Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by Smugas.

    I do feel it appropriate to applaud the SFA at this juncture.  Their succession planning is already in evidence.  The American summariser heard to comment on her national sides 13-0 thumping of Thailand as “absolutely brilliant entertainment, this is what people want to come and see” surely makes her a stick on for the top job in Scotland next time around.

    Smugas Also Commented

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Stevie BC 11th June

    Mibbees, just mibbees TRFC could end up lucky?


    With a dwindling cash flow, external finance, and the anticipated financial hammering from Ashley…

    If, Ashley does finally sell NUFC he just might use that as an opportunity – as well as leveraging any outstanding payments due from RIFC/TRFC – to take an active interest / stake at Ibrox again?

    Obviously, that would probably be dependant on King getting the boot from Ibrox.

    And, it would probably be dependant on TRFC being run on a break even basis?

    All of which 'should' be good news for the bears…


    Actually disagree entirely StevieBC.  If Ashley wanted a new retail puppy to play with in his NUFC retirement an austere TRFC is not what he’d choose.  A hubristic competitive TRFC financed by some other fools money is what he’d choose.

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Worth also mentioning that them being placed any lower than League 2 couldn’t happen.  From memory the options defaulted to league 2 if the vote to the championship failed.

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Ref the accuracy or otherwise that the description of “Club” could have, you can’t help thinking the potential financiers of Bolton Wanderers 5088 Ltd are watching on with interest. 

    Recent Comments by Smugas

    Bad Money?


    My particular favourite is “if they’re not going to play him (Morelos) they should just take the money on offer.”


    i can see a teensy flaw in that logic there Andy.

    Bad Money?
    Firstly that’s a great last paragraph John.


    secondly, Lawells dilemma has been simple.  How does he sell a Celtic home scudding for a Diddy en route to his chosen level (you can argue if that’s just above his nearest competitor in Scotland or on par with an equivalent side in Europe – my hat, and Celtics traditional model, was always the former).


    He has decided that the answer is to make the 3 points and the goal difference crucial in every game.  The scudding is taken as read (and I’ve a degree of sympathy if diddy chairmen don’t want to address it preferring to milk it instead).  His job is to somehow make and keep the scudding relevant.  To do that he needs a competitor, a pantomime villain (boo) if you will.


    To be fair to Peter it’s up to others, authority, scuddees, experts (remember the boxing promoter lad) dare to suggest there may be another way.

    Bad Money?
    Cluster One27th June 2019 at 17:43






    Rate This



    StevieBC 27th June 2019 at 14:02
    And I’m even more confused.

    Why would any club issue a photo of their manager sitting next to their signing target…

    whilst the player is wearing his ‘new’ club’s top…


    there was a Celtic player turned up to sign in his Hibs training gear.  Who was that again?  Bain maybe?



    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    Not so much a swipe.  More an arithmetic observation.

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?


    I view Strict Liability in much the same way.  I care not a jot about what is said/sung/flung other than if it goes beyond normal, and by normal my measure is suitability for my pre teen kids attending with me,  then it will offend me personally.*


    As you say Strict Liability is not about the individual it is about the club.  It doesn’t matter if the club or members thereof thinks something should be said, sung or flung the point is if they’re told it shouldn’t happen then it doesn’t happen.  Period.


    And then in so dealing with a collective will (and you can call it dictat if you want), so the ‘normal’ individual will be rewarded.  Dissenters should feel free to take their concerns elsewhere whether there’s 5 of them or 50,000.