Two wrongs and a right

By

Agreed.  With every respect to the writers and contributors of …

Comment on Two wrongs and a right by Smugas.

Agreed.  With every respect to the writers and contributors of the blog articles I have only ever viewed them in the same way my wife treats navigational aids – something that is there to assist but should never be allowed the last word 03.  Actually not just navigational aids…..

JJ is obviously the latest trendy “site of choice” and I commend him for that, particularly given his audience, his own standpoint within that and in the ‘controversial*’ content that he is putting out, but already I can see him making two major mistakes that have befallen several to try before him.  Firstly that he feels the need to say something virtually every day even when there isn’t really anything needed to be said and secondly, I suspect in part due to his objective to be seen to be saying something, anything, is that factual inaccuracies and questionable forecasts start to creep in when a step back to draw breath might have served him better in the long run.

that of course is just my opinion!!!

* controversial,if somewhat familiar to veteran readers of this site.   

Smugas Also Commented

Two wrongs and a right
yourhavingalaugh 25th January 2016 at 8:17 am #

Helpmaboab
The media up here are far more entrenched than the media down south.
Fixed that for Warbs again


Two wrongs and a right
upthehoops 21st January 2016 at 9:16 pm‘…..I noted this picture of Pittodrie in the 1950’s on Twitter.’

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

I can exksclushively reveal the purpose of the wee sheddie at Pittodrie.  In it AFC housed their cutting edge, state of the art facial recognition away support control centre. This was Big Dod the copper who shouted down “sing that again and I’ll kick yer erse!”

£4m SPFL cheques can be sent to Big Dod, now retired, at my pm above and I’ll forward them.  Honest! 13 


Two wrongs and a right
Just a complete off the wall suggestion following a listen in to tonight’s sportsound.  What about offering clubs the opportunity to self police unruly behaviour with points deductions?  Even an announcement to fans that following clearly audible songs at game x that the club were quite prepared to forgo any points from game y should there be any repeat. You can bet game y would be pretty clean, with even more impact the more important the match. I accept it reintroduces two ‘strikes’ but just thought it wasn’t the worst idea out there.  And doesn’t cost £4m either.  


Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  


About the author