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

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on11:47 am - Jul 27, 2013


Good Morning.

Yesterday, this blog strayed head first into and old familiar destination which was previously oft visited by the Rangers Tax Case Blog.

That Destination? The Bank of Scotland and its relationship with Murray International, Sir David Murray and Rangers PLC.

However, perhaps in August 2013, a gaze at the BOS and HBOS rolls — and even that of Lloyds– will render a slightly different view when compared to any look at their position in the past.

In that past, when discussing Scottish Football, it was often said that fears and conspiracy notions were the result of paranoia, of misplaced fantasy and deluded conclusions. Sports commentators in particular were quick with the message “move along– there is nothing to see here!” and that very mentality poured from the sports pages and the airwaves with considerable force.

Today, as many others have said, there appears to have been every good reason to be cynical, sceptical and downright paranoid as there is plenty of evidence emerging which suggests that the press and the airwaves were manipulated, controlled and even dictated to — far beyond the reach of any normal PR remit.

In this light, what are we to make of what is now known about HBOS and BOS?

Fellow poster Newtz highlighted yesterday the extraordinary financial road that was travelled between 1999 and the ultimate demise of Rangers PLC. In broad terms, The Murray Group went from cumulative borrowing of something around £64M to over £750M in around a decade! A very chunky proportion of that found its way to Ibrox — yet in very simple terms can anyone see the difference that such borrowing made?

Yes the Club deck was put on the stadium and the corners were filled in to try and keep capacity abreast with the newly rebuilt Celtic park — but what other evidence is there of investment? There is Murray Park of course — but around Ibrox there is no hotel, or shops, or any other kind of infrastructure which would point to huge investment and alternative income making possibilities.

A long time ago, I was told that when Lloyds stepped into the HBOS shoes, the guys at the very top openly said that they had absolutely no idea why the borrowings at MIH had been allowed at all! Not only were they not prepared to increase facilities but that there would be an immediate plan put into place to reduce debt levels– and that meant management of all companies immediately and a controlled realisation of assets!

Rumour I know — but then we get the likes of Donald Muir, Debt for Equity Swaps and so on — but always followed by?

Spin– Spin and yet more Spin — even though some in the financial pages spelt out what was obvious — the only spinning worth examining was the spinning out of control!

But the sports pages had the louder voice — so the financials were glossed over and rarely heard.

This was seen again with the emergence of Craig Whyte. Many will recall him saying ” I never said I was a Multi Billionaire” — and he is right. He never did — in fact he was not even the owner of Rangers when that particular fairy tale found its way to the front pages. So if Craig didn’t say it — then just who did?

Returning to the HBOS position — remember that HBOS were at one time Premier League Sponsors, Bankers to the SFA, Bankers to 90% of the SPL teams and as far back as 1999 publicly proclaiming that they had leant far too much money to football clubs and were clawing it back and reducing facilities rather than increasing them!

When I saw Newtz post one name immediately came to mind— Hearts— I have never understood why in footballing terms Hearts sold te spine of a team that had just won the Scottish Cup and had beaten Advocaats multi millionaire team in the first game of the season! Suddenly, however, there was apparent financial pressure to sell players and reduce debt. All the players who left went to Rangers or Everton.

Had Jim Jeffries been able to keep his team, add a couple, then who knows?

Anyway, it didn’t happen– for whatever reason.

Nothing is often said about the money owed by Rangers PLC to MIH at the time of the Liquidation. Apparently the figure was again around the £65M mark and was just written off and within the Rangers accounts it was just shown as long term debt and so was never referred to in the press.

Many will recall the absolute focus of sports journalists on the level of bank debt and as that reduced how it was proclaimed that “Rangers had turned the corner” in terms of financial difficulties.

Well — how did they afford Jelavic? A purchase price that wasn’t paid at the time, wasn’t funded by the bank, and was largely outstanding many many months later! Why did Rapid Vienna allow that to happen?

Could it be something to do with the “financial reputation” of Rangers as one of the biggest clubs in the world? Could that reputation have been allowed to subsist and prosper as a result of anything said– or not said— in the press, by the SFA and even by the PLC’s bankers? Do any of the other creditors feel that they were in any way mislead by the financial myth that was allowed to surround Ibrox? Do the shareholders– the thousands of ordinary fans who stuck up their money — feel that what they were allowed to believe is something that should be now questioned?

We know for sure that the corporate management of the Bank of Scotland was absolutely rotten to the core. Senior figures have been sacked, fined, stripped of knighthoods, suffered criminal investigation, charged, banned by the FSA and so on—- although many financial guys scream that all of that is merely a cover up and side show compared to the real dirty deeds and scandals.

So why should we possibly even consider that the MIH rise and collapse was immune from any of this nonsense and was somehow being played under different and more ethical rules?

Even when we got to the Administration of Rangers PLC — Roddy Forsyth no less ( an Ibrox share holder and a guy that can string some words together ) immediately went into print to tell us that the Administration would be short and swift, and that Rangers would come out the other end stronger and resume ” Business as normal”.

At the time, I though that Roddy got this guff from the Duff and Phelps initial statement. Now I have to wonder was he briefed by someone else? Was he merely the mouthpiece of someone who wanted to convey a message? Why should I ever accept any so called informed opinion from Roddy or anyone else in the media when it is now known that not only what he said was complete bollox but that there were attempts afoot to make sure that the press printed precisely that– complete bollox?

The borrowing, business plan, business acumen and so on under Murray has never been properly examined.

We know of EBT’s, Share placements and flotations, inter group debts and so on — but there are inexplicable things in there as well. Auldheid has banged on long and hard about just how a European Licence was granted in the face of not only a tax bill but HMRC asking for a clear statement of assets and liabilities and demonstrable ability to pay that tax bill– which amounted to a huge £2.8M.

That is hardly the kind of thing they do if the bill has been paid or if they have already reached an agreement on time to pay! Such a position only tells you one thing– HMRC thinks you are skint!

The tax strategy, the increased borrowings over successive years and all that goes with that — only makes sense financially if examined altogether and in a cohesive business plan and as I say Lloyds, I am told, took the view that it didn’t make sense!

Nobody at HBOS was paranoid, at least not as far as Rangers and Murray were concerned — they just wanted everyone else to reduce their debt — and no one in the press ever questioned why– for reasons which we can only guess at. At this juncture– that remains a mystery.

However, remember the musings of Mr Sherlock Holmes when he said that what was curious was the dog that never barked in the night and there was nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.

Further,when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Charlotte has revealed that there were very serious and very plain attempts to influence — both positively and negatively– the way others were dealt with in the press– especially if they were the competition.

Banks always assess your business plan by examining the competition — its the kind of thing that must be analysed in ordinary every day business as a matter of practice.

Woof Woof.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on12:14 pm - Jul 27, 2013


broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:

Excellent, well said.

There had to be an unhealthy relationship between the masters of MIH and BOS, then HBOS. It’s the only thing that makes any sense.

http://www.ianfraser.org/a-little-bit-of-plains-speaking-from-lloyds-banking-group-would-be-in-order/

What really happened was it suddenly dawned on us that Sir David isn’t that great a businessman after all. His success was all a bit of a mirage based on over-generous lending by the guys at HBOS — particularly Peter Cummings, who should never have been allowed to make the tea in a bank let alone sign off his own loans.

Foolishly, Cummings and his predecessor Gavin Masterton handed Murray a total of £760m on a “no questions asked, handshake only” basis and, in the current environment, we suddenly realised he hasn’t much chance of paying this back.

View Comment

Carfins Finest.Posted on12:34 pm - Jul 27, 2013


It now seems pretty obvious that over the last 20 years or so over 700 million quid was ‘Given’ to RFC by friendly bank managers. If this amount of cash could not help to save them then what chance does the current new team playing at Ibrox have without access to such funds? RFC were falsely kept in a position of prominence within the game for numerous years at the expense of honesty and truth. How can we ever trust again the same people, who still govern our game, when it is clear that they were up to their necks in the subterfuge? And how can we ever trust anything we read or hear from media outlets that were quite obviously complicit in the whole charade? Is this the reason for the deafening silence form the gutterpress in Scotland?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:53 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Two thoughts for today.

The first is that a lot of sevco’s fortunes will ride on how the other teams in league 1 treat them on the park. If they are star struck – and that is the only reason I can think of for ten new signings in times of austerity – then they should be home and hosed. It will be very interesting the response if a team or teams dares to match or even better them. That would be a true rock and hard place for the money men.

My second thought is that today, for the first time, the MSM have finally taken heed of our very own monitor blog amd there are rumblings of discontent. The reason? Look no further than the following quote

jimlarkin says:
July 27, 2013 at 8:50 am

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

That’s right guys, there was an establishment golf day and for the first time ever you weren’t invited. I heard the lamb at lunch was good too!

View Comment

joe millers shortsPosted on12:55 pm - Jul 27, 2013


I will remember BRTH post next time i hear the laptop loyal demanding the return of a “strong” Rangers

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on1:08 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Has the @charlottefakes dam broken – good 5 minute slot on off the ball about Charlotte’s materials. Some discussion on why there has been no wide spread reporting. Even Jack got a mention.

View Comment

TSFMPosted on1:19 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Getting the story into the public domain is great, but the story is all about CtH and not the shady dealings at Ibrox and elsewhere. The danger we face is that if Charlotte is discredited ten the whole house of cards falls apart and the real story is buried in the rubble.

Perhaps I am being too pessimistic, but no-one knows what journey CtH is on. As of now, it still appears to me to be a bit of a mystery tour. If we buy a ticket we shouldn’t complain abut where it takes us.

That’s my bah! humbug! moment over for the day :slamb:

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on1:23 pm - Jul 27, 2013


From the DR…

An SPFL spokesman said: “Trialists can play in round one but not round two or after. But we are not in a position to explain the logic of that rule.

“We inherited the competition, and the League Cup, and in the interests of stability this season we are adhering to the rules that were in place.
_________________
Does this include the rules on how many over 21 players a team/club/company can register??

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on1:29 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Would it be OK for Celtic to field eg Messi for a couple of games, give him a few fish suppers and thank him? I mean there doesn’t seem to be any rules now.

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on1:54 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Tif Finn @ 12:15pm
Yeah and not yer every day,run of the mill handshake.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:21 pm - Jul 27, 2013


I mentioned the other day a resolution for the Celtic AGM asking for UEFA to use the investigatory powers of the Club Financial Control Board to investigate SFA club licensing.

This is the final version which I post not only for Celtic shareholders but shareholders in other clubs who might want to use this route to remind clubs and the SFA that their decisions have an effect on shares of other clubs as well as their own and so have to be fairly arrived at.

.Resolution (and supporting statement) proposal for the 2013 Celtic Plc AGM under the terms of the Companies Act.Celtic Plc AGM 2013 Resolution for CFCB investigation into SFA Licensing Administration.

This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license
compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.

Supporting Statement

We the undersigned request this course of action, from our clubs custodians and corporate representation, responsible to protect our interests in line with corporate law. We consider the SFA governance has displayed a disregard for the rules and spirit of fair play,contradicted FIFA, UEFA & SFA mission statements and acted in contravention to the spirit of the rules of fair play outlined in FIFA,
UEFA & SFA Rules, Regulations and Supplementary documents of which the SFA are signatories, such as;
FIFA Code of Conduct Article 3 – Eleven principles for behavior and conduct of the FIFA family. (Note 2)
FIFA Standard Cooperation Agreement of 2004 Article 2.1 – Basic Principles, which states;
The basic principles governing the organization, administration and financing of football are as follows: football statutes and regulations, democratic election of governing bodies, legality, competence, dignity, probity, mutual respect, responsibility, trust, communication, transparency, fair play, solidarity, protection of sportsmen and sportswomen’s health and promotion of friendly relations.

A number of recent examples of this including but not limited to the following;

1. Unprecedented transfer of membership and granting of license to operate to an unqualified new club, facilitating queue jumping into the lower professional set-up, at the expense of existing qualified clubs, who had applied through the recognized process

2. Secret cross governance agreements to facilitate point 1. above, which took place during the preparation and contrary to the ethos of the SFA’s own published mission statement Scotland United A 20/20 Vision 2012, regarding trust and respect, as part of the future governance of the sport. Further the process for the above agreement is in direct contravention of the FIFA Standard Cooperation Agreement of 2004 Article 2.1 Basic Principles, which identifies Associations responsibilities outlined above.

3. Participation of a new club in an SFA affiliated domestic club competition without proper registration compliance

4. The participation of the SFA, in an inquiry on improper player registration, an inquiry the SFA declined to initiate on the grounds that; the SFA required to be neutral, maintaining appellate authority status, then not only compromising that neutrality by participation but providing an interpretation on player eligibility that UEFA and indeed FIFA should examine.

These in our opinion are just some of the more blatant contradictions to the spirit of fair play, however, far more serious, and the main thrust of this resolution is the granting by the SFA of a license to participate in European Competition in 2011, to a club who prime facie did not qualify specifically under the non-payment of social tax requirements identified in the FFP 2010, still outstanding to date, a decision that had a direct financial impact on our CFC Plc’s financial well being.
Our concern is directed at the governance of the game in Scotland, the SFA, and its apparent disregard for the licensing system that was designed to protect against such commercial impropriety and to ensure sporting integrity; we wish to eliminate the opportunity for possible future indiscretions and insist this problem requires immediate action through investigation by the FCFB, to restore trust and respect in the
governance of Scottish football.

We have no confidence in the SFAs governance within the current framework, to satisfy our concerns and therefore request the Board supports this resolution.

If the Board cannot support this resolution, we require a response in writing before the AGM, followed up with a statement addressing this issue at the AGM, justifying any such reticence, as to why it is believed the SFA’s actions or lack of, in granting the UEFA license without due rigor, has not had a detrimental financial impact on our club, also justifying why there were no license administration irregularities if
that is the Boards contention.

We ask you to support this resolution and the written statement above circulated to shareholders in advance of the meeting, in the interests of a stronger Celtic
.
I/We (Name/s)__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Of (Address)____________________________________________________________________________________________________
being an Ordinary shareholder of Celtic Plc (the ‘Company’) and/or a convertible Preferred Ordinary shareholder of Celtic Plc support the
above resolution and supporting statement and wish the resolution to be considered at the Company AGM
Signature____________________________________________________________________________

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:23 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Notes from above

Resolution (and supporting statement) proposal for the 2013 Celtic Plc AGM under the terms of the Companies Act.
Celtic Plc AGM 2013 Resolution for CFCB investigation into SFA Licensing Administration. Page 2
NOTE 1

CFCB Article 10 – Tasks of the CFCB chief investigator
1 If a case falling under the jurisdiction of the CFCB in accordance with these rules comes to the attention of, or is referred to, the CFCB, an investigation is conducted by the CFCB chief investigator.
2 The CFCB chief investigator establishes the facts and collects all evidence.

CFCB Article 3 – Jurisdiction of the CFCB

1 The CFCB is competent to:
a) determine whether licensors have fulfilled their obligations and whether license applicants/licensees
have fulfilled the licensing criteria as defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play
Regulations;
b) determine whether licensees fulfill the club monitoring requirements as defined in the UEFA Club
Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations;
c) impose disciplinary measures as defined in these rules in the event of non fulfillment of the
requirements set out in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations;
d) decide on cases relating to club eligibility for the UEFA club competitions to the extent provided for
by the regulations governing the competitions in question.
2 When a case seems to come under the jurisdiction of both the CFCB and the Control and Disciplinary Body,
the chairmen of the two bodies decide in their own discretion which body shall deal with the case. If they
cannot reach an agreement, the chairman of the Appeals Body decides in his own discretion. Such decisions on jurisdiction may only be appealed against with the final decision of the body to which the case was assigned

CFCB Article 11 – Collection of evidence
1 The CFCB chief investigator may, on his own initiative or, where appropriate, at the request of the
defendant, convene a hearing as part of his investigation.
2 All means of evidence may be considered by the CFCB chief investigator. This includes, but is not limited
to, the defendant’s testimony, witness testimonies, documents and records, recordings (audio or video),
on-site inspections and expert reports.
3 The defendant may consult the case file.
4 The CFCB chief investigator may set a suitable time limit for the defendant to submit its observations
and/or submit or request complementary evidence.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on2:42 pm - Jul 27, 2013


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jul/26/data-protection-rangers

Sorry if posted already.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:44 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Tif Finn says:
July 27, 2013 at 11:29 am

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.”

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

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

They are basically selling 500 million email addresses.
====================================================

I noticed the first company to be awarded an Ibrox BOA is Squareknot Ltd whose founder and MD is Derek Bond. Being a nosy bugger I thought I’d check what it does and found Squareknot Ltd, formerly known as Crowd of Angels Ltd, was incorporated on 29 September 2012 and Mr Bond became a director on 9 January this year and on the same date became sole director of Crowd Funding Plus Ltd. He was formerly a director with John R. Weir Limited motor group which sold out to Arnold Clark in September 2012.

On 3/01/2013 the squareknot.co.uk domain name was purchased and there is currently little on the site except for a house ad that if you want to raise capital for a business or project to email Mr Bond. There is also an advert stating the ‘Crowdfunding’ website will be launched soon.

So Tif Finn it looks as though the Ibrox fanbase will be exhorted to dig deep yet again and fund other new businesses – who knows it might work as they have already shown a willingness to gamble on a new and possibly shaky business model. Time will no doubt tell.

However I have to admit surprise that to launch their new prestige business scheme they didn’t pick on a Blue Chip company but one that has just come out the wrapper so to speak. I wonder if it’s a sign that the Rangers Men with established businesses and cash are still wary of becoming involved with Ibrox.

If that’s the case and if the spending hasn’t been brought under control this could be mean that no blue sugar daddy is waiting in the wings. But on the bright side perhaps oldco creditors could apply for crowdfunding to help make up for any damage done to their businesses through the Rangers collapse and liquidation.

View Comment

NumbNutsPosted on2:46 pm - Jul 27, 2013


broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
July 27, 2013 at 11:47 am

“Such a parcel of rogues in a nation”

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on2:47 pm - Jul 27, 2013


https://www.oscr.org.uk/search-charity-register/charity-extract/?charitynumber=sc033287

Didn’t realise it cost so much to raise so little.

View Comment

ClashCityRockersPosted on3:29 pm - Jul 27, 2013


I buy Private Eye on a regular basis now. Humour aside, the journalists that contribute to the Eye do like to expose the greed and corruption where ever they find it. In issue No:1343 28th June – 11th July there is a little “Number Crunching” snippet which I would like to quote verbatim. Although not directly anything to do with Scottish Football, it does show how corporate greed has spread right to the top of Football.

“Number Crunching
£8.6bn Cost of staging 2014 football World Cup in Brazil
£410 Brazil’s average monthly wage
£0 Amount of tax Fifa will pay the Brazilian government on its World Cup profits (all host countries must agree to zero tax before the world football authority will consider their bid)”

A sad state of affairs really. Fifa effectively coercing/forcing countries to do its bidding, and thus promoting tax evasion/avoidance. Greed at the top filters down through the strata. The corporatisation of football is complete. The message loud and clear “greed is good”, the unwritten rule perhaps is “don’t get caught”. No wonder the likes of Campbell Ogilvie go unchallenged in the world of football and its governing bodies. How many other COs are there, out there, in the football world that have had expensive nights out bought and paid for at the expense of the tax payer. Robert Noonan would be livid. Brazils shanty town inhabitants are the 21st century equivalence of “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. The most immoral thing about it all is that said shanty town dwellers will practically know nothing about the tax avoidance/evasion about to be perpetrated upon them by those in control of the “beautiful” game. I rant therefore I digress, apologies. Football fans the world over are being exploited by their own loyalty to their chosen team. Mostly that exploitation keeps the football club going. The exploitation of the Ibrox faithful, by the spivs and crooks, will continue as long as those in power do nothing to stop the flow of undesirables taking control.

I have disobeyed my own rule. That is don’t drink and post.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on4:33 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 1m

Summary report to Craig Whyte. Defining Pro-IRA songs with BBC is a chargeable item or a specialist area for Jack? http://www.scribd.com/doc/156371097/Media-House-Report-May-2011

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on5:13 pm - Jul 27, 2013


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
July 27, 2013 at 4:33 pm

My guess is it was Lois Boyle who did the “call with BBC re hot to define pro-IRA songs”

Though why someone working on behalf of Rangers would be making / receiving such a call in May 2011 is beyond me.

Or why Ramsay Smith (presumably) was briefing the Herald on the “Celtic Issue”

Media manipulation and deflection, I am shocked.

View Comment

andy grahamPosted on5:41 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Just seen the sky ad for the new Scottish football season showing all 13 top league clubs

what do you mean there are only 12?

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on6:24 pm - Jul 27, 2013


I know CF released this a day or two ago but I think it really does say a lot about Mr Irvin’s attitude.

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

I had forgotten this additional aspect but apparently every week there is a deluge of mail for the Chairman of the day and the CEO from the mad, disgruntled fans. I don’t know whether they respond to these lunatics but I would advise binning the offensive ones and sending a stock reply to the others. I was also reminded that the Chairman and CEO can expect to be shouted and spat at in Glasgow streets and restaurants which makes your decision to stay in London most of the time very wise and possibly life saving.

I was about to suggest that you wear a balaclava in Glasgow until I remembered that you might be mistaken for one of these fine chaps who sport the tricolour at Parkhead.

Yours aye

Jack

Jack Irvine Executive Chairman Media House International Ltd

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

What a class act he is.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on6:59 pm - Jul 27, 2013


As an aside i was dissapointed but not surprised to hear Chic Youngs still got a gig with Radio Scotland 🙁

View Comment

onthebawPosted on7:42 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Can anyone elaborate on this ? Barcabhoy ‏@Barcabhoy1 14m

@Markdaly2 The BBC now have an incredibly serious problem to deal with . Ken McQuarrie must realise that wha… http://tl.gd/mc3j7f

This is as serious as it gets…. WTF

View Comment

onthebawPosted on7:51 pm - Jul 27, 2013


This is i believe the program defaming the Celtic support

http://youtu.be/RdlM4yTpTFo

View Comment

pilgrim1888Posted on7:58 pm - Jul 27, 2013


onthebaw says:
July 27, 2013 at 7:42 pm
1 0 Rate This

Can anyone elaborate on this ? Barcabhoy ‏@Barcabhoy1 14m

@Markdaly2 The BBC now have an incredibly serious problem to deal with . Ken McQuarrie must realise that wha… http://tl.gd/mc3j7f

This is as serious as it gets…. WTF

——————————

On the 18th may 2011 the BBC showed a programme bigotry, bombs and football. This was 2 days after being briefed by media house regarding sectarian singing. I believe this is the programme that is being referred to.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on8:11 pm - Jul 27, 2013


onthebaw says:
July 27, 2013 at 7:42 pm

———

Media House appear , as per CF latest, to have charged Rangers for briefing the BBC on what is perceived to be Pro IRA singing. 5 days later Rob McLean , live on air accuses and condemns the Celtic support for sectarian singing.
The claims by McLean were very hotly contested by the Celtic support at the time, as being false and malicious. The key here is though that the BBC cannot ever be bought, or have any perception that they are available to be bought.
Any general claim the the BBC nowadays are institutionally biased in favour of Rangers and anti Celtic, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny . However like all large organisations it is possible for individuals to breach guidelines over fairness and accuracy, not to mention being guilty of bias and collusion.

I don’t know if thats what happened here, but on the basis of what has been revealed so far it doesn’t look good for the BBC.I would hope Ken McQuarrie, Director of BBC Scotland, would ask his management team to ask the following questions.

1 Was there a briefing from Media House of what constitutes pro ira songs, or songs of a sectarian nature

If yes,

2 why did the BBC consent to a briefing from Rangers on a matter which didn’t concern them and would be correctly construed by them as an attempt to damage another club

3 Who reported the alleged pro ira singing

4 was that person involved in the briefing with media house, or instructed by anyone involved in the briefing with media house

5 has media house ever briefed the BBC against any other Club or business on behalf of Rangers

6 what is the bbc guideline in relation to briefing by PR agents, and did the briefing by media house fall inside or outside of those guidelines

7 does the bbc react to negative pr briefings which are designed to damage competitors of the company paying the PR agent

View Comment

BangordubPosted on8:15 pm - Jul 27, 2013


This is now getting very serious:
@Markdaly2 The BBC now have an incredibly serious problem to deal with . Ken McQuarrie must realise that what is suspected here is that Rangers paid a PR agency to brief the BBC against Celtic, and 5 days later the BBC criticized Celtic supporters live on TV, in an allegation that was hotly disputed. It doesn’t get worse for the BBC than allegations of bias and collusion

A certain allegation here for the BBC to answer

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on8:20 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Really just duplicating what Barca said, so edited out.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:23 pm - Jul 27, 2013


On the day Rob McClean mentioned Celtic supporters sectarian singing I was a bit puzzled to hear it even mentioned. It seemed like a departure from the hear no evil see no evil that was the BBCs norm.
On reading the latest CF it seems to me that the guys who wrote to the BBC and pursued it with the BBC Trust have reason to reopen their complaint.
There may be trouble ahead Rob.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on8:38 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Bangordub says:
July 27, 2013 at 8:15 pm
4 1 Rate This

This is now getting very serious:
……………………………..

I believe it got very serious about 18 months ago….this is beyond very serious….the BBC can no longer be trusted…I wonder how London will deal with this?…Celtic need to get involved in this.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on8:41 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Celtic will do nothing – they don’t want to rock the boat/upset the gravy train (delete as you see apt)

View Comment

WeeBullyPosted on8:47 pm - Jul 27, 2013


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23462287
A few good lines and stats in this PR related article.

“There is an irony that an industry all about the construction and manipulation of image might itself suffer from an image problem. But it does.”

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on8:50 pm - Jul 27, 2013


It now raises the question…what other BBC comments…reports need to be looked at?

Was the cancellation of Paul McConvilles BBC debate influenced?

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on8:56 pm - Jul 27, 2013


As an Aberdeen fan – man and boy I have never felt any media or institutional bias towards my Club – then again we have not been that great for a number of years (okay decades) and perhaps nobody looked at us as a threat.

Who the hell are Media House? Why do they have the apparent power to influence and set agendas against Celtic and their fans?

This stinks.

This needs to stop now. Football should be about fair competition – played according to fair rules that all can abide by,

I was and am drawn to Rangers Tax Case by a sense of injustice. I believe that my club has played fairly by the rules (sporting and taxation etc.) and I expect others to do so.

I have nothing against the fans of Rangers/Sevco – I do have issues with those who ran and run those Clubs.

I had no wish to see Rangers as a Club die. Now I do, in that if this is what it takes to rid Scottish society of institutional bias against Celtic and the fans of that great club then so be it.

I pray for the day when all of this is over and I can enjoy football again without being disgusted at the bias towards one Club, over all others.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on9:08 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Paulmac2 says:
July 27, 2013 at 8:50 pm
3 0 Rate This

It now raises the question…what other BBC comments…reports need to be looked at?

Was the cancellation of Paul McConvilles BBC debate influenced?

——————————

weren’t the BBC just TODAY reporting how the Ramsdens cup comp had been boosted by “Rangers” participation, and how they (Rangers) had emerged from liquidation – complete and utter nonsense.

Unless the bbc respond – then i’m afraid their credibility is lower than Jim Traynors in his last months at the record.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on9:18 pm - Jul 27, 2013


#Briefing-gate is potentially as damaging as Dougiegate. No club should have the ability to brief the National Broadcaster in a way designed to damage it’s main competitor.

The BBC asks staff to sign a declaration with regards to any external business interests or relationships that their staff have with customers/suppliers/direct competitors of the BBC. They clearly take very seriously any conflict of interest. This applies right up to the Director General.

Given the publicly funded nature of the BBC and the wonderful reputation it has worldwide, I hope they do not decide to ignore this. I would endorse Auldheid when he suggests that those who took the considerable time and trouble to write to the BBC on the “sectarian singing ” issue originally to make their respondents aware of this new information

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:27 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 27, 2013 at 9:08 pm

The same Jim Traynor who hosted a show on BBC Radio Scotland and regularly told callers they were paranoid when they brought things up.

The one who is now Rangers head of communication.

Who has now seen the light an no longer is adamant that the club died with liquidation.

That Jim Traynor.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:33 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Barcabhoy says:
July 27, 2013 at 9:18 pm

The BBC is publicly funded and operates under a (royal) charter. It’s independence and unbiased nature should be beyond question.

Anything which seriously brings that into question should be investigated, and adverse findings should be made public. Names should be named.

If this were to be suspected in another country, with regard the national broadcaster we would call it outrageous.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on9:33 pm - Jul 27, 2013


There was a lot of talk about The Sun cancelling serialisation of Phil Mac’s Download book due to pressure from sevco fans. Could it have been Irvine/Media House rethar than fans?

View Comment

scottcPosted on9:45 pm - Jul 27, 2013


1 Was there a briefing from Media House of what constitutes pro ira songs, or songs of a sectarian nature

If yes,

2 why did the BBC consent to a briefing from Rangers on a matter which didn’t concern them and would be correctly construed by them as an attempt to damage another club

3 Who reported the alleged pro ira singing

4 was that person involved in the briefing with media house, or instructed by anyone involved in the briefing with media house

5 has media house ever briefed the BBC against any other Club or business on behalf of Rangers

6 what is the bbc guideline in relation to briefing by PR agents, and did the briefing by media house fall inside or outside of those guidelines

7 does the bbc react to negative pr briefings which are designed to damage competitors of the company paying the PR agent

:slamb: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :slamb:

I wonder how many of Barca’s questions could be asked and answered under FOI? Certainly 1, 5 & 6.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on9:47 pm - Jul 27, 2013


That’s obviously Phil’s Downfall book !!

View Comment

pilgrim1888Posted on9:51 pm - Jul 27, 2013


The latest revelations regarding alleged media house influence over BBC output if true call into question the impartiality of the BBC, a point that other people have quite correctly raised. I for one simply cannot accept this as a license fee payer I am already sick to the back teeth of the behaviour of this institution, it’s hall of shame is too long to list. I have just sent the BBC trust a lengthy email asking them for clarification on the subject I would urge others to do the same.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:56 pm - Jul 27, 2013


Can I just say, in my opinion it would possible be more accurate to suggest that there are corrupt people employed within BBC Scotland, and probably the Sports Department, than to think of the entire organisation as being corrupt.

Similar could probably have been said of the Bank of Scotland / HBOS, Duff and Phelps etc.

It is the people who are doing these things who should be identified and taken to task.

View Comment

tornsconePosted on10:12 pm - Jul 27, 2013


People are just noticing the BBC is biased? And dare it be said in even more important areas than football too. The stink of corruption has been apparent for a number of years. If this can let some fresh air in it would be a start. Scotland needs a strong public broadcaster. And a fair one.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:18 pm - Jul 27, 2013


This website is truly an education. Another excellent post from broganrogantrevinoandhogan at 11:47AM. There are also many others that make this such an experience. I do love to indulge the different expertise of a fine financial or legal mind, and there is no better place to do it than on here. As I said, great stuff!

My report from today’s friendly at Celtic Park is as follows:

1. The game was relatively poor. Massive amount of substitutions didn’t help.
2. Borussia M scored one excellent and one very good goal. As it was a friendly the Celtic fans sportingly applauded both!
3. The German support looked to be about 1000 – superb for a friendly if you ask me.
4. The Kerrydale Bar at Celtic Park will be our group’s regular pre-match watering hole from now on.

All the best, and I hope someone, somewhere was more entertained by their pre-season friendly than I was with mine.

View Comment

pilgrim1888Posted on10:24 pm - Jul 27, 2013


An example of the BBC response to complaints regarding the coverage and comments made during the 2011 cup final. Apologies for some of tha language on the discussion thread.

http://www.talkceltic.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-105742.html

I wonder how this sentence from the response relates to the alleged use of media house

“BBC Scotland will continue to report on this and all other areas of public interest and debate in a fair and balanced manner over time”

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on10:25 pm - Jul 27, 2013


BBC
Part of the rat pack to help save a died club.
Biased Bigotted Corrupt. Hang your heads in shame. I want all your heads to roll for this.
I pay a licence for you sick people, not only to you make s mockery of our game and my team, I pay you for this service. You have no shame.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:02 pm - Jul 27, 2013


On the BBC responses to complaints after May 2011 this is a detailed letter of complaint

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=10485274&t=8499779

that got this reply from the BBC Trust

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8635639/94/#post10896910 It looks like they thought impartilaity rules had been breached

• the description of Celtic supporters‘ conduct in such a way as to allegedly equate it with Rangers supporters‘ conduct that had previously incurred UEFA sanctions provide sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a case for the Executive to answer on Impartiality. I have therefore determined that this issue should also proceed for consideration by the ESC. I have instructed the Independent Editorial Adviser to investigate the issue of Impartiality further, and to include the results of that investigation in the Background and Considerations note.

Now we know why.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on11:03 pm - Jul 27, 2013


I was talking to a couple of Celtic supporting aquaintances the other day and one of them remarked upon the distatasteful chanting concerning the murdered soldier at the Brentford game.

Having since been educated by the bloggers here it appears that there was no such chanting, or if there was, there is no evidence of it. The two guys concerned don’t do this site so they are unaware that the information is almost certainly false. Is this another instance of defamatory PR being placed in the public domain? Please enlighten me if I have missed something that makes this allegation stand up.

I don’t recall the occasion of the alleged pro-IRA chanting at the televised game that onthebaw posted at 7:51 pm with the clip of Rob McLean. If, as appears the case, the timing of this intervention correlates with Charlotte’s latest information then it does call into question this particular football pundits integrity. As Auldheid has said, those with a detailed knowledge of this occasion should re-invigorate their concerns.

As another poster has said, this bias may not be corporation wide. Stuart Cosgrove, Tam Cowan, Richard Gordon and Mark Daly do not seem to exhibit this trait. So we should be mindful of the need to treat the cancer without harming the patient.

Lastly, The piece that TiffFinn posted at 12:14 pm was very enlightening. It seems that the methods used to launder RFC(IL) had already been practised in other fields by the Bank Of Scotland before (Sir) David Murray’s grasp on reality finally dwindled. Even down to the control of the media. This is not just a football story. However rather than trying to take on the whole world, if we can pursue this particular agenda we may move a wider cause a bit further forward.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on11:39 pm - Jul 27, 2013


scottc says:
July 27, 2013 at 9:06 am

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

How was that? Clear enough?”
——————-
and

Auldheid
Just there the noo
———————–

Top class.

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on11:39 pm - Jul 27, 2013


it does explain one of lifes great mysteries.
chic young being on the bbc.

View Comment

TSFMPosted on12:18 am - Jul 28, 2013


Another logical inference that might be drawn from the allegation that Media House briefed against opponents is that they did so in the case of Dundee United.

The CG nonsense that “they were one of the clubs who were trying to kill us!”, was of course blatantly rabble-rousing, but almost immediately stories began to emerge about the cold-case of the abandoned match and the so called “double charge” for Rangers fans.

The facts that;
a) Dundee United fans also were charged for the replayed match and;
b) Rangers had already visited Tannadice three times since that incident with no protestations of anti-Rangers-ness;
made no difference to the story being spun in the press without reference to either a or b above.

Green of course softened his posture shortly after his first outburst and gave the fans the credit for the boycott initiative which cost Dundee United several thousands of pounds. If it could be shown that Media House had briefed the MSM on the replayed match situation on RIFC’s behalf, that would be a clear breach of SFA rules.

If CtH’s info is correct and Rangers went down the route of briefing against other clubs, it might be reasonable to assume that they would have ruled out hardly any tactics to cover their won transgressions; and understandable that a fan of any Scottish team would be moved to raise an enquiring eyebrow if undue prominence was afforded negative stories about their own club.

It may be worthwhile to look at any damaging stories about any Scottish clubs which may have deflected attention from the situation at Ibrox. Hearts and Dunfermline situations spring to mind, and the Dundee United one seems a tap-in. Perhaps there are others?

View Comment

Nuclear SheepPosted on12:43 am - Jul 28, 2013


The Neil Simpson tackle on Ian Durrant was a case where the Rangers press presented the tackle in the worst possible light. There is no doubt that it was a bad tackle, but it happens in football.

The press ripped Neil to pieces and his career was damaged much more than that of Ian Durrant’s.

I don’t think Neil ever got over it.

Mr Souness ended a player’s career, but the press merely presented that as part of his qualities.

View Comment

TSFMPosted on12:47 am - Jul 28, 2013


One of the problems with the drip-drip mechanism that CtH employs with regard to the release of information is that our capacity for incredulity is diminished on an almost daily basis. Each single revelation shocks us less than the one before, so inured have we become to the amoralities and questionable illegalities.

Taking a step back, the picture that CtH portrays is one of a relentless systematic plan not just to lie, but to avoid telling the truth to anyone; to not just cheat or act dishonestly, but to avoid conducting themselves with any sporting integrity at all; to not only fail to honour obligations, but to deliberately avoid completing all contracts and the payment of any tax; to wear dishonesty as a badge of honour and mock those who believe that sport should be conducted with fairness and integrity.

Meanwhile the so-called guardians of truth and fair play, the MSM and the football authorities, have sat back and cheered on as this parcel of rogues have defecated all over our game. However the authorities and the MSM play this out, and the court of public opinion is still significantly influenced by what these people write and how they legislate, the main players in Charlotte’s Soap Opera have shown themselves to be almost totally corrupt. They are for sure completely uncontaminated by honesty, honour or virtue.

They are certainly not a force for good.

View Comment

onthebawPosted on7:16 am - Jul 28, 2013


Auldheid says:
July 27, 2013 at 8:23 pm
——————————————–
Has Rob McClean ever mentioned any other team/s re- sectarian singing .
I can’t recall him – or anyone else- remarking on the league cup final where,
as we all witnessed the songs of hate were sung for the duration of the game.

Indeed one particular politician even praised the atmosphere

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:58 am - Jul 28, 2013


Looking for some advice from a legal mind. Supposing I were to complain to the BBC, referencing material published on the Internet which alleges a PR company working for Rangers briefed them on how to report singing by Celtic supporters. Is it okay for me to refer to this material given that the MSM slant seems to be not to touch it unless they know how it was obtained?

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on8:04 am - Jul 28, 2013


TSFM says:
July 28, 2013 at 12:47 am

47

4

Rate This

One of the problems with the drip-drip mechanism that CtH employs with regard to the release of information is that our capacity for incredulity is diminished on an almost daily basis. Each single revelation shocks us less than the one before, so inured have we become to the amoralities and questionable illegalities.
————————————————————————————————————————————
Totally agree TSFM. It’s like the old analogy of peeling away the layers of an onion and more is revealed
each time. Problem is, we already know the nett result… it’s rotten to the core! Only question that remains is, how rotten?

Parcel of rogues indeed!!!

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on8:04 am - Jul 28, 2013


Institutional bias in this country takes many forms.Being refused an apprenticeship because of the school I had attended convinced me of that fact.In football it was ever thus.In the old days,the establishment club invariably got it’s own way because it could.Referees like Mowat,Wharton,and others,made sure decisions and ultimately results went the way of said club.This favouritism was of course,endorsed by the blazer brigade at Hampden where brotherly love was abundant.The press,like today,acted as supporters.
Football has moved on.Bias however,remains.
There was no Internet in those days though quite a few bampots.Us Internet bampots will continue to challenge and to hold to account those in positions of power, whether in the media,or in football itself.
WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on8:44 am - Jul 28, 2013


Nuclear Sheep says:
July 28, 2013 at 12:43 am

The Neil Simpson tackle on Ian Durrant was a case where the Rangers press presented the tackle in the worst possible light. There is no doubt that it was a bad tackle, but it happens in football.

The press ripped Neil to pieces and his career was damaged much more than that of Ian Durrant’s.
——————————————————————————————————–
I don’t want to open old wounds and I may have got this wrong as it was a long time ago but I have a recollection of at least one Rangers player considerably raising the temperature of the game by his conduct. Whether that contributed to what happened later I can’t say for certain but if true it won’t have helped.

I don’t recall seeing the above thoughts in later media reports. Again it was a long time ago and my memory of this is hazy. Another example of institutional bias though?

Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:51 am - Jul 28, 2013


helpmaboab says:
July 28, 2013 at 8:04 am
=======================
One of the most puzzling, and ultimately ridiculous theories put forward by the Scottish media is that is impossible for a Scottish Referee to act out of bias. They are happy to endorse that cheating goes on in other countries, but it can’t happen here. Of course, that does not mean Scottish Referees, past and present, regularly take to the field with bias in mind, but bias is as much of a human trait as making an error is. It is interesting that the error trait is the only one ever used to explain otherwise inexplicable decisions.

Personally, given the social and religious history of Scotland, I would find it amazing if bias did not find its way onto the football field at times. Maybe it’s not so prevalent these days, but to suggest just by virtue of being a Scotsman that it is genetically impossible to be biased, is completely absurd.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:00 am - Jul 28, 2013


I’ll preface this next comment by firstly stating that we don’t have evidence yet for specific instances if this nefarious influence on the media, so any judgements need to be made with that in mind.

Now, having said that.

Just how much damage to Scottish society as a whole might these people have done in the pursuit of their petty, selfish agenda?

What prejudices have they fed or even created over the years?
What damage has that done to our whole country?
How many careers have been ruined?
Could lives have been lost?

Its impossible to make that judgement but I don’t believe what seems to have been happening can have been without consequences.

The people who perpetrated these acts and all the others who stood by when they should have acted to stop them – those people truly disgust me.

We don’t know how low they would stoop but we’ve seen no limits to what they are prepared to do – I don’t think we’ve reached the “bottom” yet.

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on9:19 am - Jul 28, 2013


I think what has emerged last night shows why there has been such stunning silence on the part of the press.

Every tentacle of the MSM, including the publicly-funded BBC, is worried that CtH has something on them. Media House seems to have touched every aspect of the MSM in Scotland, television, radio, all of the press. The position now is that none of them is to be trusted until they come out and declare the extent of any Media House influence on them.

My advice would be to stop buying any Scottish based newspapers and unless you really have to, stop listening to the BBC or Clyde. BT Sport is coming with coverage of Scottish football – we have to give that an opportunity to establish credentials before coming to a conclusion. The internet provides plenty of non-mainstream outlets through which to follow Scottish football.

I have complained to the BBC about Sportscene and asked for a note of all contact between Media House and the BBC, in whatever form, between 1 August 2010 and today. I have also specifically asked if Rob McLean was part of the telephone conversation on 16 May 2011 or whether he was briefed about that call.

It still sticks in my craw that 2 months earlier, during the League Cup Final, we had been treated at 3.10pm to 2 verses of the Famine Song and then at 5.05pm to the Billy Boys in which practically the entire Rangers support, including those in the padded seats right underneath the commentary box, took part, up to their knees in Fenian blood.

At halftime and after that game, McLean made not one mention of this and, further, Kenny McAskill complimented both sets of fans on their “fine behaviour ”

One Scotland, many pairs of lenses…..

54 (ways to follow Scottish football other than through the MSM)

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:34 am - Jul 28, 2013


While I appreciate and support the need to get to the bottom of the dark arts referred to in the CF information, not being a supporter of the green or blue of Glasgow I have to laugh at times how the media can so easily stitch some people up like kippers.

Over on the Bears Den the following post was made yesterday.

“Heard through the grapevine there has been meetings trying to build bridges with the BBC,personally I think it is a good thing,we really need to stay onside with these outlets,rightly or wrongly they have a massive sway in the way our club are perceived to the unknowing public…..tin hat on……”

Now this could be a MH or others ‘planted’ post, however the following replies gives a flavour of the mood from down Govan way.

“I certainly hope not but it wouldn’t surprise me, what use is it fans like the VB boys fighting our cause against the bigoted broadcaster for catholics if the club end up bending over backwards to appease them and ”build bridges” which means we grant them interviews and whatnot for an easy ride no doubt.”

“Whilst they have scum like Mark Daly (factual documentary my arse), Gollum (Ceeeeelllllltiiiiccc, my preeeeciousssss), Jim ‘Dundee Utd but really the Bheasts’ Spence, Cowan & Cosgrove (mutilated DNA if ever I saw it), and Rob ‘New Rangers’ Mclean, the BBC can f_*? right off!”

NB – That will be the same alleged MH stooge, Rob McLean shown in the video clip posted earlier)!!!!!!!!!!

“In my view the BBC played a full and active part in an anti-Rangers agenda and in doing so sought to actively harm the Club. They have been banned. I have seen and heard nothing to suggest that the ban should be lifted and ‘normal’ relations restored. Craig Mather has made it clear that action will be taken against (unnamed) persons / institutions / clubs when the time is right. James Traynor has talked about days of reckoning.”

“Sorry, but no way will I EVER accept alliances with the Bigoted Broadcasting Clowns and I seriously hope the Club are not going ahead with this neither. They have been the biggest reason next to the Daily Rhebel in anti-Rangers reports, so unless they are begging on their knees for forgiveness and sacking the aforementioned tools responsible then they can fook off and the club will be hearing from a lot of supporters of their utter disgust in this idea.”

So there we have it.
Some Celtic fans distrust the BBC, The Daily Ranger, the Scum etc etc
Some T’Rangers fans distrust the BBC, The Daily Rhebel, the Scum etc etc
Fans of all other clubs think the BBC the Record and the Sun etc ec all give to much coverage and bend over backwards to Celtic and T’Rangers

It has been thus in the past and, sadly, I predict it will be thus in the future.

Perhaps people like JI wouldn’t have such power and influence if some people buttons weren’t so easily pressed and they actually took a breath before thinking?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:37 am - Jul 28, 2013


Regarding the BBC being briefed on Celtic, I think you also have to look behind the presenters to the producers of these sports shows. Who is whispering into the earpiece about which topic to discuss at half time? It’s not all off-the-cuff chit-chat. Personally, I’d be very surprised if Pat Nevin engaged in this type of thing. Seems a pretty upfront, intelligent guy to me. Hopefully, he’ll be featured on OtB or Sportsound next week to discuss the topic in depth.

Huge respect to the only two presenters who confess to be ill-informed for yesterday’s show. Fakes, EBTs, SPFL rebranding, it all got mentioned yesterday. Fantastic.

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on9:39 am - Jul 28, 2013


Just visited ‘Video Celts’ web blog and copied this link http://youtu.be/AODx93gv7N8, hope it works as I’ve never tried to post a link before.

The long and short of it is, the BBC have been challenged by the guy on the video re their impartiality, thus
making their contractual duty to the paying viewers null and void. They backed down, he won. Possibly ‘Auntie beeb’ realised the can of worms being opened was massive!

I intend to stop my direct debit to the beeb tomorrow. When they write to me, I will refer them to Charlotte’s latest and assure them that I will keep my money aside with full intention to pay at a later date when they can prove the claims to be fake.

Does anyone else agree that this could be a tactic to bring momentum to the situation? Or am I way off the mark here?

Thoughts please. Don’t just TD, explain why if you can please. I’ll try to keep an open mind on things, but
I’m just a bit fed up posting the odd comment on this blog and expecting others to carry out all the real action.

Thanks, Yakutsuki.

View Comment

redetinPosted on9:45 am - Jul 28, 2013


redlichtie says:
July 28, 2013 at 8:44 am
Nuclear Sheep says:
July 28, 2013 at 12:43 am

The Neil Simpson tackle on Ian Durrant was a case where the Rangers press presented the tackle in the worst possible light. There is no doubt that it was a bad tackle, but it happens in football.

The press ripped Neil to pieces and his career was damaged much more than that of Ian Durrant’s.
——————————————————————————————————–

at least one Rangers player considerably raising the temperature of the game by his conduct. Whether that contributed to what happened later I can’t say for certain but if true it won’t have helped.

I don’t recall seeing the above thoughts in later media reports. Again it was a long time ago and my memory of this is hazy. Another example of institutional bias though?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Indeed, redlichtie, I was at the Merkland Rd end with my son, then 10 or 11, for this game. He still remembers me saying that with the tackling that was going in from both sides someone was going to get badly injured. So it turned out.

Stangely, I don’t remember much outrage in the press about a certain cheeky chappy “accidentally” sliding into Theo Snelders and breaking his jaw.

View Comment

Richard WilsonPosted on9:51 am - Jul 28, 2013


http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/56678022321/bbc-big-bad-charlotte

On Charlotte and the BBC

View Comment

AlthetimPosted on10:18 am - Jul 28, 2013


According to Kevin McKenna, writing in the Guardian, Rangers FC only went through “financial liquidation” and are now fighting their way back to the top. Just as well it was only financial liquidation they went through and not the other kind…you know, the type that is impossible to emerge from. Oh, and Celtic are marooned, according to the author, due to lack of competition. There was I thinking last seasons competitions were extremely competitive and I seem to recall Celtic enjoying relative success in Europe. Must have dreamt it.

http://tinyurl.com/mg7aqbc

I posted the following on the website:

“Where do you start with nonsense like this? Did Kevin McKenna actually get paid for writing this guff?
Celtic Nation has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Celtic FC and his comment quoted below is so ill informed it is embarrassing.

“The fate of their fierce city rivals, Glasgow Rangers, who went into financial liquidation last year and are currently trying to fight their way back to the top through Scotland’s lower divisions, has left Celtic marooned.”

Question for Mr McKenna: what other types of liquidation are there, other than “financial”?

Now let me help you out a little Mr McKenna. The fate of Celtics “fierce city rivals”, Glasgow Rangers, was extinction. They are not currently trying to fight their way back to the top, they are being liquidated (financially, according to you). There is a year old club with a similar name playing out of Ibrox, safe to assume you are referring to it, but this outfit have no rivalry with Celtic whatsoever. The new club, formerly known as Sevco, has never played against Celtic.

Question for the editor – do you ever read any of the rubbish Mr McKenna writes prior to publishing?”

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:21 am - Jul 28, 2013


I too was at the Pittodrie game where Durrant got hurt (but although the ages nearly fit, to be clear Redetin’s not my da!). My overriding memory was the same as his – a series of tackles from both sides where only one outcome was inevitable, no more so proven by one of the worst offenders in blue (to be clear by no means the only one in either colour) being ex team mate and pal of Simpson, Neale Cooper. I have therefore come to the not too difficult and probably correct conclusion that the ref was simply incompetent, no more, no less.

Inflaming the situation by rerunning the story every game for the next 20 odd years with what now appear to be bought and paid for placed articles – that’s certainly not cricket. In fact that’s a different game altogether.

View Comment

redetinPosted on10:43 am - Jul 28, 2013


Smugas says:
July 28, 2013 at 10:21 am
########################

And likewise, Snelders “broken jaw” attracted little comment from the MSM, the cheeky chappy being given ample opportunity to express his genuine regret, no career ending event this. Except that Rangers went on to end Snelders career by buying him from Aberdeen and sitting him on the bench for a couple of years.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:49 am - Jul 28, 2013


Now, now. Be fair. It was very wet and slippy. Unlike Rod Wallace at Hampden.

Any hoos. More to the point, has no-one spotted the unfortunate error (OK the biggest of several errors to be exact) in Richard Wilson’s piece in the herald this morning. Warning to all hearts fans, you may get a shock as to your current financial status.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:58 am - Jul 28, 2013


Sorry for multiple posts. Just noticed the closing sentence at the foot of RW’s piece that I missed first time around.

“Every administrative figure in the game in Scotland must wish that pessimism could have been eradicated as part of the summer of upheaval.”

Here’s a starter for 10. Doncaster replaced by a.n.other administrator with a Turnbull Hutton type in as figurative head. CO falls on sword to answer calls of perceived conflict of interest. How’s that for starters?

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on11:03 am - Jul 28, 2013


onthebaw says:
July 28, 2013 at 7:16 am

When a group of supporters breaks the law for almost an entire game of football and are subsequently praised by the Justice Minister and an Assistant Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police (as was) you know things really have gone too far. I believe that particular ACC later became the acting Chief Constable.

That cup final and the subsequent comments made by people in authority, who should have been decrying what happened really marked a turning point for me. Any pretense at things having gotten better was gone. It was back to the seventies as far as I was concerned.

They did what they did with absolute impunity.

View Comment

wildwoodPosted on11:09 am - Jul 28, 2013


Long term follower of this and RTC.

While we need to keep positively chipping away until the dam bursts, we need to be mindful that we don’t lose the plot and become some sort of kangaroo court.

based on material discussed here and elsewhere following Charlottes latest revelation Pat Nevin got a bit of a hounding on twitter. we just simply can’t have that. We become no better than those we are trying to expose.

View Comment

TSFMPosted on11:40 am - Jul 28, 2013


wildwood says:

July 28, 2013 at 11:09 am (Edit)

Long term follower of this and RTC.

While we need to keep positively chipping away until the dam bursts, we need to be mindful that we don’t lose the plot and become some sort of kangaroo court.

based on material discussed here and elsewhere following Charlottes latest revelation Pat Nevin got a bit of a hounding on twitter. we just simply can’t have that. We become no better than those we are trying to expose.
______________________________________________________________________

I agree with you – right up to the point about Nevin.

He has, like most of his colleagues who earn their living from Scottish Football, toed the MSM line with regard to almost all aspects of the RFC/SFA/SPL story.

I do not believe that he would have participated in any plot to discredit Celtic fans, but his widely advertised “intelligence factor” has been debunked somewhat as time and time again he has been prepared to trot out the MSM line with little regard for thought. The problem for Pat Nevin is that he has presented himself as that intelligent face of football, when the reality is self-evidently different. He has gotten himself embroiled in this through an eagerness to please by playing the “politically right-on” part in a situation where it seems that no politically incorrect transgressions had actually taken place. That is very naïve and plain stupid.

He can’t complain when people take him to task for that on social media sites – and I would urge caution on your assumption that it is WE who are engaged in what you describe as hounding.

Other than that, welcome to the blog!

View Comment

Comments are closed.