Interesting Low podcast, TSFM. Didn’t agree with him on his – The Scottish Football Monitor

Interesting Low podcast, TSFM. Didn’t agree with him on his …

Comment on An Honest Game? Convince Us. by Night Terror.

Interesting Low podcast, TSFM. Didn’t agree with him on his idea of the future of Celtic, “The Rangers” and by extension Scottish football, but it was good to hear someone with credible knowledge of the Scottish game speak so forthrightly.

Night Terror Also Commented

An Honest Game? Convince Us.
Final thought (until I think of another one) on the Low interview – he committed the cardinal sin of using the phrase “diddy club” in a non ironic way, from the position of supporting a big club.


An Honest Game? Convince Us.
Good points put by whoever the TSFM interviewer was to Low re only Celtic being disadvantaged by the Ibrox Club’s absence from the top division. Not impressed by the way Low dealt with it, and amusing to hear him invoke the “Irish League” threat. Did the interview take place before “cataclysmic” became the go to phrase to scare away anyone contemplating a change to the status quo?


An Honest Game? Convince Us.
Glad to see that Streets Of Raith myth scotched. Again.

I’m sure that’s the last we’ll ever hear of it.


Recent Comments by Night Terror

LNS – A Summary
@GoosyGoosy
Interesting prediction of events.
How much of that is what you hope happens, irrespective of what you think will happen?
It sounds like the ideal scenario of most interested non-Rangers fans to me. I’m therefore sceptical without a lot more justification for such a sequence of events.


LNS – A Summary
@Auldheid
I think it’s very easy to understand why the SFA would continue to stonewall on that one.
It’s harder to understand how they are allowed to or able to do so.


Whose assets are they anyway?
@Gym Trainer
I agree. The problem is, most fans find the overspending thing easier to grasp and be outraged about, whereas the intricacies of player registration can seem ore of an administrative and therefore boring infraction.
It suits many to characterise the Title Stripping argument as based on overspending and tax liability (subject to appeal) and even alleged sporting advantage, none of which have concrete rules to outlaw them as far as I know, rather than the specifics of registrations and hidden contracts which are provable and forbidden.
The problem is we are dealing with football, where people focus on the results on the pitch, whereas actually that is irrelevant to the question of whether Rangers broke rules on player registration and contracts.
Sporting advantage, cheating, tax evasion/avoidance, illegal tax arrangements, overspending, players they couldn’t afford, other fans’ sense of outrage. All irrelevant. If you want to pursue a legal/quasi legal case to remove titles from Rangers, it’s the contracts and player registrations. Everything else is a counter productive waste of time.
If the Nimmo Smith verdict is seen to have settled this issue, it’s game over on that front. So, if you want titles removed, LNS’s verdict need to be set aside or superceded somehow.


Whose assets are they anyway?
In addition to my last post, I now see Paul Brennan, Celtic Blogger, agrees.

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/spending-like-the-borgias-time-to-move-on-conspiracy-to-subvert-the-rules-we-have-a-problem/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


Whose assets are they anyway?
An unpopular thought.

Dave King is right! Well, about one aspect as inferred by today’s article in the Record, anyway. In particular that there is a threat of title stripping due to the large debt Rangers Of Old accumulated…

Record Sport understands that would put Hearts in the firing line, as Gers would attempt to have their Scottish Cup Final wins over Gretna in 2006 and Hibs in 2012 wiped off the history books, using the argument that they too claimed success based on a regime of reckless spending that forced the club into administration.

I think that is fair enough. No titles should be stripped because the team doing it were “overspending”. Anyone pursuing such an approach is being unreasonable. To go down that route would open a Pandora’s box of reassignment of cups and titles. It’s fair enough to spend more than you’re taking in (within FFP) so long as, if that particular strategy blows up in your face, you suffer the consequences without favour from the authorities, football and creditors.
It might stick in the craw of rival fans to lose matches and trophies to someone spending more than they can afford, but that’s life. So long as it’s above board, no undeclared payments, no third parties involved, no secret contracts, then overspending is hunky dory, no problems, go right ahead.
So, well said Dave King, case closed, and let us hear no more about stripping titles because any team spent more than they could afford.

It’s frustrating to see the threat of questioning whether Rangers won things legitimately being undermined by justifying this because they have ended up with a large tax liability (subject to possible appeal). This allows King, and many in the media, to portray any attempts to remove titles from Rangers as being unreasonable. If the main justification is because they overspent and may now have a large tax debt, I agree that such arguments are unreasonable.
Any move to strip titles should be based on other associated infractions. See Auldheid for that.
Crying about the tax debt proving they cheated just undermines much stronger arguments and I long to see such anguished claims desist.


SSL Certificates