Their Master’s Voice

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

Their Master’s Voice

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.

 

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

1,328 Comments so far

bad capt madmanPosted on3:39 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Well, here i go again, moaning about the blatant twisting of rules to allow players who have been signed, contracted, call it what you will, to be able to play as “trialists” before their registration takes effect following a club’s signing embargo.
Moan moan. Am I wrong or is it just TRFC that gets these helpful arrangements? Does anyone remember if any other club under a transfer embargo has been allowed to play “trialists”, never mind “trialists” that have already signed contracts.

If the Brysonian argument is that a completed registration is effective until it somehow isn’t, then surely the converse also applies in that until a registration is complete then it isn’t possible to play as a player, a trialist, or an invisible ghost. If a player has been registered as a squad player, then he’s no longer a trialist for any game played under the auspices of the body that has registered them.

To me its quite straightforward,- trialists are players not on a long term contract but are playing on a small number of games on a game by game basis, or a short term contract, to allow both parties to decide if they will be signed as a squad player. As even the meerkats in the street say, Simples.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on3:41 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 56s

Remember ‘Ted Smith’ and the desperation from D&P to distance?
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rl17m9

Now with added audio.
https://soundcloud.com/charlotteandthefakes/tedsmith

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on3:42 pm - Jul 26, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 26, 2013 at 3:04 pm

Mixed messages – Alex Tomo latest tweet on the subject made reference to Article 8 ECHR – now talk of Data Protection Act 1998 as the barrier to MSM discussion of @CharlotteFakes materials.

I would be interested to know what the DPA angle is.

Section 55 of the DPA mandates that person must not knowingly or recklessly, without the consent of the data controller— (a) obtain or disclose personal data or the information contained in personal data or (b) procure the disclosure to another person of the information contained in personal data.

@CharlotteFakes has been consistent that ownership of the [personal] data is not an issue. Can we assume from that that she has or does not need the permission of the data controller to publish [as a form of perocessing] that data?

Section 32 of the DPA is an exemption – it waives a number of the data protection principles to allow publication of personal data that where the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest.

The DPA is a complex piece of legislation – however, there is scope [at face value] to allow for the publication of @CharlotteFakes materials without breach of the said Act.

It would be good to know what the specific DPA concerns are.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:44 pm - Jul 26, 2013


bad capt madman says:
July 26, 2013 at 3:39 pm

IIRC some people have posted in the past that Dundee used the ‘trialist’ route to keep the ball rolling when they were going through their difficulties.

Maybe not the exact same circumstances but it does appear there are similar precidents.

Those with greater knowledge may be able to keep us straight on this one.

View Comment

SouthoftheborderPosted on3:46 pm - Jul 26, 2013


A question for the the political editor of the Sunday Times!!

Roy Greenslade@GreensladeR
@IsabelOakeshott why are you named in @CharlotteFakes Rangers revelations?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on4:02 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Castofthousands says:
July 26, 2013 at 3:19 pm
==================================================================================
I am happy to applaud your sensible decision.

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on4:06 pm - Jul 26, 2013


bad capt madman says:
July 26, 2013 at 3:39 pm
2 0 Rate This
===========
What I find difficult to get my head around, is how can they play these players in a friendly, claiming them as new signings, not as trialists, but then be allowed to play them as trialists in cup and league matches. Who were these players registered with when they played in these games?

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on4:09 pm - Jul 26, 2013


NTHM@1.11pm
BUS ENVY!

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on4:17 pm - Jul 26, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 26, 2013 at 3:33 pm

Thanks for the link, that seems pretty straightforward, if a bit strange.

In England it would be UTT then Court of Appeal as I understand it . I’m surprised that in Scotland it goes straight from a Tribunal to the highest Court of Appeal in the UK.

View Comment

ClashCityRockersPosted on4:20 pm - Jul 26, 2013


The impending police investigation into CharlotteFakes twitter revelations is the absolute acid test. Charlotte has stated, on numerous occasions, that there has been no illegality on her/his/their part with the accessing of the e-mails & recordings that she/he/they have provided to us via twitter. We have to be patient and await the Procurator Fiscals summation of the investigation. If there has been no criminal perpetration by Charlotte, then a Fettes education is superfluous.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on4:23 pm - Jul 26, 2013


ClashCityRockers says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:20 pm

Just as an aside I personally know 3 people who had a Fettes education (that I am aware of) one day boy and two boarders.

I was not impressed by the level of said education.

View Comment

ClashCityRockersPosted on4:39 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Tif Finn says:

July 26, 2013 at 4:23 pm
———————————-

I know nobody from Fettes personally. I was state educated, RC to be exact. Maybe you should type Fettes + Rangers into google and therein lies the connect.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on4:41 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Tif Finn says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:23 pm

Hear, hear!!

View Comment

ClashCityRockersPosted on4:55 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Tif Finn:

And all,

Apologies I wiz a wee bit rude with my last post. Please just ignore. 😳

View Comment

TallBoy PoppyPosted on5:26 pm - Jul 26, 2013


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
July 26, 2013 at 2:21 pm
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Indeed. The Drum was also one of the few publications to stand firm against Irvine and Watson after they threatened it with legal action following revelations about Watson’s involvement in Jack’s Trust Fund arrangements.

Ref: posts above: far more interesting to type “Fettesgate”

View Comment

newtzPosted on5:27 pm - Jul 26, 2013


PhilMacGiollaBhain says: July 26, 2013 at 2:07 pm
A watershed moment ….
———————————
TallBoy Poppy says: July 25, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Barcabhoy says:
July 25, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Barcabhoy: Some very tentative links….
——————————————————–
Alisher Usmanov. ….. an interesting name that crops up at a couple of key moments in our timeline ….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1303388/Russians-linked-mafia-bid-Rangers–financial-backer-dogged-questions-links-organised-crime.html

Murray went to lengths to distance himself ….

But let me ask this ….. who was running the show at the time ….Clue … it was not Murray

Rangers 2008 accounts state MIH would no longer guarantee Rangers debt. HBOS also moved over to Lloyds. Lloyds took the infamous charge against the debt.

In 2009 Muir was placed on the RFC board ….the bankers man … but interestingly if you Google AJ interviews discussing events at that time, you will find that the board were kept in the dark. All negotiations were still between Murray and Lloyds.

So maybe then it was not Murray who walked away from this deal …. and Murray had to come up with an alternative …. one much closer to home

Interestingly, … Usmanov appears right at the end of this omnishambles ….

Whyte sold 16 shares Rangers held in Arsenal Football Club to a consortium – Red and White – led by majority shareholder, Alisher Usmanov. …..

The curious bit ….

Whyte blocked a move to pay the money into Rangers’ bank account, demanding the funds remained lodged with Pritchard. ……. Days before the FSA blocked all Pritchard transactions ….

Might it have been extremely embarrassing for Mr Whyte had that money not ….. (re-)appeared … !

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:30 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Tif Finn says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:23 pm
6 1 Rate This

ClashCityRockers says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:20 pm

Just as an aside I personally know 3 people who had a Fettes education (that I am aware of) one day boy and two boarders.

I was not impressed by the level of said education.
=====================================================
My late Brother-in-law was Fettes educated and he was a really clever guy. Except when it came to football – he was a Jambo! 🙂

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:38 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Roy Greenslade twitter feed @GreensladeR hotting up. Is the dam starting to leak?

View Comment

TallBoy PoppyPosted on5:39 pm - Jul 26, 2013


newtz says:
July 26, 2013 at 5:27 pm
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
Thanks for the feedback, newtz. I have maintained all along that based on statements made by AJ it was clear that for the few weeks before Muir was parachuted on to the board in late 2009 Lloyds had withdrawn their overdraft facility and Rangers were trading whilst insolvent even then.

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on5:45 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Lord Wobbly says:
July 26, 2013 at 1:01 am
31 1 Rate This
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Funnily enough, blinkered animosity towards a perceived rival can do exactly the same.
______________________
Yes my lord. But who is perceiving who as a rival here? We all want the same things here: justice applied to Sevco (and those who conspired to try and help them escape justice) a reliable, and truthful media and fairly run and transparent footballing authorities in Scotland. We just disagree about the minutiae around those goals.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on6:04 pm - Jul 26, 2013


@smugas
Roy’s piece is not ‘unsourced’ he simply does not name the ‘media insider’.
I was on the phone to him when Roy called and then I spoke to him after the man from the Guardian had got his quote.
Source protection is non-negotiable.
That is what Roy has done in this case.
I have the advantage over you as I know both Roy and his source.

View Comment

newtzPosted on6:04 pm - Jul 26, 2013


TallBoy Poppy says:

July 26, 2013 at 5:39 pm
——————————–
There actually was a facility …. and I do believe that this was the case …… this is a good interview

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/16821348

The story goes much further back though …….. it will unfold !

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:31 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Roy Greenslade ‏@GreensladeR 4h

@IsabelOakeshott why are you named in @CharlotteFakes Rangers revelations?
————————————————————
Isabel Oakeshott ‏@IsabelOakeshott 1h

@GreensladeR @CharlotteFakes Abs no idea. Vaguely recall @Brendanjmcginty ringing me about a story I wrote 15 yrs ago. Wasn’t able to help
———————————————————————————
Isabel Oakeshott ‏@IsabelOakeshott 1h

@CharlotteFakes @GreensladeR Er…I count @brendanjmcginty as an old friend; would never knowingly do anything to upset him. Who are you??
========================================================================

Christ I wonder what she does to her enemies 😥

So Brendan – who was an old Anderston Quay colleague of her’s – asked her about a story she wrote re Craig Whyte in May 2000 http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8568415/73/

She said she couldn’t remember the story – A young journo flown out to Monaco and doesn’t remember the story. Oh well possibly not.

But if the story wasn’t worth remembering why did she contact Jack Irvine to warn him that Brendan was sniffing about? Why would she think Jack would be interested? Or is Jack having a memory problem? But surely if that is the case she would deny contacting him.

Wonder if Brendan thinks Isabel’s a ‘pal’ 😆

And Isabel doesn’t know who CF is?

View Comment

TallBoy PoppyPosted on6:43 pm - Jul 26, 2013


newtz says:
July 26, 2013 at 6:04 pm
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
I can’t play that on the device I’m on at the moment, newtz, sorry. I’m going to try to track down the source that I base my statement that the had their facility withdrawn on. Might take me a while. 😥

View Comment

chancer67Posted on6:45 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Could Isabel be Charlotte ?

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on6:50 pm - Jul 26, 2013


upthehoops says:
July 26, 2013 at 7:43 am
109 1 Rate This

When we read of strategies re-negative stories about other clubs we can be in no doubt only one club was the target. I suppose we can have no issue with PR companies being employed to boost the image of their customer, but to also set out to damage the name of a main rival who has done nothing wrong is shameful.

——————————

Upthehoops, when I read this I started to think about my own club and I’m not entirely convinced you can assume these placing of negative and derogatory stories was only ever limited to 1 rival of the now defunct Rangers.

At times over the years I have been dismayed to see how the Glasgow media have stoked and in many ways maintained a bitter rivalry between Rangers and Aberdeen. Looking back now knowing what I do, it makes so much more sense when I think of the way that conflict between the fans of both clubs has been reported.

From memory things like lopsided and inaccurate reporting on the riots at Pittodrie a few years ago, Mark Hateley labelling all Aberdeen fans as “Morons” and shamelessly suggesting they will kill someone if the football authorities don’t punish the team and fans (the cause for this incredible claim believe it or not was that someone threw a notebook at him). And of course there was “toastergate”.

The focus of these dirty tricks might have been largely on the biggest and most bitter (in their eyes) rival but I think when necessary, or simply when the opportunity presented itself, they have not been adverse to meeting out their dirty slanders at any club or person they feel are not worthy of being equal with the “peepil”.

It seems to me that these peepil suffer a full blown superiority complex and they believe that any means is justified by the end. That superiority complex actually extends over all of us non-peepil IMO.

Please don’t forget or dismiss the other teams and fans an all of this – as much as anything else by seeing yourselves as lone victims Celtic fans unnecessarily dissociate themselves from the rest of us.

Lets stand together instead.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on6:52 pm - Jul 26, 2013


ClashCityRockers says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:55 pm

Absolutely no problem, I got what you were meaning and didn’t think you rude at all.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on6:53 pm - Jul 26, 2013


PS – While requiring to register on the site (I hadn’t posted in weeks or months) I have tuped over with a different username. Previously I posted as “vforvernacular” but only very occassionally and sporadically.

While I’m in posting mode, I’d just like to thank all the contributers over the last few weeks and months – the story really has moved on due in part to all the hard work of bampots on this site.

Well done all.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on7:08 pm - Jul 26, 2013


TallBoy Poppy says:
July 26, 2013 at 5:39 pm

There is of course balance sheet insolvency however the real test is whether or not bills can be paid as they fall due.

By that measure Rangers were definitely trading whilst insolvent from the point they stopped remitting (as opposed to not paying) their VAT and PAYE bills. They were collecting money, from customers and staff and using it to pay their bills, because they themselves did not have the money to pay those bills.

Craig Whyte admitted that. He admitted he had to do it for the club to continue. He admitted they were trading insolvent.

This, amongst other things may leave directors personally responsible for debts. It may also lead to them being disqualified from holding posts. A lot of Directors walked away at or about that time.

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on7:22 pm - Jul 26, 2013


newtz says:
July 26, 2013 at 5:27 pm
——————————————————–
Rangers 2008 accounts state MIH would no longer guarantee Rangers debt. HBOS also moved over to Lloyds. Lloyds took the infamous charge against the debt.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
wrt 2008 accounts can you post or link to this inability of the parent company to guarantee the debt. It should be in the auditors report and must mention a question mark over it being a “going concern” if the debt is not underwritten by the parentco.

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on7:28 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Matty Roth says:
July 26, 2013 at 6:50 pm

——————————

Upthehoops,

Please don’t forget or dismiss the other teams and fans an all of this – as much as anything else by seeing yourselves as lone victims Celtic fans unnecessarily dissociate themselves from the rest of us.

Lets stand together instead.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Post of the whole life of TSFM.

View Comment

TallBoy PoppyPosted on7:28 pm - Jul 26, 2013


newtz says:
July 26, 2013 at 6:04 pm
—————————————————————–
It may be a question of interpretation, newtz.

In June 2009 rangers had a term loan and an overdraft of £6.5million.
On 26 August Murray stepped down and was replaced Alastair Johnston.

“We have progressed in the last three or four months because we did not have the credit arrangement in place when I took over the assignment.”

Alastair Johnstone quoted on13th November 2009.

“It’s a condition of our credit facility agreement that Donald Muir is the representative of the bank on the board,” Johnston confirmed.

Donald Muir was appointed as a non-executive director of Rangers on 16th November 2009.
I’ve had to remove the links but they’ll be easy enough to find now the quotes and dates are there.
———————————————————————————-
Tif Finn says:
July 26, 2013 at 7:08 pm

I’ll leave S.213, S.214. or even S.993 of the companies Act 2006 to those who understand it, Tif , but to
a mere punter it looks like there were multiple occasions where that were pretending not to be bust, when they were.

View Comment

gedintePosted on7:37 pm - Jul 26, 2013


TSFM says:

July 26, 2013 at 9:31 am
___________________________________________________________________________________

The primary reason given for non-publication of Charlotte by the MSM is that they suspect the material has been hacked. Charlotte denies this, but from what you say above, do the MSM people who believe the material to have been obtained unlawfully not have a duty to report it to the Police?

If so, maybe one of them has. Perhaps that is why the Police are now reportedly investigating Charlotte. Maybe someone in the MSM saw this as a possible way to breach the dam and get the material out by clearing CtH?
___________________________________________________________________________________

A very good observation – Roy Greenslade apparently now considers the dam partially breached.

Regardless of how any police enquiry progresses, I have a sense that CtH and her work is now starting to filter into the MSM as more of them do as Mr.Greenslade has done – make CtH the story rather than the material being revealed. Almost as a self-fulfilling prophecy, with the building of momentum through expanding coverage, the “public interest” angle will be established.
A point will soon be reached where the authorities cannot ignore or suppress the story, and a process to establish the veracity of the CtH revelations will follow.

Consider the various authorities who may be forced to recognize this “public interest”;
The police in regards to a number of basic criminal matters but potentially extending to the Serious Fraud Squad, the Financial Services Authority, HMRC, the Insolvency Practitioners Association, and BDO (on behalf of the court supervised insolvency). Then goodness help us, but potentially the Scottish Football Association, which given their partial public funding could extend to government agencies responsible for their grants.
This is not to mention the potential for civil action, as we are already aware of a number of parties who are making various claims ; Duff & Phelps against Collyer Bristow, Ticketus/Octopus against Craig White, CW against Charles Green (Sevco Scotland), and CG against …… (surely he’ll find someone to chase).
There are also those who have yet to make their mark, as surely Jack Irvine 😉 will want to defend his good name as may others in the cast of rogues.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on7:45 pm - Jul 26, 2013


TallBoy Poppy says:
July 26, 2013 at 7:28 pm

Am I not right in saying that CF provided material to suggest that the SFA were also made aware of Rangers’ financial difficulties. I don’t know how much they knew or in what detail but it was claimed discussions took place long before the insolvency event actually happened.

I think it is fair to think that the SFA were desperate for Rangers to see out the season, whatever the cost. Just as they were desperate for Rangers to either achieve a CVA or for the new version to be allowed in the SPL.

I am sure they justified this on the basis that it was “for the good of Scottish football”, keeping the fans in the dark because we were to stupid or intransigent to understand or accept that. Thank goodness for stupidity and intransigence.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on7:53 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Southoftheborder says:
July 26, 2013 at 3:46 pm
28 0 Rate This

A question for the the political editor of the Sunday Times!!

Roy Greenslade@GreensladeR
@IsabelOakeshott why are you named in @CharlotteFakes Rangers revelations?

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

Isabel Oakeshott is Political Editor at the Sunday Times and a commentator on BBC1’s Sunday Politics show. Isabel began her career on a local newspaper in Scotland and has had staff jobs on the Daily Mail, the London Evening Standard, the Sunday Mirror and the Daily Record.

The plot thickens. Kinda puts you of thinking about buying a paper.

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on8:03 pm - Jul 26, 2013


valentinesclown says:
July 26, 2013 at 7:53 pm
——————————————————————————————————————————————–

Isabel Oakeshott is Political Editor at the Sunday Times and a commentator on BBC1′s Sunday Politics show. Isabel began her career on a local newspaper in Scotland and has had staff jobs on the Daily Mail, the London Evening Standard, the Sunday Mirror and the Daily Record.

The plot thickens. Kinda puts you of thinking about buying a paper.
__________________________________________________________________

tsk tsk – Wee lassie goes oot and does well fur hersel with no help from nobody and ends up at The Times – youse want to stoap crushin’ aspirational lassies. So youse do.

View Comment

justshateredPosted on8:04 pm - Jul 26, 2013


I asked a few questions here last night regarding the possible outcomes in ‘The Rangers’ saga and I was most grateful for a response from TSFM himself/herself where legal questions were posed and a debate started concerning the use of suspiciously sourced material. In fact a good tale was put together regarding the use of information that arrived due to a mistake.

TSFM seemed to know more than he/she let on but, as appears usual on this subject, did not wish to go into any detail or depth.

This got me thinking even more and I just wondered if it would be possible for someone ‘in the know’ to write an article, say about a basketball team or an ice hockey team, that was bought over by a mafia family or an organised crime gang and paint a picture which would enlighten how some aspects of this story unfolds. Who knows in this article some of the players and directors could have benefited from some form of tax free scheme in an attempt to entice players to join from foreign leagues.

Who knows this way of getting information out could be turned into a series of articles similar to the original publication of ‘The Green Mile’. A disclaimer at the start of every article could state that any links to actual events at any club/company is purely incidental.

Is this a possibility or am I suffering from sleep deprivation.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on8:45 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Drew Peacock says:
July 26, 2013 at 8:03 pm
‘tsk tsk – Wee lassie goes oot and does well fur hersel with no help from nobody and ends up at The Times – youse want to stoap crushin’ aspirational lassies. So youse do.’
—-
Trying to help her so I’ve just emailed Martin Ivens ( who, I think, is still acting editor of the ST) to let him know that the Guardian is expressing an interest in her and her appearance in Charlotte’s stuff.
Might get her a one-to-one with her boss and help her get her memory back!

View Comment

john clarkePosted on8:49 pm - Jul 26, 2013


justshatered says:
July 26, 2013 at 8:04 pm
‘Who knows this way of getting information out could be turned into a series of articles similar to the original publication of ‘The Green Mile’.
—-
Sounds to me that you have the makings of a bloody good novel there!
Get it out quick before it’s overtaken by the True story and various high-profile trials. 😀

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on9:04 pm - Jul 26, 2013


john clarke says:
July 26, 2013 at 8:45 pm
=+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The young Isobel may not have remembered that far back when she met a renowned liar and charlatan. Maybe the hospitality was good.

An older Izzy tipped of Jack Irvine about the Sunday Mail “journalists” interest. Old News International buddies?

View Comment

hampdenhorrorshowPosted on9:08 pm - Jul 26, 2013


tomtom on July 25, 2013 at 4:13 pm
…..………………………………………………
Ahh…please excuse and forgive my plagiarism TT – I didn’t see you’re earlier comments re this – I’m currently playing with my blasted iphone and its dodgy Maltese wi/fi connection as I’m wasting a few days on this lovely island:)

I see Jack (the greenock one:) is devoting a lot of time mitigating certain aspects, as is one or two other seemingly well learned posters – I smell something rotten is in the works for ‘Sur’ Dave….and Jack too of course…here’s hoping anyway!

View Comment

andy grahamPosted on9:35 pm - Jul 26, 2013


The comments section of the Greenslade piece are your usual tit for tat that will continue forever

In amongst them though is this one interesting well put piece, which is worth a copy /paste here

It’s almost impossible for a non-Glaswegian to understand the passion and importance of the Rangers situation. It is also almost impossible to have a neutral discussion of same in Scotland – hence the venom of many comments here – David0320 is a prime example. If I get pelted by both sides you can take that as a verdict of neutrality.
In very broad terms, Rangers is the “establishment” club supporter by the protestant/orange community (80%) and Celtic is the “immigrant” club supported by the Irish/republican Catholic community (20%). By simple virtue of the numbers, Rangers has enjoyed 140 years of dominance through greater wealth and influential supporters.
Rangers fans generally enjoy their We Are The People (WATP) supremacy and Celtic fans see frequent injustice and bias eg refereeing appointments/decisions, inconsistent SFA decisions etc.
In the past 20 years owner David Murray ran Rangers into the ground – amassing huge debts – using dodgy tax reduction techniques. This resulted in administration in 2012 and liquidation is in process with debts of £50m – £100m depending upon opinion and continuing HMRC action. Bhain’s Downfall is seen as the Celtic slant o the story but there is no book presenting the Rangers slant on the story.
The Scottish non-Rangers football community (not just Celtic) speak of dismay and sometimes incredulity at Establishment efforts to raise Rangers from the ashes of liquidation – bending and” re-interpreting” SFA, SPL, SFL and EUFA rules as necessary.
Charlotte Fakes is revealing documents (legally or illegally) that strongly support the theory of dirty dead done dirt cheap in very high places. The genie is just about out of the bottle – there’s no turning back. So the Scottish Media, seen as an Establishment body by many, is going to have to report this story one day, in one way or another. The question is, how will they portray their role. ?

View Comment

Rabo KarabekianPosted on9:55 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Here’s a wee story for you. Any similarities to persons alive or otherwise, connected to a football club alive or otherwise is wholly coincidental.

Lancelot decided to buy an internet domain which unfortunately for him was owned by another individual, a guy called Embeebee who according to legend (and a matter of daily record) was the keeper of Secrets so valuable that he was never the subject of electronic surveillance.

Lancelot therefore was unsuccessful in purchasing the domain right there and then. He did notice however that the domain was due to expire in a few weeks, so he waited to see if it would lapse.

It did – Embeebee did not renew. Lancelot then bought the domain he had always wanted and made himself a shiny new email address.

Unbeknownst to Lancelot, Embeebee had not told his little helpers that the domain had gone, so Lancelot, through the mechanism of a catch-all email address (put in place so that emails with misspelt addresses are not rejected) began to receive some every strange emails indeed. Confused at first, Lancelot slowly began to realise that some of these email that had been sent to him referred to the Embeebee Secrets. Tales of Embeebee, his great friends Hans Moonbeam of Eekay, Chass from the Farthings and the Doofus Twins from no one knows where.

Further, as more messages poured in (all addressed to him at lancelot@kneedeepincash.com) some of them refereed to the location of even greater secrets such as those of the Jabber, the JackLargs and the Regadonkey twins. For no reason at all, Embeebee’s friends were sending Lancelot more and more secrets.

Lancelot decided to reciprocate. After all, didn’t Embeebee and his friends show him a great kindness by sending him the Secrets? He would do the same. He sent the Secrets first to the Merinos, the Suffolks and the Dorpers. “Baaaaaah!” they cried, ungrateful, the wool on their necks stiff to a point.

Lancelot then sent the secrets to the Baam-Potts, and even they mocked him. “But I have not betrayed the Great Secrets of Embeebee. I am sharing them as they have been shared with me!”

Lancelot wondered why he was being marginalised. All he had done was buy a bloody domain name for a tenner for two years. He wondered what would ever become of him. What he did not know at that time? The JackLargs were watching.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:09 pm - Jul 26, 2013


john clarke says:
July 26, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Drew Peacock says:
July 26, 2013 at 8:03 pm

‘tsk tsk – Wee lassie goes oot and does well fur hersel with no help from nobody and ends up at The Times – youse want to stoap crushin’ aspirational lassies. So youse do.’
—-
Trying to help her so I’ve just emailed Martin Ivens ( who, I think, is still acting editor of the ST) to let him know that the Guardian is expressing an interest in her and her appearance in Charlotte’s stuff.
Might get her a one-to-one with her boss and help her get her memory back!
—————————-

Yea she talks about writing the story 15 years ago but it was written in May 2000 which is only a nitpicking 13 years ago. But today’s twitter exchange which was most instructional. She actually responded on the subject to CF IMO only because Greenslade got involved.

CF has tweeted Oakshott before on the issue and as far as I remember – but memory is a fickle thing after all – Oakeshott ignored CF and I couldn’t see the tweets sent by CF on Oakeshott’s received tweets. I know little of twitter but I reckon there must be a delete function.

But with the arrival of a media heavy-hitter for some reason the tweets didn’t disappear this time.

But in spite of everything oor Isabel appears to have mastered deflection quite well – probably been hanging around too many PR types. In spite of the flurry of tweets she neither confirms or denies that she contacted Irvine but admits to a phone call from Brendan which gives some credence to the Irvine email.

Her problem of course is if she admits to phoning Irvine she might face the difficult question as to why she felt it necessary to journalistically screw an Anderston Quay colleague and old friend – what favours did she owe Irvine I wonder or what did she want in return.

Of course Isabel has a bit of form in screwing friends over as Vicky Pryce can testify to and this link is most illuminating: http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/how-murdoch-hack-isabel-oakeshott-cold-bloodedly-sold-out-her-friend-for-money/

I’ve quoted a paragraph from it as a little taster: ‘Sunday Times political editor Isabel Oakeshott underhandedly cajoles and – like a slippery snake oil saleswoman – ‘advises’ her so-called ‘friend’ Vicky Pryce to drop the Mail on Sunday for what she calls ‘a more respectable paper’, for example the Sunday Times.’

Well we all know what happened then but read the story if you don’t or have forgotten the details and the email trail is all there. Perhaps it’s time for Slippery Izzy to have a break from emails and tweeting 🙄

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on10:51 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Rabo Karabekian says:
July 26, 2013 at 9:55 pm

“What he did not know at that time? The JackLargs were watching.”
—————————-
An amusing and intiguing tale for which as you say, any resemblance to real events is purely co-incidental.

I wonder in this netherworld how long the JackLargs had been aware of Lancelot’s good/mis-fortune?

I do hope Lancelot escapes the evil grasp of the no-gooders. Perhaps as part of a happy ending, he is aided by a kind stranger. What assistance do you think might this stranger render to Lancelot’s advantage?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on10:55 pm - Jul 26, 2013


http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/8842175/?

More outgoings from the Sevco till.

Are the receipts being filed properly !!??

View Comment

Nuclear SheepPosted on10:59 pm - Jul 26, 2013


I thought this was a nice touch from Aberdeen. Wee bit tongue in cheek. Wee bit of a wind up, maybe.

http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3331579

Only £375k for this baby and not quite the £500k that the Sevco Super Bus cost. I hope it does a few more miles though, before its useful life is over.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:01 pm - Jul 26, 2013


andy graham says:
July 26, 2013 at 9:35 pm
The question is, how will they portray their role?
————————————————————————

Especially when their children ask: ‘What did you do in the war dad?’

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:05 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Nuclear Sheep says:
July 26, 2013 at 10:59 pm

I thought this was a nice touch from Aberdeen. Wee bit tongue in cheek. Wee bit of a wind up, maybe.
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3331579

Only £375k for this baby and not quite the £500k that the Sevco Super Bus cost. I hope it does a few more miles though, before its useful life is over.
======================================================

Someone posted on it earlier but well worth a repeat :slamb:

I noted that Aberdeen had a lot to learn about World Records from Rangers – you’ve got to add the leasing/HP charges to get a £500K + Bus :slamb: :slamb:

View Comment

iamacantPosted on11:06 pm - Jul 26, 2013


jimlarkin says:
July 26, 2013 at 10:55 pm

Jim, I laughed when I read the link, especially the comment “It would be amazing to be one of the players who help Rangers back to where Rangers belongs”

Rangers belong in the dustbin, their history is no more due to liquidation/insolvency. It’s the same comment you get from all new “trialists”

Are they brainwashed when they walk up the marble staircase? Is there an “orgasmatron” crystal machine hidden in one of the pillars that transforms them into historians?

Expel and expunge was the solution but the interviewees bottled it.

View Comment

Nuclear SheepPosted on11:07 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Former Southend centre-half Bilel Mohsni has become the eighth new addition to Ally McCoist’s Rangers squad this summer.

He said: “I’m very happy to sign for Rangers. I have agreed for two years and I think it is a chance to prove that I can play in the top league and be a part of the squad.”

Top league? Poor boy hasn’t done his homework. He’s in for a wee bit of a shock.

View Comment

iamacantPosted on11:10 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Nuclear Sheep says:
July 26, 2013 at 10:59 pm
0 0 i
Rate This

I thought this was a nice touch from Aberdeen. Wee bit tongue in cheek. Wee bit of a wind up, maybe.

http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3331579

Only £375k for this baby and not quite the £500k that the Sevco Super Bus cost. I hope it does a few more miles though, before its useful life is over.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
Nae mention of a 99p tour? Can you imagine any of us Aiberdonians paying that much? We’d all have a whip roon and send one guy in wi’ a camera phone so he could load it up tae ewetube so we could aw watch it :mrgreen:

View Comment

BangordubPosted on11:46 pm - Jul 26, 2013


I think there’s a good few blogs to be written regarding the 3rd Div Champions (of the) League regarding certain professional areas of expertise. Without doubt undergraduates will be writing thesis for years to come on the brilliance of those who guide them on their triumphal march towards the holy grail of champions league music blaring from the tannoy at Ibrox.
Financial expertise and governance, Marketing brilliance, Sporting excellence, Community responsibility and munificence.
Not

View Comment

newtzPosted on11:54 pm - Jul 26, 2013


Clarification to earlier post, .(simplified)

Bank of Scotland took the charge in 1999 concerned at the rise in RFC debt
By 2008 MIH owed circa £775m from around £65m combined group debt at the time he purchased RFC

RFC had an Unsuccessful Share Issue and Murray (who underwrote it) had to pick up the unsold shares (all £50m of it) …
This was done by Bank Loan and the debt went into MIH through Murray Companies,

Rangers were Trading while Insolvent for years …
They got around this by increasing the value of Ibrox & Murray Park to a value of circa £120m

RFC debt was being absorbed by MIH and was growing at an unsustainable rate …so that the debt did not exceed their facility.

In 2010 tMIH had to Reschedule over £400m of debt. Since then debts have grown and Lloyds had to do debt for Equity deals to keep MIH afloat …..

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on12:05 am - Jul 27, 2013


Newtz

It would appear that there is no more appetite for debt for equity at lloyds. At least as far as MIH is concerned. The process was a sham anyway. The swap suggested there was some value left in MIH, when clearly thats an incredibly generous interpretation. Lloyds could have taken a charge over the shareholding, as they did last year, rather than effectively provide £400 million of free working capital to MIH, at a cost of £20 million a year to Lloyds shareholders

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on12:18 am - Jul 27, 2013


newtz says:
July 26, 2013 at 11:54 pm

Clarification to earlier post, .(simplified)

Bank of Scotland took the charge in 1999 concerned at the rise in RFC debt
By 2008 MIH owed circa £775m from around £65m combined group debt at the time he purchased RFC

RFC had an Unsuccessful Share Issue and Murray (who underwrote it) had to pick up the unsold shares (all £50m of it) …
This was done by Bank Loan and the debt went into MIH through Murray Companies,

Rangers were Trading while Insolvent for years …
They got around this by increasing the value of Ibrox & Murray Park to a value of circa £120m
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not all of the £50m was Murray money a small amount was fan money.

Re trading insolvent – still waiting for the 2008 accounts and the auditors report. If you are right in your accusations then the issue is far bigger than we thought.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on12:21 am - Jul 27, 2013


Barcabhoy says:
July 27, 2013 at 12:05 am

If I remember correctly I am a fairly major Lloyds shareholder.

As are you and most of the other people posting here.

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on12:29 am - Jul 27, 2013


Barcabhoy says:
July 27, 2013 at 12:05 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/company-news/lloyds-sells-braveheart-stake.14159055

BOS – really did have their favourites. Did they not?

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on12:37 am - Jul 27, 2013


andy graham says:
July 26, 2013 at 9:35 pm

“The comments section of the Greenslade piece…”…”Charlotte Fakes is revealing documents (legally or illegally) that strongly support the theory of dirty dead done dirt cheap in very high places.”
————————
A musical excursion to delight and bewilder the congregation.

http://youtu.be/fwWX9JbIxFw

View Comment

ianagainPosted on12:48 am - Jul 27, 2013


Back to Charlotte’s latest sound cloud. Was this essentially DAndP stuffing the creditors in favour of CG. In essence?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:41 am - Jul 27, 2013


Tif Finn says:

July 26, 2013 at 7:45 pm
TallBoy Poppy says:
July 26, 2013 at 7:28 pm

Am I not right in saying that CF provided material to suggest that the SFA were also made aware of Rangers’ financial difficulties. I don’t know how much they knew or in what detail but it was claimed discussions took place long before the insolvency event actually happened.
=================================
That there was some doubt as to Rangers financial well being should have occured by 30th June 2011 when the SFA would have been told that a wee tax bill of a relatively puny £2.8M still had not been paid in spite of being on the table since mid May and due early June if not before end of May. You would think that would have raised eyebrows.

It gets worse: in September the SFA tell Rangers that as a result of their second Licence submission step after 30th June, UEFA decided they did not require future financial information reported to them by Rangers at the very time HMRC were asking for? Yup future financial information. Football is a funny old game.

It could all have been so different if Rangers had just coughed up the £2.8m to get their UEFA licence at the end of May 2011 protecting the tax payer, the SFA and Rangers, but the dosh obviously was not there.

So whatever The SFA got told by Rangers later in 2011, the SFA had reason to expect bad financial news long before then. The Sherriff Officers calling at Ibrox in early August and the UEFA exits to Malmo and Maribor soon after should have set off alarms so shrill at Hampden, the mice would have been first out the building.

View Comment

ForresDeePosted on6:41 am - Jul 27, 2013


I’m still here, overseas with crap internet but still looking in, someone asked about Dundee and trialists, Dundee did use the trialists rules to the full extent and probably pushed it a little, but if we hadn’t then we would not have been able to put out a team – At All!

Oh and this;

For any MSM looking in, “When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie” – Yevgeny Yevtushenko

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on7:29 am - Jul 27, 2013


ecobhoy@10:09
That Tom Pride chappie could run riot up here. I can just imagine his dismantling of Keevins,Traynor,Graham,and all the rest who have the gall to call themselves journalists.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:30 am - Jul 27, 2013


ianagain says:
July 27, 2013 at 12:48 am
8 0 Rate This

Back to Charlotte’s latest sound cloud. Was this essentially DAndP stuffing the creditors in favour of CG. In essence?
———

Slightly confusing one since a third person (Ramsey?) seems to be on a phone line. Is the main voice on this one David Grier? If Ted Smith was a fictive, though helpful character, created by someone at D&P, makes you wonder how many other inventions are lurking in this story? The pseudonym ‘Fakes’ is beginning to look … ahem … genuine.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:07 am - Jul 27, 2013


Matty Roth says:
July 26, 2013 at 6:50 pm
====================
Matty, you make a compelling case and have given me much to think about. On reflection a club such as Aberdeen has almost certainly suffered as well. When I read your views something that intermediately came to my mind was the widely reported assertion by Richard Gough years ago that Aberdeen ‘tried harder’ against Rangers than other clubs. There was no media derision of this view, yet I recall many people at the time (not in the media) observing that Aberdeen actually had a better record against Celtic than Rangers (not that it meant anything). However, Gough’s views were indulged and reported nonetheless. You also mentioned the crowd trouble at Pittodrie a number of years ago and we were subjected to the media theory it was English hooligans who were responsible for the Rangers part, but interestingly the ‘casuals’ from Aberdeen were not missed in the same report. Looking back just how easy was it for Rangers to get these stories into the media in order to deflect from the real points? When the court cases came up and no headline reporting was deemed to be required, all the Rangers fans had Scottish addresses – interesting!

So please forgive me for maybe looking too much from my own club’s point of view, although I’d still contend Celtic have suffered more than any other club. However your points are very much noted.

All the best.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:31 am - Jul 27, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 26, 2013 at 10:09 pm
29 0 Rate This
——–

Thanks for the Tom Pride link ecobhoy. The last paragraph on the Huhne story was also a belter:

“If Isabel Oakshott had been put before a jury accused of being a greedy, hard-hearted, back-stabbing con artist, willing to sell her own grandmother for a good story – I’m sure the jury would have found her fully guilty as charged.”

Satire or not, hasn’t Private Eye been sued for less?

Whatever, it lends a bit more credence to CF’s underlying allegations regarding Isabel.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on8:50 am - Jul 27, 2013


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-trialists-riddle-deepens-spfl-2094796?

SPFL – can’t explain their own rules !!!!

Where TF is Bryson . . . In the bunker beside Ogilvie?

View Comment

scottcPosted on9:06 am - Jul 27, 2013


jimlarkin says:
July 27, 2013 at 8:50 am
0 0 Rate This

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-trialists-riddle-deepens-spfl-2094796?

SPFL – can’t explain their own rules !!!!

Where TF is Bryson . . . In the bunker beside Ogilvie?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let’s help them out.

“You changed the rules last year to accommodate Sevco when they lined up at Brechin with unregistered players”

How was that? Clear enough?

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on10:53 am - Jul 27, 2013


I see Sevco has started a new get quick rich scheme – businessmen with cash to burn can pay between £1500 and £10K per annum to obtain the coveted “BOA” from Sevco.

It could mean “By Official Appointment” then again it might mean “Beg, Order……Anyoldhow”

Surely the only business connected with Ibrox which has the BOA moniker is BDO?

Watch them queue up in Edmiston Drive waving their cheques….

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on11:03 am - Jul 27, 2013


Auldheid says:
July 27, 2013 at 1:41 am

===================================

Absolutely. The Government agency responsible for collecting tax going to the Sheriff Court and obtaining an arrestment on the club’s bank account, then the Sheriff’s officers enforcing that at Ibrox has to have been the very last straw, even if everything prior to that had been ignored.

Not only were they not able to pay their bills as they fell due, they were unable to pay historic tax bills, which they had reached an agreement to pay. In fact had got a European licence based on that agreement. Their social taxes were unpaid, but they had an agreement with the Government on how they were going to meet that obligation so the licence could be granted.

Craig Whyte even admitted that it had been a deliberate policy at the time, in fact I think he said he had no other option. Trading whilst insolvent could not be more blatant.

Of course with it being a new club the SFA aren’t really that interested. It is a historic issue. Why should the new club be held responsible for the behavior of the old one. New club, new start, clean slate.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:06 am - Jul 27, 2013


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

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

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:24 am - Jul 27, 2013


Danish Pastry says:
July 27, 2013 at 7:30 am
ianagain says:
July 27, 2013 at 12:48 am

Back to Charlotte’s latest sound cloud. Was this essentially D&P stuffing the creditors in favour of CG. In essence?
———
Slightly confusing one since a third person (Ramsey?) seems to be on a phone line. Is the main voice on this one David Grier? If Ted Smith was a fictive, though helpful character, created by someone at D&P, makes you wonder how many other inventions are lurking in this story? The pseudonym ‘Fakes’ is beginning to look … ahem … genuine.
=================================================

Actually lots of reinforcement here which ties in with other info.

My understanding is that D&P were getting a bit worried about a possible clash of interest becoming public between their role at Rangers as MCR and their duties in terms of being Administrators. So they wanted CW to give them a get out of jail card by issuing a press release which was worded to do just that.

So Grier spoke to Ramsey on the phone – Ramsey Smith is Jack Irvine’s right hand man at Media House and features regularly in the CF material – and ran the scenario past him as he wanted an agreed form of words to be used in the press release to be issued on behalf of CW.

It was agreed that an email with the required wording would be sent but Grier said something about it couldn’t be in his name – not daft that guy that’s why he’s paid the big money 😉

So the email was sent and from what CF states came from D&P but from a Hotmail address if memory serves me correctly in the name of the fictitious Ted Smith.

If they had nothing to hide they could do things out in the open but when you see this kind of subterfuge you know the fish ain’t fresh. Imagine a global company of the size involved getting involved in this pathetic stuff – they’ve been watching 39 Steps too often I reckon.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:28 am - Jul 27, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 27, 2013 at 11:06 am
I think Matty’s story reinforces that any corruption in Scottish Football, that goes unchallenged, has the ability to spread and potentially harm every club to the benefit of the club paying for the manufacture and distribution of poison through its PR spinmeisters which is eagerly lapped-up and printed by a media which, at best, is lazy, compliant and useless.
==================================
…and that”s it in a nutshell sir!

I’m off to the friendly game at Celtic Park today. I may even try out the newly opened Kerrydale Bar for a £3.80 pint of Tennents Lager. Celtic are never shy at making a shilling but we have a choice whether or not to pay it of course, and we can also be sure that the tax on the earnings from the bar will be paid as well!

Have a nice day everyone. If you’re at a game, enjoy!

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on11:29 am - Jul 27, 2013


slimshady61 says:
July 27, 2013 at 10:53 am

“Mr Athwal suggested this could include mailings and special offers targeted at the club’s databases of customers and fans.”

then

“However only one company per industry sector from a geographic region will be allowed to join.”

They are basically selling 500 million email addresses.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on11:42 am - Jul 27, 2013


Now that the new season is just about on us ,would it not be interesting to set up a once a week update on the phone in programmes on air to see how they react individualy to a set of pre written questions ,I am sure there will be some good debate fro S.Cosgrove and co ,but SSB on the other hand I think we might just need a hard hat to avoid being struck by all the toys being thrown out the pram by Keevins and co.

View Comment

Comments are closed.