What follows is a record of an exchange in October with David Conn of The Guardian in respect of an article written by him in August 2016 reporting the arrival of The Rangers FC in the top tier of the SPFL.
In that article David Conn suggests that there was no tax overdue in respect of “The Wee Tax Case” of 2011 because he was told by the SFA that agreement had been reached with HMRC to postpone payment until after the Takeover by Craig Whyte and on those grounds the SFA granted a licence.
For such an agreement to pass UEFA FFP rules muster it had to be in writing, signed by HMRC and dated 31st March 2011 or earlier. There were behind the scenes discussions on this point and attempts were made separately at the time to obtain such written unpublished documentation that complied with UEFA FFP regulations from Darryl Broadfoot the Head of SFA Communications, but in spite of promises it never arrived.
Not surprising as, had it existed, Celtic would certainly have been informed when they first wrote to the SFA in December 2011 – thereby rendering Resolution 12, placed at the 2013 Celtic AGM requesting UEFA to investigate the UEFA licensing process throughout 2011 as truly unnecessary.
The first e mail (edited with cosmetic changes to aid reading by a wider audience but no change of sense) made the following points to Mr Conn on 9th Oct 2017…..
Dear Mr Conn.
On 5th August 2016 you wrote an article about the arrival of “Rangers” into the top tier of the SPFL.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/05/rangers-scottish-premiership-tax-issue
(* A relevant extract from that article – in italics – can be read separately at the end of this blog)
Given that the Craig Whyte trial in July 2017, revealed discrepancies (already known to the Celtic shareholders pursuing Res12) between what was stated at the trial and what was reported to the SFA and UEFA during 2011 in terms of the status of the wee tax case liability, then it would appear that your article:
- Does not fully reflect what took place, giving the impression over two paragraphs that a written agreement signed by HMRC to postpone payment had been reached between HMRC and RFC by 31st March 2011. Had this been so it would mean that there was no overdue tax payable at 31st March 2011 as UEFA define an overdue payable to tax authorities.
- However what was revealed in court in July 2017 was that RFC had accepted the liability before 31st March 2011 and so it was not “potential” with “discussions continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised”, as reported in RFC Interim accounts on 1st April 2011. It was for this reason the SFA have asked their Compliance Officer to investigate what took place and had there been a written agreement to postpone prior to 31st March 2011, there would have been no need to describe the liability to the SFA in the way that it was.
- Further your article does not fully reflect the reason why “Rangers” had to wait three years before playing in European competition, which was that UEFA viewed “Rangers” as a NEW club/company. This was not mentioned although the SFA, who advised you they held an unpublished HMRC letter also held a copy of a letter dated 8th June 2016 from UEFA Head of Club Licensing Andrea Traverso (copy attached) to that effect.
Consequently will you be following the SFA Compliance Officer investigation, and indeed will you be telling him the basis on which you reported the SFA’s position in your article of August 2016 without revealing sources of course?
Importantly in terms of all your other investigatory work into skulduggery, are you also aware that despite what you may have been told by the SFA, Resolution 12 was and is ultimately about making the SFA more accountable and transparent to supporters, an aim which I think you would surely support and is there any chance of you helping with that aim by considering what has caused the SFA to finally capitulate and do what Res12 asked for in 2013, albeit domestically?
A national football association using the media to try to derail a genuine investigation into their behaviour is surely of national, never mind Scottish, interest?
In some ways it matters little now if Rangers gained and retained that licence by deception as the court statement indicates, with the result the SFA Compliance Officer is conducting an investigation.
What matters more is that the SFA have used the absence of accountability to cover up their part in the licensing process, not just from March through to September 2011 but to ignore genuine enquiries from supporter/shareholders of a member club from 2014 to July 2017. During which time their positions;
- that the bill had not crystallised, or
- was subject to dispute or
- was under appeal or
- that after 31st March, monitoring was not an SFA function, as stated by SFA CEO Stewart Regan,
were exposed (in court) as self-serving myths.
The SFA and how poorly they serve the game in Scotland because they are accountable to no one is THE story of Resolution 12 and you could help bring accountability about by reporting how you were duped by the SFA in August last year and report on what the Compliance Officer finds.
As it is your August article has undermined your reputation somewhat as someone whom I understand seeks better accountability and transparency from football authorities.
PS what Celtic shareholders lawyers reported to SFA, and when, is available if you decide to engage.
Yours etc
After a couple of reminders, one copied to The Guardian Sports Editor a reply was received dated 8th November 2017 in which Mr Conn said.
Hello
Thank you for your emails and apologies for not having replied sooner; I have been very busy recently. I have seen that some questions have been raised about the piece I wrote in relation to this. I understand that this issue has been of great interest to people; however, I do not currently have plans to revisit it.
Thank you for your interest and apologies again for not replying sooner.
D Conn
As the SFA Head of Communications, Darryl Broadfoot, who departed from his post in January 2017, would most probably be the person to whom David Conn spoke. He is the same person who failed to clarify this article at:
by STV reporter Grant Russell, who also recently departed from his job at STV.
The STV article omitted certain references about UEFA treating The Rangers FC/The Rangers International FC as a NEW club/company, a piece of unsolicited information that was contained in a UEFA response to Celtic shareholders’ lawyer from Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing) and which was copied to the SFA a week before STV published.
Some may also remember the strange episode where The Guardian accepted an advert from the Celtic AGM Resolution 12 requistitioners in 2016 attempting to draw the attention of Resolution 12 on a tax evasion aspect to the wider tax paying British pubic. Having accepted payment for a “Persistence Beats Res12tance” advert, The Guardian for some unexplained reason changed their mind and decided not to publish and refunded the payment.
They have been coy on answering who, what or why they changed their mind and as can be seen from the above reply from David Conn appear unwilling to pursue the UEFA 2011 Licencing issue further (at least for now). Hopefully those plans will change when the SFA investigation is complete, whatever the result.
Mr Broadfoot although no longer an SFA employee, appears to be continuing in some capacity as an SFA spokesman given his appearance on BBC Sportsound on 8th November along with Paul Goodwin of the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) to discuss the findings of an SFSA survey involving over 16,000 supporters that highly criticised the SFA for their governance of Scottish football. The programme segment can be heard here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQRFX2vOWUvkaeRAEEYL3vzMqdXGFE8T/view?usp=sharing
The overriding point here though is not the credibility of main stream media outlets, which is at an all-time low, but the use of those outlets by the SFA officials using the media in an attempt to produce an outcome that suits them and a single SFA member club at the expense of the value of the shares held by shareholders in another SFA member club.
Awareness of the impact on shareholder value of member clubs by SFA decisions is yet another issue that an enquiry into SFA methods/processes should address, particularly since HMRC made the SFA aware in 2009 of their concerns about Rangers use of ebts in player contracts.
Until such an investigation takes place the SFA will be viewed as no longer fit to govern Scottish football in its present form.
Extract from Conn Article of 5th August.
Even now, an allegation persists the SFA was deficient in allowing Rangers a licence to compete in the Champions League during that season, 2011-12. The case, based on leaked documentation from the time and pressed by a group of Celtic supporters on their club to pursue as resolution 12 of the 2013 annual general meeting, was recently argued strongly in a report by the Tax Justice Network campaign.
The argument is that in breach of Uefa rules against clubs having overdue tax payable, Rangers owed £2.8m on a discounted options scheme following a successful HMRC challenge known as the “wee tax case”.
The SFA is adamant its committee which considered the licence dealt with the issue thoroughly and received the necessary evidence the tax was not overdue according to Uefa rules. One informed source involved with the issue at the time, who did not want to speak publicly owing to continuing criminal proceedings against Whyte arising out of his tenure at Rangers, said that at the initial deadline, 31 March 2011, HMRC had agreed that the £2.8m did not need to be paid until after his May 2011 takeover.
Before subsequent 30 June and 30 September deadlines, Rangers, by then owned by Whyte, are understood to have told the SFA they were in discussions with HMRC over the money owed. Uefa rules allow tax not to be treated as “overdue” where there is a written agreement with the tax authority for payment to be extended.
The SFA, although declining to disclose details of the documentation it received, citing confidentiality with its member clubs, told the Guardian via a spokesperson: “The Scottish FA has always been clear the licensing award issued to Rangers in 2011 by the licensing committee was correct. The process is audited on an annual basis by Uefa.”
Uefa, pressed on the issue again recently, said: “The licence for the 2011-12 season was granted by the SFA and there was no reason for Uefa to doubt this decision.”
Uefa has said it has no need to investigate further if the tax was in fact overdue according to its definition, because after that season, Rangers’ fate anyway equated to a sanction for breach of the rules: they could not play in European competition for the following three years. HMRC, taking a stern view of clubs defaulting on tax, declined to approve a company voluntary arrangement with creditors and Rangers went into liquidation.
But just to be absolutely clear, for the avoidance of doubt, for the sake of clarity, Campbell didn’t see nuthin’
And yet most outwith the blue bubble and I suspect several within seem fairly aligned on this.
I’m really fed up now with having to put up with this troll and his squirrelling; I refuse to engage with him.
Despite Auldheid/AJ and many equally well informed others time after time putting down his ridiculous arguments he makes no attempt to accept reality and never will.
I wonder just what it is he is trying so hard to deflect the blog from; I suspect he may have a personal financial interest.
If anyone has ever looked at RSL blog you probably know who he is – I just wish he’d stayed there!
DUNDERHEIDDECEMBER 2, 2017 at 13:21 8 0 Rate This
justbecauseyoureparanoid 08:53 said: ‘Anyone seen or heard of the SFA’s compliance officer recently?’
Good question, after all this time.
I may have missed it, but can I also ask: Has anyone seen his precise terms of reference; and can anyone tell us to whom he will report?
My own ever hopeful (and probably naive view) is that the longer he hides under the table the greater the chance of there being a decent outcome. Surely Bryson hasn’t been on holiday all this time and he could have been relied on to come up with some idiot theory to help the brotherhood?
Bit of a story surrounding the QotS v ICT match. A bad accident yesterday afternoon on the A9, a woman is seriously injured (hope she is recovering), caused a huge delay for the ICT team bus.
The players were fed at noon, set off around 1pm. By the evening they had run out of water and were no doubt hungry. They eventually reached a service station at Perth about 11pm and to give the driver a break. They were in contact with QotS and the manager agreed there should be a postponement however his board disagreed, as did Ian Blair of the SPFL. Apparently there has to be agreement between both clubs.
They arrived in Dumfries at 3am.
Seems ridiculous to me that this game is going ahead.
There is much to properly discuss & review on the blog – DK’s proposed share issue, DK’s insistence that McInnes will be the next manager – who will pay the compensation ?, the transfer war chest, honest mistakes. The blog’s reluctance to remove this troll is discouraging proper comment & conversation on these & other issues.
Perhaps this is what Jabba (I mean EB) is trying to do.
PLEASE STOP HIM NOW !!
Has DK actually said that McInnes will be their next manager? If so should Rangers* not be guilty of tapping another club’s manager?
JIMMY BONESDECEMBER 2, 2017 at 15:45
Just scroll by . Otherwise you give it the attention it craves .
Please, please, please Mr Moderator.
please block this new chancer/ character Ernest whatever.
I have followed RTC since inception and have never in all the years scrolled past as much in my life.
When there is so much more of interest going on re The Rangers AGM, McInnes, Penaltygate, Impications of Resolution 11, Resolution 12 etc why ar3 we allowing this chancer so much air space.
I am a great believer in free speech etc but for gods sake gets this guy/ gall to f.
Sorty but for the past few weeks he’s doing my nut in!
Jimmy Bones
December 2, 2017 at 15:45
==============================
“DK’s proposed share issue” ( should be fun)
This one intrigues me, to paraphrase:- “whaurs the NOMAD show me the NOMAD”
WH Ireland no more.
(fill in the rest)
Nomads, can usually be found wandering in deserted wastelands (G51 2XD)?
(see what I did there?)
Then there is the cold shoulder
http://www.next.co.uk/shop/gender-women-productaffiliation-tops/category-tshirts-designfeature-coldshoulder#1_534
Wrong place Dave.
Obstacle course comes to mind.
Two things.
EB is a troll but the upside is he provides the opportunity to bring facts to the table to counter his ill informed opinion.
It’s a good idea to refresh memories including my own there are so many facts to remember.
However the topic has been exhausted and there is not much more to add on it which leads me to point 2.
If Celtic know the terms of reference of the SFA CompOff investigation into the granting and monitoring of the 2011 UEFA licence it has not been shared.
However Celtic are very well informed on events in 2011 and since, and any attempt at damage limitation by narrowing the TORS can be challenged by Celtic who are answerable to informed shareholders.
The view coming out after AGM was that the delay was a good sign in that had SFA found a technical reason to explain/justify what took place in 2011 then it would be out by now.
Clearly the procrastination cannot go on and I think it reasonable that Celtic share holders should not be going into 2018 without some word coming from the SFA.
The consequences for individuals if the prima facie case bears out are very serious with ripples/shock waves for the game, so it is understandable that, 3 months after announcing an investigating, there is only the sound of silence
I personally haven’t read anything that has made me think anyone should be removed from this site. From what I’ve read, the debate has been pretty civilised. I really dont see a problem. I think sometimes the terms ‘troll’ and ‘squirrel’ can be misused to shut down conversations.
No one has to read every post and if anyone wants to raise other issues for discussion then they are free to do so. I’m sure the Mods will step in if they feel things are getting out of hand.
The discussions this last week or so have improved my understanding of certain issues and I think that’s a really positive thing.
I read, and occasionally post, on SFM because I’m broadly in agreement with what is discussed on here. We shouldn’t exist in a self-congratulatory bubble or be unwelcoming to posters who have a different take on things.
Title stripping
A total of 19 different sports have had medals stripped including 13 from the summer Olympics and 6 from the winter Olympics. Athletics and Weightlifting have had by far the greatest numbers of medals stripped compared to any other sport
Why should football be any different?
Auldheid December 2, 2017 at 19:03
————————-
I think you could make an educated guess at the reason for the delay. The SFA will be waiting to see what happens on the JR front. If the time limit expires with no action, then we will get the SFA’s “result” shortly thereafter.
If it works out that way, and the SFA chooses to do nothing, then that decision should be open to JR.
RTC saw it and pretty much everyone who responded to his blog understood it.
————-
Alex Rae to this day does not know how exactly it all works.
but he was quite happy that it worked in his favour at the time,
incredibleadamsparkDecember 2, 2017 at 19:10
_____________________________________
I agree with you Adam re everyone being civilised in responses but, my goodness, ‘ a different take on things’ is putting it mildly.
Masonic lawyers are dim and extremely thick.
——-
You get what you pay for
CLUSTER ONE
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 20:25 Alex Rae to this day does not know how exactly it all works.but he was quite happy that it worked in his favour at the time,
====================================
I’m sure Alex will understand it when HMRC explain that if he doesn’t repay the “loan” then he owes them about £350,000.
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 2, 2017 at 20:35
I’m sure Alex will understand it when HMRC explain that if he doesn’t repay the “loan” then he owes them about £350,000.
——————
I believe he does understand it all now (but will not admit it)hence the paid for interviews he gets every time
CLUSTER ONE
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 20:52
============================
There’s not a lot to understand now.
If you got paid to do something then you owe tax on the pay you received.
No matter how you tried to hide it.
The clues are all there “remuneration” and “disguised”, as Alastair Johnston might describe it.
incredibleadamsparkDecember 2, 2017 at 19:10
I personally haven’t read anything that has made me think anyone should be removed from this site. From what I’ve read, the debate has been pretty civilised. I really dont see a problem. I think sometimes the terms ‘troll’ and ‘squirrel’ can be misused to shut down conversations. No one has to read every post and if anyone wants to raise other issues for discussion then they are free to do so. I’m sure the Mods will step in if they feel things are getting out of hand. The discussions this last week or so have improved my understanding of certain issues and I think that’s a really positive thing. I read, and occasionally post, on SFM because I’m broadly in agreement with what is discussed on here. We shouldn’t exist in a self-congratulatory bubble or be unwelcoming to posters who have a different take on things.
_______________________________
A very reasonable post, mostly, Adam, but might I point out that a brick wall can be considered pretty civilised, but when you’ve been banging your head against it for some four weeks, it becomes rather tiresome. And there can be little doubt that the poster we are referring to has all the debating skills of a brick wall.
I have to admit, though, that no matter how tiresome I find EB, I am in the Auldheid camp and enjoy the re-awakening of the OC/NC and EBT debates, and I do feel it important that anyone new to this site, not only gets the opportunity to read, perhaps for the first time, our thoughts on the matter, but isn’t left feeling that by our failure to respond, someone like EB has won the argument.
A reminder of what it is that brought us here can never be a bad thing, and one has to wonder why any supporter of the old and new clubs, paid for or otherwise, would want to encourage us to say it all again for everyone to see.
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 2, 2017 at 21:23
I have to admit, though, that no matter how tiresome I find EB, I am in the Auldheid camp and enjoy the re-awakening of the OC/NC and EBT debates, and I do feel it important that anyone new to this site, not only gets the opportunity to read, perhaps for the first time, our thoughts on the matter, but isn’t left feeling that by our failure to respond, someone like EB has won the argument.
————-
And after some four weeks and asking ok convince me it’s still the same club.I have not been convinced it is,and anyone new looking in who thought for a moment oh wait maybe EB has something here will walk away saying good try but must try harder
justbecauseyoureparanoidDecember 2, 2017 at 14:51
‘… ‘Anyone seen or heard of the SFA’s compliance officer recently?’’
AuldheidDecember 2, 2017 at 19:03
‘..The consequences for individuals if the prima facie case bears out are very serious with ripples/shock waves for the game, so it is understandable that, 3 months after announcing an investigating, there is only the sound of silence’
easyJamboDecember 2, 2017 at 19:40
‘………The SFA will be waiting to see what happens on the JR front. If the time limit expires with no action, then we will get the SFA’s “result” shortly thereafter.’
_________________
We have not had sight of the Compliance Officer’s his terms of reference.
We know only that he was asked to review the handling of RFC’s end of the licensing process in light of what was variously reported: in one statement they said:
“In 2011, Oldco indicated there was an ongoing dispute with HMRC, but the evidence in the Craig Whyte [former Rangers owner] trial suggests that Oldco knew by early 2011 that it had no defence to HMRC’s claim..This matter has been referred to the compliance officer for further investigation following receipt of information of a written opinion from senior counsel.”[ BBC Sport http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41194676 ]
and “…“The Scottish FA is currently examining the detail of what was said in the most recent court cases and you can be assured that the matter will be dealt with by the Compliance Officer if there is any suggestion that the organisation has been knowingly misled in any of the matters that came before it.” Daily record[http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-admit-rangers-uefa-license-11131602]
Together, those words would suggest that the SFA agreed to have the CO look only at what RFC had done, giving him no brief to look at the SFA’s own role in the licence granting process.[And how could the CO , an officer of the SFA, reallyquestion and examine the higher authority to which his function owes its existence?]
I think the CO must therefore be in something of a fankle.There’s incontrovertible evidence ( hear me,Mr Regan?) that RFC lied about their tax situation. There is evidence that the SFA were ready to amend at CW’s request the wording of a letter they proposed sending , wording which gave Whyte the heebie-jeebies, and caused him to use an expletive because Whyte realised the danger.
But does the CO ask for documents from the ‘SFA’? Probably not.
Additionally, the Compliance Officer reports only to the SFA Board, and wouldn’t be free to report even to member clubs , without the Board’s consent or instruction.
I suspect, therefore, that the SFA Board will not be able to avoid their complicity in RFC’s lies, so they will edit anything the CO comes up with, attach some explanation about administrative errors made in good faith by RFC, find no one to be to blame, ‘cover their work’ and urge us all to move on, hoping that that will be the end of the affair.
On the Judicial Review front, unless there is an statutory absolute time bar on lodging petitions for such reviews in the Courts, if the petitioner can show he has been buggered about the organisation’s delay, there would surely be an argument that the delay is no fault of theirs, and that any petition should not be time barred.
If there is such a statutory deadline that the SFA is working to, then it would be up to Celtic plc to call for a General meeting [ apparently, the term ‘Extraordinary general Meeting’ is, or has been,dropped] to insist on a full independent investigation of the into the matter.
Those of us who believe that there was dirty work done will be vindicated, sooner or later.
“Sat srii akal!” as a former colleague and friend in Her Majesty’s Home Civil Service used to say.
Res12 did not ask to look at the granting of the UEFA licence, it asked to look at the process as a whole during 2011 (and there is an irony as to why which suggests karma was watching).
Res12 is still on Celtic PLC’s AGM agenda so Celtic will have a problem with shareholders if based on the evidence supplied they allow SFA to stick to RFC action only.
If it were billiards it would be a snooker.
I wonder what EBs agenda is. It’s certainly not to be enlightened, he has already firmly made his mind up.
Despite his points of view being shot down to pieces on numerous occasions he is as resolute as ever. I thought it was admirable of our regular posters to defend our beliefs and remind us all what it is all about. Although I think John C et.al. do a fine job of that on a daily basis. But now it is becoming tiresome. It’s pointless. He has hijacked this site. It is now SEBFM.
I doubt this site will survive another 4 weeks of this incessant repetition of the same arguments.
Just a thought. Maybe the protagonists and antagonists could PM each other?
ALLYJAMBO
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 22:13
================================
There is only one group of supporters which will lose out on believing the accounts show a business which is anything other than a total basket case and an AGM which was anything other than obfuscation.
It is always worth bearing in mind that the accounts are released to show the PLC in the best light possible and the AGM is orchestrated to make the shareholders believe that everything is fine and things are improving.
If those accounts and that AGM were the best picture they could possibly paint then things are even worse that I thought. And I thought it was a business just managing to avoid collapse.
To be fair Woodstein, Rangers FC is listed at number 9 in the list – ‘Skeleton’.
It’s been a long old road since the days of RTC and we’ve witnessed some dreadful behaviour (and in some cases significantly criminal and disgusting) towards many of the characters who have strived to get the story out there, campaigning for justice to be delivered.
With this at the back of my mind I find it pretty disappointing that on Twitter that guys like Phil an Clumpany, known to us here and quite aware of the way this stuff works, participate in and facilitate a procession of followers piling in, as far as I can determine a pretty poorly justified on the BBCs Jane Lewis. It looks like a 5 year old tweet when she’s relaying info from a Bill Millar interview has been retweeted which has resulted in her timeline being scattergunned by a load of cheerleaders dishing out some OCNC medicine to her.
it might just be me. But to see so many apparently grown men behaving in such a way smacks a wee bit of bullying and misogyny.
If I’ve misrepresented anybody . . . . Well there all big enough etc I’m sure they’ll be fine
wildwoodDecember 2, 2017 at 23:32
‘….It looks like a 5 year old tweet when she’s relaying info from a Bill Millar interview has been retweeted ‘
______________
I don’t tweet, wildwood, but I seem to remember that , on this blog some time ago, the question was whether, in quoting Bill Miller, Jane Lewis was endorsing what he said, and that she must therefore be a ‘continuity Rangers’ fantasiser, because, in the whole context of the times,she did not make it clear enough that it was a quote and that she was not quoting Miller in support of what he said.
In other words, she would have come across as a BBC Radio Scotland propagandist for Sevco= RFC 1872.
And was it her who was on ‘Off the Ball’ tonight?
(But whoever the lassie was, she had a right hearty laugh at Tam’s Viagra jokes! As I did, myself.)
On the trolling thing, there are two considerations.
Firstly, we are conscious that folk have come on here in the past and played to an audience elsewhere. The end game is usually to provoke a ban which they use as evidence of SFM shutting down their ‘compelling’ arguments. In the absence of direct abuse, we shouldn’t give them an easy journey to that martyrdom.
Secondly, as I said a couple of weeks ago (although it does seem a lot longer ☹️ ), and echoed by others, it is useful to be reminded of the facts via the dialectic interventions of the likes of Ernest.
I agree though, that is tiring. If it continues past the Champions League group stages, we will probably resurrect the Ethereal Bonkers OCNC Thread ?. That way, those who like to take sweeties from the weans can be indulged whilst the rest of us can get back to arguing about penalty awards ?
Wildwood,
The Jane Lewis thing. I don’t think she is being bullied or a victim of misogyny at all. I don’t know why the subject came up again, but the offered nuance to her Tweet has only arisen because the original conversation is time-hazed.
Like many of her colleagues, her mode of Twitter operation is to pour scorn upon any individuals who take her to task for her part in MSM complicity in the dishonest handling of both Rangers’ affairs; e.g. “you talk about Rangers more than your own club!”
Strange then, that during my two personal experiences of JL, who claims to be a Motherwell fan, she spent all of her time doing the same thing. Very knowledgable too as I remember.
I cannot dispute her claim to be a Motherwell fan. But based on those conversations, that is a circle that remains un-squared for me. Perhaps she became one when Rangers were liquidated?
Whatever, the truth of her allegiances, she managed to use the word ‘cheated’ tonight on Twitter (in reference to Motherwell in the first two games against Celtic). That is a word she and her colleagues have carefully avoided using in the last five years, even when it was wholly and especially appropriate to do so.
View Comment
WILDWOODDECEMBER 2, 2017 at 23:32
With this at the back of my mind I find it pretty disappointing that on Twitter that guys like Phil an Clumpany, known to us here and quite aware of the way this stuff works, participate in and facilitate a procession of followers piling i
—————-
As i may have been on of the first to ask a question.
Replying to @BBCJaneLewis@grantysloan007
Who had the fear of liquidation, may i ask?
———–
I hope that i can’t be accused of piling in. Jane did reply.
@BBCJaneLewis Replying to @ClusterOne2@grantysloan007 I can’t remember. A quote from someone I interviewed I assume. It was five years ago…! Needless to say that part missed out. Can’t think why…..?!
———
Replying to @BBCJaneLewis@grantysloan007
Thanks for reply
——————
Don’t know what happened after that,i asked a question got a reply so i had no problem
I see Mr Exclusives is at it again. I suppose if you take both positions in the same discussion you are bound to get it right. So long as you delete the bits where you supported the wrong one.
“Would anyone of sound mind choose to work for King? My source, who promised to put more meat on the bone of his assertion that McInnes’ move to Ibrox was a done deal, has gone quiet. He promised an update after the Celtic v Motherwell game. He has not come through. I have always been skeptical of this media-driven move. Sunderland called Stewart Milne and asked for permission to talk to McInnes. No-one at Lite has followed suit. When I am misinformed I edit my pieces. I edited yesterday’s piece. I’m not motivated by exclusives. They are the cherries on a cake layered with facts. Getting it right is more important than being ahead of the curve.”
Oh and just to clarify for those who follow him.
“The new club is only five years old and with the exception of some negative equity chicanery from Charles Green has posted losses year after year.”
I think he is probably talking about the release of negative goodwill in the first set of accounts there. You know, the bit where they claim to have bought the assets for c£20m less than they were actually worth (Yes I know worth / value)
Negative equity is basically when you owe more than the value of the asset, not when you buy it for less than it’s value.
From Scotland On Sunday.
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 2, 2017 at 22:55
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 2, 2017 at 22:13================================
There is only one group of supporters which will lose out on believing the accounts show a business which is anything other than a total basket case and an AGM which was anything other than obfuscation.
It is always worth bearing in mind that the accounts are released to show the PLC in the best light possible and the AGM is orchestrated to make the shareholders believe that everything is fine and things are improving.
If those accounts and that AGM were the best picture they could possibly paint then things are even worse that I thought. And I thought it was a business just managing to avoid collapse.
____________
Totally agree about the accounts painting a better picture than the reality. The accountants who post here might be able to confirm, but I believe that it’s generally an accountant’s role to understate profits (to reduce tax liability) as is possible within the law, while minimising losses (to save the directors’ skin). It is certainly hard to believe that any other business, showing the horrendous year on year results of RIFC, especially with a projection that suggests a continuation of losses over the next couple of years, with no real plan to recover, other than wishful thinking, can possibly justify continuing to trade.
RIFC/TRFC is in a remarkable Catch 22 situation. To continue trading, they have to cut back on spending, while to continue with the revenue stream they currently have, they have to spend rather a lot of the money they don’t have.
It seems to me that the only possible reasoning behind the continuation of this loss making business is the belief/hope that a wealthy saviour is just around the corner.
ALLYJAMBO
DECEMBER 3, 2017 at 09:32
=============================
I think the reason for keeping going is really very basic. David Murray did not want to be the one in charge when the last club went into administration. Whyte was brought in to do that. I don’t think they believed that it would end up in the club actually being liquidated.
I don’t think the current incumbents want to fold this club and are really stuck. No way out, can’t just walk away. Mike Ashley was probably their best bet to fund he club till such times as it could break even but they, and in particular Dave King felt obliged to publicly embarrass the man in a puerile public p1$$1ng contest. Which in spite of how it was portrayed Mike Ashley actually won.
It is difficult to see where they go from here. Ever increasing loans surely can’t be the answer. A share issue is probably limited to existing shareholders, and paying their loans off. There are no assets to sell off in order to raise funds. I think you might be correct. “Wealthy saviour” is the only option left.
TRISIDIUM DECEMBER 3, 2017 at 03:09
So from Tuesday night Spoutpish is going to be sectioned.
About time.
If history is anything to go by we are about to be treated to a Three Day Advent Calendar with the slipping of the mask and some offensive (i.e. even more offensive than usual) opinions ending with full blown Spoutpishtardism.
The last time Spoutpish shapeshifted (I think BLUE was in that incarnation’s username) he was immediately identified and one or two posters pointed it out observing that his aim was to choke threads with interminable, inane, long disproven revisionism. The site’s response at that time was to shut down any criticism, put Spoutpish in cotton wool and treat him with kid gloves.
I recall that one poster (Hector?), who had always come across as reasonable and unobjectionable was either asked to leave or chose to leave because Spoutpish’s right to spout pish outweighed Hector’s right to point out that Spoutpish was not only spouting pish but he was doing so in a way designed to derail threads with an avalanche of delusional posts which would eventually turn into hissy fits.
And so it came to pass.
Spoutpish got the boot.
However the site also lost Hector who by my lights was worth any number of Spoutpishes.
In Spoutpishland that’s a victory for Spoutpish.
At least we now know that from Tuesday night Spoutpish will have a comfy, padded thread all of his own where he can “debate” with the no doubt throngs of devotees wishing to sit at his feet receiving his words of wisdom all of which will conclude with the ancient mantra:
I Am The Person.
I can exclusively reveal that the man with the “forensic” mind has gotten the message, and amended his mistake
“The new club is only five years old and with the exception of some negative goodwill chicanery from Charles Green has posted losses year after year. “
TRISIDIUMDECEMBER 3, 2017 at 03:09
On the trolling thing, there are two considerations.
Firstly, we are conscious that folk have come on here in the past and played to an audience elsewhere. The end game is usually to provoke a ban which they use as evidence of SFM shutting down their ‘compelling’ arguments. In the absence of direct abuse, we shouldn’t give them an easy journey to that martyrdom.
Secondly, as I said a couple of weeks ago (although it does seem a lot longer ☹️ ), and echoed by others, it is useful to be reminded of the facts via the dialectic interventions of the likes of Ernest.
I agree though, that is tiring. If it continues past the Champions League group stages, we will probably resurrect the Ethereal Bonkers OCNC Thread ?. That way, those who like to take sweeties from the weans can be indulged whilst the rest of us can get back to arguing about penalty awards ?
____________
Or discuss the finer points of the RIFC AGM, posts on which have almost disappeared under a carpet of yellow snow – good job we didn’t swallow any of it – and, perhaps, ensure the Compliance Officer’s tardiness is kept at the forefront of our collective minds.
ALLYJAMBO
DECEMBER 3, 2017 at 11:25
================================
I still think there are some interesting parts to the accounts which could do with some exploring.
I know I’ve mentioned this before, however this does not read to me like Rangers have terminated their deal with Mike Ashley, they have simply renegotiated the terms, and paid £3m for the pleasure.
On 21 June 2017, the Group entered into a new retail operations, distribution and IP license agreement with SDI Retail Services Limited (replacing all existing agreements) and a deed of settlement and release in respect of all ongoing litigation and claims. In connection with these arrangements and the termination of the existing contracts. The Rangers Football Club Limited (TRFCL) incurred a non-recurring cost as shown and various dividend payments were agreed in respect of Rangers Retail Limited which have and will result in dividend payments to TRFCL. All of the litigation to which members of the Group and SDIR and its connected persons were party was dismissed between the members of the Group and SDIR and its connected persons on a no expenses due to or by basis. Going forward, the payments to TRFCL under the new license agreement will be significantly higher than under the previous agreements.
I think the belief that Dave King saw Mike Ashley off may be mistaken.
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 3, 2017 at 11:41
I think it’s far more likely Mike Ashley saw Dave King into his back pocket. It’s noticeable the extract doesn’t go into any detail of how the new agreement works, nor does it state that TRFC can negotiate a new deal anytime soon. The IP? I wonder if TRFC own it outright, or if there are any surprises attached.
That’s the sort of question that should have been raised at the AGM, rather than questions about schools, regardless of what the answer might have been.
ALLYJAMBO
DECEMBER 3, 2017 at 12:07
================================
Indeed, surely the main reasons for having an AGM are to (re-)elect the board to run the company and to discuss important issues. Issues like clarifying things in the accounts. Particularly if the shareholders have been given one version of a scenario, then the accounts seem to paint a different picture.
Realistically a lot of people get their news from tabloids, or mates who got their information from tabloids. This is how the Daily Record reported what had happened. It hardly seems to reflect reality.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-kings-finest-rangers-hour-10672628
Dave King’s finest Rangers hour and how we exposed the Mike Ashley deals that crippled club – Jackson
Record exclusives foiled a fat cat while Rangers chairman won his battle with Sports Direct chief.
There seems a certainty amongst some Aberdeen fans on Twitter that McInnes is off to Ibrox early next week. Apart from everything else connected with this, should it happen, I hope the Dons fans demand that the compensation is paid in full, upfront, or at least prior to McInnes’ first match in charge of TRFC.
I think it would be hard for Milne to claim he had no choice in the matter if he allows a club that has stalked his manager to pay for the privilege by instalments. If TRFC cannot afford to pay the compensation up front, the SFA should refuse them permission to register him (if managers are registered) or ban him from the dugout until such time as the compensation is paid, with Aberdeen having no say in the matter.
At some time the game’s governors have to say, ‘show us yer money!’ and refuse to allow a club with successive going concern matters raised in their accounts to deal with other football clubs unless it pays up front.
AllyjamboDecember 3, 2017 at 12:38
There seems a certainty amongst some Aberdeen fans on Twitter that McInnes is off to Ibrox early next week. Apart from everything else connected with this, should it happen, I hope the Dons fans demand that the compensation is paid in full, upfront, or at least prior to McInnes’ first match in charge of TRFC.I think it would be hard for Milne to claim he had no choice in the matter if he allows a club that has stalked his manager to pay for the privilege by instalments. If TRFC cannot afford to pay the compensation up front, the SFA should refuse them permission to register him (if managers are registered) or ban him from the dugout until such time as the compensation is paid, with Aberdeen having no say in the matter.At some time the game’s governors have to say, ‘show us yer money!’ and refuse to allow a club with successive going concern matters raised in their accounts to deal with other football clubs unless it pays up front.
—————————————————————————-
I am one of these and have been from the day Pedro was shown the door. Nothing we can do to stop it but why the delay?, why the statements from Milne and McInnes? The title of this blog could be applied to the saga.
The uncertainty must surely have had an impact on the morale of the team and the manager’s motivation! 1 – 0 down at home as I write.
I hope we get every last penny of compo and yes up front in full.
For anyone who doesn’t believe things are tight at Ibrox, and perhaps even thinks Dave King has Mike Ashley right where he wants him, there’s a photo of Kenny Miller’s back (presumably from today’s game) showing his number 9 shirt has the shadow of a larger number, thirty something, under under the 9. The ‘shadow’ is no doubt as a result of the numerous washes the top went through before being passed to Miller.
I am sure similar will happen at other small clubs, as the season progresses, but surely not at a club with a super shiney new kit deal! Is it possible they’ve even sold out of Miller’s size in the superstore, or even the nearest Sports Direct
Seems like mr m prob passed his interview 6 points gifted to his new club lol.
Come on aberdeen ffs.
This game seems to be not about the footy it is more about mcinnes becoming the new sevco manager.
Mentioned about 6 times in last 5 mins sound now off.
What is this all about.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BcN0uV6h2_4/?taken-by=terracepodcast
Surely all this talk about mcinnes is akin to tapping him up.
shugDecember 3, 2017 at 14:18
‘…Surely all this talk about mcinnes is akin to tapping him up.’
___________
I think the two defeats by TRFC Ltd might cause the Ibrox board to revise their assessment of McInnes’ managerial abilities. The caretaker chap has outfoxed him at a canter in critical games for TRFC Ltd, and I suspect that he will be being looked on very favourably by the financially strapped Board.
McInnes might well have cost himself his ideal job by being outsmarted by Murty.
Possibly too early to say if McInnes is off to Ibrox, but if it turns out a ‘done deal’ as reported, we will once again see the integrity of the sport being trashed by a club at Ibrox. Not suggesting that DM would be complicit in securing all six points for Rangers, but the optics are absolutely mingin’
One thing is for sure. At least one party of Rangers, Aberdeen or McInnes could have put this to bed, either by rubbishing the story, or by accelerating the process before McInnes was exposed in that way.
If he turns up at Murray Park next week, allegations of match-fixing, true or not, will abound.
If that was not the intention of the coincidental timing of the matches and appointment, it could, and should have been sorted last week.
John Clark
If there is nothing untoward about the McInnes situation, he most likely will have lost the opportunity to get the job.
There have recently been some posts speculating on the delay in anything coming from the compliance officer looking at UEFA licence granted to Rangers.
While I appreciate that the main concern of most of the posters on here is probably the issue of the SFA trying to avoid complicity in any guilt, is there is not also for the SFA the issue of implications for New Rangers being considered the same club? If, as has been suggested by some, the outcome will be an attempt simply to say that Rangers lied to the SFA (who were duped), there should also be an issue of punishment arising from that for Rangers. We would be back in the area of the Traverso letter that said effectively no punishment because the club was in liquidation? The difference being that it would be the SFA having to saying no punishment possible because it is a new club. Could this be something that will be exercising the SFA? How to say Rangers guilty of deceit, but there will be no accountability for this deceit for New Rangers? Because this is about the licence application for the club to play football in Europe, it is not so easy to make the (nonsensical) company/club distinction.
I think everyone knows that the real issue with McInnes going to Rangers is his contract running to 2020 and the reported figure of £800,000 compensation.
If it wasn’t for that I suspect he would have been in a different dugout for the last two games.
With apologies to Derek McInnes who may well actually be happy managing Aberdeen.
BORDERSDONDECEMBER 3, 2017 at 13:32 I am one of these and have been from the day Pedro was shown the door. Nothing we can do to stop it but why the delay?, why the statements from Milne and McInnes? The title of this blog could be applied to the saga.The uncertainty must surely have had an impact on the morale of the team and the manager’s motivation! 1 – 0 down at home as I write.I hope we get every last penny of compo and yes up front in full.
=============================
Is it just me who thinks McInnes is not actually a certainty to move, and that Rangers have used their overwhelming influence over the media to simply unsettle Aberdeen at a time they were due to play them twice?
If he does move, then Aberdeen should as you say demand every penny of compensation up front, although I have no faith that ‘Move on’ Milne would insist on that.
Just read on Video Celts the tweets from a Jane Lewis (Who is she?) from last night. She was a tad excited and slagging off people engaging on social media on a Saturday night! Well that’s half the population doomed! Forgetting conveniently she was doing the self same thing herself.
As I said I don’t know of her except she was one of the female voices on Off the Ball yesterday. I had it on but to be honest I only half listen to it when Stuart Cosgrove is on holiday, it’s a poorer show without him.
Maybe MS. Lewis should apply for a job on Blue Peter. At this time of year they need someone to demonstrate hoy to make Advent Candle holders from old coat hangers.
*How
OES11DECEMBER 3, 2017 at 15:08 10 0 Rate This
There have recently been some posts speculating on the delay in anything coming from the compliance officer looking at UEFA licence granted to Rangers.While I appreciate that the main concern of most of the posters on here is probably the issue of the SFA trying to avoid complicity in any guilt, is there is not also for the SFA the issue of implications for New Rangers being considered the same club?
————-
That got me thinking…I know i know
Can i ask a question or two if i may?
1. when do clubs have to apply to the scottish FA who act as the initial licensor for European participants.(something sticks in my head that it’s january to take part in european competitions)
but please correct if wrong.
2.If the compliance officer looking at UEFA licence granted to this same club is delayed to after this same club applies for participant in europe for season 2018/19.and the compliance officers report is not favorable to this same club what then?
3. what if the compliance officers report is released before this same club puts forward an application for europe,and the compliance officers report is not favourable. what will/can the SFA do?
hope you get where i’m coming from and i worded it right
If, as has been suggested by some, the outcome will be an attempt simply to say that Rangers lied to the SFA (who were duped), there should also be an issue of punishment arising from that for Rangers.
————
1.How will the SFA spin it? we can’t punish then as it’s not the same club who lied….oh dear
2. Not put forward any application from the ibrox club to participate in european competitions as punishment for lying…oh dear not good if this same club is banking on european income to stay alive.
3. fine this same club for lying…oh dear more court cases i imagine as king would not want to pay a fine.
interesting times ahead
joes11 December 3, 2017 at 15:08
There have recently been some posts speculating on the delay in anything coming from the compliance officer looking at UEFA licence granted to Rangers. While I appreciate that the main concern of most of the posters on here is probably the issue of the SFA trying to avoid complicity in any guilt, is there is not also for the SFA the issue of implications for New Rangers being considered the same club? If, as has been suggested by some, the outcome will be an attempt simply to say that Rangers lied to the SFA (who were duped), there should also be an issue of punishment arising from that for Rangers. We would be back in the area of the Traverso letter that said effectively no punishment because the club was in liquidation? The difference being that it would be the SFA having to saying no punishment possible because it is a new club. Could this be something that will be exercising the SFA? How to say Rangers guilty of deceit, but there will be no accountability for this deceit for New Rangers? Because this is about the licence application for the club to play football in Europe, it is not so easy to make the (nonsensical) company/club distinction.
=====================
I’ve posted previously how I think that the SFA will play it.
A preliminary discussion between the Compliance Officer and Andrew Dickson will establish that Dickson and the Rangers Board sought the guidance of Murray Group (any of Horne, McGill or MacMillan who were managing RFC’s tax affairs) prior to the submission at the end of March 2011. The submission made to the SFA (disputed wtc liability) was on the basis of what the Murray employees told Dickson. Dickson, Johnston, P Murray and King will all be exonerated of any blame.
No action will be taken against the Murray Group employees as the Murray companies have been liquidated and the individuals themselves hold no positions in Scottish football.
For the subsequent submissions at the end of June and September 2011, Craig Whyte will be blamed, but as he has already been sanctioned and given a lifetime ban from any involvement in Scottish football, then no further action is required.
No blame will be attached to the SFA, as they acted in “good faith” and in accordance with the licensing processes at all times, based on the information provided to them.
Case closed!
easyJamboDecember 3, 2017 at 19:20
____________________________________________
Thanks EJ. How very, very depressing nonetheless.
JOES11DECEMBER 3, 2017 at 15:08
=========================
I wonder if there is any horse trading on the go re the Compliance Officer investigation which is delaying it being announced. My understanding is the information Celtic hold could blow any fudged outcome or cover up out the water, should they choose to go public. I have no doubt the SFA would love to say ‘Rangers lied to us, however we acted with honesty and integrity at all times. Senior Counsel has advised us there is nothing we can do, therefore the matter is now closed.’ The media would fully support that stance of course, but Celtic might then choose to use the club website to publish all the information they hold.
EASYJAMBODECEMBER 3, 2017 at 19:20
As Celtic are the only member club, thus far, to ask the SFA, to re-examine this issue, and should your deduction prove to be true, what are Celtic’s options at that point?
Can they take it further, presumably to Uefa, or even a judicial review? Would the Res 12 group on Celtic’s behalf look to promulgate this further?
Could it be, that if what you say might happen, actually happens, does that open the door to Celtic potentially going “all guns blazing”?
I would certainly welcome that…;
I was not surprised by the Motherwell result yesterday. On a big pitch at home, against a ‘physical’ team, I thought Celtic would win in second gear, but I thought 3-1. Again, I look forward to Motherwell playing the teams of the other posters on here – when you think someone may be going to injure you , you are going to try and meet their physical game with a physical game. As for the Hearts supporters on here, your team has been shocking for many months, I would concentrate on that and your manager who will always be remembered as 4-6-0.
On the subject of Refereeing again, how can the Referee only punish one person for that melee at Tynecastle yesterday? For instance, the Hamilton player who grappled with the Hearts Assistant in the incident which kicked it all off was already on a yellow.
If we look at the last week, Celtic had a soft penalty – the player who caused it should have been sent of earlier, that is a fact. In the second game video evidence proved beyond any doubt that it was a penalty, but not just Motherwell fans, we had several fans of other clubs in anger at the legitimate penalty. Unfortunately Celtic won at a canter yesterday so the focus will have to be on something else – it will not be on the non governance in the Scottish game – Only Celtic have stood up against the SFA and the other clubs and their fans seem disinterested, go on Celtic speak for us…The reason the SFA think they can get away with anything is because only 1 club is interested in the governance of our game. My final point tonight would remind everyone that having more cash is not a sporting advantage, just ask Lord Nimmrod.
easyJamboDecember 3, 2017at 19:20:
‘…The submission made to the SFA (disputed wtc liability) was on the basis of what the Murray employees told Dickson. Dickson, Johnston, P Murray and King will all be exonerated of any blame.’
_________-___
You’re probably right,eJ.
But it was not the Murray group which signed off the false the of the tax position, but the directors of the club, and directors are required to satisfy themselves that any statement from the club is accurate to the best of their knowledge- and simply taking some interested party’s word is scarcely satisfying that requirement.
At the very least, the then Board of RFC prior to the sale of the club to Whyte was in breach of its fiduciary duties as Directors and should face sanction for that .
The SFA also were utterly negligent in their duty as a Governance body by at the very least failing to have any rigorous checking system in place ( or of not making use of it, or of disregarding the results of any thorough examination which had unearthed the truth) in a situation that involved putting the opportunity to earn a lot of money in the hands of a club strapped for cash to pay its tax bills, and which was on that account absolutely not entitled to that opportunity.
The SFA will no doubt try to wriggle its way out of any responsibility for the ‘crime’ .
They had better hope that they can, because we might indeed be talking of conspiracy to defraud: letting a sports club dodge culpability for breaching the Articles of Association of both the then SPL and the SFA, and the rules of UEFA, is one thing.
Sleekily agreeing with a cheating club to arrange to slide,perhaps illegally in criminal law terms, a substantial money-making opportunity to that cheating club ,un-entitled to such, is a horse of a different colour.
I think I’m right in saying that in Scotland, the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud is committed where two or more persons agree to bring about a practical result by false pretences.
(That observation was made in a recent case , I believe)
My immediately preceding post : please insert between ‘Murray Group” and ” tax” the words “the false statement of ” , deleting the existing words as necessary.
(Geez, It’s like I was back in the old day job!)
John Clark December 3, 2017 at 22:00
———————————-
Mike McGill was both a Murray Group employee and a director of RFC at the time, so that could be an out for the other RFC directors re the “inaccurate” statement.
The interim reports for 2010/11, containing the A Johnston “potential tax liability” were unaudited so there was no formal check and balance. The full year 2011 accounts were never published, so there can’t be a statutory failure there.
I’m playing a bit of a devil’s advocate with my scenario, but I think there is enough “plausible deniability” to make it work in the eyes of the SFA and a compliant SMSM.
Stan
You seem to have conveniently forgotten about the Martin O’Neill era Celtic team renowned for being a physical pressing team. That’s OK tho. A fine team all the same.
This season we have gained points and progressed well in the cups. Our ‘physical’ tag has come from the games against Rangers & Celtic. In the semi – there were two punishable elbow incidents – ours was the 2nd. In the final there were two punishable tackles ours was the first.
In the quarter final we brushed Aberdeen aside 3-0 with a pressing game and some excellent flowing football. On the Saturday they fielded a team of very tall defence minded players and scraped a 1-0 win in a dreadful game. Over the two matches a Celtic player committed two punishable tackles similar to the ones mentioned above (that’s just an aside btw)
I like to think I’m pretty honest. I’d freely speak about us playing terribly, parking the bus, spreading it about, whatever. Absolutely no problem in discussing it.
This current team are physical, they press and have been great to watch this season. Celtic are the last of the SPL league teams to come up against us this season and with the exception of the elbow debacle in the semi, we’ve somehow managed to avoid the hammer thrower tag. We’ve played Aberdeen three times, Hibs twice and miraculously we’ve generally received plaudits. Both games vs Hibs have been outstanding. What a great team Neil Lennon has there.
If we are going to get anything from games vs Celtic then we will need to press and harry. If anyone domestically is going to get points then they will need to play that way if we don’t it’s a procession. I am in no way condoning anything outwith the laws of the game. If we do then I expect the appropriate action being taken.
I suspect a new phenomenon is at play here tho. This unbeaten run. This Brendan era. Some Celtic fans are expecting the procession. Teams to turn up and ‘take it’. Either open up and be punished mercilessly or sit back and patiently wait to be broken down. Fun for you, not for us
Its a shame. Scott Brown struts about in front of the defence spraying the ball around. Pirouetting comfortably and conducting the next attack. Brilliant to watch – but let’s be honest that hasn’t always been his game. He’s not as ‘physical’ as he used to be. He’s been a ‘physical’ pressing asset for Celtic like, Lennon, Thompson etc all were in excellent Celtic teams and some seem to be forgetting some of the blood and thunder games that Celtic have participated in vs the old Rangers, Hearts, Aberdeen etc all in recent history.
Im not trying to be confrontational here. I’m being cognisant of recent talking points – however I think they are muddying the waters somewhat. There are some good good players at Fir Park right now and we’ve had a good first round of fixtures. I thought we wanted a bit of competition?
WILDWOOD
DECEMBER 3, 2017 at 22:57
=============================
I don’t have a lot to say in reply to that other than … good post.
You have a good manager who has his team playing to their strengths. It’s difficult to see why he would do anything else.
I believe he brought in over ten new players at the start of the season and has totally re-jigged the team. Getting you to the league cup final and sitting fifth in the division, 5 ahead of Hearts with a game in hand over them.
You must be pretty happy with how this season is going so far.
John Clark December 4, 2017 at 00:43
————————————
Come on JC. Get off the fence and tell us how you really feel.
Easy Jambo 19.20 & 22.34
You devil you. 🙂
I think had that been the line it would have been tried by now.
I hope it is.
Leerdamer or two legged horse springs to mind. 🙂
Full of holes and won’t stand up. 🙂