Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?

By

Johnbhoy75 (@Johnbhoy75) says: Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 01:45 ——————————————————- I think you …

Comment on Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show? by Madbhoy24941.

Johnbhoy75 (@Johnbhoy75) says:

Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 01:45
——————————————————-

I think you are correct, a lot of what was and continues to be written is wishful thinking, but that does not make it pie in the sky. It’s seems logical, to the unbiased, normal thinking person, that the FTT should have delivered a positive outcome in the favour of HMRC. Just because that was also a thinking that many people wished for, does not make it wrong.

Everyone is entitled to come on, offer an opinion, explain why they believe that to be the case and then await the analysis from others.

You cannot on one hand say everyone is posting purely outcomes based on wishful thinking and then proceed to make a list of what you believe will happen, how is that any different? It is only individuals offering an opinion, how passionate they are about seeing that come to fruition is not really the point (in my opinion).

Madbhoy24941 Also Commented

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
Hey Angus, keep up…. I got my post in a good 30 seconds before you!


Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
If any of the prophets of doom are on, have a quick look at the SPL table…

Place Points
01 25
02 24
03 24
04 23
05 22
06 21
07 20
08 19
09 18
10 16
11 15
12 11

Had a quick look but I cannot see another league that is so competitive…

As Jim Royle would say “Armageddon my arse!”


Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
torrejohnbhoy says:

Thursday, November 22, 2012 at 21:31

____________________________________

The trust cannot get into financial difficulties as it has no overheads other than arranging the loans, the costs of doing this are paid by the company making the deposits. They are also paid a sum of money for doing the job and as they completey control all funds after the deposit, they also gain interest.

The key question for me is this: Just how independant is the trust? It is afterall a business making money, who owns it?

MIH, Trident, Ticketus investers, Sevco investers….. One in the same?


Recent Comments by Madbhoy24941

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
With last night’s result and news that The Rangers are paying out more more on another new signing today, we have to question the finances over at Ibrox.

Let us be clear here, last night’s result could happen to any of our teams competing in European competition this or the next years, In fact, we have seen this many times just over the last years. All this crap about being beaten by a ‘bunch of nobodies’ or a ‘team no better than my local pub team’, any team can beat any team on any given day, that is, or at least, that should be football and sport in general. I am always nervous when going into Europe and I will be the same next week, no matter the team, stick 10 men behind the ball and wait for a freak breakaway in the second half of the game is a tactic (quite rightly) used by smaller teams since the invention of the sport.

The real problem in my opinion is that some teams are spending based on future earnings that are not guaranteed. It is ok to speculate based on your attendance figures, based on sponsorship and other incomes that also fluctuate but are at least pretty predictable over a season, we should not however, budget based on qualifying for a specific tournament. When they do not qualify for that tournament, it create issues that can lead to the club finding other ways to cover that shortfall, and in some cases, adopting practices that would be deemed as unfair. This is exaggerated when competing in Europe as the sums involved are pretty substantial.

This is not new, David Murray did it, Craig White did it (even trying to buy someone while in Admin), Charles Green did it, and now the current crop of custodians of the Ibrox club are doing it.

We have rules that govern the sport, they are there to ensure both teams play only with 11 players each, that only the goalie is allowed to touch the ball with hands, to ensure that only players who are eligible to play for that team are on the team-sheet for that specific game, to ensure that players or teams are not disadvantaged by persistent or aggressive fouling or when the ball goes out of play that the game is stopped.

These are basic, universal rules invented to ensure fair play on the pitch, every organization plays by these rules, even if some have different perceptions of what is meant by aggressive.

However, some go further, some organizations adopt strict rules to ensure the clubs and leagues are financially sound, that no individual team can do what they want to buy success, legally or illegally.

So the real question is: Why are Scottish clubs (via The SFA) resisting this?


THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
upthehoopsApril 3, 2017 at 07:25

Take the blinkers off UTH, it was not a post about politics. It was an attempt at humour because the headline has the term ‘GERS’, nothing to do with The Rangers but is very relevant taken in the context of this whole charade.
I never even read the story, I just saw the headline on ‘Newsnow’ and thought “Wow, a game changer”, until I saw what it was really about.
For record, I saved the screenshot as a picture so there would be no automatic link to the political story.


THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
We have all been waiting for this acknowledgement for years….. The best ones are usually the ones that you cannot make up 10


History, Neighbours and Made Up News
StevieBC
September 30, 2016 at 17:28
Looks like DJ is on message: extracted from his ‘ESJ’ column today, with my highlighting;
“…The fans have stuck by the manager and the team through bad runs before and they have enjoyed most of the football that has been on show in the last couple of years. But that goodwill only lasts so long and they need victories now.
I do think it is a must win on Saturday, not just for Mark
————————————————-
Ironically, this comes only days after the same man told everyone on air that Chris Sutton was ridiculous to state that Mark Warburton must win the next two games or his jacket is on a shoogly peg. It’s hard to defend the guy sometimes, as likeable as he might be….


History, Neighbours and Made Up News
jimboAugust 28, 2016 at 06:52 
And we would have two of the best clubs in Scotland back up (HIBS, Dundee Utd.)

—————————-

Why the need to identify the clubs? if they were recognised as two of the best then everyone would know what you are talking about. I think this goes to the heart of the issue within Scottish Football, the people who run the game believe it can only succeed if we have certain teams.
Both teams are not currently two of the best or they would be in the top league, in fact, one of them is already falling behind early in the season and could struggle to get out of there in the next few years. I would agree they are definitely two of the best in a 20 team top league setup but not sure that is what you meant, I think that means they deserve to be in a higher league and I disagree with that.
I would have said, “two of the biggest clubs”, simply because I believe they are, no matter which league they currently ply their trade within. I base that purely on the number of supporters, of course you could look at many other factors like history or potential to win competitions. I think most people would state without fear of contradiction that Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee Utd, Hearts, Hibernian & Rangers are the biggest clubs in Scotland. But are they the best?
I would say, No!
I would also love to have those 2 teams back in the same league as Celtic, but only if they earn the right through winning games. In saying that, I would also like to see a bigger league with only 2 games against the same teams.


About the author