inflation and rising wages etc………..but still they went on…….
Still carries on to this day whenever a politician says “We have increased spending in real terms……”
There are a lot more ammo for everyone to get their teeth into – if someone wants to continue arguing about this, we need a separate thread so those who know full well the club died can turn our attentions elsewhere.
Peterjung says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Here is something I still don’t get….someone just earlier mentioned the fabled GBP 22 million that was supposedly raised in the IPO. I am sorry but I have a really hard time finding this claim to have any credibility whatsoever….
Institutional investors? Really? Who else? The fact that we have no idea who has supposed to have put up this money says it all to me. How is it possible that a Scottish football team who were wearing the carcass of a recently liquidated team …in the Scottish third division can raise anything like that amount of money?
What possible hope of any kind or return for investor is there…especially when the investment seems to be losing at least GBP 1 million every month…. I just can’t believe that anything like GBP 22 million in cash ever existed….which begs the question just what are the true state of the finances?
Can anyone explain this smoke and mirrors act?
================================================================
I doubt if more than a few people have the information to fully explain the position and sadly I don’t have.
But I think there are a few things worth considering the expected flotation figure was £27 or £27.5 million and in the event it was only £22.5 million with approx £2.5 million in exes. So the top whack raised was £18 million.
If the £17million from Institutional Investors and £5.5 million from fans is widely out I would be amazed and it really would be a serious breach of AIM Regulations. I think £2.5 million was paid in January to buy Edmiston House and pay-off the Albion carpark lease so that leaves £15.5 million.
As to what’s left of that after operating expenses have been met who knows. But perhaps someone can look at the 7 months interim accounts posted on 4 March 2013 and make some kind of estimate and Auldheid might have a figure.
Obviously STs will start to feed in but the amounts and period are a bit difficult to work out as some will have paid up-front and others will be on instalment plans.
freudian slip 2nd par – top whack should be £20 million
Sorry about this but consequential error in 3rd par where it’s not £15.5 million left but £17.5 million 🙁
And what is a ‘club’ – well to me it’s the receptacle which holds the history and culture of a club and its supporters as well as the future aspirations of its fans and as long as they support it then it lives for ever.
————————————————————————————————————————————
Echo, if I may be allowed to disagree…..IMO the recepticle of which you speak is problematic. as well as the noble attributes you list above does the recepticle pull on boots and take to the field? does it satisfy H & S and other legal imperatives? does it pay its taxes in line with the articles of association? does it pay players and vendors in line with the laws of the game and the laws of the land?
If it fails to do the above and enters a state of liquidation, it will be dissolved and consequently ceases to be as a legal entity, it then cannot claim to be anything more that a footnote in history, still alive in the hearts and minds of the followers maybe, but in actuality………. finished. I don’t know, there may be Third Lanark fans who believe the club remains alive in spirit and soul, but Third Lanark no longer play association football, nor do RFC 1872 Ltd play association football, they failed to make it out of the financial maelstrom. The clue is in ‘association’…………………. fundamental to the status of ‘club’. Not many ‘clubs’ are autonomous spirits that exist buried deep in the in the aspirations of their fans and nowhere else……………well there is one 😉
…and Echo lighten up, its only a message board ffs! 😉
Guys,
I’m trying to have a holiday here 🙂
I understand that Ecobhoy’s position here is a red rag to many, but please engage him in argument and stop the “Rangers supporter in disguise” jibes.
Neepheid. I am persuaded that the repetitive stuff needs to be moved somewhere else. I will create a new New Club – Old Club thread when I get a chance.
neepheid says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm
If your head explodes will that result in mashed neeps?
coat on 🙂
TSFM says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:48 pm
2 0 i
Neepheid. I am persuaded that the repetitive stuff needs to be moved somewhere else. I will create a new New Club – Old Club thread when I get a chance.
=====================
Excellent idea.
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
July 2, 2013 at 1:59 pm
———————————————————————————————————-
I do not place your post in this bracket but some have chosen to interpret my post as a defence of the Rangers position – it is nothing of the sort.
There are many issues I have with sections of the Rangers support and I have had with certain elements in the Celtic support and I think that possibly my latter statement is really what rankles with some posters on here. But whatever that’s their problem not mine.
Since this debacle began I thought it right that Rangers started from the bottom league – I never thought they should be expelled because quite simply they are too important financially to be removed from Scottish Football IMO.
I also felt there was an opportunity for decent Rangers fans to be involved in rebuilding their club and many genuinely wanted to start in SFL3 and do that and win their way back through promotion and building a team where their own youth players were brought through.
Sadly they ended in the hands of the spivs so that dream was destroyed and in many ways it would appear that serious lessons have still to be learnt and thinks look bleak financially at least on the surface. How much blame individual supporters have for all this is a very moot point IMO and if that statement makes me a Rangers Apologist then so be it.
I have no wish to see the death of Rangers as a football club and couldn’t care a hoot whether its fans or anyone else believe it’s a continuing club or not. While Rangers works its way towards the top flight then it helps spread a bit of cash around smaller clubs in lower leagues and that’s no bad thing just like the money that Celtic’s European success has brought as well.
At some stage Rangers will be back in the top league although I think it would be a brave person who predicted the season as there are too many question marks over finances at this stage. Just how they progress once they get there is another issue and lots of variables will come into play.
I would never ever regret if Celtic and Rangers never meet again but they will – that’s the reality whether I like it or not unless Celtic find another billet in the meantime.
New blog up from Phil Mac, http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/all-aboard-the-gullible-bus/
neepheid says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm
“If this club/company semantic debate between ecobhoy v the rest continues much longer, you have my personal assurance that my head will explode.”
————————–
You seem to be implying that it has become a pointless discussion that is failing to advance the aims of the blog?
Caveat Emptor says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
… USS Enterprise?…
=================
Whilst that location suggestion for CF is ‘highly illogical’ CE, we shouldn’t forget that Scottish football has previously attracted interest from “another universe”…allegedly… 😉
Imagine what this summer would have been lie TRFC had not agreed to the transfer embargo to get their SFL3 place as part of the 5 way agreement………
http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-second/231698-rangers-look-to-bloster-defence-with-christope-berra-and-boris-pandza/
TSFM on July 2, 2013 at 3:48 pm
8 0 Rate This
Guys,
I’m trying to have a holiday here
I understand that Ecobhoy’s position here is a red rag to many, but please engage him in argument and stop the “Rangers supporter in disguise” jibes.
Neepheid. I am persuaded that the repetitive stuff needs to be moved somewhere else. I will create a new New Club – Old Club thread when I get a chance
####
Will it be a continuation of this thread or will it be a New Thread?
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:01 pm
0 0 i Rate This
Since this debacle began I thought it right that Rangers started from the bottom league – I never thought they should be expelled because quite simply they are too important financially to be removed from Scottish Football IMO
================
That’s good then, they weren’t expelled.
They applied to join the SPL and that application was rejected by the clubs in the SPL. Almost unanimously, not one club agreed to let them in.
They then applied to join the SFL and they were accepted into the bottom division. That was agreed by the majority of SFL clubs so that is fair and proper, it was their league so their choice.
Expulsion was never a consideration, applications to join were. You cannot expel an entity which is no longer there.
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:01 pm
” I never thought they should be expelled because quite simply they are too important financially to be removed from Scottish Football IMO”
——
Are you seriously saying that , in the event that , say, RFC had been found guilty of match-fixing, the SFA would have been justified if they did not expel them, simply because of their financial importance?
I don’t doubt that the present SFA would indeed not have applied the extreme sanction for such base reasons.
You surely are not arguing that it could be RIGHT to have regard to a wrong-doer’s ‘financial importance’ in passing sentence?
That would be to accept an end to any idea of justice and integrity, replacing those ideas with anarchy and lawlessness.
arabest1 says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:37 pm
—————————————————————————————————————————-
I have undernoted my definition of a club that seemed to have ignited a volcano and if you read it you will see that many of the matters raised in your post don’t apply to my ‘club’ concept although they may apply to the Rangers situation.
My concept takes no account of the rule books and there is no legal implications either because my belief is in my heart – not even in my head. Nothing will change it and I haven’t argued for anyone to change their view but just to accept that I am entitled to mine and that my position has nothing to do with Rangers.
Btw this is me ‘lightened-up’ but I readily admit to being puzzled that such a statement could have generated the heat that it has and I would suggest that perhaps it is others who need to ‘lighten-up’.
Definition
I believe a club lasts as long as there are fans to support it. It has enormous emotional value but not even 1p in financial value. It can’t be sold anyway as it doesn’t belong to any individual or corporate entity but to the entire fan base who collectively hold it in trust for future generations of fans.
And what is a ‘club’ – well to me it’s the receptacle which holds the history and culture of a club and its supporters as well as the future aspirations of its fans and as long as they support it then it lives for ever.
If the Groucho Club, well known slurping Palace for luvvies and meedja folk or White’s Gentlemen’s Club, founded in 17 cent for toffs, entered liquidation, any start-up as a result of their demise – The New Groucho or Off-White’s, would not be considered the same club. However the history of their predecessors would be fondly remembered, even ‘attached’ to the new club.
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:41 pm
I can only assume you are either naive or on the wind up. People are on here discussing the Rangers situation. You claim to be posting your thoughts about club / company and the like but not in relation to Rangers. The mock surprise at the confusion caused is laughable.
You have to appreciate that people have strongly held views on this site, both well-researched and emotive. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and put is down to naivety.
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:01 pm
” I never thought they should be expelled because quite simply they are too important financially to be removed from Scottish Football IMO”
==============================
eb – not having a go at all – but genuinely surprised if this is your true position, as it seems to be fundamentally at odds with the purpose of the RTC site, [and at least partially with the TSFM site ?].
If so, then shirley all your prior debates / posts are thus defunct – because finance trumps everything in Scottish football ?
Quite wrong of me, I suppose, but reading the HR manager’s letter to ‘Ali’ about the voluntary redundancy scheme with the nasty little sentence ‘we did have some off the record conversations to encourage some individuals to apply”, I fervently hoped she would be next for the chop.
Is ‘off the record conversations’ a euphemism for ‘ unwitnessed intimidatory ,bullying harangues”?
If you work for people like CW, the nastiness is bound to rub off on you.
Caveat Emptor says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
4 0 Rate This
Macfurgly says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:14 pm
1 0 Rate This
neepheid at 10.58am:
———
Los Angeles?
***********************
El Salvador? HMP Barlinnie? USS Enterprise? RFC Liquidated? The possibilities are endless!!
————-
Charlotte mentions powercuts, so proably not Barlinnie or LA. Cayman Islands doesn’t work. I suppose San Marino is a possibilty, and given the unusal goings on, you cannot rule out the USS Enterprisen – although with its available warp drive energy, powercuts are surely unthinkable. No, my money is on The Bahamas (figuratively speaking).
bayviewgold says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:49 pm
5 0 Rate This
neepheid says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm
If your head explodes will that result in mashed neeps?
coat on
+++++++++++++++++++++++
According to Mrs NH that result was achieved many years ago. And to go totally OT, does anyone else remember the haggis and neeps they used to serve up at the Glasgow Uni student’s union in the 60’s? In the years since, I have paid fancy prices for fancy meals in fancy restaurants many times, but nothing else has ever come close.
I’ll clear up my position on “club”.
If someone wants to talk about a “club” as it exists in the hearts of it’s supporters (customers), then as I have said previously I have no issue with that. It is irrelevant and it is meaningless but to each their own. To me it’s the same as the five stars on the shirt, who cares it’s just part of the design and doesn’t actually mean or represent anything. Not in the real World.
If the customers want to say it is the same “club” and that is their opinion fine.
However a members club is a legal entity it has a definition in law, in the real world it actually means something. As does a Limited Company as does a PLC. That is not a matter of opinion or what people want to believe or espouse (if espouse is the right word) it has a meaning for everyone.
Rangers was a members club, it became a Ltd Company, that became a PLC, that was liquidated and will cease to be. A Rangers now exists, and in the hearts of it’s customers they can think or believe it is the same “club”. Fine, wrong but fine.
So if people think that a club can fail, and leave a trail of debt and carnage behind them. They are right it can. However to then claim the “club” is the same one, in spite of the loss and suffering it caused, just because it is “in the hearts” of it’s customers that is not only wrong it is also in very questionable taste.
As I have also said, what happened happened, nebulous metaphysical arguments try to pretend it didn’t change nothing.
john clarke says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Are you seriously saying that , in the event that , say, RFC had been found guilty of match-fixing, the SFA would have been justified if they did not expel them, simply because of their financial importance?
I don’t doubt that the present SFA would indeed not have applied the extreme sanction for such base reasons.
You surely are not arguing that it could be RIGHT to have regard to a wrong-doer’s ‘financial importance’ in passing sentence?
That would be to accept an end to any idea of justice and integrity, replacing those ideas with anarchy and lawlessness.
=================================================================
Attempting to put hypothetical words in my mouth leads me to believe you cannot fault what I have actually stated. I won’t be replying to any more hypotheses that you have btw although I am always happy to answer questions on what I have ACTUALLY said.
Where did I state or give the impression: ‘in the event that , say, RFC had been found guilty of match-fixing, the SFA would have been justified if they did not expel them, simply because of their financial importance?’
Where did I argue or give the impression: ‘ that it could be RIGHT to have regard to a wrong-doer’s ‘financial importance’ in passing sentence?’
As to your comment: ‘That would be to accept an end to any idea of justice and integrity, replacing those ideas with anarchy and lawlessness.’ Obviously your comment doesn’t apply as your previous statement is irrelevant.
However it’s worth noting that it is very common for courts to investigate a wrong-doers financial ‘importance’ prior to passing sentence so that an appropriate monetary fine is applied if it is decided a financial penalty is the way to deal with the matter.
with all the speculation of CF location given the redacted two words, it is worth pointing out that the email address in question was associated with an address in Florida, the times of posting also match an eastern USA locale. (but also bahamas, BVI etc)
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:57 pm
john clarke says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:23 pm
I know JC can argue for himself, Eco, but he wasn’t putting words in your mouth. Your earlier quote, word for word, was “I never thought they should be expelled because quite simply they are too important financially to be removed from Scottish Football IMO.”
So, McGregor brings in a tidy £1.8m for the Turkish side. I wonder if the D&P chaps ever considered seeking permission to sell players outside the window due to the exceptional circumstances? There must have been at least £5-10m worth of players that could have been let go without totally ruining the side’s competitiveness. Why didn’t Whyte himself attempt a firesale in the January window? He could have stated in public what he stated in private on tape about Ally’s European disasters causing financal distress.
beatipacificiscotia says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:36 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:41 pm
I can only assume you are either naive or on the wind up. People are on here discussing the Rangers situation. You claim to be posting your thoughts about club / company and the like but not in relation to Rangers. The mock surprise at the confusion caused is laughable.
You have to appreciate that people have strongly held views on this site, both well-researched and emotive. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and put is down to naivety.
====================================================================
I an neither naive nor on the wind-up. I was not posting my thoughts on a ‘company’ but merely on my concept of a ‘club’ as I see it. Surprisingly I have done so before in virtually the same terms and I don’t actually remember it getting a single response.
You might be discussing Rangers but in post after post I have made it clear that my thoughts have nothing to do with the Rangers situation – I think anyone with an open mind can determine who is being naive or interpreting something to ‘fit’ what suits their position.
Having strongly held views is no problem to me but it doesn’t provide a licence to mount personal attacks on another poster IMO.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 59s
Sir David Murray – A very generous man it seems.Why would anyone want to pay NI contributions upon receiving a gift?
http://i.imgur.com/dLNnGYo.jpg
Bain’s rather odd letter to D. Murray.
Tax, NI on a gift? Did Murray ask for this?
31 May 2009
Sir David Murray
######
Edinburgh
Dear David
I undertake to pay any tax or national insurance contributions that fall due on the sum of £150,000 which you are going to gift me.
Yours Sincerely
MARTIN BANE
nawlite says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:14 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:57 pm
john clarke says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:23 pm
I know JC can argue for himself, Eco, but he wasn’t putting words in your mouth. Your earlier quote, word for word, was “I never thought they should be expelled because quite simply they are too important financially to be removed from Scottish Football IMO.”
============================================================
The words I stated I have no problem with. The words that were put in my mouth were based on a hypothesis as follows: ‘Are you seriously saying that , in the event that , say, RFC had been found guilty of match-fixing, the SFA would have been justified if they did not expel them, simply because of their financial importance?’
Read my original post and you will see that I did not state that or infer it in any way and hopefull the full context puts it more in context than cherry picking a paragraph and then applying an imaginary hypotheses to it which some might believe has a strong whiff of what-if about it.
I was simply stating my opinion that it would have been a mistake if the SFL had decided against allowing them into SFL3 and thus effectively expelling them from Scottish Football.
If Rangers had been found guilty of match-fixing then I would have expected them to face an SFA ban irrespective of their importance to Scottish Football financially and the length of ban would be determined by the frequency of any wrongdoing.
But that didn’t happen and I was dealing with the facts of the situation as was which is, along with other ‘punishments’ from the 5-way agreement, that IMO it was fair to place them in SFL3.
You may well believe they should have been expelled, banned, dismembered or whatever and you are entitled to your view just as I am to mine.
Reading all these posts, thank God for Ecobhoy, a decent Celtic supporter who knows what his heart tells him, that YOUR club that you have followed all those years through Rain and Shine, trophy s and seasons with nothing means more to him than anyone else can spout, and still know whatever Downfall you have….
It’s still MY club, and will be my Grandsons club also.
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:01 pm
“Since this debacle began I thought it right that Rangers started from the bottom league – I never thought they should be expelled because quite simply they are too important financially to be removed from Scottish Football IMO”.
…………………..
I am puzzled by your comment above…on the face of it….it really is a bizarre comment to make knowing what has transpired over the last 2 years….
You appear to be suggesting that legally the club did not enter liquidation …but continued its existence? That expulsion was too severe for the industrial level of corruption and destruction towards Scottish football and that somehow that is acceptable?
If a club any club wilfully and legally destroy themselves…why should they be saved?…are you suggesting that the LAW of this land should ignore such evidence and declare that regardless of their past…present and future behaviour they cannot and will not be held to account by the laws of this land…TOO important to who? you?..If by their own actions they destroy themselves…then so be it…why should me you or any one be expected to scoop them from drowning?..how can any organisation that destroys itself and elements of the industry it operates in be worth saving?…why would you wish to try and save such a toxic dead weight? other than for some fanciful idea of misguided belief that they are “important financially”…to who?…tell that to the people they left high and dry for £28 million pounds…or the Scottish and European clubs they stiffed for £2-3 million…or the UK tax payer who was stripped of close to £70 million…
Your comment also suggests that corruption and dishonesty have greater importance in regards to Scottish football than it being properly…fairly and honestly governed…
Your statement is not only bizarre in its reasoning…but morally unacceptable…
StevieBC says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:01 pm
” I never thought they should be expelled because quite simply they are too important financially to be removed from Scottish Football IMO”
==============================
eb – not having a go at all – but genuinely surprised if this is your true position, as it seems to be fundamentally at odds with the purpose of the RTC site, [and at least partially with the TSFM site ?].
If so, then shirley all your prior debates / posts are thus defunct – because finance trumps everything in Scottish football ?
==============================================================
Well if all my prior debates/posts are now defunct do I need to register with a new name because I have no history?
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 23m
Sir David Murray – A very generous man it seems.Why would anyone want to pay NI contributions upon receiving a gift?
http://i.imgur.com/dLNnGYo.jpg
North rd says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Reading all these posts, thank God for Ecobhoy, a decent Celtic supporter who knows what his heart tells him, that YOUR club that you have followed all those years through Rain and Shine, trophy s and seasons with nothing means more to him than anyone else can spout, and still know whatever Downfall you have….
It’s still MY club, and will be my Grandsons club also.
……………………..
And in layman’s terms?
paulmac2 says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Your statement is not only bizarre in its reasoning…but morally unacceptable…
=================================================================
As to bizarre statements well I suppose I can be as guitly of that as many of my fellow posters on here – however I have no need to defend my morality and will not engage with a poster who questions it.
paulmac2 says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Your statement is not only bizarre in its reasoning…but morally unacceptable…
=================================================================
As to bizarre statements well I suppose I can be as guilty of that as many of my fellow posters on here – however I have no need to defend my morality and will not engage with a poster who questions it.
paulmac2 says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:42 pm
He tells it how HE sees it, Honest, not with a bitterness against another Fan.
Exiled Celt says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 23m
Sir David Murray – A very generous man it seems.Why would anyone want to pay NI contributions upon receiving a gift?
http://i.imgur.com/dLNnGYo.jpg
==============================================
Begs the question – has any been paid and are there any copies of his signature on annual reports or anything?
Exiled Celt says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm
0 0 Rate This
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 23m
Sir David Murray – A very generous man it seems.Why would anyone want to pay NI contributions upon receiving a gift?
Or why would he require confirmation in writing that it is taking place?
Exiled Celt says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm
1 0 Rate This
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 23m
Sir David Murray – A very generous man it seems.Why would anyone want to pay NI contributions upon receiving a gift?
http://i.imgur.com/dLNnGYo.jpg
———-
What an odd letter @Exiled. Payment, bonus, birthday present?
I wonder if he did pay any NI and tax? I suppose he must have since he promised. I’m not sure of UK Law, but if your Auntie Betty gifts you £150,000, out of the blue, as it were, are such gifts actually taxable income?
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:57 pm
I think I can safely suggest naivety without making a personal attack.
I’m not for one second suggesting we should fall in line on any subject. The more views the merrier. I have been accused of being a troll on this site for taking a stand that is contrary to the mainstream. We need healthy debate and new perspectives. However, some of your comments are just plain nonsense – almost childlike “you smelt it, you dealt it” arguments that lack adult reason. I would love to have a healthy debate but I can’t engage on that level.
I don’t mind the alternative views – I positively welcome them. I think your arguments are flimsy and at time foolish and illogical, but they are yours to make. It is the mock “I’m greatly misunderstood” that lose you all credibility (in my humble opinion). A forum is a wonderful opportunity to share ideas, but more than that it is an opportunity to engage. To throw out ideas then hide behind “I wasn’t talking about what everyone else it talking about” – well, I think I’ve made myself clear.
All that said, keep up the good work and don’t stop posting!
Beware of false prophets.
On the question of redundancies in January 2012 am I right in assuming that none took place prior to February 14 and D&P taking control.
I can see why D&P didn’t get rid of players especially if the plan was to continue in the SPL and also to provide the new company with a cash boost from transfer money. But if they were so far advanced with plans to make non-footballing workers redundant in January why didn’t D&P just pick-up the baton and carry-on.
How quickly did the spivs think they were going to go to market and float and go? Seems to me they might have been thinking a lot earlier than it actually happened meaning that the wages saved on ‘ordinary’ workers wouldn’t be seen as significant.
Brian McHugh says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:32 pm
“Bain’s rather odd letter to D. Murray.
Tax, NI on a gift? Did Murray ask for this?”
————————-
That’s the way it reads to me. Very light on detail so as to avoid any potential for incrimination.
jockybhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 10:03 am
Re the Admin folk. If a player is on £3k a week over a 40 week contract you would have to lay off 6 admin folk on £20k a year to get the same saving of £120k.
If you want to save £1.2M then its 10 players to every 60 admin jobs.
I reckon that anything over £1k a week for a player is an extravagance they cannot afford but an on field performance risk to the business they are afraid of taking.
No pain, no gain I’m afraid but it is the folk laid off who really feel the pain.
ecobhoy says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:33 pm
I was simply stating my opinion that it would have been a mistake if the SFL had decided against allowing them into SFL3 and thus effectively expelling them from Scottish Football.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I’m sorry, but I really can’t go along with this one.
The SFL, in the interests of fairness, should simply have advertised a vacancy, and dealt with the applications according to the rules. Instead, they convened an EGM just for the purpose of bypassing due process and their own rules, to give Sevco the vacancy. You mention what is fair. Well a fair outcome must be fair to all the parties involved, not just benefit one of them. How about the clubs who had been seeking admission to the SFL for years? Was it fair to them? As for expelling them, that was never in question. RFC expelled themselves by heading for liquidation. That is what created a vacancy. A vacancy that should have been open to any qualified club which chose to apply. That would not include Sevco, of course- they didn’t qualify under those pesky inconvenient rules.
So the SFL did Sevco a huge favour by admitting them. What have we heard from Sevco and its media pack ever since? Not that they are grateful for a huge favour, nothing like it. Instead, “enemies” (Mather has the names, by the way) have punished them by “demoting” them to SFL3. You really couldn’t make it up. But as with all the really big lies, just keep on repeating it, and eventually it becomes the “truth”. Goebbels would have been in his element.
Could we not agree, ‘We are a new club but (very similar) people.’
Whether WE ARE VERY SIMILAR PEOPLE will be a popular banner is unclear.. .
beatipacificiscotia says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:59 pm
I think I can safely suggest naivety without making a personal attack.
=======================================================
You can rest assured I will keep posting even though you state my comments are ‘just plain nonsense – almost childlike “you smelt it, you dealt it” arguments that lack adult reason.’
And: ‘I think your arguments are flimsy and at time foolish and illogical, but they are yours to make. It is the mock “I’m greatly misunderstood” that lose you all credibility (in my humble opinion).’
Well none of the above nor your ‘naive’ comment in another post do I regard as a personal attack. What I do regard as a personal attack is your comment below.
beatipacificiscotia says: July 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm
‘ You are more subtle than the “no surrender” mob but a Rangers propagandist none-the-less’.
I think the shop floor redundancies are a prelim to the end game,what other reason ,they have not been running top heavy with the background staff,the lid is about to be blown off and the big bus has got to be paid for.
that bain’s a fly one.
dripped fake tan on the letter to cover up the address.
how convenient.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 59s
Sir David Murray – A very generous man it seems.Why would anyone want to pay NI contributions upon receiving a gift?
http://i.imgur.com/dLNnGYo.jpg
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/RANGERS+FURY+AT+pounds+150k+BUNG+SLUR%3B+EXCLUSIVE+Bain+house+deal…-a0147029965
150k seems to be a popular number