Why We Need to Change

By

I think we can safely assume that Phil’s story about …

Comment on Why We Need to Change by Steveplustax.

I think we can safely assume that Phil’s story about King’s most undignified meeting with Ashley on the day of the EGM is substantially true. No journalist would publish something that outrageous without being absolutely certain of its veracity. Like anyone else, Phil knows that if those allegations could be disproved in a court of law, the punishment meted out could effectively see him paying Sevco’s leccy bill for the foreseeable future.

We all know how thin-skinned the current custodians of RIFC are, and we know about the outsized persecution fantasies that make react hysterically to any perceived slight, no matter how small. The fact that Phil’s story stands unchallenged says everything.

At this point, Mike Ashley and his advisors know that no-one in the mainstream Scottish media would dare to divulge the details (and the timing) of King’s ill-conceived solo mission to London. Phil is clearly recognised as one of the most influential figures outside the media brotherhood when it comes to matters Sevconian. Given that he’d have needed iron-clad assurances/proof of the King story’s veracity, those could have only been come from one place.

It all lines up, as far as I can see. The only remaining question is, how Baron Bouffant and his ursine colleagues deal with a man who appears to have somewhat overstated his wealth and who–according to Phil’s unchallenged story–was ready to throw them under the bus sans warning. If GASH simply opts to “do one,” no discussion is necessary. But regardless of how the King debacle is handled, do the Sevco survivors have the means and the vision required to… even get through the coming season?!

Steveplustax Also Commented

Why We Need to Change
Re. the contention that a specific amount of cash is being paid out regularly by Sevco for unspecified reasons; and that the real reason is some kind of sale/leaseback of Ibrox. This putative scenario has been a prominent feature of Phil McG’s blog for many months. In fact, he has all but told Sevco to “sue me” if they dispute the facts. As far as I am aware no legal action has been taken as a result of these allegations.
Still, I’d be curious to see where in the Sevco accounts Phil sees the controversial figure appearing. (When I get a free minute I’ll try to go back through the relevant archives and see if I can find the answer there!)


Why We Need to Change
Just thinking about the Scott Allan/Sevco saga, and it occurs to me that there’s one question that hasn’t been asked. Why on earth would a promising young player apparently decide that his interests are best served by joining a club that is living under austerity measures (see recent signings, the cost of) in an attempt to secure its survival? Obviously, the increasingly partisan SMSM aren’t going to cast any doubt over this footballing fairy-tale, but I wonder if anyone on here has any thoughts on the matter. By all accounts, Allan isn’t a Sandy Chugg-style True Believer, so if he’s approaching this situation in a rational manner, how on earth does he see a move to Sevco helping his career?! Surely any agent who had done any due diligence whatsoever would know–as most of the SMSM do–the true financial picture at Ibrox,


Why We Need to Change
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1321 comments)
July 24, 2015 at 2:49 pm

This is the position as I understand it, addresses the streaming of Premier League matches.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/streaming-live-football-matches-online.htm
——————

Nail/head interface. That being said (preferably in a David Brent accent), it beggars belief that anyone needed to have such a straightforward issue explained to them. Admittedly, in many cases the Internet can warp people’s pre-existing ideas about what is and is not legal (not to mention moral; which raises all kinds of question that we thankfully do not have to wrangle with in this instance).

One stark example should clear up all this faux-naive “it was just a wee app and the stream came from Estonia and…” nonsense. Celtic TV charges a set fee to those who wish to watch their coverage of Celtic games via the club’s website/streaming set-up. That fee goes directly to the club and funds, among other things, the football part of the whole operation.

For the last several years it has been possible to watch the Celtic TV stream from any number of web-based, advertising-heavy cowboy outfits that are capable of receiving and rebroadcasting the official coverage for their own use. If you use these streams you’re depriving Celtic of revenue, pure and simple. And you’d have to be very simple indeed to offer the defence that the stream looked legit.

Of course, while we might have second thoughts about viewing illegal Celtic streams: as well as affecting the club’s less-than-spectacular revenue, they might make Celtic-minded users think twice about whether depriving the club of cash puts them in a tricky situation when it comes to criticising Celtic’s spending.

Of course, the picture gets extremely gray when you start talking about streams from the EPL, and Europe’s other super-wealthy leagues. These streams are still illegal, but the victims of the crime are not dear to our hearts, and seem far enough removed that there tends to be no immediate sense of guilt.

This is all just a relatively new twist on what happened some time ago to the film, music and TV industries. (Book publishing has begun to feel the effects over the last few years) The genie is out the bottle, and revenues continue to fall, across the board. No-one has any idea how it’s all going to pan out, who’ll be able to come up with new, viable business models under these conditions, or how long those models will remain viable. I’m not sure what the level of awareness is in football, or how much money is being lost; but I remember reading a Wall Street Journal article a couple of years ago about the panic this stuff was causing at the highest levels of professional sport in the US.

The quality of these streams–yes, I’ve watched them–is pretty risible, with “screen” sizes that are smaller than current cell-phones, so it will probably be a long time before your mainstream consumer of, say, Sky Sports ditches his or her subscription. But there a lot of football “addicts” who’ll be perfectly happy with the existing format, and–more importantly–the phenomenal range of gratis offerings available.

I’m sure there are several folk on here who know exactly what percentage of their revenue Celtic (and other Scottish clubs) get from their own TV operations. I suspect that the figures will be significantly lower than the money brought in by season-book sales and merchandise; and who knows, even the SPL’s half-baked TV deal might be a more significant earner. Which is all to say, we have probably got a lot less to worry about than Europe’s TV-dependent elite; if indeed they’re worried at all. We live in interesting times–even if the ever-shrinking number of teams with a genuine chance of winning the CL might suggest otherwise.


Recent Comments by Steveplustax

History, Neighbours and Made Up News
JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 2, 2016 at 12:43 
wottpiSeptember 2, 2016 at 11:53‘..No wonder it feels justified in defending and protecting its audio feed from such an attack to the senses..’______I wonder how the poor thing is defending itself from the police officers ‘pouring’ all over it, as Martin Williams, senior reporter , writes? 
———–
This small detail might be as revealing as anything contained in the three episodes of “Scotland’s Game.”
“Pouring over”? Seriously?! “Pouring”?
The mainstream media just can’t afford to maintain its old standards anymore. 


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
Talk about a “developing story”… It’s been hard to keep up with all of today’s developments.
James F, cheers for the clarification. As you say, progress has been made, despite the advetrtising debacle. A couple of folk have pointed out, correctly I think, that Greenslade seems generally sympathetic despite his failure to get a grip on the facts. (There was an awful to digest, and he was working to a short deadline, so there were always going to be gaps in the story. But as I said earlier, there should have been a lot more due diligence before going to press.) His handling of the underlying facts may have been extremely inept–but to be fair, he didn’t make a particularly strong case for his colleagues on the commercial side of the paper; and he did include links to key sources of information about Resolution 12, which he was by no means obliged to do. Which meant that anyone who was curious about the story had access to the real facts–and could put the Guardian version in its proper context. 
As far as the French language issue goes, it didn’t seem to me–as a couple of folk suggested earlier–that the Guardian’s advertising department used that as an excuse for not accepting the ad. It looked like they it in to muddy the waters, inferring that they’d somehow been caught off guard by the final version of the ad. That aspect of the story only got interesting when it looked as though the Guardian must have been told about a French version of the ad by some third party. It sounds as though people at the paper saw French text in a rough version of the ad that was dummied up for design purposes only. Throwing that into the discussion was completely disingenuous on their part; but we at least know how the idea of French copy cropped up. 
Still curious about what was really behind the Guardian’s decision.


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
Thank you, Corrupt O. (And Shug.) I wonder what time the new “It Doesn’t Look Good” post went up. Looks like it was before 14:04 – – which means that I could have saved myself the trouble of poring over the pretzel logic of the Guardian/Res. 12 situation for so long!
I was quite surprised to see confirmation that the Guardian’s ad department had no way of knowing about the mythical French version of the ad except through someone with detailed knowledge of the situation; and an axe to grind with CQN. But then it turns out there’s a screen grab of the French version going about. WTF?!


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
In his current article about Roy Greenslade/the Guardian, James Forrest makes it abundantly clear that no French translation of the Resolution 12 ad had ever been put into circulation. So how did the Guardian end up sharing misinformation with a bilious blogger of Sevconian hue? I can see how the lie about a French version being mistakenly published in Switzerland could have subsequently made the rounds in Sevco circles. But once again: why did the Guardian refer to this same phantom ad in their correspondence with the Resolution 12 chaps?
Somebody has been very sloppy with their cover-story here. One of Resolution 12’s targets has clearly talked to the Guardian, and passed on information intended to discredit James Forrest et al. It might be hard to pin down what sort of pressure was brought to bear on the paper; but this could surely prove that there was contact from an interested party within Scottish football.
As far as Greenslade goes, he’s obviously had to rush something into print due to the sudden on-line backlash against his paper’s advertising staff. The article is a complete mess. I can see why, at first glance, a story about the governance of Scottish football might not seem all that significant to outsiders who have not been following it as obsessively (sic!) as the likes of ourselves–but he should really have done some due diligence before jumping in and making things worse.
(Still curious about whether or not the Res. 12 ad was ever translated into French. But the important question has been definitively answered.)


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
For the avoidance of etc. Does anyone know if the Resolution 12 advert was ever translated into French? As far as I can remember, one of the Rangers supporters’ web sites tried to mock the Res. 12 folk by claiming that their Swiss newspaper ad was in French. I believe CQN responded with a Tweet confirming that the ad was published in English; and explaining exactly why they eschewed the French option. (The specific phrase “journalistic French” was definitely used–because I distinctly remember wondering what what that means!)
I’m asking about the possible existence of an unpublished French-language Res, 12 advert not only because of my own tedious pedantry. When the Guardian’s advertising staff tried to justify their rejection of the ad, they happened to mention that the first version they’d seen was in French. Call me Captain Suspicious, but the paper’s inclusion of that minor, possibly erroneous detail struck me as a potentially sciurine* strategy. I believe that CQN have since denied submitting the wrong version of the advert to the Guardian, but I’m not certain. If that turns out to be the case, the Guardian’s advertising people must be asked to explain exactly why they ended up referring to “Résolution Douze” material, and indeed how they came by the idea of a French version in the first place.
I hope that’s all clear; and that doubt has been successfully avoided.
 * Squirrel-like. All the kids are saying it, dontcha know!


About the author