Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by nawlite.
Well written last post there, John Clark, and your concluding paragraph is spot on. Can it really be that all these people in high-ranking professional positions (be it DCIs, members of the legal profession etc) are fans too and simply caught up in the 'some bad people did bad things to Rangers' mantra? Without that initial state of mind, it seems unbelievable that they might have acted in the way they did.
nawlite Also Commented
Accountability via Transparency.
Here's one……if a PK has to be re-taken every time a GK moves both feet off his/her line (presumably scored and missed penalties are affected by the same rule?), what's to stop the GK choosing to do that for a vital PK, thereby putting extra pressure on the kicker to decide whether to change placement etc for the second kick?
I know they get a yellow for it, but what if they are 1-0 up in the 92nd minute of a cup final? Would they take the booking for a chance to increase the pressure and perhaps increase the possibility of the kicker missing?
Accountability via Transparency.
Agree to an extent, WOTTPI. The 'on your line' rule has only really changed for the better for goalies; it's just that VAR allows breaches of the rule to be policed better now to work against them. The BBC commentator (who used to be Scotland women's GK) was spouting nonsense going on about how after learning one way for 27 years, the current goalie now had a week to learn a new way of acting at penalties. They can still move along their line to gain an 'advantage' by guessing where the ball will go. The new rule actually helps them by allowing them to move forward as well so long as that forward movement is with only one foot. The commentators issue seemed to be that they could no longer go before 'the kick' as she used to having read the kicker's body language ahead of the actual impact. Guess what, they still can provided they move sideways (or forward with one foot). The rule change hasn't worsened the GK's situation. That said, I was only ever a forward so……!
The real issue is whether we want VAR looking at GK movement in breach of the rules. After the Scotland draw, my heart says no, but my head probably still says I do if it means the rules of the game are enforced. That's what we're all on this site for, right?
Accountability via Transparency.
JJ, the theory over on the Bear's Den is that the collated figures must show Celtic fans to be more sectarian than anyone else and this has caught the (pro-Catholic/Celtic-supporting) Govt out so that is why they are now refusing to release the data, which of course, they had hoped to use to show TRFC supporting fans in a bad light!
Mad as a box of frogs over there.
Recent Comments by nawlite
In Whose Interests
I don't know enough about what Belgium etc did to really argue with you EJ, but I can't understand this claim/statement that we can only improve if we implement a common strategy across all clubs. If every team chose or was forced to play the same style – be that 4-3-3, say, or a high pressing style etc etc – surely the competition in the league and among managers/tacticians would be very much lessened. Every club or manager has their own tactics (sometimes based on budget) e.g. Livi are imo quite long ball; St Johnstone will sit in and hit on the counter etc etc. Are you/the Belgian guys saying they can't do that anymore? That would mean the buying power of Celtic would mean their players, being better/more expensive would win more often than they do already, does it not? I know that the Scottish league and international team is anything but perfect so I might be arguing against myself here because if Livi improved at a Scotland-wide preferred style, that might help them and the Scottish national team, but I really don't see that happening elsewhere. In Spain – a competitive league and succesful international team – all teams don't play the same way. Hell, even their top 3 of Barca, Real and Atleti each has a very different style. In Germany, which is one of the countries that claims to have reset, Bayern and Dortmund don't play the same. Without knowing the Belgian league very well, I imagine that teams play different styles. For every passing, probing team in the EPL a la City, there's a fast counter attacking team like Liverpool or a defensively-strong yet creative Spurs. I can absolutely understand a club insisting on a preferred formation throughout all age groups, or even a country with their chosen elites at all age groups doing the same (as with England, I think), but this suggested panacea that Belgium, Germany etc made everyone adopt the same style is untrue imo. I think perhaps it's just within the National teams set-ups, rather than across the whole competitive league.
CO, if they haven't enough cash to pay SDI what the judge thinks they lost out on as well as their court costs, I think the only option open to him to ensure SDI make up their losses is to insist on the forced deal to be so heavily weighted in SDI's favour that TRFC will be lucky to get even that. To get that money from 2020-21 strip sales, SDI will probably use their manufacturing contacts to get strips made. The Bears then have the decision to buy or boycott again. What a laugh!
CO they will have kit to wear next year, just not via Hummel. The judgement forces the retail deal back to SDI for season 2020-21, so they or TRFC will arrange a deal with another kit manufacturer.
Think that's only a portion of SDI's total costs, PM, but yes they are supposed to discuss acceptable damages soon or the court will make a judgement. Of course, TRFC are still claiming that the £1m cap to damages applies. The judge and SDI are saying it may be allowed to stand, but even if it does the judge has already indicated that £1m isn't enough to cover the amounts SDI lost out on, so if TRFC and SDI can't agree, he will undoubtedly find a way to award SDI what he sees as acceptable. Whether that is by way of a cash payment or a future retail deal overwhelmingly tilted in favour of SDI remains to be seen. Basically, this either screws them immediately or slowly in my opinion.
I see that the court document Phil posted includes a statement that…
"16. Rangers application to appeal is dismissed."
No one anywhere seems to have commented on that, but does that mean King has no option to kick the can down the road? I know he can still drag on the suggested discussion re damages a little.