Their Master’s Voice

By

Upthehoops says: July 27, 2013 at 8:07 am Matty Roth says: July 26, …

Comment on Their Master’s Voice by ecobhoy.

upthehoops says:
July 27, 2013 at 8:07 am
Matty Roth says:
July 26, 2013 at 6:50 pm
====================
Matty, you make a compelling case and have given me much to think about. On reflection a club such as Aberdeen has almost certainly suffered as well.
===========================================================

I think Matty’s story reinforces that any corruption in Scottish Football, that goes unchallenged, has the ability to spread and potentially harm every club to the benefit of the club paying for the manufacture and distribution of poison through its PR spinmeisters which is eagerly lapped-up and printed by a media which, at best, is lazy, compliant and useless.

ecobhoy Also Commented

Their Master’s Voice
helpmaboab says:
July 30, 2013 at 7:45 am

Re the photos of the Albion Rovers game. No.59 has a banner which reads “SFA/SPFL totally corrupt”.
Who do they think has benefitted from these corrupt practices? Let me think ummm. Certainly not the rest of Scottish football. After all that’s gone on,you really have to wonder which planet these people inhabit.
======================================================================

I realise it’s easy to have a good laugh at them but there is a very serious side to this because they are proof that the PR inspired ‘victim mentality’ campaign employed by Rangers to brainwash its supporters has actually been a rip-roaring success.

It’s actually quite frightening.


Their Master’s Voice
upthehoops says:
July 29, 2013 at 7:13 am

The idea of asking Nevin to answer questions on here is novel and good. However, given that he enjoys significant employment from BBC Scotland and BBC Five Live, is he really going to be too revealing of what he knows in terms of Editorial decisions? I suspect Nevin’s offer to discuss with Celtic fans at an agreed forum is simply to press his case of what songs shouldn’t be sung and why.
============================================================================
I totally take on board what you’re saying but at the end of the day we all have to make decisions on where we stand. Nevin has appeared before a Holyrood Committee to air his views on sectarianism and I’m afraid you can’t court that kind of publicity and kudos IMO if you are a coward and not be prepared to tell the truth when the crunch comes and might affect your pocket. It means that all else is mere posturing.

At the game in question Nevin appeared to be quite happy to forcefully state that he would report and comment on sectarianism whenever he witnessed it – it is ironical he doesn’t appear to have witnessed it at the game in question 😕

However in making that very public statement he appeared quite happy to go against the BBC’s apparent policy that sectarian singing was not a matter to be discussed by commentators. So he appears to have the moral fibre to stand up to his paymaster. Or does he in view of other outbreaks of such singing that he has ignored – perhaps his bosses have whispered in his ear that he does as he is told or else and is only allowed to parade his conscience when they tell him to.

At the end of the day he can answer questions put to him or not on here and we can make our individual judgements on his actions as a supposedly impartial journalist with brains elsewhere than his feet. I think TSFM is right to separate singing from the ‘politics’ of what decisions were taken by the BBC and Nevins definition of allowable songs is not germane to that real issue which involves identifying what external sources are exerting editorial control over the BBC and for what reason.


Their Master’s Voice
TSFM says:
July 28, 2013 at 11:14 pm
Ecobhoy
I’d be happy to let Nevin explain his actions here (although I am not interested in what constitutes a sectarian song to him), but he’d have to be prepared to answer the questions that would arise from that.
He wouldn’t be answering to Celtic fans exclusively on a Celtic related matter here either. We are mainly interested in editorial interference and trust.
=================================================================

I agree with you on his thoughts as to what constitutes a sectarian song – it isn’t pertinent IMO anyway as he apparently didn’t hear any singing on the day.

Perhaps fellow-posters could post what they would like to be asked as questions so that TSFM can send them as an open letter to Nevin. I have a few but will hold-off and give others the chance to comment. I think it would help TSFM if they are short direct questions which also tends to restrict the amount of waffle that can be inserted into a reply.

To me the important questions have got to centre round what actually happened that day in terms of editorial and production discussions and decisions rather than what sectarian song, if any, was sung.


Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?
———————————————-

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
———————————————————-
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
________________________________________________

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
——————————————-
Couldn’t agree more!


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
———————————————–
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
———————————————
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.


About the author