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.
Allyjambo
One day someone will quote the part of my post they agree with and perhaps elaborate further. Until then I´ll have to deal with it. 😀
There are two clubs in Scotland with the influence that can make their PR (for this post “PR” covers spin/lies/other activities, some not nice.) more effective, appear more creditable and have greater impact.
Vlad didn´t have the advantage of being at one of those two clubs and for the media became MadVlad and regarded as a bit of a rich clown who enjoyed a rant. Maybe the media weren´t a 100 miles from the truth but the point is that the media felt comfortable in labelling him in this way.
The saga at Ibrox and the leaks from Charlotte (Celtic supporter who has tweeked/omitted some of the material to suit) have laid bare how some of the proposals for PR and how some was carried out. We do not have the same level of detail wrt how Celtic go about their PR.
The events of recent times are unprecedented in Scottish football and have attracted a cast of spivs that would have little problem in doing the dirty on whoever got in their way. The combination of spivs and Media House is a toxic brew for all, including Rangers supporters.
Let´s take it back to SDM. For many years he was proactive with PR (No MH) and did his own thing with specific journalists/editors. It wasn´t all encompassing but was reasonably effective in pre-empting and deflecting criticism of him.
This was a huge negative for the club and support proving to have a heavy cost in the longterm.
I look at Peter Lawwell (PL) and see a similar control over much of the media´s output but PL does it with the clubs interests in mind, not his own. He will do it in a positive way with his team and in different ways when it comes or came to other clubs or matters, such as the SFA.
I think it a little niave for all to stand open mouthed and aghast at negatively driven PR as if it is something that they never expected in Scottish football. It isn´t pleasent but then PR has always been about achieving a goal and not worrying too much how they get there. Problems can arise if someone like Charlotte appears and leaks correspondence.
Barcabhoy
I thought you the go to guy for details on the Celtic takeover, for what seem to me as obvious reasons. Celtic supporter who pays close attention to business detail.
No conspiracy or nuclear fall-out here. 😉
Good post Allyjambo.
Something along the lines of, “OF mafia”, was one if I recall correctly. Many on the east coast would agree with him of course, although I think it was a bit harsh on CFC.
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 8:22 pm
2 5 Rate This
———–
You know Jack, you seem to be trying very hard to move Celtic onto a level par with that other big Glasgow club regarding misdemeanors. It’s all clever reasoning but you’re not backing it up with any facts. I even used to think that the fans of both clubs were as bad as each other, not any more though.
Btw, your Stuart Cosgrove theory is just silly, or should I say, petty and ill-informed. He posts under his own name!
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 8:22 pm
…
“The saga at Ibrox and the leaks from Charlotte (Celtic supporter who has tweeked/omitted some of the material to suit) have laid bare how some of the proposals for PR and how some was carried out.”
—————————————————————————————————————-
At what point, and when did Charlotte declare her/himself a Celtic supporter? I must have missed her/his declaration.
Can anyone confirm that Charlotte is indeed a Celtic supporter.
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 8:22 pm
The saga at Ibrox and the leaks from Charlotte (Celtic supporter who has tweeked/omitted some of the material to suit) have laid bare how some of the proposals for PR and how some was carried out. We do not have the same level of detail wrt how Celtic go about their PR.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You do get a bit of a hard time, GJ, so I’m not quoting something I disagree with, but something I’m genuinely curious about. I wasn’t aware that Charlotte was a Celtic supporter, but then I haven’t read her stuff with the same attention as others, mainly because at first I was very sceptical.
Do you get that information from one of her tweets (I do like to think of Charlotte as a lady, sad isn’t it?) or is that your conclusion from her behaviour?
DP
There are plenty of examples wrt Celtic but a seperate post will cover it.
As for SC, I did mention it to be a conspiracy theory complete with a wink/laugh.
CCR
At what point, and when did Charlotte declare her/himself a Celtic supporter?
——————————
I´m not aware of a declaration as such but frequently Charlotte get´s herself into slanging matches where she let´s her guard down. Good example was with the rep of the RST where she also edited an e-mail to suit and was caught out.
NH
Whether she is a lady or not is a more difficult question.
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:17 pm
NH
Whether she is a lady or not is a more difficult question.
+++++++++++++
So are you hinting that Charlotte might be female, but no lady? Now that is interesting 😳
Okay, I know some of us think the governing bodies are too closely linked to Rangers but I didn’t realise they’d go so far as copying the world famous record breaking use of dodgy clip art.
Is it only me that thinks they just coloured this in to get their new logo?
http://www.clipartof.com/portfolio/seamartini/illustration/black-and-white-lion-logo-3-1060370.html
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 8:22 pm
One minute you complain that this blog is all about Rangers and Celtic, the next you are confining it to Rangers and Celtic because to do that suits your purpose. While, as you say, the media might not have been 100 miles from the truth re ‘Mad Vlad’, Vlad was definitely on the ball about the media, as well as most of what he said when criticising Scottish football, he just said it in a none too Scottish media savvy way. Now, while Celtic might well have a better PR team, and use it better, than most other clubs, they are still in the same position as the rest because they don’t have a compliant media at their beck and call. They also don’t make spurious claims about plans for hover pitches or casinos that go un-ridiculed in the press, nor have pet journalists ready to print, in a disgustingly childish way, claims that they’ll ‘spend £10 for every £5…”, nor do they have mickey taking stories insulting their rivals with ‘flying pigs” going past windows. In short, Celtic use PR to their own advantage, perhaps to smooth over problems at Parkhead, perhaps to boost season ticket sales, perhaps just to have a positive story about the club in the papers for their fans to enjoy. There is nothing wrong with that, especially when they know that whatever they say will be analysed and any gaff jumped on by a media led by the incumbent at Ibrox. Just ask yourself, if Celtic were the team in trouble instead of Rangers/TRFC, do you think Murray/Whyte/Green/Smith would be quite so reticent to let their feeling be known? Do you think the Ibrox faithful would have cause to criticise their board for remaining silent? For that matter, when Celtic were at their lowest, did the ‘biscuit tin’ joke/story/mickey take begin from within Parkhead, Ibrox, or some Rangers-centric journo? (for the record, I genuinely don’t know, but would be surprised if from the first candidate).
ClashCityRockers says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:01 pm
‘Can anyone confirm that Charlotte is indeed a Celtic supporter.’
—
Nothing in what she has released bears any suggestion that she speaks as a Celtic supporter.
Nor, for the matter of that, that she is in any way anti- RFC(IL)/RIFC.
Rather, she has provided objective evidence of how the principal guardian of Scottish Football ( the SFA) has allowed itself to be suborned and held in thrall by various cynical, dishonest, ‘businessmen’, as well as some evidence that Jill Troon is exercising control over the SMSM by being ready at provocation to spill the individual dirty little secrets of journos/editors.
I have read some weird posts on here but tonight’s posts by GJ need some explaining. 😕
I have also mentioned before the Herculean task of mucking out the Augean Stables. It will take more than the diversion of the Clyde and any other river to clear the muck from the HQ of Hampden.
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 1:07 pm
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
————————
You’re showing your usual tenacity by picking up Alex Thomson’s ball and running with it.
Article 8 is fairly short so can easily be digested by any poster that cares to take an interest.
Your reading that it pertains to ‘public authority’ interference in an individuals activities is clear from the text. I’d concur that it is not designed to prevent other individuals from taking a keen interest in their ‘neighbours’ affairs.
If my neighbour or any other individual hacked into my computer. what redress would I have under article 8 of the Human Rights Act? Not a lot I suspect. There may be complaints that could be lodged about such behaviour but I don’t think article 8 would offer much remedy: Unless the term ‘public authority’ could be given a much more liberal meaning. However I don’t think the Human Rights Act (HRA) exists to settle disputes between individuals: It exists I believe to prevent governments from oppressing their citizens. If citizens have disputes with each other then they can have recourse to their own national courts.
Even if a much more liberal interpretation of ‘public authority’ were to be employed in such a way that it could encompass CharlotteFakeovers activities, as you say these rights have qualifications. Three qualifications are listed below :
[ Be ‘in accordance with the law’ – this means that there has to be clear legal basis for the interference and that the law should be readily accessible.
Pursue a legitimate aim – there are six legitimate aims set out in Article 8(2), including ‘the prevention of disorder or crime’ and ‘the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’. A public authority which intends to interfere with a person’s rights under Article 8 must be able to show that what they are doing pursues one of these six legitimate aims. This is rarely a problem, as the legitimate aims are so widely drawn.
Be ‘necessary in a democratic society’ – This is usually the crucial issue. There must be a good reason for the interference with the right and the interference must be proportionate which means that it should be no more than is necessary. If there is an alternative, less intrusive, way of achieving the same aim then the alternative measure should be used. ]
The last qualification at the very least could be invoked in defence of Charlotte. The HRA will have many interwoven strands and trying to tease out one particular thread may not be easy. However the underlying ethos is I believe that a ‘right’ can only be called upon when the legitimacy of its use is manifest. You cannot claim a right to privacy in order to mask a fraud or conspiracy. This would make no sense since the fraud or conspiracy would likely be infringing someone else’s rights.
Alex Thomson has been fairly straight up concerning the shenanigans and I would tend to take him at his word. However we are forever learning that to be wise after the event is the equivalent of being blind to the obvious. This article 8 reference doesn’t ring as true as I would like it to.
macfurgly says:
July 24, 2013 at 8:44 pm
I tend to agree with you nowadays, but those of us looking into the goldfish bowl of the OF, (what, over a year ago, wasn’t it?), we saw two goldfish swimming in the same direction, though obviously, now, one was getting more of the fishfood than the other. For the record, I’m sure Vlad spoke of the Glasgow Mafia, though no doubt lumped the OF in with the SPL and SFA and spoke of their media monkeys. He sure wasn’t in the business to make friends 😀
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:17 pm
0 7 Rate This
CCR
At what point, and when did Charlotte declare her/himself a Celtic supporter?
——————————
I´m not aware of a declaration as such but frequently Charlotte get´s herself into slanging matches where she let´s her guard down.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You’ve done yourself no favours on this one, GJ. I think it would have been better to say that Charlotte was in your opinion probably a Celtic supporter, rather than declaring her to be one. As for letting her guard down, well what can I say? Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who deeply dislike Rangers, but who aren’t Celtic supporters or even inclined in that direction. (left footers was the technical term in Bridgeton when I was a boy). Now I know that’s a difficult concept to grasp, but it is a fact.
JC
Nor, for the matter of that, that she (Charlotte) is in any way anti- RFC
———————————————————————————-
Then you haven´t followed her very closely.
Quite a few on here have previously admitted this.
Allyjambo says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:38 pm
‘…..when Celtic were at their lowest, did the ‘biscuit tin’ joke/story/mickey take begin from within Parkhead, Ibrox, or some Rangers-centric journo?..’
——
I don’t know, either, AJ.
But I suspect that it emanated from Celtic fans, who have never been afraid to challenge their board, and at various times have been, and remain, ready to call their board to order.
The unwillingness of the club to spend on players was stigmatised as the ‘biscuit tin’ , amateurish, approach to the finance of a significant operation in a changed world ( a change which many fans had not understood, either!)
—
I’ll go so far as to say that at the upcoming AGM, the Celtic board will be very heavily challenged and questioned, even more so than usual.
They will be questioned by a substantial number of share-holders ( readers of this blog and educated by this blog)- who will ask sensible, meaningful, and hard questions about every aspect of the running of the Club.
And who will expect honest answers and explanations, better placed than ever to smell bull-sh.t!
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:12 pm
0 2 Rate This
DP
There are plenty of examples wrt Celtic but a seperate post will cover it.
————
This is The Scottish Football Monitor, so I will read the details with interest! In the meantime, all I’m seeing is evidence of media manipulation, some of it outrageously cynical, on behalf of one club. I understand that you get on the defensive, and I suppose in an ideal blue world Charlotte would have incriminating docs about CFC. To be honest though, I’m not sure anything of this nature exists. I suppose if there was anything at all you’d think it would be surrounding the appointment of John Reid and how the fallout from that was handled in the media. But as far as I recall, as a distant observer, the internal dissent to that appointment spoke volumes for the club’s fans.
greenockjack says:
July 24, 2013 at 8:22 pm
wrt to whether CF is a Celtic supporter
============================================
I haven’t actually a clue what team, if any, she supports as I haven’t seen any declaration of support by her. Personally I wouldn’t care what team she supported as long as the material she was releasing was accurate.
It is clear however, for obvious reasons, that she gets abuse from some Rangers supporters but is quite capable of dealing with them. Obviously Celtic supporters are more supportive of her and I don’t remember any spats with them.
So I suppose it all depends on what you have based your judgement on as to how accurate your observation is and, in any case, does it actually matter?
john clarke says:
July 22, 2013 at 12:17 pm
18 0 Rate This
By the way, has anyone ‘seen, heard, or received any money
from’* Lord Wobbly in recent times?
I miss his posts.
* old workplace tag
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well at least somebody missed me! 😉
If truth be told, I took a step back shortly after Charlotte started her dance of the seven (hundred) veils, simply because I cannot access them on my phone and so it felt like I was only hearing one side of the conversation. I’ve not seen a single solitary thing from Charlotte since she left TSFM.
That and the fact that I needed a break.
You guys have been doing a sterling job without me wobbling on. I’ll post if I feel it appropriate but it’s difficult to talk about stuff when I can’t view the original material.
Keep up the good work.
john clarke says:
July 24, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Allyjambo says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:38 pm
‘…..when Celtic were at their lowest, did the ‘biscuit tin’ joke/story/mickey take begin from within Parkhead, Ibrox, or some Rangers-centric journo?..’
——
I don’t know, either, AJ. But I suspect that it emanated from Celtic fans, who have never been afraid to challenge their board, and at various times have been, and remain, ready to call their board to order.
The unwillingness of the club to spend on players was stigmatised as the ‘biscuit tin’ , amateurish, approach to the finance of a significant operation in a changed world ( a change which many fans had not understood, either!)
=========================================
I think I would need to retrieve my fairly extensive Celtic Library which one of my sons ‘liberated’ to see if there’s any way of pinning down the ‘biscuit tin’ story.
My feeling was certainly that Celtic supporters from over 50 years ago used the term as an expression of scorn about the ruling families and their parsimony tied to the allocation rota for the turnstyle cash collection. I remember Parkhead packed and the laughter when a derisory attendance was announced over the tannoy. But this was common in those days with all clubs as the gate money was all in cash – well at least I never knew anyone that had a season ticket
john clarke says:
July 24, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Thanks for that response, JC, I suspect you may well be right, though the MSM haven’t held back in using it when it suited their agenda. I think it’s quite telling, that, at times of financial strife, Celtic have a biscuit tin, while Rangers have a war-chest! Perhaps TRFC could learn something about PR from their Glasgow neighbour’s support; when things get tough, don’t get even, get a sense of humour 😉 (mixed maxims, I know)
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 24, 2013 at 4:41 pm
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.
=================================================================
Ah the rhubarb fields – many a happy day munching the stalks and then it was all paraquated to clear it for housing.
Allyjambo says:
July 24, 2013 at 10:34 pm
john clarke says:
July 24, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Thanks for that response, JC, I suspect you may well be right, though the MSM haven’t held back in using it when it suited their agenda. I think it’s quite telling, that, at times of financial strife, Celtic have a biscuit tin, while Rangers have a war-chest! Perhaps TRFC could learn something about PR from their Glasgow neighbour’s support; when things get tough, don’t get even, get a sense of humour 😉 (mixed maxims, I know)
==================================================================
During their 9 in a row Celtic fans had to develop a very dark sense of humour to survive. Funny I always thought back then that we were seeing the creation of a Rangers support that didn’t know how to handle losing and thought that winning was their birthright.
I did wonder what would happen when the wheel turned, as it so often does, and I’m afraid that all my worries came to pass.
Lord Wobbly says:
July 24, 2013 at 10:26 pm
‘…Well at least somebody missed me! ..’
—–
Good my Lord ( and never mind that EB( and where the kuff is he, these days?) dislikes Shakespeare)
the lieges are relieved to know that it is no malady of mind or body that has kept your Lordship from us, but merely some technical communications hiatus.
May your Lordship continue to read, and contribute as and when.
PS. Where the hell are you? ❗
Good to hear from Lord Wobbly.
Scottish Football needs a strong prog rock movement
When Celtic emerged from turmoil twenty years ago I believe the fans were just happy to see the club alive, and perhaps endeavoured to make the most of just having a team to support every week after experiencing the closure attendant with accepting the consequences of mismanagement.
I believe the same emotions were experienced by Dundee, Motherwell, Livingston and Airdrie/Airdrie United as well, and I hope that very soon Hearts fans will also be counting their blessings.
I’m not sure the same thing has happened with RFC/TRFC. Maybe one ironic consequence of the way this has panned out is that Rangers fans will never get that closure.
TSFM says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:09 pm
2 0 Rate This
Good to hear from Lord Wobbly.
Scottish Football needs a strong prog rock movement
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But its been led close to the edge by some who are as thick as a brick. This was not a momentary lapse of reason. This was sabotage.
Has anyone noticed this gem from Mr EBT Souness?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-fall-has-hurt-scots-game-graeme-souness-1-3013143
Apparently, this example of all that is good and honourable in football chose the launch of the SPFL by saying that Scottish football has been hurt by Rangers ‘demotion’ (well he called them Rangers). Surely his invite to the launch was badly judged as he could be guaranteed to say something along these lines. Oh wait, that was probably why he was invited. Well at least it looks like Neil Doncaster has caught on at last that it ill behoves the CEO of an organisation to downplay the quality of it’s product. And just not necessary when you can get someone else along who is certain to do that for you!
john clarke says:
July 24, 2013 at 10:57 pm
4 1 Rate This
Lord Wobbly says:
July 24, 2013 at 10:26 pm
‘…Well at least somebody missed me! ..’
—–
PS. Where the hell are you?
~~~~~~~~~
It feels like the Twilight Zone
Allyjambo says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:48 pm
0 0 Rate This
Has anyone noticed this gem from Mr EBT Souness?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-fall-has-hurt-scots-game-graeme-souness-1-3013143
—————–
The third bottom paragraph in that article :-
‘He hoped that the new set-up might help heal the rifts that developed after Rangers entered administration in 2012. The old company was then liquidated and the club forced to re-apply to enter the Scottish Football League.’
Oh Dear, So Rangers entered administration but it was the old company that was Liquidated. My three year old Granddaughter could spot the lazy journalism there.
Allyjambo says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:48 pm
” “The administrator thought Charles Green was a better bet than Brian Kennedy, for whatever reason.'”
——
Boy, even our Souness had dark suspicions about D&P!
Just pay back your entirely questionable EBT loan,Graham, and we’ll maybe listen to you as some kind of mercenary spokesman for the losing spivs in the greedy battle for control of the assets.
Good God Almighty! That we have to read and listen to compromised wretches such as he!
Just had a look on the LSE site regarding TRFC and noticed someone put a link up which seems to say the club have now mortgaged something in order to help fund the club…Would anyone have any idea as to what they have mortgaged.
A’body, expel and expunge was the simple solution. I’ve said it before so why was it not done?
Obviously it’s acceptable to defraud all and sundry.
What does that tell you about SPL/SPFL?
I’m an Aberdeen supporter of 57 years old who will no longer pay any monies to the sham that is Scottish football as I believe my club is complicit to the deceit of local football fans. AFC along with the SFA have never replied to any of the emails or letters I have sent so far. Many years ago, I worked in CUSTOMER SERVICES for many years and its a thankless task, many companies totally ignore it at their peril. I ALWAYS get a reply to an email from lower division clubs (and a personal reply from Turnbull Hutton) which astonishes me.
After the sponsorship by Premier club supporter groups of players at the start of last season which was to be commended, has it been continued this season?
Expel and expunge, you know it makes sense 😉
iamacant says:
July 25, 2013 at 2:53 am
Rate This
AFC along with the SFA have never replied to any of the emails or letters I have sent so far. Many years ago, I worked in CUSTOMER SERVICES for many years and its a thankless task, many companies totally ignore it at their peril. I ALWAYS get a reply to an email from lower division clubs (and a personal reply from Turnbull Hutton) which astonishes me.
———————————————————————————————————————————
That lack of customer service does astound me also, they expect so much from their supporters yet they cannot offer the most basic service in return. If a high street retailers offered that kind of level of customer services it wouldn’t take long for us to go somewhere else and for them to go out of business. That is what is essentially happening to Scottish Football, the end is just being protracted over a long period. As I have said before the next generation of fan is far more demanding of quality of good service than we are and they have less loyalty. That’s just the hard facts of generation Y, they want everything for less and do not care a jot for blind loyalty.
KnowTheStruth says:
July 25, 2013 at 12:49 am
————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Is this not related to the fixed securities over Murray Park to Scottish Sports Council (for a debt which was at one time £500K – may now be more, or less, or nil) or to Kelvinside Academy War Memorial Trust and the Trustees of the Kelvinside Academical Club Charitable Trust?
Lord Wobbly says:
July 24, 2013 at 10:26 pm
38 0 Rate This
john clarke says:
July 22, 2013 at 12:17 pm
18 0 Rate This
By the way, has anyone ‘seen, heard, or received any money
from’* Lord Wobbly in recent times?
I miss his posts.
* old workplace tag
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well at least somebody missed me!
…. That and the fact that I needed a break.
———
Aye M’Lud,
I for one have missed your thoughtful quips. A wee bit of humour does wonders here, since most of the reading material is heavy going, and increasingly laced with negativity. I went off to the Albion Rovers forum yesterday to see how their upcoming David-and-Goliath match was being discussed. I felt I had arrived in a parallel universe, of hope. Quite a bit of funny banter and optimism, in spite of being a financially modest club living within its means, facing up to a hugely overspent opponent – probably losing more in a month than the entire AR yearly budget 😀 Anyway, upbeat stuff from people who enjoy their club and their football. True football wealth?
As an aside, it’s none of my business (he said, about to make it his business 🙂 ) if people want to turn their backs on their clubs because they feel their chairmen have been somehow complicit in the current mess, but it is sad to read all the same. If this blog is perceived as only being inhabited by a dour form of disillusioned football fundamentalist it’s not exactly going to attract new readers in huge numbers. I reckon that by sticking with your club, and influencing it from the inside together with others, there may be a better chance of bringing about accountability and change within the new 42-team structure.
Cheers Wobbly, haste ye back!
Driving home from last night I was astonished to be listening to Graeme d’EBT Souness on radio Scotland informing the nation that you would have to be an “idiot” to think that the “demotion” of “Rangers” had not harmed Scottish football!
I’m sorry Graeme but anyone who still thinks Rangers were actually demoted is the real idiot.
The other real idiots are the individual(s) who decided to give this idiot an opportunity to spout his, by his own admission, biased opinions.
Scottish football is full of idiots Graeme and you are right at the front of the queue.
TallBoy Poppy says:
July 25, 2013 at 5:14 am
Is this not related to the fixed securities over Murray Park to Scottish Sports Council (for a debt which was at one time £500K – may now be more, or less, or nil) or to Kelvinside Academy War Memorial Trust and the Trustees of the Kelvinside Academical Club Charitable Trust?
+++++++++++++++
That’s as I understand it too. These are old charges going back to the setting up of Murray Park. If RIFC had been borrowing recently against the security of the properties, the lender would have registered a charge with Companies House the day the money was advanced, and it would be there for all to see. So they must still be burning through the IPO cash and whatever season ticket money has come in.
I’ve seen no evidence of significant cost cutting, so something has to give soon. Either a sugar daddy arrives by Christmas, or it’s insolvency time. I suppose they could mortgage Ibrox and Murray Park, but I can’t see how that would make any sense to the shareholders, since that would mean borrowing just to cover the football losses, leaving much less value in RIFC. Since most of the shareholders have no emotional attachment to the football team, why would they let their investment be devalued just to keep The Rangers playing in the Scottish 3rd division? What puzzles me is why the football business hasn’t been dumped already. How can it be in the interests of the shareholders to prop up a business losing over £10m per annum, and with no prospect of profit on any reasonable timescale?
Good Morning.
Public Relations— Social Media— Advertising— Branding— Brand Matching—- Commercial Partnerships.
These are all terms which can be applied to, and used in, any commercial business of any size. However, the bigger the business the more important these areas will be in the day to day life of that business.
I followed the debates on here with interest yesterday with a number of interesting points and personalities being brought out and expanded upon.
Of course all football clubs will use PR to a greater or lesser extent. The Bigger and more powerful clubs will use it more– and possibly in different ways— than the smaller less wealthy clubs. That stands to reason.
Further, PR and all that goes with it, is less likely to be abused by the smaller clubs than the larger ones who know that their coverage in the press is likely to generate greater sales and greater interests.
However, with a bigger market share in the market,comes greater power– and with greater power comes greater responsibility, and a greater ability to flaunt that power for both good and bad ends.
The Charlotte revelations highlight the active and prolonged use of negative PR and the willingness of a supposedly free press to bend their stories to suit the needs and desires of the supposedly powerful, wealthy and influential.
Further, that position ( If Charlotte is to be believed ) has been used to set in motion articles and stories which seek to deliberately discredit opposition teams, players, managers and Directors.
My question is simply this: ” Is this acceptable in Scottish Football?”.
The regulations seem to make it quite plain that it is not.
Compliance with the rules of the regulatory and Governing body, would appear to me to be a pre-requisite to membership of that Governing or Regulatory body. That seems a perfectly logical conclusion.
What I want to know is whether or not those regulatory bodies– which themselves have PR departments staffed in some positions by trained journalists— feel that such behaviour is acceptable and has a valid role in Scottish Football?
What do they see as the purpose of their own rules and do they have guidelines as to what is and what is not acceptable practice when dealing with members of the press?
For example: Would it be acceptable conduct for a club to encourage members of the press to repeatedly comment negatively on the performances of a player —- while that club prepare an offer to buy the same player?
is it acceptable for a club to encourage members of the press to promote rumours that a player from another club wishes to leave that club– whether that is true or not?
Is it acceptable for a club to encourage members of the press to ignore the clubs financial results, or to refrain from commenting in certain aspects of the clubs business, while the club publicly appeals for investment by way of a share release or even through season ticket sales?
Is there a code of conduct which the regulatory body should be putting in place to regulate or influence the ethics which apply in any relationship between the clubs under their jurisdiction and the press?
Obviously any such code of conduct cannot be too rigid, dictatorial or detrimental to free speech and the proper course of business, however in the absence of some form of guidance it would appear from the Charlotte documents that certain members of the press have been institutionally trained and will automatically bark at the sound of the bell without a second thought.
Allyjambo
One minute you complain that this blog is all about Rangers and Celtic, the next you are confining it to Rangers and Celtic because to do that suits your purpose. While, as you say, the media might not have been 100 miles from the truth re ‘Mad Vlad’, Vlad was definitely on the ball about the media, as well as most of what he said when criticising Scottish football, he just said it in a none too Scottish media savvy way. Now, while Celtic might well have a better PR team, and use it better, than most other clubs, they are still in the same position as the rest because they don’t have a compliant media at their beck and call. They also don’t make spurious claims about plans for hover pitches or casinos that go un-ridiculed in the press, nor have pet journalists ready to print, in a disgustingly childish way, claims that they’ll ‘spend £10 for every £5…”, nor do they have mickey taking stories insulting their rivals with ‘flying pigs” going past windows. In short, Celtic use PR to their own advantage, perhaps to smooth over problems at Parkhead, perhaps to boost season ticket sales, perhaps just to have a positive story about the club in the papers for their fans to enjoy. There is nothing wrong with that, especially when they know that whatever they say will be analysed and any gaff jumped on by a media led by the incumbent at Ibrox. Just ask yourself, if Celtic were the team in trouble instead of Rangers/TRFC, do you think Murray/Whyte/Green/Smith would be quite so reticent to let their feeling be known? Do you think the Ibrox faithful would have cause to criticise their board for remaining silent? For that matter, when Celtic were at their lowest, did the ‘biscuit tin’ joke/story/mickey take begin from within Parkhead, Ibrox, or some Rangers-centric journo? (for the record, I genuinely don’t know, but would be surprised if from the first candidate).
————————————————————-
I don´t believe I´ve complained about this blog being about both Rangers & Celtic.
If I talk about a subject where the OF are main protaganists then so be it, I would find it difficut to talk of the effects of PR from a provincial club and did attempt to use Vlad as an example to justify that.
If Vlad was on the ball re.media, do you think the media were going to say that he was right ? You mention Celtic not having a compliant media, care to tell John McGarry, Glen Gibbons, Hugh McDonald, Hugh Keevins and the others that Peter Lawwell may call when need be.
As I mentioned previously. PR has aims and at times has to firefight. How it achieves those goals or fight´s those fires won´t always be by “Queensberry Rules”. It can be a dirty game and the increasing use of this in todays society (worldwide) means that whether it be the financial sector, the invasion of Iraq (& more) or the reduction in levels of accountability, our society is based on an all encompassing tapastry of lies.
I´m going to busy in the next couple of days (perhaps time to firefight) but I intend to put together a post on Celtic and it´s PR with specific examples to try and wake some people up and show that they are not whiter than white. Some may say “whataboutery” and “changing the subject” but I believe it important many start to realise how big business might go about tackling problems, it´s not nice, it really isn´t.
This takes me back to previous posts and the central theme that if you really want to stop the culture of spin and all the negatives that it brings to the table, you have to aim high and if successful watch the effects trickle down through the layers of society.
It won´t be easy but you get the impression (mainly because of the economic situation) that the people may have one chance of forcing real and meaningful change.
I realise that the above goes beyond the remit of this blog but would implore all to at least think about the bigger picture out there, then look at your children and ask yourself if you are happy at the society that they will be inheriting. I reckon it will be one chance, thereafter you´ll have generations that have known nothing else.
As some may have noticed, a certain Mr.Doncaster heralded the arrival of the SPFL yesterday whilst Mr.Regan continues as CEO of the SFA, both with substanial pay increases. This despite the events of the last couple of years.
They might aswell stick two fingers up at those who oppose them and the way they have went about their business. I don´t believe they have support from any group of supporters.
Where is the accountability ?
Do you trust them ?
So staying within the remit of this blog, let´s say these governing bodies are ‘the top’, shouldn´t the blog be highlighting/campaigning for at least accountability. As it stands they have ‘won’.
Palacio67 says:
July 25, 2013 at 12:02 am
Allyjambo says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:48 pm
Call me an ‘idiot’ but why was someone whose contribution to previous professional football leagues in Scotland totals five years (or 14% of a 35 year player and managerial career) invited to launch the new SPFL.
Why not someone who has a long term association as players and managers with the Scottish leagues.?
Presumably Sir Alex was unavailable?
After that then I’d happily go with WGS, Miller, McLeish, John Lambie, JIm Leishman etc etc and even our adopted Englishman Terry Butcher, as people who have made a longer term contribution to the professional leagues in Scotland than Mr Souness.
The only positive from the article is that we know Souness thinks Ibrox still stinks to high heaven.
neepheid says:
July 25, 2013 at 8:25 am
TallBoy Poppy says:
July 25, 2013 at 5:14 am
Is this not related to the fixed securities over Murray Park to Scottish Sports Council (for a debt which was at one time £500K – may now be more, or less, or nil) or to Kelvinside Academy War Memorial Trust and the Trustees of the Kelvinside Academical Club Charitable Trust?
+++++++++++++++
What puzzles me is why the football business hasn’t been dumped already.
———————————
I did the following post on Murray Park a year ago which might be of interest.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/smoke-mirrors-and-sevco-rangers-assets-guest-post-by-ecojon/
I now think the Sports Council money wasn’t a loan and thus the £500K wasn’t a debt but a grant and the charge would only have been reclaimable by the Sports Council if the place closed.
As to why the business hasn’t been dumped well Ahmad and Green are locked-in until at least December with the 7.25 million shares they have between them. They were also tied-in for a further 6 months beyond December by signed orderly market agreements with the former broker and Nomad Cenkos but now that they have been replaced then perhaps their replacement may or may not have a different view on the additional lock-in period 😆
In any case in spiv-land hope springs eternal and they will have the bulk of the ST money coming in by instalments over the next 3/4 months and I’m sure that someone will be found to pay a few million to drag the company corpse closer to the ultimate knacker’s yard destination.
And if a real sugar daddy can be found then who knows how much could be obtained. That’s why I look at the latest link with a local team in Bermuda and wonder whether they have their eye on a possible ‘target’ out there with deep pockets as opposed to finding an as-yet unearthed wonder player.
wottpi says:
July 25, 2013 at 9:29 am
Palacio67 says:
July 25, 2013 at 12:02 am
Allyjambo says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:48 pm
Call me an ‘idiot’ but why was someone whose contribution to previous professional football leagues in Scotland totals five years.
==================================================
Perhaps he’s just earning his EBT money 😆
GJ
I’ve felt from day one that Charlotte could have put the final nail into RFC long ago if she’d wanted to but was clearly not – whether this was deliberate or merely a by product of her intended goal (or perhaps to defend her own identity ) is unclear. This does not necessarily make her either a rangers or a celtic supporter. I’m afraid you’ve fallen into the classic trap when viewing scottish football – that everything, in every sense (apart from one) is black or white, with nothing in between.
Could I also say that looking from afar (and being neither black nor white 😈 ) that the blog has headed most definitelty down a path that seems to focus on Jack Irvine, has simultaneously encountered some choppy waters best described as classic whataboutery, but disappointingly seemed to come at a time where a Mr D Fraser esq was assuming unfortunate and clearly unwelcomed prominence.
just saying.
Danish at 7:41
Well said Danish, and you are quite right.My recent contributions have been laced with negativity,no doubt infused with frustration regarding the future.
A light touch is important and Wobbly,Slim to mention just two have always laced their input with humour.I must say that debate on the site ,of late, has been somwhat adversarial in nature.Nevertheless the analysis has been very classy indeed.
TSFM has done a marvellous job in progressing this site and I can only hope that some light starts to shine on Scottish fields of glory.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
July 25, 2013 at 9:26 am
Is there a code of conduct which the regulatory body should be putting in place to regulate or influence the ethics which apply in any relationship between the clubs under their jurisdiction and the press?
======================================================================
I think this is the knub of the problem but I can’t see a Code of Conduct getting off the ground because the cries in defence of Free Speech would ensure it was a non-starter. The problem of course is that a Free Press is reliant on any society having the right to freedom of speech and expression – obviously within certain limits deemed acceptable by the majority of the society in question.
It is often forgotten that a responsible Free Press doesn’t just have the right of Free Speech but also has the moral responsibility and duty to ensure that its coverage is balanced, objective, accurate and broadly educates and serves the public interest fairly.
With a few notable exceptions, this tends not to happen in the UK and I think Scotland is even worse served by its media in recent times than the rest of the UK. Don’t get me wrong – there have always been campaigning and fearless journos and photo-journos prepared to put life and limb on the line to reveal a wrong and attempt to right an injustice without fear or favour.
But that seems to have evaporated in Scotland and just so that I am clear about this I can think of no sports journalist who has ever fallen into the category of journo I talk about. But these are the people who have been left to deal with the melt-down at Rangers which is actually IMO the biggest Establishment scandal to have hit Scotland in recent times. It has everything and has largely been ignored and dumbed-down to a comic-cut glorious fightback by Rangers.
However, I digress. I don’t think the answer is a Code of Conduct but rather the football authorities to use existing rules to bring Rangers to account for the unsavoury media practices it has paid-for to be employed to the detriment not just of other clubs but football in general.
the Rules are there and can be used if there is a will to do so. At the very minimum the SFA should be publicly declaring that the behaviour exposed by CF is not acceptable and that sever penalties will be applied and I’m talking about expulsion for any club found guilty of the practice in future.
Regulating useless lazy hacks who can only exist on handouts and PR nudges is a total waste of time and energy especially in these financially straitened times with collapsing circulations because media owners are trying to cut costs and good journalism is very expensive because it takes a lot of time and energy to produce.
And it’s amazing how journos will squeal about the right of Free Speech when under attack but it would appear that CF has no access to free speech in the SMSM with the latest deflection being that to allow the public to hear her ‘voice’ would be an infringement of an individual’s privacy.
Few of the bad guys exposed by the press throughout the world have ever made public announcements about their often criminal activity but carried it out in the greatest privacy. I wonder how these journos ever managed to uncover the truth. Perhaps it was because they had courage and moral fibre and a professional pride in Free Speech which many of them have given their life in pursuit of.
In Scotland we have a Press Corps – or perhaps corpse – which seems only capable of jostling for a place in line for a feed at the PR pig trough. Small fry are easy to take-on but the big guys are ignored and allowed to continue business as usual.
greenockjack says:
July 25, 2013 at 9:27 am
As some may have noticed, a certain Mr.Doncaster heralded the arrival of the SPFL yesterday whilst Mr.Regan continues as CEO of the SFA, both with substanial pay increases. This despite the events of the last couple of years.
They might aswell stick two fingers up at those who oppose them and the way they have went about their business. I don´t believe they have support from any group of supporters.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The real joke is that those two did absolutely everything and anything they possibly could, to firstly, get Sevco into the SPL direct, failing in that, through no fault of theirs,, they secondly tried desperately to shoehorn them into SFL1, and having failed in that, again through no fault of theirs, they bent every rule in the book to transfer the old RFC SFA membership to them under the 5 way agreement, so that Sevco could play in the SFL at all. Deep gratitude from TRFC fans and management would seem to be in order, you would think. What do they actually get? An absolute kicking. It really must make them wonder why they ever bothered to try to help these peepil out in the first place. Maybe they’ll learn from the experience, and not bother next time.
neepheid says:
July 25, 2013 at 10:29 am
Doncaster & Regan: What do they actually get? An absolute kicking. It really must make them wonder why they ever bothered to try to help these peepil out in the first place. Maybe they’ll learn from the experience, and not bother next time.
================================================================
I’m afraid this has nothing to do with football fans not even Rangers ones. This is an Establishment issue and problem that was and is being dealt with in secret and the fans have no part to play in it nor indeed any rights to demand an explanation.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 23m
Typical funding offers and punitive. Again note dates/individuals. Rafat acceptable as interested party, CW not so. http://www.scribd.com/doc/155893933/Sevco-Offers …
greenockjack says:
July 25, 2013 at 9:27 am (Edit)
If Vlad was on the ball re.media, do you think the media were going to say that he was right ? You mention Celtic not having a compliant media, care to tell John McGarry, Glen Gibbons, Hugh McDonald, Hugh Keevins and the others that Peter Lawwell may call when need be.
_______________________________________________________________________________
GJ, I fear you have flipped completely here. Have you actually read your statement aloud?
Can’t speak for John McGarry, but I know GG. If anyone from any club called him to act as a mouthpiece, they would be well advised to retreat tactically from the earpiece. Ditto Hugh McDonald (although his rejection would be a tad more diplomatic).
Keevins? Please don’t insult our intelligence. :slamb:
Of course Celtic will have guys they trust more than others in the press. The executives will have relationships with favourite journos, the manager will have similar relationships with different scribblers and ditto the players.
I can say with absolute certainty that there is no-one in the media working to the Celtic board’s agenda in the systematic manner suggested by CtH’s releases.
This is up there with your previous, “Charlotte is a Celtic supporter” conjecture dressed up as fact – pretty much in the manner of you PR guy namesake.
ecobhoy says.
July 25,2013 at 9:33am
————————–
Eco i recall from memory that the £500,000 was a Sport’s Council grant.
I also remember reading that there was a condition attached that it be repaid in full should there be any future attempt to sell off Murray Park. Again from memory i recall a debate about the Greenbelt area and for non sporting related purposes.
Does anyone else remember the Cha.F document from {I.Amhad} referencing the leasing of “The training ground”?
I’m wondering why they would want to arrange a mortgage or similar repayment scheme if they were only planning to lease MP?
Is the money really running that short that they need to take out a mortgage for half a million or are they planning to sell MP off?
I could also be reading this wrong but something just not sitting right with this .
greenockjack says:
July 25, 2013 at 9:27 am
“…I intend to put together a post on Celtic and it´s PR with specific examples to try and wake some people up and show that they are not whiter than white.”
—————————
I think this might be an informative exercise. If you can post links to the articles concerned with quoted extracts that are pertinent then it would condense your efforts into an accessible format.
I agree with you that it would be naive to believe that it was only RFC that were employing PR. My own personal default position is that when I encounter irregularities, I cast about to see if the same methods could be being employed elsewhere. It is not always the case but I feel the exercise is worthwhile.
I think the focus on Rangers PR needs to be taken in the context of the recent chaos. A crisis management policy seems to have been put in place to deal with anticipated events. We are so far not aware that Hearts have employed a similar strategy and if they have it has borne little positive benefits. So the Rangers PR offensive is an extraordinary event and it is not unreasonable to conclude that unusual measures may have been employed to facilitate it. How this ties in with a more long term media bias in favour of the Ibrox club is difficult to discern. If the lie was big enough then we will find it very difficult to distill out the particular bias but certainly many posters and I myself feel that the PR machine was active prior to the current crisis. Rangers espouses Unionism therefore it is the establishment club. It would not be so radical to suggest that the establishment club enjoyed preferential treatment in the media as a result. I personally feel I have suffered disadvantage throughout my working life because I was slow to come to the establishment’s defence. If others could see the obvious flaw in this approach and decided to be more proactive as a result I would understand this even if I found the ethos unpalatable.
As for CharlotteFakeovers motives; well she says it is “seek truth”. The truth is different things to different people and also is affected with the pasage of time and events. She does seem to deal rather abruptly with people who question her motives and many who do so are RFC supporters. It would be easy to conclude in such circumstances that she is pro-Celtic. I suspect as much myself but have left a large slice of doubt in my mind as I could be completely wrong. Her onslaughts against Jack Irvine point as much to someone that has become, like yourself, disconcerted by the excessive use and acceptance of PR. #FreeTheMSM is one of her prominent hashtags. Who knows what led to the targetting of CW’s e:mail account and other sources. I’ve often thought that Ticketus may have an axe to grind in this affair. Rangers have probably made a lot of enemies due to the debacle so their is no one outstanding motive.
We never did find out where Hugh McEwan disappeared to.
Re the SMSM non reporting on CF postings.
Is not possibly the case that so many of them have been complicit and entangled in this whole affair that it’s a case of it could become totally embarrasing for them. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and I’m afraid they can’t pick that stone up.
Smugas says:
July 25, 2013 at 10:19 am
“…down a path that seems to focus on Jack Irvine…but disappointingly seemed to come at a time where a Mr D Fraser esq was assuming unfortunate and clearly unwelcomed prominence.”
—————————
A welcome reminder smugas. Jack Irvine and Media House have the motive and probably the tools to disrupt a discussion of his covert activities but (Sir) David Murray may have much more to lose. (S)DM found it necessary to cultivate a public persona in order to access business echelons that would offer him advantage. If now, as his business empire appears to teeter on the brink, revelations emerge about questionable business practices, it might be a factor in a potential collapse.
He needs his (good?) reputation now more than ever.
greenockjack says:
July 25, 2013 at 9:27 am
You mentioned previously that no one ever quotes from posts of yours when they agree with what you say, well here you are 😉
“If Vlad was on the ball re.media, do you think the media were going to say that he was right ?”
Naturally the media aren’t going to agree with anyone who directly criticises them. There, that’s better 🙂 However, in Vlad’s case, they started a witch hunt. What must be remembered is that Romanov had suffered much maligning by the Scottish press (I’m not saying he was a decent chap) previous to his calling them media monkeys, and had got frustrated at the way his attempts to open the can of worms had been laughed at, with no one from outside the ‘Glasgow Mafia’ prepared (too scared) to join him in trying to redress the situation. His PR was poor, and there was no one, within the game or the media, prepared to give this ‘Johnny Foreigner’ a chance, nor to look to see if there was any foundation to what he claimed. We now know his claims were well founded.
Romanov ballsed up because, despite much justification in what he said, his PR was bad. But what is ‘good’ PR? Is it when a company’s PR is always honest and truthful, accepting blame where due? Or is that ‘bad’ PR? Undoubtedly, the PR business will consider the bigger the successful cover-up, the better the PR has been, though I’m sure there’s occasions when PR has been used to get an unpopular truth accepted, showing that ‘good’ PR can be honest too. But I think we will mostly agree that PR is bad, and that the more a company needs to spend on PR, the more it has to hide. It does become difficult, though, for a company that exists in the goldfish bowl of football, where every statement issued is scrutinised by a press anxious to put their own spin on it to operate without some form of PR. It has, though, gone way too far at Ibrox, with an almost vice-like grip on the MSM, and just because it has had a disastrous effect on Rangers, doesn’t mean it wasn’t carried out by, and on behalf of, the football club. I will be very interested in your post exposing Celtic’s PR and especially the specific examples, and, I hope, you are able to show how a complicit media aided and abetted them. Examples, or evidence of, them creating negative publicity for rival clubs would be particularly enlightening.
Without reposting more of your post I will say that I am in agreement with you on much of what you say, though I don’t have to think in emotive terms such as how it will effect my kids, to know it is a tool for wrongdoing and has already had a disastrous effect on our society and allowed spivs to run the country as well as our financial industry. And that is generally what I find in most of your posts, a lot to agree with. There is, unfortunately, usually an edge to them, such as your original post on this topic of PR, where you tried to distance your club from it’s own PR. It will be interesting to see if you distance Celtic, the club, from Celtic FC’s own PR in your post on the subject.
Sunincapricorn says:
July 25, 2013 at 11:04 am
“Does anyone else remember the Cha.F document from {I.Amhad} referencing the leasing of “The training ground”?”
———————
Not sure if this is the document but the training ground is mentioned as a loan security.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142201436/Imran-Rafat-Craig-Aidan-Chris-2
TSFM
GJ, I fear you have flipped completely here. Have you actually read your statement aloud?
Can’t speak for John McGarry, but I know GG. If anyone from any club called him to act as a mouthpiece, they would be advised to retreat tactically from the earpiece. Ditto Hugh McDonald (although his rejection would be a tad more diplomatic).
Keevins? Please don’t insult our intelligence. :slamb:
Of course Celtic will have guys they trust more than others in the press. The executives will have relationships with favourite journos, the manager will have similar relationships with different scribblers and ditto the players.
I can say with absolute certainty that there is no-one in the media working to the Celtic board’s agenda in the systematic manner suggested by CtH’s releases.
This is up there with your previous, “Charlotte is a Celtic supporter” conjecture dressed up as fact – pretty much in the manner of you PR guy namesake.
———————————————————————–
I will leave detail to a future post but just to say that the infrastucture of Celtic PR and how it works is different to that of Rangers and reflects in football terms, a strong and mainly unified spine throughout. The club don´t need to call GG, nor HMcD for them to remain broadly on-message but communications between the parties will point in the necessary general direction if need be. As for Keevins, what happened when PL didn´t like his output, was he banned ?
For you to say anything with ‘absolute certainty’ wrt the Celtic board and the media agenda tells me either that to be a rash claim in terms of having the appropriate knowledge, or that you are too trusting about issues where big business tends to play dirty or too close to this subject to be able to be considered at all objective. Forgive the directness but it was my only way to answer your post. I do not seek confrontation but would hope it is seen as valid debate involving emotive issues and that the blog would be open to different interpretations, even if controversial to the majority on the board.
The type of language Charlotte used in some of her more confrontational tweets pointed very much towards her being at least anti-Rangers (my guess is a Celtic supporter but I´ll withdraw the categoric assumption) An example being those involving a Rangers supporters spokesman and emails to CW. Not only this but she had edited e-mails to suit her slant. In recent weeks she seems to be less prone to using the language I refer to.
At the same time I don´t advocate ignoring Charlotte as I think most of the material she tweets is obviously very relevant. However, the main issue at present is that her ouput isn´t seeing the light of day in the MSM.
Morning all,
The link wrt the Mortgage charge was a tweet from David Low and posted here by me.
I thought of the old charges like the sports council etc.Couldn’t see how a public body would be loaning a PLC money but maybe they can.
I thought the Kelvinside Academy lease would have lapsed with deidco but may have been renewed.
It was the use of the term “Mortgage” that puzzled me.That usually implies a loan,I accept though that there may be a totally innocent explanation.
If a loan then it beggars the questions,
Who from(no credit facilities as far as we know)?
How much?
Why?.
Allyjambo
Naturally the media aren’t going to agree with anyone who directly criticises them. There, that’s better 🙂 However, in Vlad’s case, they started a witch hunt. What must be remembered is that Romanov had suffered much maligning by the Scottish press (I’m not saying he was a decent chap) previous to his calling them media monkeys, and had got frustrated at the way his attempts to open the can of worms had been laughed at, with no one from outside the ‘Glasgow Mafia’ prepared (too scared) to join him in trying to redress the situation. His PR was poor, and there was no one, within the game or the media, prepared to give this ‘Johnny Foreigner’ a chance, nor to look to see if there was any foundation to what he claimed. We now know his claims were well founded.
——————————————-
Really should be doing something else so excuse my brevity.
Could what you comment upon above possibly be construed as PR/spin coming from Glasgow that was negatively driven for their own interests ?
Jack
Banning Keevins is the same as having him “on call”? Really?
I reiterate my certain knowledge that there is no-one in the media working to a Celtic-specific agenda. That is not a rash claim. It merely doesn’t fit in with what appears to be your paranoia. You can also be sure that it is based on not a scintilla of trust of people in boardrooms
I am no fan of the Celtic board, nor of CtH, but the whataboutery which again crept into your posts does nothing for your arguments.
If there is something naïve in expecting people to play with a straight bat and tell the truth, I fear that we could take this entire blog and post it to a nursery of your choosing.
It is neither naïve nor unrealistic to expect those things. With respect, to think otherwise is cowardly.
TSFM
I see you have removed the ‘absolute certainty’ from your post and where I quote you in my contribution.
This was a central point in my reply.
I have no problem with people editing their posts but how can one have ‘absolute certainty’ one minute and not the next ?
Jack 🙄
Now your are being childish. I’m happy to put it back if that helps.
For avoidance of doubt, throughout this discussion, the absolute certainty has never left.
Of course you never explained how Keevins could be both banned and on call – but please, don’t.
TSFM
I reiterate my certain knowledge that there is no-one in the media working to a Celtic-specific agenda. That is not a rash claim. It merely doesn’t fit in with what appears to be your paranoia. You can also be sure that it is based on not a scintilla of trust of people in boardrooms
I am no fan of the Celtic board, nor of CtH, but the whataboutery which again crept into your posts does nothing for your arguments.
If there is something naïve in expecting people to play with a straight bat and tell the truth, I fear that we could take this entire blog and post it to a nursery of your choosing.
——————————————————————
That is all well and your opinion.
Why can´t someone hold an opposing view without it being called ‘whataboutery’ ?
In much of what I comment on, how can someone say what is the truth or not ?
IMO to debate openly is not cowardly.
rougvielovesthejungle says:
July 25, 2013 at 8:16 am
Driving home from last night I was astonished to be listening to Graeme d’EBT Souness on radio Scotland informing the nation that you would have to be an “idiot” to think that the “demotion” of “Rangers” had not harmed Scottish football!
I’m sorry Graeme but anyone who still thinks Rangers were actually demoted is the real idiot.
The other real idiots are the individual(s) who decided to give this idiot an opportunity to spout his, by his own admission, biased opinions.
Scottish football is full of idiots Graeme and you are right at the front of the queue.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I sense the word you are really looking for to describe this particular non employee beneficiary of the Employee Benefit Trust is IMBECILE.
TSFM
Keevins obviously wasn´t on call and banned at the same time.
Over the weekend I´ll try and put together a post that covers these type of issues in more depth.
greenockjack
TSFM
Keevins obviously wasn´t on call and banned at the same time.
________________________________________________________
Yes we knew that.
Look forward to seeing your post.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/football-is-worth-defending-part-ii-in-defence-of-rangers-by-johnbhoy/
*******************************
Well worth a read by all on here, from the pen of our very own Ecobhoy.
A voice of reason which I hope is heard by all sides of the debate.
Well said Sir!
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/graeme-souness-id-stayed-rangers-2087360
“I played in Liverpool v Everton games and was involved in Galatasaray v Fenerbahce. There’s no comparison. And, yes, one day I would’ve got round to planting a flag at Celtic Park if I’d stayed on as manager of Rangers.
“If I did it in Istanbul then I would have done it at Parkhead.
“The Old Firm game was madder than Istanbul, although a lot of the players carried guns in Istanbul.”
**************************************
Just pasted a link to a well balanced and reasoned post by Ecobhoy on PMcC’s blog. Then thought I’d have a wee 5 minute swatch at the tabloids and came across the above from the DR, under the byline of Keevins.
Word fail me but I’ll give it a shot. Ill considered. Inflammatory. Irrelevant. Flogging a deid (club) horse.
Previous posters have questioned why Souness was given a gig on the revamped SPFL. Keevins has taken it a step further by giving him a platform to spout nonsense. Poisonous nonsense!
A further quote by Souness in the same article – ‘The sooner Rangers are back, the better it will be for everyone’.
Discuss!!
Caveat Emptor says:
July 25, 2013 at 12:18 pm
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/football-is-worth-defending-part-ii-in-defence-of-rangers-by-johnbhoy/
*******************************
Well worth a read by all on here, from the pen of our very own Ecobhoy. A voice of reason which I hope is heard by all sides of the debate. Well said Sir!
===========================================================
If only it were true 😳
Alas, I am not JohnBhoy and sadly I will never match his writing ability or indeed intellectual capacity.
However, I fully endorse his sentiments and have posted to that effect on Paul’s site and I agree JohnBhoy’s post is well worth a read for those who seek sanity and a positive way forward in Scottish football that isn’t based on past conflict.
And that IMO doesn’t mean that lessons don’t require to be learnt from past mistakes and as we all make mistakes then before any of us and Scottish Football can move on we have to find a way acceptable to the majority of Scottish Football supporters.
But with goodwill, patience and perseverance it can be achieved although it will take a major change in the culture at Hampden to recognise that fans too have rights.
I have sent the following email to Alan Pattullo of the ‘Scotsman’ today.
” Fortunately, nobody needed to be put up against a Hampden boardroom wall at gunpoint in the long process that led to yesterday’s launch of a new league set-up. Not quite, anyway.”
With these words you end your piece in today’s ‘Scotsman’.
Have you not a sensible, journalistic question in your head? Do you so enjoy succulent lamb? Or have you or your editor been warned off? By … Jack Irvine?
There is every need for the entire SFA board to be metaphorically lined up at gunpoint and forced to come clean about their abject, deceitful capitulation to the bully-boys.
They allowed Charles Green to suborn them into breaking their own rules and into complicitly allowing the SPL to let RFC(IL) off the title-stripping hook by presenting the LNS Tribunal with an interpretation of the rules that is utterly risible, deliberately to sabotage their own case.
They allow, without serious question, RIFC to be fought and squabbled over by all manner of decidedly unsavoury characters, none of whom anyone with any sense would trust with the office tea-money.
They have left themselves hung out to dry by keeping in post a very conflicted Chairman, and have further behaved with an astonishingly two-fingers-to-the- supporters attitude by engaging an EBT- conflicted former manager of the dead club to ‘inaugurate’ a new league structure.
Had you and others of your profession behaved like journalists even a few years ago, you might have prevented the death of a famous club by asking Sir (!) David Murray some questions.
And you might yesterday have asked Sounness why he got an EBT ‘loan’ years after he left RFC, and whether he has paid it back.
Jeez.
For God’s sake, try to find the truth!
John Clarke
SSN.
All three parties bidding for Hearts have submitted improved bids.
Hopefully starting o see a light at the end of the tunnel for Jambo fans.
greenockjack says:
July 25, 2013 at 11:46 am
I know your busy, so no need to answer, just don’t understand your question 🙁
Caveat Emptor says:
July 25, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Keevins has taken it a step further by giving him a platform to spout nonsense. Poisonous nonsense!
==================================================================
I noticed that as well and two things come to mind. 1) That Souness is seen as a fit and proper person to be a standard bearer for the launch of the new set-up when he happily describes – whether in jest or not – an act that could also have sparked a riot at Parkhead. Of course perhaps that is what would have been the desired result.
2) Keevins is a roadblock to progress and he seems wedded to introducing a sectarian slant whenever possible into Celtic/Rangers stories. He has little to add in terms of ability or exclusive material and therefore is only useful to his bosses by fomenting aggro in a bid to sell papers.
What a disgrace as a person as well as a journalist.
And on another issue – did any SMSM journo question Souness about why he got his EBT from Rangers as they were happy to give him a platform to talk about the good old times. Of course they didn’t!
rantinrobin says:
July 25, 2013 at 10:24 am
16 0 Rate This
… My recent contributions have been laced with negativity,no doubt infused with frustration regarding the future.
A light touch is important and Wobbly,Slim to mention just two have always laced their input with humour.I must say that debate on the site ,of late, has been somwhat adversarial in nature.Nevertheless the analysis has been very classy indeed.
TSFM has done a marvellous job in progressing this site and I can only hope that some light starts to shine on Scottish fields of glory.
—–
Cheers rantin. It’s totally understandable, the bleakness, that is. In its current format (one main thread that you need to be rather dedicated to following – if you want to connect the dots) it may never become mainstream, and perhaps shouldn’t strive to. I hope with time though, that there will be a few strands or topic threads, where a bit of high-brow banter is allowed. Would cheer us all up no end.
I do agree that the site has raised its game with a consistently high standard of post as you point out. Respect to the background staff for moving in forward, and the contributors, of course.