Good Afternoon.
As virtually anyone on the internet who follows Scottish Football has come to realise, there is a reasoned and determined attempt at ignoring the content of the Charlotte Fakeovers files on the part of the mainstream print media— and indeed by the broadcast journo’s to an extent.
There is widespread speculation that the accessing of the information provided by Charlotte the Harlot was not all above board and the reluctance of the journalists to mention or comment on the documents, so far published on the internet, is often explained away by the lawyers allegedly advising that the content is tainted and so on.
That indeed might or might not be the case, and only the editors, lawyers, journalists and so on will truly know what their stance is on the revelations. Some will want the whole thing suppressed and others will be desperate to get into print, but thus far are frustrated in any attempt to do so.
However, as the documents do appear on the net only to be quickly followed by file disappearances and so on, there is an ever burning question which must be asked and thrown open to debate and argument.
The issue is not just how independent are the Sports Press in Scotland, but whether or not the relationship between certain sections of the press and Rangers or The Rangers is in fact lawful and deserving of football sanctions.
There is no doubt that many big businesses, local authorities and Governments use the services of PR firms and the likes to get information out to the public and to put their slant on any given situation. That is fair enough.
However, in recent days we have seen the release of documentation which, if accurate and true, shows that a leading Scottish PR company were specifically employed to place stories with the press which were designed to damage the reputation of, to embarrass or cause problems for certain other teams and personnel involved in Scottish Football.
Again I stress that all of this is subject to the caveat that what Charlotte is publishing may or may not be real and accurate. However, if what has been produced is in fact the genuine correspondence between the club and its professional advisers then that correspondence needs to be looked at.
The SFA and indeed the SPFL are the bodies that lay down rules which govern the conduct of clubs and their officers and employees.
So looking at these regulations let me just repeat some of them here:
Fisrt the rules of what was the SPL and which I presume are the rules of the SPFL:
A3.1 In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.
A3.2 No Club, either by itself or its Club Officials, shall by any means whatsoever unfairly criticise, disparage, belittle or discredit any other Club, the Company or the League or in either case any such other Cub or the Company’s directors, officers, employees or agents (which shall, for the avoidance of doubt, exclude supporters).
The SFA handbook at article 5 places obligations on members to observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play, and to refrain from engaging in any activity which would constitute a breach of sections 1, 2 and 6 the Bribery Act 2010.
The details of the Bribery act can be found here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/2
Basically, I think these rules mean that you cannot criticise belittle or try to damage the reputation of a club outwith the rules of the games and must at all times behave with integrity, in a sporting manner and with THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH!
The details,as released by Charlotte, show that there is at best a conflict of interests at times with various parties being both employed by the club and paid by radio stations or newspapers to comment on matters relating to all aspects of Scottish Football. As a member of the PR staff at Ibrox presumably such employees are paid to tow a certain party line when commenting in the media and so throw a spin on any given set of facts and circumstances that suits whoever is in control of Ibrox.
Further, it has been suggested that certain individuals acting in this way can also represent the views of for example Walter Smith — and so act as their mouthpiece if necessary.
Such practices may be unpleasant and undesirable but not necessarily against the laws of the game. It would just mean that the newspapers and broadcasters concerned cannot be regarded as independent or objective in their comments or views — they are merely towing an employers line. In short they are HMV— His Masters Voice!
Equally, we have seen supposedly independent journalists and editors referred to in such a way that it is clear they are being asked to spin news a certain way for whatever reason — including the suggestion that if they do not comply then some kind of action will be taken which the parties concerned would rather avoid — such as private matters becoming public.
However, of far greater interest is the suggestion that where necessary the newspapers or whoever will be used to spread negative stories about another club, its employees, directors or whoever.
Such a position may well amount to a breach of articles 3.1 and 3,2 of the SPL ( now SPFL rules) and against the principals set out in the SFA handbook.
Both the SFA and the SPL ( SPFL) has a press office and legal officers.
Both grant rights to broadcasters and journalists, and allow members of the press access to their officers and officials.
Both bodies are free to set out what is acceptable conduct on the part of clubs in this area…… and what is not!
Without even alluding to the detail of the Charlotte revelations, or needing to enquire into the details of the Charlotte documents, I would have thought that the governing bodies would be capable of issuing a formal reminder, to all clubs currently playing at any level in Scottish football, of the content of these rules and that any breach of the rules will not be tolerated.
Of course the matter becomes more convoluted if any officers of the SFA or SPL were involved in the employment of any PR companies or agencies on behalf of a member club and engaged in briefing any such agency about what to say when it comes to the affairs of other clubs. Surely you cannot have an executive officer of a governing body who is in any way linked to the employment of an agency which breaks rules on behalf of a member club?
However, few of these people ever appear on the airwaves to answer questions on a personal basis, and very few expose themselves to questions from the public.
However, many of the commentators and journalists named in the Charlotte documents are regulars on the airwaves and could, in theory, be asked whether or not they are no more than “Their master’s voice” as would appear to be the case if the Charlotte documents are in fact genuine.
If the Scottish Footballing Public are to be entrusted with the truth — and why shouldn’t they in this era of open and transparent football governance– then I think they are entitled to enquire direct whether or not the journalists, players, ex players,managers directors, broadcasters and governing body officials believe in articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SPFL rules and article 5 of the SFA handbook?
Oh– and maybe the same people could provide some practical examples of what they would consider to be breaches of these rules and what the appropriate sanctions might be?
Specifically– do the actions mentioned in the Charlotte documents ( if true ) fall within the football rules or not?
Or do the SFA and SPFL just ignore placed press releases and comments?
It would be interesting to know.
Good blog: the answer is the SFA and SPFL just ignore placed press releases and comments.
And, finally, I’m able to comment again. 😛
BRTH
I am becoming more and more convinced that Rangers and their successors, beloved as they may or not be, are just not significant enough to warrant the Silence of the Lambs you so expertly laid out for us.
RFC are merely the first layer of a very corrupted onion and the reason that the MSM are being leveraged by people who move in circles a few atmospheres above those described in football, is to protect the inner, non-football layers.
Conspiracy paranoia or not, silence of the main protagonists, creative legal behaviour, information embargos and making rules up at run time is no way to dampen the belief that we are all being had.
I think we are witnessing fear of Murray – not a love of any soon-to-be liquidated Scottish football team
And thus we progress.
There are so many questions that should be being asked about Charlotte’s stuff.
It may emanate from a brilliantly clever ‘forger’ using his/her ( and I would love if it were a ‘her’) IT skills to adapt/ amend perfectly ordinary emails.
It may be the result of clever hacking ( perhaps illegal, but the truth would still be there)
It may be absolutely the truth, legally recorded and retrieved.
Doesn’t matter.
No one in the MSM has even publicly asked the questions!
Did Jill Troon write those repulsive, offensive emails?
Is David Fraser a pseudonym for SDM ( and if it is, how dare he use one of the most honourable names in Scottish history, whether ancient or modern?)
Were cosy arrangements about keeping a club in the SPL really made?
Who did have dinner with whom, and why?
What is in the 5-way agreement?
Were all of the SPL Board and SPL clubs kept fully up to speed?
Who lied to whom?
Who briefed Bryson on the astonishing interpretation he came up with?
Lord God, if I were a journalist!
Never mind, we will get there.
We will hunt out the truth as surely as the Wiesenthal Centre does in respect of the baddest baddies there ever was.
There can be no escape for the compromised, guilty men of Scotttish Football administration.
They know it, and we know it.
In the words of another Fraser, ” they’re doomed, I tell ye, DOOMED”
And, I should have added, another fine post, BRTH!
Well done again!
This is the text of an email I sent to Hay-McKerron the day before yesterday. I thought I may as well ask the question.
Gentlemen/ladies
There is, I believe, in cyberspace what is alleged to be a copy of an email sent by one Jack Irvine of Media House on 12/05/11 , in which he relates that a company named ‘McKerron Hay’ has been
“retained….to carry out ‘media intelligence’ and to place stories which we might not want as official Rangers policy.Also it becomes important for negative stories to be placed about opposing teams and we would want some distance from Rangers FC”
The similarity between your company name and the company mentioned in this very publicly spread alleged copy of an email is enough to make me ask whether indeed you might have been the company retained ( apparently on a reduced basis) by Media House?
You will probably know better than I that Jack Irvine says rather more than his prayers, and I for one take anything he says with a very large pinch of Saxa!
It would be very nice, however, to learn from you that you are not the ‘McKerron Hay’ he apparently refers to.
Yours enquiringly,
John Clarke
john clarke says:
July 23, 2013 at 11:26 pm
2
0
Rate This
macfurgly says:
July 23, 2013 at 10:40 pm
‘Regarding LNS, is it not possible that this is realpolitik and that UEFA were informed that RFC had fielded ineligible players in every match, domestic and European, including Champions League for years and simply told the SFA to sort it out within Scotland pronto because the scale of the consequences were unmanageable.
———-
What we , or at least I, don’t know is whether any body that is not formally recognised as part of the Uefa structure- national associations, leagues within those associations,clubs, players/players’ representatives and what not -has any ‘right’ to refer matters to, or to be heard by, any Uefa disciplinary body.
Auldheid, I think it was, drafted, or referred to a draft, submission on behalf of TSFM (?) to Uefa asking them to have a look at what was happening in Scottish Football.
I myself have emailed from time to time.
With no response to me, or, as far as I know,to Auldheid/TSFM
It seems to me that, Europe-wide, the supporters of football have no ‘rights’ of representation.
Uefa is in its own way as unaccountable to the supporters of all the clubs in Europeas the SFA appears to think they are to the supporters and life-blood of the game here in Scotland.
_______________________________________
The post you refer to came from CQN and it is still a work in progress but hopefuly near complete. Thr idea is to use the UEFA Club Financial Control Bodyprovsions to get an enquiry into the SFA particularly their approach to licensing as that is the CFCB brief. This is something new as is the attempt to present it at the Celtic AGM for shareholder approval which gives Celtic the authority/excuse to refer to UEFA CFCB.
Their rules are at
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/85/85/25/1858525_DOWNLOAD.pdf
and Articles 3, 10 and 11 refer.
BRTH – good post, and the silence from Hampden is ‘absolutely’ farcical. Do the ‘administrators’ think if they stay in their bunker long enough – with their fingers in their ears and eyes closed – that everything will turn out OK ? Their non-performance is scandalous.
=========
TSFM says:
July 24, 2013 at 12:26 am
…
I think we are witnessing fear of Murray – not a love of any soon-to-be liquidated Scottish football team
=========
Do you know something we don’t TSFM ?
Still got my fingers and toes crossed that there is proof out there that certain ‘journalists’ where on the payroll too… mibbees via an EBT…?
TSFM says:
July 24, 2013 at 12:26 am
‘….I think we are witnessing fear of Murray – not a love of any soon-to-be liquidated Scottish football team’
——-
I kind of half agree, in terms of the historical ‘respect’ and ‘adulation’ that the MSM bestowed upon said Murray.
But said Murray had become toxic as far as Lloyds was concerned, and his relative failures in the business world cost him some of his’ magic businessman par excellence’ charisma.
One up to the true independence of the market, which acts on the principle that if you are a friend in need you’re just a blo.dy nuisance!
Wherein may lie any reason to fear a busted, humiliated, tarnished by failure,alleged tax cheat?
Other than in a shared sentiment, shared belief in the ethos represented by the said Murray? And shared by perhaps the best and most protected species in the world , the best football administrator in the world?
Who knows?
The two Scots guys on the FTTT?
Auldheid says:
July 24, 2013 at 1:10 am
‘….The post you refer to came from CQN and it is still a work in progress but hopefuly near complete. ..’
——-
Thanks for that update, Auldheid.
Talk about lazy journalists!
I should have patiently scrolled back to find and cite my reference!
There was a time for doubting the veracity and authenticity of the information published by CharlotteFakeovers. There was a time when referring to Charlotte as a Harlot was a whimsical term that cloaked our inner desire to devour the information and satiate a hidden hunger for revenge.
I’ve been going through the Charlotte documents to see if I can find the one referring to Michelle Platini and his possible connivance in the Rangers cover-up so that I can respond to a comment made by mcfurgly earlier this evening. I could not find it. There is so much information it is overwhelming. Had I taken Charlotte more seriously from the outset I would have catalogued it and categorised it to make it more easily searched. The list of tweets I did catalogue by date up until the end of June runs to nine pages, with a blank line between each entry. Nine pages of document titles and not even a full list.
As I look at my hardcopy that I’ve been using to audit the information deleted by Levy McRae et al, I see a raft of ‘souncloud’ entries. Hours of audio involving the main protagonists. All the way down to wee Craigie having a pee. If this is forgery then it is a science that has been raised to the level of an art form. How many ‘takes’ were necessary to execute the dialogue in a manner that sounded so convincing? How were the voice artists recruited? How long was spent editing the raw audio down into its final form?
Why is it necessary for firms of solicitors to have documents removed from the twitter feed?
Why would TSFM be suffering Denial of Service attacks?
If you need more proof than this then you will forever live in doubt.
Someone has taken great time and possibly personal risk to reveal this information to us. So much information that it is difficult to make complete sense of. Yet even our tiny minds can see that it is very significant indeed. It is revelatory.
CharlotteFakeover has been a huge addition to the TSFM discussion. The discussion would still have taken place even in her absence but it would have taken years to progress as far as we have come in the last few months. I can read BRTH’s post as if it is a statement of the obvious. That is how far we have come. What would have previously been viewed as speculative, radical or ridiculous is now understood and almost accepted. We must be mindful that this is not a normal state of affairs. This is distortion layered upon distortion which is then published as fact.
The adage is; if you’re going to tell a lie, why not make it a big one.
One thing about CharlotteFakeovers is the revelation of a truth that some folk will be unable to handle. Years of denial keeping guilt at bay with holes now appearing in the denial dam.
What CF and how Rangers demise has been handled are showing is we were not paranoid enough and at some point history will tell that truth.
TSFM says:
July 24, 2013 at 12:26 am
I think we are witnessing fear of Murray – not a love of any soon-to-be liquidated Scottish football team
.
________________________
Its fear OK and perhaps a bit based on what Murray knows about his journo pals who feasted well at his table and enjoyed the gravy too, but the bigger fear is the loss of 40 to 50,000 paying customers to the Scottish football industry. Its maybe a wee bit sectarianism but sectarianism sells, so its just piziness.
The Daily Record Keith Jackson 26th, June, 2013
Rangers takeover tapes reveal secret talks between Ibrox money men on selling shares to fraudster on Interpol’s most-wanted list
“FINANCE chief Brian Stockbridge is heard on the recordings from last summer talking to disgraced former owner Craig Whyte and axed commercial director Imran Ahmad about selling £5m worth of shares to Rafat Rizvi – who is wanted for “corruption, money laundering and banking crime” according to Interpol.”
You didn’t require an HNC in Acute Awareness to appreciate that this particular breach of the ‘Protocol of Silence’ came pre-packed with barbs, wrath, and consequences. I know whose name is on the byline, but what prompted the breach, who proposed it, who promoted it and who prosecuted it?
The media are most certainly aware of CharlotteFakeovers revelations, have no doubts. They can refer to them if they so choose; again have no doubts. For me the question which beggars belief is why the orchestra of silence? What have the SMSM done, if anything, what could the SMSM have gotten themselves embroiled in, if anything, that could possibly be so bad… that they can’t give one of the biggest stories in Scottish sport, due, and respectful, accord?
To my mind, CharlotteFakovers (with some of her most recent revelations) has destroyed the reputation of the SMSM. Her scathing appreciations of the SMSM resonate. Her cynical opinion regards the integrity and worth of the SMSM, as individuals as well as a collective, is reciprocated and then shared, with the highest disdain, by football fans from the full spectrum of affiliation in Scotland; and some from beyond too. Those who work in the media, who own the media, are aware of this. If my livelihood was under unfair attack I’d sure as hell defend it every which way but none.
It’s surreal what is going on, it is like a giant corporate game of brag only Charlotte has a deck loaded with deuces and aces and each time she plays uncontested the stakes just get higher and higher, but fear of corrupt exposure dictates the corporate hand stays blind, vainly hoping that Charlotte runs out of currency before they run out of excuses, hiding places, and time.
The SMSM need a hero, now, today; their reputation is in shreds, who’s going to pull their jocks over their chino’s and restore the pride of the pack? 50 quid says ‘status quo’ gets the gig.
Whenever I think of the mess the press is in, this scene always springs to mind:
The Untouchables: “His name wasn’t on the list”
Fear of Murray ?
MIH financials
Losses over last 4 years at MIH
£98 million, £89 million, £72 million, £225 million
The biggest fear anyone should have of this guy, is that he gets hold of a cheque book.
Busted flush in a business sense is being kind to him.
So why would the MSM have a fear of Murray ? They aren’t afraid to report on seriously nasty individuals, so I doubt it is cowardice ( not that i’m suggesting Murray would resort to that).
Jack Irvine , according to Charlottes emails, has made multiple references to knowing about MSM editors “dirty little secrets” . If Irvine knows, I suspect Murray knows as well. Irvine indicated he would have no issue, using his information. Would Murray really blackmail / threaten an Editor ? I doubt he’s that stupid,although its a fine line between compromise and threat , where both parties have matters they would rather not see the light of public scrutiny.
The business press have turned on Murray. I suspect their reasoning is that they have been made to look stupid in swallowing his pronouncements of great things for MIH ( see financial results for proof). The Sports press may feel they owe Murray, and from their perspective he was probably a complete gift with his need for publicity.
Fear ? Maybe, but if it is , the reason’s not immediately obvious
Alex Tomo noted that the barriers to wider MSM use of the @CharlotteFakes materials is related to Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights:
alex thomson @alextomo 9 Jul
Police to investigate Rupert Murdoch’s knowledge of bribes http://bit.ly/1akRjbh
czm @czm3 10 Jul
@alextomo Alex what’s the difference between Murdoch tapes & @CharlotteFakes materials? Are you closer to broadcast? No criticism – curious
alex thomson @alextomo 10 Jul
@czm3 former not protected by Article 8 Human Rights Act – latter is. Huge difference.
Morning all,
Great blog,BRTH.
Highlights the collusion between some of the players involved,MSM,TRFC etc.
All we can do is,with the help of Charlotte,keep hammering away till something gives.
TRFC have become secondary in this fiasco.We’re now talking about cover-ups at a government level,never mind within football itself.
All it’ll take is one major crack to appear in the dam.Then we’ll people singing.Not for the common good,unfortunately but to save their own skin.
Rangers are the common denominator that ties it all together.
Anyway,speaking of TRFC,
Checking back on my Twitter account I found this from David Low:
David Low @Heavidor 8h
The Rangers Football Club Limited Annual Return way overdue? Why?
https://twitter.com/Heavidor/status/359796876314296321/photo/1
What’s the mortgage charge?.
BRTH
The SFA will ignore anything that suits them, Turnbull described them as corrupt / crooks on the steps of Hampden and this was ignored, as the embarrassment caused in taking action outweighed the benefit.
Bottom line is that Charlotte revealed that the Rangers media advisors are happy to peddle claptrap to the Rangers directors and they in turn pay money for this service.
The biggest revelation is that Mark Hately speaks for Walter … Always has Walter down as an over rated playground bully , and like most bullies he is not the brightest pebble on the beach.
kitalba says:
July 24, 2013 at 2:43 am
5 0 Rate This
The Daily Record Keith Jackson 26th, June, 2013 ….
———
You’d have thought that Jackson’s piece would have had a snowball effect. Now it appears to have been merely an abberration, from the editoriaI staff at least. I notice he has written some other fairly critical articles regarding the powers that be, too. Considering the way CG and IA got the bum’s rush after similar bad press, it’s surprising that Stockbridge has remained in place. Strange longevity. Wasn’t it KJ who also outed Stockbridge as being the source of the Malcom Murray video? Could he be a closet bampot? 💡
broganrogantrevinoandhogan asked ‘…Or do the SFA and SPFL just ignore placed press releases and comments?’
I do not doubt for one minute that they do. The question I would dearly love answered is what exactly WOULD have to be alleged for them to look into it. It appears to me there is NOTHING Rangers, The Rangers, or anyone associated with them can allegedly do or say that would require further action to be considered. If I go to the Police and allege a crime against a person or persons they will look into it further. They may not take further action depending on what they do or do not find, but in the public interest they will conclude their inquiries. An awful lot has been alleged by Charlotte and it is incredible there appears to be no ‘policing’ going on by the authorities. How they can put their heads on the pillow at night is beyond me. In the meantime most of us who already mistrusted the press will now wonder exactly how the next negative story about Celtic, or the next pie in the sky story about Rangers, came about.
Shame on them, shame on them all. They are not football people, and they clearly care nothing about the game being run in as transparent and honest a manner as possible. There is a phrase ‘may the best team win’. In Scotland is it ‘may the best cheat win?’.
“toe the line”
What exactly did your grammar teacher teach you BRTH?
54 (times please and hand it in by 4 o’clock)
Excellent post but why push Media House water uphill? It will eventually run down again and find it’s way into the sewer where it belongs
“Silence of the Lambs”
A new movie produced and directed by Jack Irvine.
Script: jack (jackass) irvine
Casting: Jack (jackass) Irvine
Addition Casting: Hay Mckerron
Music: Maryhill Orange Lodge
Promotion & PR: Charlotte Fakeover
Cast and parts:
Campbell Ogilvie – the Great Administrator
Hugh Keevins- the hopeless hack
Keith Jackson- the collaborator
Tom English- the Nearly Man
Charles Green- The Clown
Daryl King – Florida Phil
Graham Spiers – Another Nearly man
Phil Mac: the Truthsayer
Mark Daly: the digger
Jim Traynor: the double agent
Ally McCoist: shite manager
Viv Nicholson: The Ibrox Beancounter
Craig White: Marty Feldman
Isobel Oakeshott: the snitch
Andrew Thomson: mr intergrity
I could go on but I have to much to do this morning. Maybe someone can make up the Storyline and someone else can do the strap lines which all must be followed by 5 Stars 🙂
slimshady61 says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:00 am (Edit)
Right enough– I need a big Toe in the rear for not spotting that!!!
By the way– if it is the case that stories are planted to spin events or to discredit opponents or whatever — what do the bodies corporate say if stories are planted to unsettle an opposition player or signing target?
There are clear rules about tapping up but what about stories to disrupt players– registered with the governing body and bound by their rules– who play for other clubs?
A great post, BRTH, but if we are relying on anyone in football doing anything whatsoever about the scandalous situation which you highlight,, and which has endured now for 20 years or more, then we will have a very long wait indeed. There is, of course, the problem that the “guilty” parties identified by CF, SDM and RFC, are no longer active in Scottish football- well,OK, allegedly no longer active in the case of SDM. Who amazingly, and so far as I am aware, is still a “fit and proper person” in the eyes of the football authorities. We are told that Media House no longer work for TRFC. And the band played believe it if you like, as my mother used to say. So on the face of it, no current problem. Just an unfortunate bit of history, which has already been swept under that very lumpy Hampden carpet.
The SFA/SPFL could indeed issue a reminder/warning to the clubs of the existence of the rules, and the strict enforcement that will follow any breach. Given their track record in this department, is anyone, especially anyone at Ibrox, going to take a blind bit of notice? That’s what happens when rules are bent or ignored by those charged with upholding them. All credibility in the very system of rules is shredded. That’s where we are today in Scottish football.
But have no fear, we now have the SPFL riding to the rescue with its shiny new rule book and shiny new CEO- wait a minute, haven’t I seen him somewhere before? Yes, it’s Neil Doncaster, who, if CF’s releases are to be believed, has just taken over from Ogilvie the title of World’s most conflicted football administrator. Scottish football had the opportunity of a fresh start over the last few weeks. An election for President of the SFA, the appointment of a CEO for the new SPFL. An opportunity that has been squandered in spectacular fashion. It is clear to me that the clubs don’t want change. They want business as usual, however grubby and corrupt that business might be. There is no appetite for any sort of investigation into Doncaster’s involvement in SDM’s pre-administration planning. No appetite to do anything about a President who for many years owed a substantial sum of money,(and probably still does) which was ultimately provided to him by a member club of the very organisation of which he is now President and was previously treasurer.
We saw how press behaviour currently stands at the weekend, and as confidently predicted, we have another outbreak of dignified silence from the Celtic Boardroom regarding The Scottish Sun’s outrageous piece of mischief making on Sunday night. Unless I’ve missed something? An apology from the Sun? A strongly worded statement from CFC? Any statement from CFC? Sun journalists banned from Celtic Park? Anything?
Is it just me, or is there something very badly wrong at the very heart of this poor, benighted wee country of ours? No matter how obvious the corruption, nothing gets done, those involved not only don’t suffer any adverse consequences, they are instead handsomely rewarded for their efforts. How, in any rational universe, can Ogilvie still be SFA President? How can Doncaster get a huge pay rise and become CEO of the SPFL on the back of his “pillow talk” prior to RFC’s administration? How can Regan survive the EUFA licencing scandal? So many questions, but never any answers.
All I can do is wait and hope for the “mucking of Campbell’s byre” at some point. More in hope than expectation, on the basis of recent history. Somebody tell me, what will it take to shift these people? A ton of dynamite? A nuclear bomb? Whatever it is, can somebody please press the big red button. Soon.
Blu
Maybe so.Point taken.
We live in an age where “the whole truth” is increasingly a stranger in society.
What´s worse is that the masses swallow it and come back for more. A largely compliant media have become a tool in the deception rather than an investigative hurdle to surmount.
PR, or the part of it that is spin (lies) has become an almost legitimate and necessary part of UKPLC and beyond. Once it´s got it´s foot in the door and more, it becomes for obvious reasons very hard to push out.
I believe that this is a fundamental reason why society is where it is today, economically, socially, geo-politically etc. It is based upon a tapastry of lies.
Within Scottish football, if you think that Rangers are the only club to have used PR in what may be termed as a defensive manner or even on occasion offensive then you are not objective or being truthful with yourself.
The negative for Rangers was that it was generally used in the interests of the owner opposed to the longterm interests of the club. Hence the club is where is where it is today and eg.SDM is still relatively unscathed.
If people seriously want to address this issue and it´s a vitally important one for our children and the world they will inherit, then surely any fightback or campaign has to start at the top.
Just to add on the general theme of spin (lies).
I´d compare it to money laundering.
They take a lie or deception and convert it into what is now termed as acceptable spin.
Danish Pastry:
Maybe CW taught Brian Stockbridge a thing or two about Kodak and covert taping!!! Personally I think he is an adept blue tongued chameleon and his public display of professional ethics regards the leaking of the Murray videos was classless, callous, and character defining.
I believe it is a basket case over there and it will unravel. That does not concern me, what does concern me is how the written rules will be applied and how authorities will conduct themselves, in the interests of Scottish football as a whole, should lightning indeed strike again on Ibrox.
At the end of the day the Sports Desks and the footballing authorities are joined at the hip, especially the tabloids.
Football dominates the sports section. The green and blue teams of Glasgow even more so. An ex-player’s girlfriend’s sprained ankle will get more column inches than a Scottish sportsman or woman becoming world champion in a ‘minority sport’.
Now that cash is all important those currently in charge of the game and the SMSM are following the old adages
‘There’s no such thing as bad publicity’ OR
“There is only one thing in life that is worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
The sports editors, reporters and I guess the proprietors are happy to play the game.
The recently outrage at the Sun’s coverage of the bus depot fire will soon be offset at some point by a ‘T’Rangers in crisis’ story that will have the posters on the Bears Den and the likes foaming at the mouth calling for boycotts and the need for Mather to take a stand against the clubs enemies etc etc.
These guys know what they are doing, they will play each side off against each other. The trick is not to ‘do a Hillsborough’ and take it too far.
As for the footballing authorities and the clubs themselves, lets not fool ourselves.
Money is tight and times are hard across the board.
They wanted the T’Rangers shilling to be in the SPL’s pot (why, given what went before, is beyond me but thats another argument) . If the fans hadn’t made threats with regard to not taking up season tickets, that is exactly where they would have been. The SPL clubs would have been happy and the SFL clubs wouldn’t have batted an eye – none of their business..
The SFL clubs then only became concerned with the Div 1 fudge because they too faced a fan revolt. If not for that T’ Rangers would have been in Div1.
The formation of the SPFL would, on the face of it, appear to be the ideal time for a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ to get the new structure off to a fresh and transparent start. Lessons from the likes of Rangers, Hearts, Dunfermline, Dundee, Motherwell and Livingston could be learned along with the ‘good practice’ of clubs like Hibs and St Johnstone all with the aim of taking the game in our small country forward on an even keel and in a sustainable fashion.
However don’t hold your breath. As others have said there is too much muck under the carpets for that.
SO…..
The footballing authorities, aided by the clubs will do nothing.
The SMSM will do nothing.
Therefore we will need to rely on our own good efforts and hope that someone like Thommo, Daly or Phil Mac takes up the gauntlet to get to the bottom of what truly is a scandal.
I believe that we are now witnessing the potential implosion of Scottish football. Many are of the view that the team ,always keen to state its supremacy within our game, has brought this about ,aided and abetted by a lacklustre, and conflicted set of national administrators.
The level of analysis on this site is highly sophisticated, the degree of conjecture is diminishing as the truth, a small but determined bubble, slowly but surely reaches the surface of the stagnant dam occupied by the ‘saviours’ of our game.
I have no doubt that something has to give, and that may arise given ongoing enquiries into matters TRFC by the Police, BDO or elsewhere. I have no faith in the journalistic enterprise of the media, with one or two exceptions.
The awfulness of what has happened is akin to a patient with a large and ugly boil which no-one is prepared to remove.
For the poor unfortunate who has to live with the boil all he can do is start to accept his appearance and improve his outlook from within. Sadly I don’t think he is capable of rehabilitation as he lacks insight into his condition.
For those around him who have pretended the boil does not exist, they in turn have to admit the boil is there and it is ugly.
The truth will come out but it may be too little, too late for one particular team, and the other teams who have to share the Scottish league.
To date, there is no evidence of anyone wishing to pick up the scalpel and lance the boil regardless of consequence.
From Charlotte: http://www.scribd.com/doc/155371977/Jack-Irvine-Snake
“I handled the hostile Celtic take over in 1991”
Has anyone any knowledge as to whether this ‘handling’ was to place negative stories about Celtic’s boardroom politics at the time or whether Irvine was employed by one of the sides invovled? IIRC Murray took over at Ibrox in 1988.
Blu
Ironically the events at Celtic spawned Media House and converted Jack Irvine into a spin guru.
“Media House came into being following a phone call from Michael Murphy – now global CEO of Grayling – who wanted Irvine’s help handling comms around a hostile takeover of Celtic Football Club.”
http://www.brandrepublic.com/features/1078626/jack-irvine-combative-crusader/
Barcabhoy may know more details.
TSFM says:
July 24, 2013 at 12:26 am
RFC are merely the first layer of a very corrupted onion..
..the reason that the MSM are being leveraged by people who move in circles a few atmospheres above those described in football, is to protect the inner, non-football layers….
…I think we are witnessing fear of Murray – not a love of any soon-to-be liquidated Scottish football team
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I think you are bang on the money here.
Rangers are collateral damage, not the big story.
That sad tale emanates from the very core of our economy, the financial sector and how it operated and maybe how it still does.
Rangers were just an easy vehicle for someone’s ego.
A cheap way to get publicity and sycophantic friends.
A great way to become famous and richer.
It all spiralled into today’s House of Cards scenario.
The collateral damage is now potentially bigger than Rangers and their spivved-out phoenix/carcass.
And sadly the silence from Holyrood is ever more deafening especially in the run up to our referendum.
Truth will out and if they think we’ll give up and go away they are mistaken.
What ties Murray -the media – Rfc*- Jack – the legal system-the blazers and the police at the highest levels ?
what institution forces an omerta on its participants ?
How can I square the circle for you all without getting the third degree from the mods for doing so ?
Why was the 5 way agreement secret ? Is it just the way things are done at these levels ?
I think we all know whats really going on here , dont we ?
Meanwhile, in Spain:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/pain-in-spain-la-liga-in-financial-turmoil-8721595.html
I note the new branding for the SPFL
To copy is flattery to our English counterpart and reveals a lack of independent drive and originality.
timtim says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:03 am
8
0
Rate This
What ties Murray -the media – Rfc*- Jack – the legal system-the blazers and the police at the highest levels ?
what institution forces an omerta on its participants ?
How can I square the circle for you all without getting the third degree from the mods for doing so ?
Why was the 5 way agreement secret ? Is it just the way things are done at these levels ?
I think we all know whats really going on here , dont we ?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Nail on head. We will never get to the bottom of any of this. This “fraternal axis” has existed for a long, long time in Scotland.
I actually take issue with people who are insinuating that this bias has only existed since Murray’s tenure.
Go onto the celticwiki and look up an article called “Falling Masonry”. This article gives a very good insight into how the media and Scottish society were perceived to operate from a neutral viewpoint. Long, long before Alex Thomson’s incredulity at our “Banana Republic”
Great article BRTH.
Someone must have their own voice in the SMSM, SFA and I would like to here it.
There are many ventriloquists puppets within the media and Scottish football with their masters hand firmly pulling the strings. Who is at the top, who is the grand master, who benefits, as it is not football on the whole. Why is it still necessary for ONE club to rule Scottish football on and off the field, why??
All we need is an equivalent to Pinocchio and some one to stand on their own 2 feet and eventually realize that lying does have consequences and truth will find a way.
The problem is it is on a Grand scale for whatever reason and it takes a strong character to stand up and lodge an appeal for truth. Fear is the key maybe.
Is the truth to difficult to believe and the consequences of it to severe to comprehend. I want the truth no matter what the damage is for Sevco and all its mouthpieces. Scottish football without the truth will die and those who stood silent while knowing the truth will be to blame. I am one voice and all I want to be is heard.
Eeramacaroonbar and his “falling masonry” angle is part of the reason why the real issue´s will not be addressed, far less changed.
Is this blog objective or party political ?
See TD´s for a rough guide.
For 20-odd years we have all instinctively ‘known’ that the MSM had an agenda which was skewed in favour of RFC. Some may construe this as a controversial statement or taking the victim stance but it isnae.
From hover pitches to the across the board acceptance of the Pinsent Mason report denying links between CW & CG (‘You are Sevco’ – FFS!) it has been relentless. Even last weekend we had ‘Busgate’ in the Sun and the ridiculous article by Keevins, who has a wee suspicion that RFC have more cash than they are letting on. Who do they expect to believe this drivel?
Basic journalistic tenets and common sense require that sources are checked. For the average guy (me), this is now second nature. In our communication age, nothing is simpler.
However, I, for one, having my suspicions confirmed, am now very angry that not one of the (MSM) press pack has risen to the challenge that has been gift wrapped by Charlotte. Enquire, question, corroborate, be a pest, seek answers.
Journalistic integrity my a***!!
helpmaboab says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:46 am
============================
boab, thanks for taking the time to reply.
I wonder if the word fear in the term without fear or favour.
Is the fear associated simply with Sevco, SMSM and all other entities that are the voice’s of this corrupt club, as simply the fear of competing on a level playing field as all OTHER clubs. With no favours. Is that their deep rooted fear that they would have to win trophies with sporting integrity on their own merit. Have they no faith that they could win trophies based on their talent without favours. I pity them.
Or is it the fear that another club would be simply the best in Scotland.
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:51 am
Eeramacaroonbar and his “falling masonry” angle is part of the reason why the real issue´s will not be addressed, far less changed.
Is this blog objective or party political ?
See TD´s for a rough guide.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m not sure what you mean by objective Jack. Sure there are many conspiracy theories and Celtic minded posts on here but all I do is apply my own filter and focus on the posters who talk sense about the matters I’m interested in.
Your contributions are insightful at times but I’m not sure why you need to bite back at the blog as not being objective so much – it never will be it’s just a collection of analysis, facts and opinions from people who are not prepared to tolerate corruption in our game. Leave out the snide side of your posts and you’ll get fewer TD’s 😉
Great post by BRHT – I wonder if Hugh Keevins, one of this country’s leading advocates of the phenomena of Celtic paranoia, will have anything to say about the activities of MH and whether the Celtic fans may just have had a point.
Drew
The issue of objectivity or rather how close to objectivity this blog can get is a real one and not to be shyed away from. If it pretends to be a platform for Scottish football then it has to address the issue or be holed beneath the water line before it evolves.
I recognise that by bringing the issue up it means to go off topic somewhat but the blog is organised in such a way that it is difficult to do otherwise.
I´ll leave it there but suggest a seperate blog post (perhaps written by two from two different perspectives) and an ensuing debate for those interested.
I have a dislike for all this marketing and branding in football.The world has diminished in good taste since the arrival of World Cup Willie in 1966.That Doncaster has chosen to emulate the insignia and titles of the English leagues tells me that ,yet again,he has compromised the identity of Scottish football.
Call me old fashioned but what is wrong with Scottish League Division 1,2,3 &4?
Long Time Lurker says:
July 24, 2013 at 6:47 am
Alex Tomo noted that the barriers to wider MSM use of the @CharlotteFakes materials is related to Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights:
czm @czm3 10 Jul
@alextomo Alex what’s the difference between Murdoch tapes & @CharlotteFakes materials? Are you closer to broadcast? No criticism – curious
alex thomson @alextomo 10 Jul
@czm3 former not protected by Article 8 Human Rights Act – latter is. Huge difference.
===================================================================
I find this a curious response and would suggest that it’s worth looking at: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-8-right-to-respect-for-private-and-family-life.html
My understanding from the above link is that: The Human Rights Act 1998 only binds public bodies, and not individuals, so there still is no general right to protection from invasion of privacy by other individuals in society. This means that you cannot sue your neighbour, or a private company, for invading your privacy.
Article 8 offers general protection for a person’s private and family life, home and correspondence from arbitrary interference by the State.
More recently, in the English and Welsh courts, it has been recognised that a right of privacy may be enjoyed by a company as well as an individual. I haven’t yet found the details of that decision.
I assume that AT is referring to:
Correspondence under Article 8
This element of Article 8 protects your right to communicate with others and the confidentiality of those communications. All forms of communication are covered by Article 8 and include communication by way of phone calls and letters, as well as e-mails.
However Article 8 is a qualified right
This means that an interference with the right can be justified in certain circumstances. Where the interference is justified, there will be no breach of Article 8.
Article 8 refers to the right to respect and so in addition to protecting your rights from interference by a public authority, it imposes a positive obligation on public authorities to actively protect your rights in certain circumstances. This can include taking action to secure respect for your rights even where the interference is being caused by a private individual (see paragraph headed ‘Positive obligations’ below)
Positive obligations
Article 8 and the other qualified articles are largely concerned with preventing the Government, the police or other state bodies interfering with people’s rights. They are negative obligations in that they require the State to refrain from taking certain action. However, there may be circumstances where State is under a positive obligation – a duty to do something in order to protect or promote your rights.
In order to determine whether such a positive obligation exists, consideration must be given to the fair balance that has to be struck between the general community interest and the interests of the individual. Because a positive obligation will require the State to take active measures or steps, it will always be much harder to argue that the State is under a positive obligation than under a negative one. Examples of where courts found that a positive duty exists include:
R (Bernard) v Enfield London Borough Council [2003] where the court held that the Borough Council had a duty to provide assistance to a disabled woman so that she could maintain basic physical and psychological integrity.
X and Y v Netherlands (1985) where the ECHR held that the Netherlands should have taken steps to protect the applicants from sexual assault by their parents, as this assault was a grave breach of their right to respect for their private life.
wottpi says:
July 24, 2013 at 10:10 am
Have a look at this (you can browse read some of the articles)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bigotry-Football-Scotland-John-Flint/dp/0748670378#_ some of it resonates with the findings here
http://www.scotsman.com/news/duncan-morrow-stop-denial-end-blight-of-bigotry-1-3008556
There is a book launch planned for August and perhaps the convergence of views from the book and the Morrow findings will prepare the ground for truth and reconciliation across Scottish society as a whole, not just football where, like mushrooms favour the dark, it favours the lack of truth.
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 1:07 pm
That is interesting, but I still don’t understand why Murdoch’s tapes can be published, with apparent impunity, whereas the CF tapes can’t? Most of the CF sound bites have nothing to do with home and family life. Is it do with criminal behaviour? Or just the media looking for excuses?
I do remember a case where this right to privacy was extended to a company, and also remember wondering where on earth the court got that gem from. If I can find it, I’ll post a link.
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Thanks for that. I just accepted what I was told a while back as true primarily because the source was itching to get the story out and frustrated that he could not and so had no reason at all to mislead. Its when you know someone truly believes what they are telling you even when you do not want to here the news and you have no reason to doubt their motivation.
On a related point it occurred to me on reading some of the disclaimers on what CF uploaded that some warned that reading or passing on material that was only intended for the recipient was illegal. So even without the Human Rights aspect in general, in specific cases do we risk becoming partners in crime just by reading the material and it is only safety in numbers that minimises that risk?
Finally who judges what is for the greater good, i.e. that suppression of the truth is preferrable to it getting out there?
I mean this is only about football is it not? Or does what is going on shine a light on the darker recesses of society? That is a conclusion hard to avoid.
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 12:40 pm
If it pretends to be a platform for Scottish football then it has to address the issue or be holed beneath the water line before it evolves.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I prefer “aspires” rather than pretends, it recognises the human condition better and allows for when we get it wrong as much as when we get it right and encourages that we continue to aspire.
The new SPFL, complete with unimaginative, embarrassing branding is due to kick off in less than two weeks. (“The Championship” ffs. It’s the second division – in Scotland, England or anywhere else…)
Soon all references to the rules of the SPL or SFL will be irrelevant. Whether these rules were bent, broken or manipulated to suit any particular club will be of academic interest only. The SPL and SFL have been disbanded with vulgar haste and a new organisation is now in place running Scotlands senior professional football leagues. Is this hurried change really for the benefit of Scottish football as a whole? I think not.
Forget LNS. Disillusion yourself of any notion the SPL might challenge the LNS commission decision. The SPL is no more. If a club had cheated their way to SPL titles (and I am not suggesting this happened), nothing can be done about it now as the awarding body no longer exists.
Requirements for clubs becoming members of the SFL? Matters not, the SFL is no more. If some club was fortunate enough to be admitted to the league without possessing the necessary credentials (and I’m not suggesting this happened either), then that’ll be just too bad, nothing can be done as the SFL have evaporated.
So, it’s all change with the governance of Scottish league football.
Change to benefit everyone.
Ma erse.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights also affects Article 10 which guarantees Freedom of Expression. It seems to me that Article 8 seems to have been created to give protection from the power of the state to individuals in pursuance of their private and family life.
I am struggling to understand how this gets extended to preventing publication or even just reference to material making serious allegations amounting to corruption and other matters involving journalists, footballing authorities and basically swathes of professional people.
None of their actions seem to me to be concerning their private and family life but more their business, professional and other murkier interests which affects the Scottish population generally and football fans in particular and which has had widespread dissemination through the internet.
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
So if action is taken under Article 8 (Right to Privacy) under the Human Rights Act 1998 then the right of Freedom of Expression of the person/s complained against must be taken into account as follows:
Freedom of expression.(1)This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.
(2)If the person against whom the application for relief is made (“the respondent”) is neither present nor represented, no such relief is to be granted unless the court is satisfied:
(a)that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or
(b)that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified.
(3)No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.
(4)The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to:
(a)the extent to which:
(i)the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or
(ii)it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;
(b)any relevant privacy code.
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Instead of you (and to a lesser extent me) struggling to find some justification in law for the refusal of the MSM to go with the CF revelations, how about some eminent journalist coming on here, and explaining in clear terms ( no opaque tweets please, much though you journos love them) exactly why no journalist anywhere is prepared to run with this stuff, yet the Murdoch tapes are apparently fair game. Not a big ask, is it? By the way, one word answers like “Levenson” don’t cut it with me at all, so don’t bother if that’s all you’ve got. A clear, legal reason, please.
timtim says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:03 am
I think we all know whats really going on here , dont we ?
———————————————————————————–
Yes we do indeed timtim!
Auldheid says:
I mean this is only about football is it not? Or does what is going on shine a light on the darker recesses of society? That is a conclusion hard to avoid.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
There is an old saying that football is a matter of life and death.
There has been a death of a team which has brought new life to the game.
The fabric of our society is embedded in this death of one club. In Scotland there is a Hidden Shame, we all know what this is and what it means. Now it appears that it is not so hidden and is blatantly in front of our eyes and also in view is the lengths that SMSM and other entities will go to preserve this fabric. They assume that their ways should be maintained and the club embedded in this shame has got to survive in some form (although it is in liquidation) as this has always been the way.
There is no where to hide for these charlatans and change happens in life and society, which is progress and should be accepted.
Wee Scotland has to accept our hidden shame, all that it entails, how it has effected Scotland, the implications it has had on peoples life’s and the history of one club which help fuel this shame. It is time to move on for the good and benefit for society and to help our game survive.
neepheid says:
July 24, 2013 at 2:16 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Could another reason for not reporting further on CF’s material be that even if a journalist or paper believed they had a reasonable legal argument for going ahead the volume of material and the cast of characters could result in having to fight multple and potentially costly legal challenges.
Maybe they are just thinking ‘Its only football, is it actually worth the hassle?’
However I agree it would be good for either a journo or a legal eagle to add some detail to why the story appears to be stuck with us bampots in cyberspace.
Thinking about it I am surprised Paul McConville hasn’t blogged his thoughts on the matter, although I’ve not been keeping up with his site of late.
Sounds like a job for Ian Hyslop at Private Eye. They must have views on such things?
neepheid says:
July 24, 2013 at 1:30 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 1:07 pm
That is interesting, but I still don’t understand why Murdoch’s tapes can be published, with apparent impunity, whereas the CF tapes can’t? Most of the CF sound bites have nothing to do with home and family life. Is it do with criminal behaviour? Or just the media looking for excuses?
I do remember a case where this right to privacy was extended to a company, and also remember wondering where on earth the court got that gem from. If I can find it, I’ll post a link.
=======================================================================
I honestly think it’s the SMSM looking for excuses. I asked a small number of journalists I know to tell me why the CF material wasn’t being used by their media outlets and every one gave a different answer. I posted on this a few weeks ago and commented that this proved to me that the decisions to ignore was being taken at editorial level. Who know perhaps someone knows about their ‘dirty little secrets’.
I have to add that nobody mentioned Article 8 of the HRA 🙄
Obviously companies have a right to privacy for commercial reasons but when we are talking about the about what appears to be the iffy conduct of newspapers, football authorities and professional people and downright lies and manipulations affecting a sport which tens of thousands of Scots watch and play then, as as I am concerned, that right to privacy can’t be deployed to conceal what has been taking place in Scottish Football.
Yea I’m trying to track down the extension of privacy thing to a company to see what the reasoning is. At the end of the day it seems that one of the major factors in the courts trying to enforce privacy depends on whether the issue has already received widespread publication. CF material has had tens of thousands of downloads which is proveable to a court so I think it might be hard to get a judgement preventing publication especially as the internet publication will continue anyway.
neepheid says:
July 24, 2013 at 2:16 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 2:04 pm
How about some eminent journalist coming on here, and explaining in clear terms ( no opaque tweets please, much though you journos love them) exactly why no journalist anywhere is prepared to run with this stuff, yet the Murdoch tapes are apparently fair game. Not a big ask, is it? By the way, one word answers like “Levenson” don’t cut it with me at all, so don’t bother if that’s all you’ve got. A clear, legal reason, please.
====================================================================
Couldn’t agree more. I have challenged journos as well to tell us here what Leveson has got to do with anything and I have yet to get any response.
BRT&H………….Top Quality input as ever sir.
I have written to the SFA, as have many others, am I the only person getting no response?
Is completely blanking your customers inquiry’s/questions a new fangled idea of customer non relations?
This is a serious question, I have penned and posted a series of letters asking, in a very civilised manner, questions which I would like answered, how has everyone else fared?
I also ask questions of journalists on the few newspapers that allow comment on articles as to why they are ignoring the REAL story that’s not being told. No response.
Whatever did happen to Stuart Cosgrove?
Auldheid says:
July 24, 2013 at 1:40 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 1:07 pm
It occurred to me on reading some of the disclaimers on what CF uploaded that some warned that reading or passing on material that was only intended for the recipient was illegal. So even without the Human Rights aspect in general, in specific cases do we risk becoming partners in crime just by reading the material and it is only safety in numbers that minimises that risk?
Finally who judges what is for the greater good, i.e. that suppression of the truth is preferrable to it getting out there? I mean this is only about football is it not? Or does what is going on shine a light on the darker recesses of society? That is a conclusion hard to avoid.
==================================================================
I have no doubt this is all about the power of the Establishment which actually runs Scotland and football is only important in that in former times IMO Ibrox provided an outpost which was useful on occasion for certain purposes.
I think some sliver hope that this former glory can be reinstated remains but tbh I think it’s a pipe dream. However a threat/fear mob factor can be a handy thing to have up your sleeve on occasion – especially if you never get your own hands dirty – and can even have the owner and CEO of Rangers publicly admitting that he was in fear of his life and had to keep on the run from safe house to safe house.
Still wrt to the more prosaic threats to be found in email disclaimers – I have often wondered whether if you receive an email not addressed to you which revealed say a murder plot, corruption or whatever . . . then should you ignore it because you are committing an offence even by reading the email.
Alhough each individual CF email and tape posted might not be as serious as murder I think when the whole output is put in the balance then we have very serious allegations being created.
As to who judges? Well when it comes to making a judgement on the cesspit which Scottish Football has become because of the complicity of droves of professional people and the footballing authorities then obviously the editors of the SMSM have decided to turn a blind eye. They don’t even have the courage to state why they won’t use the CF material.
There was no problem in using the videos of Malcolm Murray when he was the worse for wear – no these were obviously private occasions. So did MM have no right to privacy at or after a private function?
They haven’t a leg to stand on but somebody knows all their ‘dirty little secrets’.
wottpi says:
July 24, 2013 at 2:30 pm
neepheid says:
July 24, 2013 at 2:16 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Could another reason for not reporting further on CF’s material be that even if a journalist or paper believed they had a reasonable legal argument for going ahead the volume of material and the cast of characters could result in having to fight multiple and potentially costly legal challenges.
============================================================
There are a couple of ways round the problem you suggest. One is pick your target and by that I mean one that would be unlikely to take legal action.
Secondly, as I have repeatedly pointed out there is no need to actually use any of the CF material – all you need to do is ask pertinent questions based on the knowledge that a read of the CF material easily provides. Jeesuz they can make full page exclusives based on mythical ‘sources close to’ so surely they can manage something out of all the CF email and tapes.
SMSM and the footballing authorities have come to an agreement to say nothing and keep hunkered down till the paying customers get fed-up and give up being a nuisance. It’s up to us and similar sites to make sure it doesn’t die and always to be on our guard against those trying to sow the seeds of discontent and disillusion because they are probably well connected to the PR agenda which is still going strong.
blu says:
July 24, 2013 at 10:30 am
7 0 Rate This
From Charlotte: http://www.scribd.com/doc/155371977/Jack-Irvine-Snake
“I handled the hostile Celtic take over in 1991″
Has anyone any knowledge as to whether this ‘handling’ was to place negative stories about Celtic’s boardroom politics at the time or whether Irvine was employed by one of the sides invovled? IIRC Murray took over at Ibrox in 1988.
=============================================
i’m actually struggling to think what this hostile takeover was.
Fergus took over in 1994 – and it was hardly hostile! he paid the KKW clan for their shares and picked up the club – debts and all – before teh bank could get the bailiffs out to close the gates permanently!
So, it wasn’t that.
the early bids were from the likes of Weisfeld and Haughey – but I’m sure these were at the same time as Fergus’s attempts – or maybe a few months earlier when the celtic board came away with the farcical “cambuslang” proposal
I really can’t recall any type of bid in 1991 – anyone?
maybe jack did a great job of keeping it all out of the press – which suggests he worked for the celtic board on that one! Of course, jacks motivation for thwarting that hostile takeover would have had nothign to do with protecting his other, favoured, blue client would it?
Anything to protect rangers!
Markybhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 2:39 pm
“We saw how press behaviour currently stands at the weekend, and as confidently predicted, we have another outbreak of dignified silence from the Celtic Boardroom regarding The Scottish Sun’s outrageous piece of mischief making.
Unless I’ve missed something? An apology from the Sun? A strongly worded statement from CFC? Any statement from CFC? Sun journalists banned from Celtic Park? Anything?”
====================================================================
I posted on here what I thought about the Sun piece and what I thought Celtic should do about the disgraceful journalism involved which I do not believe was accidental. I followed that up with a separate email to Parkhead.
However as a Celtic supporter I don’t regard this site as one in which to air any personal disagreement that I may or may not have with the club I support. There are other more relevant forums IMO where I can do this and I do when the spirit takes me. This is of course is not to deny your right to post whatever you want on here.
I have no doubt that matters have been or will be raised between Celtic and the Sun and sometimes these issues are not ones best suited to a knee-jerk response. There is an element to the Sun story which is of interest to this blog in that it raised legitimate concerns about the behaviour and possible bias of the newspaper.
I think the Celtic reaction or lack of it is an issue of interest for Celtic supporters and best dealt with on a Celtic football site or direct with the club as it is unlikely I reckon to be of much interest to supporters of other clubs. I also think that this week it was probably not at the top of Celtic’s TO DO list.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 24, 2013 at 3:41 pm
i’m actually struggling to think what this hostile takeover was.
======================================================
I wondered about that and was pondering when Dempsey started his mouth music. If that were the case then I would have thought Mike Murphy was representing the Dynasties/Dinosaurs as I can’t see Dempsey able to pay £100 an hour for Jack fresh from his disaster with Murray’s Sunday paper – what was it Sunday Scot?
Just a thought…
Is there any benefit in sending a single email – and addressed to all the MSM contacts – from the TSFM website, on behalf of 10K Scottish football fans ?
Perhaps taking just one CF tweet / document and asking why the MSM is not investigating ?
Would be interesting to see if anyone replied – especially if the MSM recipients could also see who else had been sent the email.
And would there be any benefit in adding the free newspapers to the distribution list ?
Worth a try ? Mibbees aye/naw ?
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 24, 2013 at 3:41 pm
===============================================
Bit on Murphy’s background which might help place the ‘hostile takeover’
In the mid-1980s, Murphy led the management buyout of the PR operation within the ad agency group Grant Foster and founded his own agency, PR Consultants Scotland, in Glasgow.
Following the sale of PR Consultants Scotland to Shandwick in 1989 Murphy became chief executive
of Shandwick Hong Kong in 1993,
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 3:53 pm
==============================
I seem to remember that Brian Dempsey and Glasgow Smiles Kelly joined the Board at Celtic around the same time and Dempsey didn’t last long – maybe because he was promoting a move from Celtic Park? Sunday Scot’s short life span was around the same time – 1991? Fergus McCann came later, as you’ll know, of course.
blu says:
July 24, 2013 at 4:15 pm
1 0 Rate This
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 3:53 pm
==============================
I seem to remember that Brian Dempsey and Glasgow Smiles Kelly joined the Board at Celtic around the same time and Dempsey didn’t last long – maybe because he was promoting a move from Celtic Park? Sunday Scot’s short life span was around the same time – 1991? Fergus McCann came later, as you’ll know, of course.
—————————–
the move to provanmill area?
Bawsman
Whatever did happen to Stuart Cosgrove?
—————————————————–
If you want a conspiracy theorists angle, look to Scandanavia.
Something Danish that when supposed to be in Sweden was actually in Norway 😉
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 24, 2013 at 4:29 pm
0 0 Rate This
blu says:
July 24, 2013 at 4:15 pm
1 0 Rate This
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 3:53 pm
==============================
I seem to remember that Brian Dempsey and Glasgow Smiles Kelly joined the Board at Celtic around the same time and Dempsey didn’t last long – maybe because he was promoting a move from Celtic Park? Sunday Scot’s short life span was around the same time – 1991? Fergus McCann came later, as you’ll know, of course.
—————————–
the move to provanmill area?
(sorry, i tried the edit function, but it wouldn’t let me)
Anyway, this would have been Dempsey, who was on the celtic board in 1991. he proposed a move to land owned by himself located in Provanmill/Robroyston area.
This was in the wake of the taylor report requirements – and preceded the Cambuslang announcement by just over a year.
I wouldn’t have classed that as a “take over” more Dempsey trying to persuade the rest of the board to buy his land.
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:49 am
“Within Scottish football, if you think that Rangers are the only club to have used PR in what may be termed as a defensive manner or even on occasion offensive then you are not objective or being truthful with yourself.
The negative for Rangers was that it was generally used in the interests of the owner opposed to the longterm interests of the club. Hence the club is where is where it is today and eg.SDM is still relatively unscathed.”
______
Much of your post I find myself in agreement with (I have truncated it to highlight the parts I am in disagreement with), and even your point that other clubs will undoubtedly have used PR to their own ends is undoubtedly true. That is, after all, what PR is all about. Indeed, many clubs, my own included, have had much criticism for getting their PR all wrong by leaving themselves wide open to attacks from the MSM, an MSM all too ready to attack any, but one, club in Scotland. There is a huge difference between a club issuing a statement for dissemination by the media, a media looking to find fault, and hence to create a copy selling article, to one club having a PR machine that is, itself, a part of the media, a media who’s job it is to crack open such press releases and get to the truth (though we know they are strangers to the desire for truth). To avoid any claims of ‘Celtic bias’ on TSFM I will use Vladimir Romanov and Hearts as a perfect example. Romanov used PR, at one time he was very enthusiastic about seeing himself featured in the MSM in Scotland, and was well known for long-winded press releases, full of easily ridiculed claims that were probably the result of things lost, or gained, in translation. More to the point, though, he made claims about the SFA, SPL, MSM and the Old Firm that we now know to have been, in the main, extremely accurate. Claims that were ridiculed by the MSM and deflected, by the football authorities, by the use of record fines imposed on Hearts. Compare that with the way the MSM treated all those belligerent outpouring of Green and McCoist or even the nonsensical ‘plans’ of Murray or Whyte. And it still continues. Yes, Romanov used ‘offensive’ PR, but he used it without the hold that Rangers, and now TRFC, have within the Scottish MSM. PR is only acceptable, or should be, in a society which has an aggressive media, one that just loves to rip PR puff pieces from the big boys to shreds. Just as they did to Romanov, and so to Hearts. And so to Celtic. And so to anyone, or club, prepared to stand up to the status quo of the establishment.
Any of this unquestioned acceptance of Rangers PR by the media ‘in the interests of the owner’ was part of an acceptance that it was in the interests of the club too. Even in the case of David Murray it was interdependent with the club. Do you think the fawning of Murray would have been as complete if he’d been owner of any other club? Rangers supporters certainly have much to be angry about over the way the club PR was issued to a media manipulated by Jack Irvine and his company to produce a belief of invincibility, both on and off the field, but it was done with Rangers in mind and not only in the interests of Murray. It would be hard to find any PR issued from any club in Scotland that did actual damage to any other club. The same could not be said of much of Rangers’ PR.
Greenockjack
Why do you think I may have knowledge of the 1991 “hostile takeover”
Allyjambo says:
July 24, 2013 at 5:06 pm
8
2
Rate This
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:49 am
“Within Scottish football, if you think that Rangers are the only club to have used PR in what may be termed as a defensive manner or even on occasion offensive then you are not objective or being truthful with yourself.
The negative for Rangers was that it was generally used in the interests of the owner opposed to the longterm interests of the club. Hence the club is where is where it is today and eg.SDM is still relatively unscathed.”
______
Much of your post I find myself in agreement with (I have truncated it to highlight the parts I am in disagreement with), and even your point that other clubs will undoubtedly have used PR to their own ends is undoubtedly true. That is, after all, what PR is all about. Indeed, many clubs, my own included, have had much criticism for getting their PR all wrong by leaving themselves wide open to attacks from the MSM, an MSM all too ready to attack any, but one, club in Scotland. There is a huge difference between a club issuing a statement for dissemination by the media, a media looking to find fault, and hence to create a copy selling article, to one club having a PR machine that is, itself, a part of the media, a media who’s job it is to crack open such press releases and get to the truth (though we know they are strangers to the desire for truth). To avoid any claims of ‘Celtic bias’ on TSFM I will use Vladimir Romanov and Hearts as a perfect example. Romanov used PR, at one time he was very enthusiastic about seeing himself featured in the MSM in Scotland, and was well known for long-winded press releases, full of easily ridiculed claims that were probably the result of things lost, or gained, in translation. More to the point, though, he made claims about the SFA, SPL, MSM and the Old Firm that we now know to have been, in the main, extremely accurate. Claims that were ridiculed by the MSM and deflected, by the football authorities, by the use of record fines imposed on Hearts. Compare that with the way the MSM treated all those belligerent outpouring of Green and McCoist or even the nonsensical ‘plans’ of Murray or Whyte. And it still continues. Yes, Romanov used ‘offensive’ PR, but he used it without the hold that Rangers, and now TRFC, have within the Scottish MSM. PR is only acceptable, or should be, in a society which has an aggressive media, one that just loves to rip PR puff pieces from the big boys to shreds. Just as they did to Romanov, and so to Hearts. And so to Celtic. And so to anyone, or club, prepared to stand up to the status quo of the establishment.
Any of this unquestioned acceptance of Rangers PR by the media ‘in the interests of the owner’ was part of an acceptance that it was in the interests of the club too. Even in the case of David Murray it was interdependent with the club. Do you think the fawning of Murray would have been as complete if he’d been owner of any other club? Rangers supporters certainly have much to be angry about over the way the club PR was issued to a media manipulated by Jack Irvine and his company to produce a belief of invincibility, both on and off the field, but it was done with Rangers in mind and not only in the interests of Murray. It would be hard to find any PR issued from any club in Scotland that did actual damage to any other club. The same could not be said of much of Rangers’ PR.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Well said Allyjambo. I thought after the last 2 years we were well and truly past this sophistry. Once we have accepted the truth, we can maybe work on the objectivity, then hopefully we can look forward to a better game for everyone. I have my reservations though, as so far we don’t appear to have any appetite for change from the people in charge of our game or the newco’s fans
Please Help..Is there any way to view my posting history on TSFM? Thanks.
Still can’t find an SPFL website, but when they get round to that I’ll check to see they haven’t attempted to sellotape two timelines together as the SFL have done.
Shurely shome mishtake?
http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/