Over the past couple of years, we have built a healthy, vibrant and influential community which recognises the need to counter the corporate propaganda spouted by the mainstream media on behalf of the football authorities.
The media have, not entirely but in the main, been hostage to the patronage of those in charge of the club/media links, and to the narrow demographic of their readership. Despite a continuing rejection of the media’s position by that readership (in terms of year on year slump in sales) there is an obstinate refusal to see what is by now inevitable – the death of the print media. The lamb metaphor in fact ironically moving to the slaughter.
The football authorities in Scotland, once the country that gave the world the beautiful game, are rigid with fear that their own world will fall apart – because they are wedded to the idea that only one football match actually matters. To that end they will do whatever it takes to ensure that it continues. They have long since dispensed with the notion that football is an interdependent industry, and incredibly, even those who are not participants in that match follow like sheep towards the abattoir.
The argument is no longer that one club cheated and got away with it. The debate that we need to have is one about what is paramount in the eyes of the clubs and the media . Is it the inegrity of sporting endeavour, or box-office?
For out part, independent sites like this have accelerated the print media’s demise, and there have been temporary successes in persuading the clubs to uphold the spirit of sport. However our role has up to now been to cast a spotlight on the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and downright lies that routinely pass for news. News that is imagined up by PR agencies and dutifully copied by the lazy pretend-journalists who betray no thought whatsoever during the process.
Despite our successes, it really is not enough. We have the means at our disposal to do more, but do more we need to change ourselves, because the authorities sure as hell aren’t gonna.
We need to provide meaningful insight into the game that removes the Old Firm prism from the light path. We need to provide news that has covered all of the angles. We need to entertain, inform and energise fans of sport and all clubs.
We need to do that from a wholly independent perspective. None of this refusing to tell the truth about club allegiances. There is no reason why intelligent men and women can’t be objective in spite of their own allegiances (although the corollary absolutely holds true). Our experience of the MSM in this country is that the lack of arms-length principles in the media has corrupted it to such an extent that they barely recognise truth and objectivity. We need to be firm on those arms-length principles.
In order to do that we have put together a plan (with enough room to manoeuvre if required) as follows;
We will rebrand and re-launch as the Independent Sports Monitor. We have acquired the domains isMonitor.co.uk and IndependentSportsMonitor.co.uk, and those will be the main urls after the re-launch, hopefully later in the summer.
The change in name reflects the reality of our current debate which is not always confined to Scotland or football. It will also give us the option in future of applying the success of our model to other sports and jurisdictions through partner sites and blogs. This should also help in our efforts to raise funds in the future. However any expansion outwith the domain of Scottish football is some time away, and will depend on the success we have with the core model.
Our mission statement will be;
- ISM will seek to build a community of sports fans whose overarching aim is the integrity of competition in the sport.
- ISM will, without favour, seek to find objective truths on the conduct and administration of sport. We will avoid building relationships with individuals or organisations which would bring us into conflict with that.
- ISM will provide a platform for the views of ALL fans, and guarantee that those views will be heard in a mutually respectful environment.
- ISM will also endeavour to inform and entertain members on a wide range of topics related to our shared love of sport.
- ISM will seek to represent the views of sports fans to sporting authorities and hold the authorities to account.
We have estimated our (modest) costs to expand our role as per recent discussions. The expanded role will take the form of a new Internet Radio Channel where we hope to provide 24/7 content by the end of the year. It will also see a greater news role where we will engage directly with clubs and authorities to seek answers to our questions directly. And we will seek to contact the best fan sites across Scotland with a view to showcasing their content.
We have identified individuals who we want to work (initially on a part time basis) towards our objectives, we have identified premises where we want to conduct our business, and we hope to move into those premises during this summer.
To finance these plans there are a couple of stages;
- Initially (as soon as possible) we need to pay accommodation and hosting costs for the first year. To do so, we hope to appeal to the community itself. Our aim is to raise around £5000 by the end of August.
- There are salary costs (around £15,000) attached to our first year plan, but these have been underwritten by Big Pink, and equipment costs (est. £3000). These will be reimbursed if the advertising campaign we recently started bears any fruit (we will not know about that for a few months).
- It will not be too discouraging if we make losses in the first couple of years, so if necessary we will seek crowd-funding to finance our plans if the resources of the community itself prove inadequate to smooth a path to break-even point.
Our first year may be a perilous hand-to-mouth existence, but I am certain the journey will be an exciting and enjoyable one. We will also need to search our community resources for contacts at clubs; players, officials, ex-players, local journalists etc. Please get in touch if you have any in at your club.
We also hope to tap into the expertise of our community for advice, comment and analysis of developments, and we will be looking for any aspiring presenters, journalists, sound and video editors, graphic designers (and lots of others) to help us find our feet. Any offers of assistance would be gratefully accepted.
We mustn’t lose sight of why we are doing this. It is because we love our sport, because we want to be able to continue to call it that, and because the disconnect we find in Scottish football, that of the conflicting interests of the fans and the money men, will never be addressed as long as the fans are hopelessly split.
The ultimate goal is to allow sport – not our individual clubs – to triumph over the greed and corporate troglodyte-ism of those people who run it. I am confident that we as a community desperately want to be able to make a difference. That is why I am confident we can achieve our aim of becoming a significant player in the game.
Ah, a mention of Eco ! It’s been a while now since I saw that tag (and I did wish him/her well before my last strop and it was heartfelt ). Hope that entity has moved on to pastures new in cyberspace . I must say though that he/she may have retired from this blog due to the fall in the standard of written English here(spelligg, grammer, parenthesis)like wot I write . Stream of unconsciousness sometimes , and who’s to argue with that ?
When is the next radio show ?
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1266 comments)
July 1, 2015 at 10:41 pm
Matty RothMatty Roth says:
Member: (199 comments)
July 1, 2015 at 10:24 pm
I haven’t seen Eco on here for ….
———
I felt many of eco’s posts could have been edited into one paragraph. I’m afraid I bypassed almost every one of his increasingly self-indulgent posts in the end. It took the concept of verbosity to a new level. Our current obsessive, who seems a familiar reincarnation (perhaps he tuped over?), needs professional help, imo. Juvenile and best ignored.
_____________________________________________________________
Respectfully disagree.
Frequently disagreed with eco.
But always felt he moved the discussion on.
I for one would welcome him back with open arms.
An honest and earnest soul.
Sad he no longer posts here.
To our detriment more than his I think.
Football Fan says:
Member: (160 comments)
July 1, 2015 at 9:11 pm
I swear on your life i am not being paid.
____________________________________________________
Aha… Can I conclude therefore that you are, in fact, working for level5PR then!? :irony:
How are those invoices with your sole client progressing, Jim? There’s a story right there if you look for it!
😈
Castofthousands says:
Member: (226 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 1:12 am
…
You simply cannot take any media piece at face value…
==========================
Good post Cot.
And what has been an eye opener for me since RTC days is realising that there must be lots of newsworthy stories which are smply NOT reported at all by the MSM.
And apart from the dilemma that the print journalists have with trying to remain relevant…it must be even worse for the PR people.
The likes of Level42 🙂 are paid to pass off misdirection / p!sh as being the truth in the MSM.
That worked without too much effort in the past but now those informed, pesky Internet Bampots can sniff PR boll*x a mile off !
Maybe the dark arts of PR in Scottish football could be buried alongside the print media ?
Would be a cracking wake…
Why do most online trfc fans term the smsm ‘rangers hating media’? As several of you have commented on, the hyperbole attached to anything regarding their club is nauseating. Is it really everyone else can’t see the digs or attacks or are they simply entrenched in the everyones against us mindset? Or deluded 😈 😈
UTH, I agree some are not buying into the hype although by my reckoning they are a minority by some distance.
Why do most online trfc fans term the smsm ‘rangers hating media’?
———————————————————————–
Come on get a grip just look at the majority of post on here, and this is on a site that claims to be all inclusive and a site for all football supporters. The caveat of course is that you have to have an anti-rangers agenda.
As a perfect example this will almost certainly not be allowed by the moderators.
Still on the question of site moderation and management why are you so lazy … a new blog is issued just about quarterly – albeit by guest writers – yet you are seeking funding for full time employees!
Through dreadfully bad planning I and another two mods are on holiday right now, so moderation is rather slow.
Had we been around we would have put a stop to football fan’s attempted coup 🙂
We really did try to give him some scope because despite the negatives, he does bring food for thought. However his behaviour over the last few days has been designed to derail the blog. I think those people who insisted on a race to the last word played into his hands though. When a debate becomes nothing but a smug exercise in point scoring via the use of cherry-picked factlets and suppositions on the blog, it becomes trolling.
I am reminded that the original intervention by FF concerned his dislike of assumptions – which he proceeded to paper the walls with here.
Steerpike therefore has left the building meantime. Enter Highland_Bhoy 🙂
Castofthousands says:
July 2, 2015 at 1.12am
Having recently read a text on conjurors and illusionists, it struck me that many of the tricks employed by charlatans to fool people have been visited on RFC fans. This does not mean that Ranger’s fans are particularly gullible, just that their travails have allowed the exercise to be viewed in full colour HD 3D. We are all gullible; and this is very upsetting.
—————————————————
A good parallel. Magic tricks work best on those who are intelligent and/or knowledgable about something, because they tend to make cognitive shortcuts and so think efficiently about particular subjects. The magician plays on their assumptions in order to fool them. The hardest audience for a magician is held to be children, because they are not so prone to believing that “the coin is in my hand” just because they have been told so and can’t see it somewhere else. The adult will tend to think “yes, yes, so now what’s going to happen – wait – it’s disappeared!”
In the same way, the more credulous, the more unthinkingly ‘loyal’ a support is, the less likely they are to see the sleights, and the more likely to fall for psychological ploys that seem obvious to those who question the basic assumptions.
And, of course, the coin trick can be scaled up for the larger audience along the lines of “…and over here the money is in my account…but look over here at the new manager and – voila! an unknown player turns into Danny Alves…and now the money has gone!”
Cue gasps of astonishment!
easyJambo says:
Member: (679 comments)
July 1, 2015 at 10:50 pm
Barcabhoy says: July 1, 2015 at 10:29 pm
======================
A question re a “Going Concern Warning”. Do the new rules reflect the difference between an Auditor’s “qualified opinion” regarding a going concern and an “Emphasis of Matter” re a going concern?
The RIFC/TRFC accounts are not “qualified” as such, but the Auditors have used the “Emphasis of Matter” terminology instead.
——————-
The breach is either emphasis of matter or qualified opinion.
Another day passes and there is an astonishing lack of transfer activity at Ibrox. The much vaunted (not his fault) John Eustace has been and seemingly gone after signing talks. The silence since he arrived compared to the hyperbole when he was first discussed is telling. In short Rangers appear to be running on empty. Even if the figure of 21K season tickets is true, that will not even cover operating costs for the season, never mind rebuild a threadbare squad. I can only conclude now that it’s not that some journalists don’t want to point these things out, they are simply not allowed to. Much as I criticise the media, I simply don’t believe journalists can’t see the King indeed has no clothes. Who will be the first that gets to say it?
Resin_lab_dog says:
Member: (508 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 1:16 am
Respectfully disagree.
————-
No problem Resin. He did bring a lot to the table. Personally, I’m a fan of brevity and getting to the point. If anyone regularly posts 10-paragraph responses they need to contain something special. No doubt many good endeavours and thoughts from the former poster, just feel they became lost in unnecessary wordiness and animosity. As Matty mentioned the blog was swamped and the petty bickering was tiring. Each to his own though. I just took a regular detour in the end.
Interesting back page in Tabloidland. The Sun appears to have a story about ‘axed players’ claiming holiday pay. Someone hasn’t read the script, either that, or it’s a new outrage against Scotlands youngest and possibly least successful club.
@paddy malarkey
I believe he DK did say that the board will match any investment the fans make. Question is, was that referring to STs or is it based on the upcoming share issue? (Oops, conveniently impossible at the moment).
From @easyJambo’s figures on the previous page, if it’s based on STs, the 3Bs or DK himself will be about to make a large deposit, in the region of £6m.
Would love to see the business plan presented to the authorities. After all, a licence would not have been granted on a nod and wink or even on a handshake, would it?
Barcabhoy says:
Member: (182 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 6:58 am
easyJambo says:
Member: (679 comments)
July 1, 2015 at 10:50 pm
Barcabhoy says: July 1, 2015 at 10:29 pm
======================
A question re a “Going Concern Warning”. Do the new rules reflect the difference between an Auditor’s “qualified opinion” regarding a going concern and an “Emphasis of Matter” re a going concern?
The RIFC/TRFC accounts are not “qualified” as such, but the Auditors have used the “Emphasis of Matter” terminology instead.
——————-
The breach is either emphasis of matter or qualified opinion.
————————————————————
Actually that’s not quite correct. Under ISA700 going concern would normally be an emphasis of matter as it is in the New Rangers accounts, which whilst not technically a qualified opinion serves the same purpose.
The exception to this would be where the going concern issues are so severe that there would be a Disclaimer of Opinion i.e. a statement that the auditors are unable to form an opinion on the accounts at all due to the going concern issues.
The short answer is that there would not normally be a going concern qualification in a company’s accounts. The options for the auditor are normally either a going concern warning (Emphasis of Matter), or to state that they are unable to form an opinion on the true and fairness of the accounts (Disclaimer of Opinion).
Good luck to Aberdeen in their Europa cup game!
Just has a quick poolside read of today’s SMSM. What’s happening today?
The Rangers season ticket take up at 40% of capacity or 90% of last seasons it terrific business. Bravo cheers all round from the papers.
Mr King has spoken and he’s happy.
Chris Jack has been promoted to SENIOR sports writer at the Herald and Evening Times. Wot? Did I read that correctly? He also received a silver star tweet from level5pr and actually retweeted about himself. Award winning journalism indeed but he DID win an Scottis Press award which just shows how little of value there is in them. Is he the next Jingle or JT?
Celtic, in signing a Man U and Switzerland U21 internationalist have signed a “kid” or “teenager” full back. Nicely disparaging of the signing – clearly no Dani Alves competitor unlike the new Rangers lad.
AH, nothing changes……..yet
Btw St Johnstone and Aberdeen both in Euro ties tonight. Good luck to both as they fly the Scottish flag in Europe.
At what juncture does Fraser Wishart ask the SFA to intervene to get the players cash?
Zero tolerance
I was referring to the Financial Fair Play rules of UEFA. I attached a copy of their rules on the specific breach which in their own words are either emphasis of matter or going concern warning.
Rangers are in breach as per the last set of interim and the last set of audited accounts
Barcabhoy says:
Member: (183 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 9:32 am
_____________________________________________________________
Thanks for the clarification.
In the Edmiston Drive tank battle I think we have only heard the sound of machine gun fire. The ST renewals were pretty much going to renew anyway and showed an approximate drop of around 10% on last season’s overall sales. There was no need to waste any ammo winning their allegiance.
I imagine the armour piercing shells are now being loaded now that smoke has enveloped no-man’s land. I did warn you about Niall though. 😀
I would say that King will have to do something in the next few days to get the villagers who abandoned their homes to return en masse, and they will have to do so under heavy fire.
Matty Roth says:
Member: (200 comments)
July 1, 2015 at 9:47 pm
Actually given the lack of transparency around the King FPP decision I don’t think we can say if Lawell or any others on the professional game board were involved in this decision. We simply do not know who decided what or why. Or did I miss something?
======================
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3093620/Did-Scottish-FA-break-rules-process-granting-new-Rangers-chairman-Dave-King-fit-proper-status.html
You might have missed this article, but whichever of the 2 boards made the decision, then Lawell was involved, as a member of both boards.
Ryan G.,
A question for you!
I may have missed it in the last day or two (the blog has been rather ‘busy’), but I don’t remember seeing any comment from you regarding our Troll Mk XV11, now happily despatched to remain firmly under the little goats’ bridge.
I am not trying to make any particular point here, but I did wonder what your view was of him/her.
Regards,
Barcabhoy says: July 2, 2015 at 6:58 am
The breach is either emphasis of matter or qualified opinion.
=========================
Thanks Barca. It’s nice to get a straight answer to a straight question.
Danish Pastry
2 July 2015 7.10 a.m.
re: the ex-Sevco players wanting holiday pay. As you know, today’s rags are reporting the story in much the same way as they did when the gardener was relaxing in his allotment and letting the lolly roll in. One line caught my eye:
“The general public, not just the Rangers fans, may react in disbelief at what they’ll perceive to be greedy stars merely looking to line their pockets with even more dough.”
I wonder if the original author’s invoices have been processed yet or, like the former stars, will he end up just being another creditor?
neepheid says:
Member: (663 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 10:51 am
All too true, I’m afraid. Mr Lawwell has been involved in every decision, every step of the way since 2012. If Messers Ogilvie and Regan have questions to answer, (and they do),then, as sure as night follows day, precisely the same questions have to be asked of Mr Lawwell and others.
People can’t be excluded, simply because the their inclusion makes us uncomfortable.
Jack Irvine…I mean David Somers…I mean John James is posting again on McMurdo’s blog:
Have to say that if it really is David Somers then he was unaware of how many ST holders he had last year. 🙂
FWIW, I think the 21500 figure is plausible. If I were in PR (God forbid) and had to create some spin around slightly underwhelming ST renewals, I might spend the prior days planting stories of lower numbers on social media and to my friends in the press (say 19000). That way when the real number is announced it sounds better than expected.
Unless I have missed something I note that the national broadcaster isn’t bothering to provide even radio coverage of the start of the Scottish football season.
Two of our clubs kick-off their Europa league campaigns tonight. Campaigns that Sportsound et al repeatedly tell us are so, so important to ensure we increase the Scottish clubs Euro co-efficient and avoid these early starts. But when push-comes-to-shove they are still obviously not important enough to care a jot about.
Maybe they mean important so that Celtic, the only club that really matters in Europe, shouldn’t have to start so early?
I try not to believe this is how it is but, given the complete lack of interest from the BBC for the last two seasons with regards to this stage of the Euro season what other possible explanation can there be??
Bitter…? Possibly.. 🙁
The real test for Rangers with regards season ticket sales has only just started as the public sale has only recently begun.
Up to this point it should only have been existing season ticket holders who would be able to buy them, and given those are the people who bought them when there was a boycott being called for it was always to be expected they would buy them again.
However what happens next is that the boycotters now have a chance to return and buy their season ticket. The question is, how many of them will return and how many new season ticket holders will the club be able to attract.
It seems unlikely to me that Dave King will get the 45,000 he was looking for.
neepheid says:
Member: (663 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 10:51 am
‘..You might have missed this article, but whichever of the 2 boards made the decision, then Lawell was involved, as a member of both boards..
________
But, of course, simply being on the Board does not necessarily men that a board member voted with the majority.
I don’t think any breakdown of who voted for or against has been reported?
It is one thing to vote for something, and quite another either to abstain or vote against.
This is where a real bit of transparency would be welcome, so that the supporters of any club which has a director on either of the SFA boards can ask questions about how their director voted.
I have broadly ‘defended’ Lawwell for having been expected single-handedly to right the wrongs and the harm done by SDM and RFC(IL) and by the Football Authorities generally, simply on the basis that he represents one club out of 42.
If I learned that he had personally voted for King’s acceptance, I might view things a little differently.
John Clark says:
Member: (929 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 12:52 pm
I have broadly ‘defended’ Lawwell for having been expected single-handedly to right the wrongs and the harm done by SDM and RFC(IL) and by the Football Authorities generally, simply on the basis that he represents one club out of 42.
If I learned that he had personally voted for King’s acceptance, I might view things a little differently.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Try asking him. I did after Ogilvie’s “coronation”, but maybe you’ll have better luck than me.
tayred says:
Member: (137 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm
‘…Maybe they mean important so that Celtic, the only club that really matters in Europe, shouldn’t have to start so early? ‘
________
BBC Radio Scotland has all of my life-time generally shown an untoward bias towards,first, the old dead RFC(IL) and continues to show a predisposition to avoid asking hard questions of TRFC, the new club which they unblushingly support as being ‘continuity RFC’.
I am surprised at your surprise at their lack of interest in what are, for the whole of Scottish football, seriously important games.
But that’s the Pacific Quay lot for you, I’m afraid.
What percentage of last year’s ST sales does 21,500 equate to ?
Barcabhoy
It used to be that the UEFA standard of licence only applied to SPL clubs which meant clubs in the SFL were covered by National Club Licensing.
Since 2013 the UEFA standard applies to all SPFL clubs.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/football_document_libraries.cfm?page=2570
My understanding now is that the UEFA standard governed by UEFA rules is only applied to clubs who APPLy for a UEFA licence. Which can only happen to clubs qualifying on sporting merit either position in the league or cup winners.
If TRFC were to win the SC next year and if the 3 year membership of the SFA required by Article 12 is satisfied,which I think it will be, then as an applicant for a UEFA licence they will face problems although there is an exceptional route under Article 15 ( Unless that has changed) to get around pesky problems with the help of the national association.
Other clubs not applying for a UEFA licence are covered by the less rigorous National Club licencing process and last time I looked TRFC had an Entry level licence .
I have a memory, but need to check, that Entry level is not good enough for the top division of the SPFL. Indeed Hearts had that level too but I imagine will have moved up the National Licence grading from Entry to Bronze or Silver as a result of their latest application in the spring.
Now had TRFC gained promotion they too would have to have moved up a level so not getting promoted might have saved some licencing somersaults at the SFA on the National licensing front.
However UEFA, for reasons I suspect that have to do with national associations generally and certainly our own SFA, not monitoring rigorously, are beefing up their monitoring according to a blurb I read on the launch of the latest version.
In terms of TRFC last season they had an Entry Level licence at National Level. For the coming season the level will depend on the submission made to SFA by end of March or April and if Entry level is good enough for the division they are in I suspect it will be granted.
However and here is a story for the likes of STV Grant to check, if a club promoted to the top division needs more than an Entry level under SPFL rules, what will SPFL do to ensure that the SFA are being rigorous in the level of licence they award at end of coming season?
Does an auditors warning (whatever its wording) trigger a process similar to UEFA that demands future financial forecasts and more crucially will SFA demand certain conditions are met before granting a National licence?
All the rules to protect clubs from themselves and from each other are already there. It’s just that TRFC have difficulty meeting them which requires rule bending that totally undermines the value of the licensing system and so the integrity of the game.
In the absence of anyone but SFM to continue to make the integrity point our game will continue to devalue itself.
neepheid says:
Member: (664 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 12:57 pm
‘Try asking him. I did after Ogilvie’s “coronation”, but maybe you’ll have better luck than me.’
________
Sadly, Lawwell has not ever replied to me,either!
It might be too early to suggest that SFM should consider, on behalf of what may be perceived to be a majority of its ‘members’, to write to each of the club directors who are members of the main SFA Board, asking them how they voted on King and the reasons why they voted the way they did.
Certainly, a large number of people think the vote ‘for’ King spat in the face of Integrity, and showed a marked contempt for the general mood of the Scottish football support. It also stank of opportunistic cronyism, as so many of the SFA’s action in recent years have done.
tayred on July 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm
Unless I have missed something I note that the national broadcaster…
———
I believe Jim Spence is covering the Aberdeen match. He’s posting from Skopje on twitter. Great fun too. So I expect there will be radio coverage, at least…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27828992
Rangers say 17,000 season-ticket renewals reduces short-term needs
Rangers say “approximately 17,000 season tickets have been renewed” after calls for sales figures to be released.
The Union of Fans had urged customers to pay their season ticket money into the ‘Ibrox 1972 Fund’ in protest against the club’s board.
Last season’s total season-ticket sales exceeded 34,000.
====================================================
Difficult to understand how renewals have topped 20,000 when they said they only sold 17,000 at June last year. Unless of course there were substantial sales post that date. Or people were allowed to buy a part season ticket later on, and that allowed them to buy one this time round.
Hirsute
I hear you on the Conditional membership.
I think it can be argued both interpretations have equal validity because two routes got entangled, but I’m going to spare the blog the splitting of hairs and eventual pulling out of them where such a discussion will take us.
Maybe over a pint we can split the protein filaments. 🙂
Whether a committee member votes for or against a decision is not really the point, (though it would be in the Public Interest if some journo were to publish the minutes
)
Once a decision is made then everyone on the committee owns that decision, and becomes collectively responsible for every consequence that flows from that decision. We are not talking about one decision either, we are talking about a number of decisions that have been taken over a long period of time, that have brought Scottish Football to its current position. At some point, complicity, becomes the kindest description, personally, I think we are long past that point.
The 17000 figure was for renewal of existing ST’s up to the deadline last year. Around 24-25000 ST’s were sold last year in total in 2014: that was revealed during one of Imran Ahmad’s trips to court. It was claimed too that after DK arrived, many half-season tickets were sold, but there are no numbers for that. All of those tickets would be eligible for renewal this year so at least 3000 have not renewed (before the deadline anyway). There’s always a bit of churn: people’s circumstances change.
If anyone doesn’t trust the numbers announced they can always count the greyed-out seats on the stadium diagrams when tickets go on general sale (assuming they do it the same way my club does). 🙂
y4rmy says:
Member: (90 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Thanks, I thought it would be something like that.
What do you reckon for a total this year, I was thinking in the region of 30,000.
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1269 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 1:24 pm
tayred on July 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm
I believe Jim Spence is covering the Aberdeen match. He’s posting from Skopje on twitter. Great fun too. So I expect there will be radio coverage, at least…
———————————————————————
I shall twiddle the old wireless knob when kick-off time approaches, but certainly their online broadcasting schedule has the mighty Bryan Burnett doing his thing. Commentary by twitter might be the best I can hope for!
As an aside, and given that this topic has come up once or twice here, I see Aberdeen are streaming the match live on their RedTV, but only to International customers. Premier sports have picked up the rights and are broadcasting to subscribers (I assume a Sky/Virgin media box or other such device is required). The infrastructure is obviously already there for a decent attempt at a Scottish Football channel, although I personally hold deep reservations as to the level of interest in a paid subscription service.
Matty Roth says:
July 1, 2015 at 9:36 pm
Just an observation but when every second or third post on the forum is from the same poster then the content can lose its usual diversity and at the same time focus can be driven in a particular direction, not necessarily one that progresses the debate or analysis if happenings in our national game.
==============================================
It’s also a point that since the SFM is obviously read by many bears, it would be useful for the current owners to have a voice repeatedly putting pro-King arguments on it. These arguments might not stand up to close (or even medium range) scrutiny but they might do enough to persuade that King’s Rangers is worth backing. Season tickets must be sold and the Herald/Record/Times can’t do it all by themselves. :slamb: 😛
John Clark says:
Member: (931 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 1:04 pm
tayred says:
Member: (137 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm
I am surprised at your surprise at their lack of interest in what are, for the whole of Scottish football, seriously important games.
But that’s the Pacific Quay lot for you, I’m afraid.
——————————————————————–
Oh I’m not really surprised, just disappointed yet again. It’s much like the complete tv black out of the Scottish national game to all but Sky subscribers. Unfortunately, you get resigned to it.
But that is the one of the supposed strengths of this place is it not, to rally against this kind of imbalance? I too believe, along with most here, that the Scottish Beeb have an unhealthy allegiance to the club with the 5-stars on their Sports Direct shirts. However, lets not kid ourselves – if Celtic were playing tonight there would be at least live radio coverage.
tayred says:
Member: (137 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm
Unless I have missed something I note that the national broadcaster isn’t bothering to provide even radio coverage of the start of the Scottish football season.
Two of our clubs kick-off their Europa league campaigns tonight. Campaigns that Sportsound et al repeatedly tell us are so, so important to ensure we increase the Scottish clubs Euro co-efficient and avoid these early starts. But when push-comes-to-shove they are still obviously not important enough to care a jot about.
Maybe they mean important so that Celtic, the only club that really matters in Europe, shouldn’t have to start so early?
I try not to believe this is how it is but, given the complete lack of interest from the BBC for the last two seasons with regards to this stage of the Euro season what other possible explanation can there be??
Bitter…? Possibly.. 🙁
====================================================
I’m looking forward to seeing TRFC v Arbroath friendly beamed live from Murray Park later this month. I mean, much more important than some some teuchter clubs trying to improve Scotland’s standing in Europe…
Scottish Football needs a national broadcaster that serves the whole of Scottish Football.
I suppose it depends on how many of the boycotters come back: it’s a litmus test for King’s popularity really. 30,000 sounds about right though.
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1269 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 1:24 pm
tayred on July 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm
Unless I have missed something I note that the national broadcaster…
———
Danish
They are both live on KODI (sportsdevil)
Ok for those of us who have it
But a disgrace that our license fees are only to supplement the EPL 👿
17000 was the renewal total at deadline last year. 21500 have been renewed at deadline this year.
Thanks, but I had already realised this and deleted my post. 😳
The 2015 Interim accounts gives a total of 24,589 for last season, so 21,500 represents 87.4% renewal rate.
However I’ve heard it suggested in a couple of places, that those who didn’t renew last season were invited to renew their old seats this season. I have seen no confirmation of this from an official source so treat with caution.
I note that “John James” mentions it, but there are too many inaccuracies in his last statement to merit taking what he says at face value.
* King’s holding in Murray Sports Ltd was transferred from Ben Nevis to Metlika, not the other way around.
* The King family holding in Micromega is around 63%, not 76%. He disposed of 15M shares in June 14, 12M of which ended up with Greg Morris (who owns nothing like 24% of the company).
http://data.biznews.com/SENS/SENSViewer.aspx?id=233710
* I don’t know where he gets the Rangers First holding of 8.9% of RIFC. Their website’s home page tells us:
“It gives us great pleasure to announce that we now own Two million, Twenty Six thousand and thirty two shares bringing our total holdings to over 2.49%”
Homunculus says:
Member: (57 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 1:26 pm
Difficult to understand how renewals have topped 20,000 when they said they only sold 17,000 at June last year. Unless of course there were substantial sales post that date. Or people were allowed to buy a part season ticket later on, and that allowed them to buy one this time round.
================
Anyone who bought a ST last year has the right to renew for next season. It doesn’t really matter how many had renewed this time last year, The total sold last year was just over 20k by early August ( http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/285329-rangers-bid-to-raise-4m-from-shares-after-poor-season-ticket-sales/ ), so given that there would have been a few thousand part season tickets sold, it looks like most existing ST holders have renewed. Once the boycotters pile in, plus those seduced by the SMSM moonbeams of a new Barcelona at Ibrox, a final figure of 30k plus looks likely. Will that be enough? Probably not.
Woah guys, This Celtic supporter would love to see Aberdeen and St. Johnstone get max publicity and TV coverage of their games. I hope you both make great progress in the comp and not just for our sakes but that would be great too.
Direct your fire at the proper targets please. 😎
@tcup
They are both live on KODI (sportsdevil)
Ok for those of us who have it
But a disgrace that our license fees are only to supplement the EPL ?
———-
Thanks, I guessed they would be. Good stuff. Noticed the new Kodi version from TVaddons is something for the newbies. Includes most if the extra app thingmys you usually have to download and install.
neepheid says:
Member: (665 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 2:32 pm
It won’t be enough, especially not when the income from merchandise is so low, and failure to achieve promotion has effected other revenus streams.
That being the case the income from a rights issue is going to be vital, just to have enough to see them through the season.
That however is no way for a PLC to operate. Rights or share issues should not consistently be being used to pay the normal bills of the business.
In fact, if you are constantly having to go to the shareholders for more money it’s more of a hobby than a business.
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (469 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Barcabhoy
As of June 11 2015, all Premiership teams, with the exception of Hamilton, have been granted the UEFA Licence Award. No other SFA member club has, in all cases being designated as Not Applicable. Link here:
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/football_document_libraries.cfm?page=2570
I think some of the boycotters were a bit put out that they had followed DK’s entreaties to abstain the previous year, but now found themselves in the queue behind the ones who had ignored the call. I’d guess that the ticket office were given some latitude unofficially to allow sales to those where there was no seat conflict, but that’s complete speculation on my part.
I agree about John James. He got mixed up with the new signings in a previous post and stated that Doncaster Rovers were in the 9th tier of the English league system. He also claimed that only 12000 tickets had been sold. Still, it’s entertaining, if not to be taken too seriously, because the primary targets King and Graham so richly (no pun intended) deserve it.
Barcabhoy
Re my post at 1.18 I found my previous on the subject from last October.
It confirms that had TRFC got promoted the SPFL rules would have required them to get a licence in which financial criteria had to be met. “Phew!” said the SFA Licensing Committee.
Of course the same question will arise next year if they get promotion which gives them little time to get their financial house in order.
I do think smsm should be pointing this out to TRFC fans.
Here is I’m afraid the long post from Oct 2014. In my defense it is hard to keep posts on rules short when you have to show them.
In summary it’s not UEFA TRFC need to satisfy re their finances it’s the SFA who have the power to refuse or set licensing conditions. If I were running other clubs I would insist on SFA doing their licensing job.
Last year’s post
Auldheid on October 10, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Jambos (Ally and Easy)
I had a look at the latest SPFL rules on Financial Disclosure requirements on the SPFL site. The seem much the same as I posted above viz:
1 June 2014
The Rules of the Scottish Professional Football League
APPENDIX 3
Financial Disclosure Requirements
1. Clubs entitled for the time being eligible to participate in the Premiership and the Championship are required to comply with Criteria (a)(i) 8.4, 8.11 and 8.12 to the Gold or Silver Standard in Part 2 – National Club Licensing, Section 8 – Legal, Admin, Finance and Codes of Practice Criteria; and (ii) UEFA Ref. Arts. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and verification where applicable 52 in Part 3 – UEFA Club Licensing, Section 5 – The UEFA Club Licensing Criteria of the Scottish FA National Club Licensing Manual; and (b) Clubs entitled for the time being eligible to participate in any other Division and Candidate Clubs are required to comply with Criteria (i) 8.4, 8.11 and 8.12 to the Entry Level Standard in Part 2 – National Club Licensing, Section 8 – Legal, Admin, Finance and Codes of Practice Criteria for Entry Level Clubs in The Scottish Football Association National Club Licensing Manual; (all “the Criteria”), all as from time to time amended, varied or supplemented by the Scottish FA, as if the requirements of the Criteria applied to provision of the copies, documentation, and information set out in the Criteria required to be made out and satisfied to the Company on the same basis and to the same extent as the Criteria require to be made out and satisfied to the Scottish FA.
http://spfl.co.uk/spfl/rules-and-articles/
I then had a look for the latest on National Club licensing documents at http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2014/Prt%202%20Sct%208%20-%20Leg,%20Admin,%20Finance,Codes%20(2).pdf
as I was interested in what Paras 8.4 and 8.11 and 8.12 said with reference to the licensing standard needed to participate in the SPFL Premiership and Championship i.e Gold and Silver level.
My interest was sparked when I looked at the latest SFA club licensing production which is a spreadsheet which can be found by clicking on the term “Current Status 2104″ or
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2014/LicensedClubs/021014CL%20current%20status.xls
This spreadsheet shows that both Hearts and Rangers (sic) do not currently hold a Licence to the Gold or Silver standard that the SPFL rules suggest that they should in the Financial Criteria area. They both have Entry level licences.
It is not clear which particular area para 8.4. 8.11 or 8.12 both clubs fail but it looks like the requirement of Appendix 3 has not been rigorously applied by the SPFL unless you lads can do an update on the situation at Hearts in terms of financial control or disclosure and where Hearts are likely to stand in the next licensing round in terms of what standard they have attained on most probably returning to the Premiership..
It will be important that all clubs entering the SPFL next season fully meet the Gold or Silver standard required by Appendix 3 and I have no doubts whatsoever that Hearts will be able to comply. Rangers of course are experiencing a bit of difficulty even at Entry level and you might have an opinion on that if you concur with my reading.
The main thing from browsing through the SPFL rules though is that they seem to have the right to satisfy themselves that clubs wishing to play at that highest level have professional accounting arrangements in place.
The SPFL are of course then dependent on the SFA Licensing Committee doing its work to the highest professional standards and there are questions still to be answered in that respect.
Tough, rigorous club licensing, especially on finance is an absolute must for the future well being of all clubs.
If I were in charge I would want it outsourced it to a team of independent auditors to avoid any possibility of bias in decision making.
Bawsman says:
Member: (191 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Woah guys, This Celtic supporter would love to see Aberdeen and St. Johnstone get max publicity and TV coverage of their games. I hope you both make great progress in the comp and not just for our sakes but that would be great too.
Direct your fire at the proper targets please. ?
——————————————————————
Absolutely no ill feeling or anger directed towards Celtic or their fans Bawsman, apologies if that is how it sounded. My ire on this one is directed solely at BBC Scotland. My point was only that if Celtic or Rangers were playing then there would be coverage.
@BarcaBhoy and Blu
the spreadsheet from Blu’s link has a name suggesting it was updated on the 4th June although the web page suggests it was updated (uploaded?) on the 11th.
Hearts are still shown as Championship and are Entry level from a review in October last year with another due. It was their Legal/Admin/Finance which cost them then but I assume Ann Budge has put that house pretty much in order.
Edit to add: Hearts have a review due in 2015 (month unspecified) whereas several others including TRFC and Hamilton have a review this month
6 1 Rate This
View Comment
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1270 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 2:42 pm
@tcup
They are both live on KODI (sportsdevil)
Ok for those of us who have it
But a disgrace that our license fees are only to supplement the EPL ?
———-
Thanks, I guessed they would be. Good stuff. Noticed the new Kodi version from TVaddons is something for the newbies. Includes most if the extra app thingmys you usually have to download and install
///////./////////
For those who have KODI or intend to install
But don’t have sportsdevil
https://seo-michael.co.uk/how-to-manually-install-sportsdevil-on-xbmc/
easyJambo says:
Member: (681 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 2:29 pm (Edit)
Thanks eJ. This is exactly the type of thing this blog does best. Not only asking important questions of those who would have us believe their words as fact, but answering those questions for us all.
Great post
Johnbud78 says:
Member: (5 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 4:54 am
“Why do most online trfc fans term the smsm ‘rangers hating media’?”.
———————–
I think it is akin to the creation of original sin.
Other perspectives might view the media as providing Rangers with an easy ride and possibly a positive hew. However this smacks of a voluntary allegiance and lacks universality.
By tagging all media by default as ‘Rangers hating’ it asks said media to prove its credentials. It is not enough to show a dignified silence in the face of such allegations, it is necessary to refute them with tangible evidence. Like the Baptisimal washing away of taint, this taunt invites the media to actively exonerate themselves from being amongst the accused and to raise themselves significantly into the realms of being an evangelist for the Ibrox team.
Good Afternoon.
Best of luck to all the Scottish sides in Europe this season!
And on a wider note… Please don’t criticise The Revolution. You might upset the Daily Record.
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/do-not-criticise-the-revolution/
easyJambo says:
Member: (681 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 2:29 pm
“I note that “John James” mentions it, but there are too many inaccuracies in his last statement to merit taking what he says at face value.”
———————–
I thought the RSL comments stream was generally rather refreshing. It lacked the jingoism that is so often on show on similar sites and injected a harsh note of reality.
The cynic in me however, despite all this good work, was busily trying to fathom a hidden agenda.
I think perhaps that SFM has upped the stakes when it comes to informed comment. RSL are possibly attempting to copy the model to some extent by throwing in controversial outlooks. However what seems to be missing is an engaged debate.
Many SFM discussions over the months and years have started with conjecture to which has been added substance, the combination of which is then batted back and forth endlessly to see what stands up to close scrutiny. It would be difficult to model this process since you need a contributorship that are willing to do their homework and who are willing to take a step back if the argument isn’t going in their favour.
John James comments, however refreshing, do not benefit from the quality assurance technique of open debate, as highlighted by the assiduous EJ.
There’s an intellectual integrity at play here I think. If your argument must win out because you hold allegiance to it then the debate can only move forward in fits and starts. If however you are prepared to see the best hypothesis win out, irrespective of who champions it, then you get an inclusive and engaged discussion. Errors of fact will be picked up and eventually a clean script will emerge.
Courtesy of @stvgrant in reply to Q about a ive stream:
@STVGrant: @Parsfacts Sure is: http://t.co/McdF7B2Cqp
The revolution will not be televised as Gil Scott Heron said ( but he was biased given his heritage)
Theology and Socratic dialectic – canny be bad that! The suggestion seems to be that there is a movement of the TRFC blogosphere away from the previous manicheanistic exegesis where to quote ‘no one likes us we don’t care’ towards the critical realism favoured by the neo thomists perhaps too little too late though,
It’s been mentioned here before, but Humbert Wolfe’s words kept coming back to me when reading the Clumpany’s last blogs on the puffs for TRFC season tickets and the non-criticism of King, so apologies for repeating them:
You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there’s
no occasion to.
TheClumpany says:
Member: (97 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 4:21 pm
Good Afternoon.
Best of luck to all the Scottish sides in Europe this season!
And on a wider note… Please don’t criticise The Revolution. You might upset the Daily Record.
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/do-not-criticise-the-revolution/
=======================================
Yes that DR piece is unintentionally funny.
Ralston is certainly giving JingleJangle a run for his money now… :slamb: :slamb:
But my serious question is this.
Is King smiling in that photo on your link, or is he in pain ?
I’m not really quite sure.
Mibbees off-camera Level42 are showing King their latest, unpaid invoice ?
I think we should be told. 😀
StevieBC says:
Member: (764 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 5:23 pm
TheClumpany says:
Member: (97 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 4:21 pm
Good Afternoon.
Best of luck to all the Scottish sides in Europe this season!
And on a wider note… Please don’t criticise The Revolution. You might upset the Daily Record.
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/do-not-criticise-the-revolution/
=======================================
Yes that DR piece is unintentionally funny.
Ralston is certainly giving JingleJangle a run for his money now… :slamb: :slamb:
_
Ralston is a disgrace of a journalist
he writes like he is still employed at the Rangers News
Is it safe to assume that 2014-2015 TRFC season books do not have an “automatic” renewal for 2015-2016, triggered on, say, the 1st of July, unless positively declined?
Incidentally, their agent this year will be deducting their handling charge, so any calculations of SB income could be (at least) several percentage points out…
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (470 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Barcabhoy
It used to be that the UEFA standard of licence only applied to SPL clubs which meant clubs in the SFL were covered by National Club Licensing.
Since 2013 the UEFA standard applies to all SPFL clubs.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/football_document_libraries.cfm?page=2570
My understanding now is that the UEFA standard governed by UEFA rules is only applied to clubs who APPLy for a UEFA licence. Which can only happen to clubs qualifying on sporting merit either position in the league or cup winners.
If TRFC were to win the SC next year and if the 3 year membership of the SFA required by Article 12 is satisfied,which I think it will be, then as an applicant for a UEFA licence they will face problems although there is an exceptional route under Article 15 ( Unless that has changed) to get around pesky problems with the help of the national association.
Other clubs not applying for a UEFA licence are covered by the less rigorous National Club licencing process and last time I looked TRFC had an Entry level licence .
I have a memory, but need to check, that Entry level is not good enough for the top division of the SPFL. Indeed Hearts had that level too but I imagine will have moved up the National Licence grading from Entry to Bronze or Silver as a result of their latest application in the spring.
Now had TRFC gained promotion they too would have to have moved up a level so not getting promoted might have saved some licencing somersaults at the SFA on the National licensing front.
However UEFA, for reasons I suspect that have to do with national associations generally and certainly our own SFA, not monitoring rigorously, are beefing up their monitoring according to a blurb I read on the launch of the latest version.
In terms of TRFC last season they had an Entry Level licence at National Level. For the coming season the level will depend on the submission made to SFA by end of March or April and if Entry level is good enough for the division they are in I suspect it will be granted.
However and here is a story for the likes of STV Grant to check, if a club promoted to the top division needs more than an Entry level under SPFL rules, what will SPFL do to ensure that the SFA are being rigorous in the level of licence they award at end of coming 😐
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (470 comments)
July 2, 2015
Does an auditors warning (whatever its wording) trigger a process similar to UEFA that demands future financial forecasts and more crucially will SFA demand certain conditions are met before granting a National licence?
——————
My understanding is that the process is as follows.
A club qualifies on sporting merit to represent it’s country in a UEFA competition .
The club cannot have a going concern warning ( in any description) on it’s latest/ current accounts as that breaches the criteria for entry. The club can appeal to the licensor ( The SFA) on the basis that the going concern warning is no longer current.
To successfully appeal the club has to provide a buisness plan which shows it has sufficient resource to complete 12 Calender months. This business plan, which includes cash flow forecasts, has to be proven to be robust and not speculative.
The business plan cannot include the use of short term loans or asset revaluations. For the avoidance of doubt an overdraft is seen as a short term loan. To be specific in Rangers case they would need to be able to show that long term loans or an equity injection ( via a share issue) were adequate to ensure 12 months trading to be able to fully complete the season in question.
Rangers could take term loans from anyone as long as these were not payable on demand , had no repayment date detailed or were of a shorter duration than 12 months.
The challenge for Rangers is that there is very little security able to be offered for the loans.
The other option is a share issue to provide working capital. This needs to generate net funds , after costs , of sufficient to cover any trading shortfall. There are challenges here as well. Firstly you have to find an exchange to list on. Secondly it is likely that you will need to have shareholders approve the right to disapply pre-emption rights ( this has already failed , twice if I remember correctly) . This will allow the board to issue shares to whomsoever it chooses. However the Easdale / Ashley votes are enough to block this option, so that route seems pretty challenging .
For further clarification the board cannot go around revaluing assets and in that way claim a healthier financial position. UEFA are clear that this is not allowable from their perspective.
I don’t have access just now to all of the info I need to be definite, but I suspect the previous revalution of the worth of the brand may be ignored by the Licensor ( The SFA ) which will make the task of putting together a credible business plan even more difficult.
Which takes us to how much would be required to satisfy The SFA if they were doing their job diligently .
Firstly you have to provide for the cash losses in the annual trading . Hard to be 100% on what that is likely to be , however the full year has just finished ( June 30th) and we should find out within 3 months. My best estimate is that there will be a £9 million hole to fill.
Secondly , existing loans need to be either repaid or renogiated to ensure they are not of the short term variety. I believe SD view their £5 Million as payable on demand. There is reputed to be a further £4.5 million which has already been loaned by Kingco. This is also reputed to be of indeterminate length, which means UEFA will view it as short term ( at least thats my understanding ) .
So before Kingco have undertaken any of the overinvestment this all amounts to £18.5 Million which will need to be covered. As mentioned previously Rangers may also need to provide for the asset revaluation from Green’s time. They may not , but I don’t think that’s in any way certain.
To add to the £18.5 million is any investment in the stadium, team or infrastructure. I doubt anyone seriously believes the noise coming from King about “whatever it takes ” , but if he was true to his word ( and that would be a first) then the total number is likely to be well over £30 million.
To summarise, I think it will need at least £18.5 million . Should Rangers continue to lose money this year at the rate estimated, and not qualify by winning a cup , the effect is likely to be that a further several £Million will be required by 2017
Castofthousands says:
Member: (228 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 4:32 pm
easyJambo says:
Member: (681 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 2:29 pm
“I note that “John James” mentions it, but there are too many inaccuracies in his last statement to merit taking what he says at face value.”
———————–
There’s an intellectual integrity at play here I think. If your argument must win out because you hold allegiance to it then the debate can only move forward in fits and starts. If however you are prepared to see the best hypothesis win out, irrespective of who champions it, then you get an inclusive and engaged discussion. Errors of fact will be picked up and eventually a clean script will emerge.
————————
You describe the difference between debate and dialogue which is described in this extract from a Dialogue Decalogue I picked up and modified in my internet travels.
From The Dialogue Decalogue
Dialogue is a conversation on a common subject between two or more persons with differing views, the primary purpose of which is for each participant to learn from the other so that s/he can change and grow. This very definition of dialogue embodies the first commandment of dialogue.
If we approach another party to either defeat them or to learn about them so as to deal more effectively with her or him, or at best to negotiate with him or her. If we face each other at all in confrontation–sometimes more openly polemically, sometimes more subtly so, but always with the ultimate goal of defeating the other, because we are convinced that we alone have the absolute truth we are indulging in debate and not dialogue.
But dialogue is not debate. In dialogue each party must listen to the other as openly and sympathetically as s/he can in an attempt to understand the other’s position as precisely and, as it were, as much from within, as possible. Such an attitude automatically includes the assumption that at any point we might find the other party’s position so persuasive that, if we would act with integrity, we would have to change, and change can be disturbing.
All parties must be prepared to come to the dialogue as persons ready to put aside their own needs and wants, at least for a time. They must be ready to listen, without judgement, to the thoughts and feelings as expressed by the other person in the exchange. This is difficult to do on blogs/forums in the absence of body language and clarification often needs to be sought. The parties must be prepared to accept that reaching agreement may not be achieved, although that might occur, but dialogue will lead to both parties, through a better understanding of the others’ needs and wants, to being able to live amicably with their differences.
If you are interested I’ll post the Ten Dialogue “Commandments” later.
scapaflow says:
Member: (1263 comments)
July 2, 2015 at 1:34 pm
‘..Once a decision is made then everyone on the committee owns that decision, and becomes collectively responsible for every consequence that flows from that decision’
_____
And in the normal world, a committee member with very strong principles might feel forced to resign in order not to be associated with a decision which he finds morally repulsive.
Where the decision is made by evilly motivated people with no regard for principle, and on behalf of an individual who himself has been convicted of lack of principle and business integrity etc etc, and when the consequences of a resignation would not harm anybody other the person who resigns (and the club he represents) AND might be grist to the mill of dog-whistling managers, stadium arsonists and bullet-sending bully boys and their fellow-travelling members of the SMSM………I ask you, why the hell should the innocent inflict punishment on themselves by being the ‘policeman’?
Lawwell has generally done well in refusing to accept that he alone should lead the charge against the dishonest.Let some directors of clubs be made to accept responsibility.
I seem to recall one of the journalists in the “hacking” trial stating that he has three main sources of information.
1. Face to face interviews (preferably on the record)
2. Statutory information (Accounts, Companies House, Land registers, BMD & Census records etc.)
3. Information disclosed to a court.
If you concentrate on those three areas then you won’t go far wrong with your interpretation of events. By all means form your own opinion based on those sources, but you must try hard to ignore the spin, the vested interests and accounts that provide a narrative you want to be true.
The review below (of Richard Desmond autobiography) echoes many bloggers recent posts re state of SMSM:
“The Express group presented a different challenge. By 2000, the starry Beaverbrook years were long gone and the circulation was in steep decline – it was hard to see how the papers could be reinvented to capture new markets in what turned out to be the newspaper industry’s last fling. But with ruthless cost cutting, Desmond has wrung a profit from his shrinking assets. Rather than trying to build sales, he has simply accepted that his papers are on their way out and that, in the medium term, the road to profit lies in them surrendering to their fate. So no circulation stunts, no giveaways, no increased coverage of this or that: the Desmond recipe for success at the Express is to reinforce its ageing readers’ opinions, and give them occasional hope of increased mobility and pain relief with frequent front-page splashes that promise cures for arthritis. “Affirmation rather than information” is his motto. And affirmation comes cheap.”
‘Ageing readers’ is easily replaced by the obvious.
SMSM – total dummy-tits.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/01/the-real-deal-autobiography-britains-most-controversial-media-mogul-richard-desmond-review
Andy at 5.43pm. Are you sure that he is not still not in their employ? After all it was good enough for Mark Hateley to have a column in the “rag” and a retainer from Ibrokes. edit- ignore the 2nd “not”