Bad Money?

738
139886

It’s now seven years since the festering sore on the skin of Scottish Football became fully septic, causing the liquidation of Rangers Football Club. Many of us at that time felt that the environment which had enabled the systematic, industrial scale cheating by that club, having now been exposed as unfit to fulfil its purpose, would be dismantled and replaced by something more accountable, more transparent, more honest.

Many more of us thought that other clubs who were the victims of the cheating that had gone on would be seeking a clear-out and a rewrite of the rule book, if for no other purpose than to ensure that a repeat was not possible.

We were all mistaken.

Let’s be honest about this. Football, whether it is played in Scotland or Argentina, at the Maracana Stadium or at Fleshers Haugh, is a rules-based endeavour. The rules of the game – both on the field and in its administration – are there to ensure as level a playing field as possible, to ensure that the constraints put on one club are the same for the rest.

Referees are in place to ensure the rules are complied with on the pitch, albeit with varying degrees of success. No matter what you might think of the guys in black, their craft is carried out in full public gaze, and consequently they are accountable to public opinion.

Off the field though, things are rather more opaque. Without the revelations of Charlotte Fakes for instance, we would never have known that a club had applied for a licence with false information, to a committee partly comprised of two folk who were employees of that club, and by extension part of the deception. Nor would we have known that the Chief Executive of the SFA had written to the club in question looking for approval on how the controversy surrounding the issue of the licence could be managed in the media.

The detail of the crimes of the people in charge of our game are the domain of those who have relentlessly pursued the truth of these matters. The devil is always in the detail, and the real devil is concealed in the fact that many of us are forced to switch off when confronted by the daunting prospect of having to follow that multi-threaded narrative.

In that regard, we owe much to the likes of Auldheid and EasyJambo (and many others) who unravel those threads for us and present the facts in a way most of us can follow. By doing so, they have allowed us to keep our eye on the ball.

Despairingly though, the upshot is that no matter what the facts tell us, Scottish football, at boardroom level, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, has no interest in seeking justice, or more importantly, clearing house.

The sins of the past will be the sins of the future, because the authorities have learned no lessons in the wake of Rangers’ liquidation, and in fact have now enshrined Doublespeak as the official language of the game.
No sporting advantage is a curious phrase used to describe sporting advantage
Imperfectly registered in lieu of not registered
Same for Different

I could go on, but the sins of one club, whilst fundamentally undermining the integrity of the sport in this country, are not the real problem. The authorities who set out to distort, bend, break, and tear up the rule-book are.

So too are the clubs who have refused to back their fans’ demand for proper oversight of the game, who have stood back and said nothing (except: “nothing to do with us guv!”) whilst their Patsies at Hampden do their dirty work, refusing to engage with or explain themselves to fans. These are the real culprits, they who have betrayed the trust of their own supporters. And if we are looking for a reason, look no further than their bank balances.

The recent scandal where the SPFL shared the outcome of its Unacceptable Behaviour report with the Scottish Government on the basis that it would not be made public shines a harsh spotlight on this.

The football authorities currently receive public funds from government, but in a “have your cake and eat it” scenario, they are accountable to no-one but themselves – and that’s how they want to keep it.

Publication of the SPFL report would put them at risk of having the accountability that they fear thrust on them. No-one in football wants the sectarian blight on our game to be cast under the glare of public focus. Especially if it becomes apparent that the game itself is the medium in which sectarianism thrives best.

And they know that it does exactly that. The trouble is that the societal divisions caused by sectarianism is a money maker. The old adage sectarianism sells has never been truer. The divide and rule model of empire applied to football. It is good box office.

But making football accountable could force measures to be put in place to cut out sectarian behaviour – and the clubs do not want that. It’s not the fear of being held responsible for their own fans’ behaviour under Strict Liability that worries the CFOs of our clubs – it’s the fear of losing the hatred which sees the money – bad money if you will – roll in.

Why did the cover up take place? Because losing Rangers was just not acceptable to football. Removing one of the vital protagonists in a money making cartel that thrives on hatred was a greater fear than any altruistic notion of sporting integrity (also now Doublespeak for “lack of integrity”).

Who could have foreseen that amidst the chaos surrounding Rangers demise, that they were only a symptom of the greed and couldn’t care less attitude of the money-men in football, and that our eyes would eventually be opened to the possibility that the football industry in Scotland is itself the enemy of public harmony?

Ironic perhaps, that the beautiful game, born out of the sense of community felt by the founding fathers of all our clubs, would emerge as a major malign influence in those communities.

There is no doubt that football is not prepared to cede any of its sovereignty to its customer base. They will go on – as long as we continue to bankroll them – in exactly the same way, like their bedfellows in the media a self-regulating industry with little or no regard for the public.

I am a supporter of Strict Liability, and we have already had discussions on the pros and cons of such an intervention. It is also clear that there is no SFM consensus on that. I want to leave that aside for the moment, because we do have a consensus surrounding our desire to see greater accountability in the game, and it is clear that fans’ voices, however temperately and eloquently articulated, are falling on deaf ears at Hampden.

The women’s game at the World Cup has recently provided us a window into the past, of the origins of the sport in Scotland. That which is a celebration of each others endeavour, skill, excellence and culture. The spirit of our game nowadays is a million miles away from that, because the market has taken over. 

Taming the wild excesses of the market is the responsibility of government. It’s about time the Scottish Government did just that. It is certainly clear that the SFA or the SPFL have zero interest in reining themselves in.

We have suggestions if anyone is listening.

738 COMMENTS

1 5 6 7 8 9 11
 

  1. A wee thought.

    While I am sure Mike Ashley's apparent travails will bring a welcome feeling of Karma to many a bear, the more sentient amongst them might realise that a reassessment of SDI's priorities could well see them not only look to maximise any litigation spoils, but also prefer good old cash to any compromise that might see them accept a reworked deal that keeps them in any relationship with a troublesome club at Ibrox. 

    This might not be so traumatic for TRFC if the quantum involved is not as great as some might think, but if it is, and unless there is some new source of capital about to appear, then some compromise, and climb down by the club board, might be all that stands between the club and undisguisable insolvency.

    Here's another wee thought. Once the dust has settled on the TRFC v SDI litigation it will be apparent that, rather than getting into bed with new merchandise providers, while determined not to deal with SDI, it would have been better to have had no merchandising deal, whatsoever, as it's going to cost the club more than it could possibly have made from any form of merchandising. But even after it became obvious that Big Mike had them by the short and curlies they continued to try and make money from kit sales.

    So, just how desperate must they have been for 'instant' income to turn a blind eye to what must inevitably happen, and what must it do to them now that that income is going to be swamped by the eventual cost of their battle with SDI? Especially when we remember that all income they made has already been spent while continuing to make increased losses during the period of that income!


  2. I never have any expectation that TRFC's financial woes with SD will lead to TRFC downfall.  There is more chance of SD going bust in the near future than TRFC or as Big Pink puts it "it's only a matter of time before somebody takes a bigger chunk out of him."  Why?  SD is a bog standard stack it high, sell it cheap business and going bust is always an option worthy of consideration in such businesses with such an owner.  TRFC on the other hand have a clientele who may find a "second liquidation" (as I've heard their fans call it!) hard to take and the business is small fry (about the same as good going hotel for example) requiring relatively small injections of dosh to keep it going. They can stumble on whereas SD would choose not to.  GASL is gambling on this perchance?

     

     

     


  3. Oops, another wee thought.

    The rather embarrassing 'pop up' shops! Just how much did TRFC imagine they could make from such a 'Del Boy' type operation? A few thousand, maybe?

    Just how desperate must they be that they'd be prepared to not only embarrass themselves and their supporters in this way, but also be prepared to show the world (and Celtic supporters) just how truly impoverished they are?

    I'm sure Celtic supporters' song writers can come up with a nice little 'Pop Up Shop' ditty in time for the first Glasgow Derbymail


  4. easyJambo 26th July 2019 at 21:46

    Thanks EJ. That is what I wanted to know. So the shareholders could choose to remain as lenders rather than convert debt to equity. If they fail to get to Europa league groups they would be in a better position with the loans rather than shares, should their financial situation become more risky


  5. ernie 27th July 2019 at 09:47 I never have any expectation that TRFC's financial woes with SD will lead to TRFC downfall. There is more chance of SD going bust in the near future than TRFC or as Big Pink puts it "it's only a matter of time before somebody takes a bigger chunk out of him." Why? SD is a bog standard stack it high, sell it cheap business and going bust is always an option worthy of consideration in such businesses with such an owner. TRFC on the other hand have a clientele who may find a "second liquidation" (as I've heard their fans call it!) hard to take and the business is small fry (about the same as good going hotel for example) requiring relatively small injections of dosh to keep it going. They can stumble on whereas SD would choose not to. GASL is gambling on this perchance?

    ____________________

    I think you may well be correct that SDI are heading for a fall and perhaps are in a more precarious position than RIFC/TRFC. But SDI's failure would not take away the debt TRFC, or any other company, owes them, so SDI's potential failure has no bearing on what the future holds for TRFC, unless the SDI operation that involves the club is sold off to an operator prepared to provide TRFC's kit, but that will only matter if TRFC survives the litigation hit. And SDI's problems could be even worse news for TRFC for it may even lead to a shortening of the time available for the compromise discussions the judge initiated, leading to the point where an injunction is served for the 'many millions' sooner rather than later. As we've repeatedly seen with King and TRFC, the passage of time is his friend. and he certainly needs that friend here.

    As has often been commented on, TRFC have survived a plantation full of banana skins in its short history, but as Rangers discovered, there comes a time when it all catches up and it is not inconceivable that, like their predecessor, TRFC is in the position where substantial Euro income is a must. Things looked precarious in the last accounts, and the projections were not good, even without losing 'many millions' extra, so, unless there is a fresh injection of cash – and who's to say there won't be? – failure to qualify for the Euro group stages, plus these many millions, would appear to be an insurmountable obstacle for a company already the subject of repeated 'going concern' issues. 


  6. ernie 27th July 2019 at 09:47

    ============================

    The problem is TRFC have required these "relatively small injections" in every year of their existence. 

    How long can they "stumble on" like that.

    It will be interesting to look at their accounts this year (the club not the PLC) to see just how much debt they have now. Albeit the debt is to their parent company. That money had to come from somewhere, the PLC has no source of income other than the club itself, and the way it looks it is going to have to keep coming from somewhere.

    They had already predicted losses for this year (July onwards) and who knows if they had factored in having to pay large sums to SD. 

    It's a financial mess, and if they are stumbling just now it won't take much for them to fall flat on their face.

     


  7. And whilst there is considerable discussion on the financial future of TRFC…

     

    the – allegedly – smart guy in the Blue Room, Stewart Roberston is quoted in the SMSM as looking to spend money on expanding the capacity at Ibrox.

    (Agreed, it's PR p!sh, but there are direct quotes from Robertson.)

     

    The point made by Aj above – about timing – seems most apt.

    If SDI is in distress then it can only spell bad news for RIFC/TRFC – in the short-term, IMO.

     

    …which is nice. broken heart


  8. StevieBC 27th July 2019 at 13:34
    2 0 Rate This

    And whilst there is considerable discussion on the financial future of TRFC…

    the – allegedly – smart guy in the Blue Room, Stewart Roberston is quoted in the SMSM as looking to spend money on expanding the capacity at Ibrox.

    (Agreed, it’s PR p!sh, but there are direct quotes from Robertson.)
    ……………………..
    Back in January 25, 2013
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1155042252135247872?p=v
    Charles Green gers vision. I’ll build a bigger ibrox
    Three months later Mr Green was gone.After this mouthpiece has delivered his latest quotes i can’t see him lasting another three months either.
    …………………
    Also in Jan 2013 we had
    Deal to rename ibrox.
    Lewis Macleod the best ibrox prospect.
    League reconstruction discussions.
    Gers vow to quit Scotland.
    Eamond Holmes abused by rangers fans.
    ESPN has no intention of walking away from scottish football.
    Ally McCoist claimed talk of stripping titlesfrom rangers was driven by people with agendas.
    Gers fans ready to boycott every club.
    Rangers continue to seek compensation for the players who declined to transfer their contracts.
    As things down ibrox way have a history of repeating themselves i wonder what it is i’m missing here.


  9. A word of explanation.

    Our post is delivered usually about midday.

    We  left home at 10.00 a.m. to travel to Glasgow (by bus: shocking wet weather made me disinclined to drive) to meet the most recent addition to  Mrs C's Italy-based brother  and his wife, and their  son and his South Vietnamese wife , newly home on vacation from South Korea (where they live and work)with their first wee baby, a smashin' wee girl. 

    So it was about 7.00 p.m when we got back home. No reply on the mat from the CEO of the FCA, and too late to send my letter. 

    It will be sent on Monday (if nothing comes in the post that morning).

    But this post is about the article written by Alan Pattullo in today's issue of 'The Scotsman",which I read this morning on the bus to Glasgow.

    I have of course  been critical of Pattullo both on SFM and by personal email in relation to the 'saga', and tend to assume automatically that what he may have to say on any subject has to be looked at as critically as anything coming from Ibrox or the 6th Floor.

    However, the article is not in any direct way related to the SMSM's  mission which is to propagate (on behalf of RIFC plc and TRFC Ltd and the SFA and the SPFL) the utter falsehood that in some mysterious way a Scottish Football Club that lost its membership of Scottish Football by suffering the 'insolvency event' of Liquidation, is somehow still in membership. 

    No. It is instead about the 'f'riendly' to be played tomorrow at Murrayfield between Liverpool and Napoli.

    I can't reproduce the whole article, of course, but if I give you this excerpt and say that I am with Pattullo in what he says , you might understand where, as they say, I am coming from. i.e, from the stance of  Scottish Football supporter as all of you who read this are.

    "..The late Jim Farry [ ed: I know, I know!] ..would have a fit if he knew what was happening. The former chief executive would not countenance any game across the globe being shown live at the same time as a Scottish fixture, never mind agree to a friendly, one actually played in Scotland between two non-Scottish teams, averting interest from domestic matches, however low in profile.

    Here we have a very rich English club getting richer on the back of the Scottish Football pound. Worse, the governing body benefiting from the arrangement is not Scottish football's governing body. Scottish Rugby will make an estimated six-figure profit from the rental agreement and hospitality cut."

    Earlier in the article, Pattullo reports that Liverpool did not seek FIFA permission for such a cross-border match. The SFA have sought compensation.

    Pattullo's observation is :

    " Liverpool will fling something the SFA's way, a figure that's small beer compared to what they will earn from a match that shouldn't be seen as anything other than a money-making exercise.. Why else would they have eschewed playing at Hampden..? "

    As I said, I (seriously) think it is appalling that an English club should think it ok to act the madam and defy the rules. I also think it is a bit underhand of Scottish Rugby to be party to the arrangement. 

    I think FIFA should kick Liverpool's arse good and hard, and I am glad that the SFA have guts enough at least to  seek compensation, if not enough guts when it truly matters.

    I am especially glad that the SFA will now realise that if they themselves break the football rules,( in the matters, say, of allowing a new club to market itself as being the Rangers of 1872 and in awarding a UEFA licence to an unentitled club) they deserve to have their arse kicked very hard. 

    And, of course, if journalists want to write articles about football clubs breaking the rules they cannot choose to ignore any one particular delinquent club, and must expect to have their arses kicked even harder when they do.

     

     

     

     

     


  10. Having mentioned Pattullo of 'The Scotsman' and his article about the Liverpool/Napoli 'friendly', my eye has now fallen on a piece on the same page which does not carry an author's name ( but is presumably part of Pattullo's offerings).

    It is about Edusport Academy ( which we talked about recently) having changed their name to Caledonian Braves, which we have already  read about on the blog.

    It mentions that Chris Ewing, the owner, 'has been approached by a French company who are trialling an app at a French sixth division club where fans are involved to the extent they vote on who should be subbed off."

    He does not say who Chris Ewing is, or that he lives in France, and he does not ask questions about the French company and what they are after and who they are…….

    Geez, if I am asking those questions as a matter of course, why the hell isn't a sports journalist?

    This is not to say anything against Ewing or his renamed football club.

    But really, the old, old mantra is still valid: journalists  have to ask who, what, when, where and why? and take no one at his word without independent verification.

    A journalist who does not make it clear that he has followed that mantra is just a PR guy happy to sell his ass for a column inch. In my opinion.

     


  11. JC, I'm ambivalent about the Liverpool v. Napoli game in Edinburgh. It's just a friendly – aka a training session which generates some cash.

     

    My wife had wanted us to go, and I would like to see the current European Champions in action: but not in a kickabout.

     

    And yes, it should embarrass the SFA that Murrayfield is hosting this game.

    But the Internet Bampots know full well how inept the SFA blazers are – and that their necks are of the proverbial brass type!

     

    And, I do have to smile to myself when you consider that by hosting this game, the CEO of Murrayfield / SRU has – metaphorically – driven along the M8, parked outside Hampden and then proceeded to p!ss all over the steps leading up to the SFA offices!

    no


  12. While we are back on the subject of the lower leagues, I went along to Bonnyrigg on Saturday to watch their first game in the Lowland League against Vale of Leithen (which they won 6-0)

    I was pleased to see Bonnyrigg receiving their SFA membership certificate from SFA President Rod Petrie before the game.

    I was even more pleased to note that the Bonnyrigg officials kept their distance and left Petrie to watch the game on his own thereafter.

    image.png.f6f52f471385c0ad03b7ec6e03e29da2.png


  13. eJ I do hope that someone shouted embarrassing truths at Petrie throughout the match?

     

    …or that someone approached him to ask for a look at his infamous '5 Way Agreement' ?

    enlightened

    Alternatively, and guessing by the photo, the SFA President could have easily shook hands with everyone in attendance there, and thanked them for turning up – if he had wanted to of course.


  14. StevieBC 28th July 2019 at 01:55

    Alternatively, and guessing by the photo, the SFA President could have easily shook hands with everyone in attendance there, and thanked them for turning up – if he had wanted to of course.

    ===========================

    There was a decent crowd of 416 there, despite the earlier heavy rain which only went off just before kick off.


  15. Since the court ruling in favour of Sports Direct against Rangers we have had stories about Rangers increasing the capacity of Ibrox, Sports Direct allegedly being in tax trouble with the Belgian Authorities, and AC Milan being interested in Morelos. 

    Newspapers are under financial duress these days, so why don't they just ask Rangers PR people to send them stories every day and pay one person to copy and paste them? It's almost what seems to be happening anyway. 


  16. upthehoops 28th July 2019 at 10:21 Since the court ruling in favour of Sports Direct against Rangers we have had stories about Rangers increasing the capacity of Ibrox, Sports Direct allegedly being in tax trouble with the Belgian Authorities, and AC Milan being interested in Morelos. Newspapers are under financial duress these days, so why don't they just ask Rangers PR people to send them stories every day and pay one person to copy and paste them? It's almost what seems to be happening anyway.

    ___________________

    Good to see they've updated their PR tactics, it's not as though they've used moonbeams and feelgood stories at Ibrox before to deflect from seriously bad newsmail 


  17. Allyjambo 28th July 2019 at 10:45

    The more the feelgood stories come out of Ibrox the seriously bad news is being hidden.


  18. From The Herald:  Has Jabba given Ewing Grahame permission to dip his toe in the water with the mention of the 'L' word?  Is something about to come down the pipe in Govan?

     

    Rangers’ humiliating elimination by Luxembourg’s Progres Neiderkorn in a Europa League qualifying round in 2017 was a major factor in the club recording losses of more than £14m in their most recently published annual accounts. The 2-0 victory over the same opponents at Ibrox on Thursday means that a similar outcome should be avoided this time around but a more significant defeat earlier in the week has ramped up the pressure on manager Steven Gerrard and his players to repeat last season’s achievement of reaching the group stage of the competition.

    Gerrard’s team exceeded expectations and, although they subsequently won only one of their six games against Rapid Vienna, Spartak Moscow and Villarreal, being there was enough for Rangers to announce (albeit unaudited) profits of £5.2m for the final six months of 2018. Increased costs on the footballing side are likely to see them post yet another annual loss, however, and the need for additional revenue is greater now than at any time since 2011.

    Back then, Rangers faced a massive bill from HMRC and desperately needed the cash from continental competition to keep the lights on. However, Ally McCoist’s team was eliminated from the Champions League by Malmo and Maribor prevented them from progressing in the secondary competition, plunging them into administration and then liquidation later that season.

    Charles Green’s newco was admitted to the fourth tier in 2012 and has subsequently boasted the second-highest wage bill in Scotland without ever turning a profit. Chairman Dave King, who usurped the previous regime in March, 2015, admits that his club is deliberately run at a deficit in an attempt to compete with Celtic but losing their latest court battle with Mike Ashley over their breach of contract with his Sports Direct International company could have far-reaching ramifications.

    Rangers paid Ashley £3m last year to terminate a contract King regarded as onerous, while simultaneously signing a new agreement which stipulated that SDI must be allowed to match any bid from rival companies seeking to market strips and merchandising.

    Rangers then entered into a three-year, £10m deal with kit manufacturers Hummel/Elite without informing SDI. Judge Lionel Persey this week found in SDI’s favour this week, announcing that they must be recompensed by Rangers for lost revenue in 2018/19 as well as the current campaign and that Rangers cannot work with Hummel/Elite in 2020/21 without first offering SDI the opportunity to match their terms. That, in turn, could leave the club open to being sued by Hummel/Elite.

    The verdict, which Rangers will appeal, has the potential to cost them around £10m in legal fees and compensation. Failure to overturn that decision (and Judge Persey’s ruling was comprehensive) would see them lose more than a quarter of their turnover.

    King and his directors reduced their exposure to Financial Fair Play penalties earlier this year by converting loans into equity but that also had the effect of diluting the value of shares in the club. Rangers are unlikely to attract further investment (or top-drawer kit manufacturers) while Ashley’s stranglehold on their operation remains intact.

    With their ability to generate money from their retail division limited by the contracts they entered into with Ashley, Rangers crave the income stream the Europa League provides. Entry to the group phase would ensure seven additional capacity crowds at Ibrox which are not included in season-ticket books, not to mention the remuneration from UEFA for advancing to that stage.

    They now seem certain to have at least three but FC Midtjylland, who re-signed centre-back Erik Sviatchenko from Celtic for £1m last year, will be a tougher proposition in the next round. In 2015/16 they beat Southampton in a Europa League play-off before qualifying from a group which included Napoli, Club Brugge and Legia Warsaw and then defeated Manchester United at home before eventually being eliminated in the round of 32. Should Rangers prevail then Wolves are among the more formidable adversaries they could meet in the play-offs.

    At the club’s AGM in November, 2017, King confessed that the possibility of Rangers ever breaking even is dependent on European football.

    “The only way we can be self-reliant is to have annual success in Europe,” he said. “The only way that we feel we are sufficiently resourced is to be reasonably sure that we get into the Europa League, get to the knock-out stages and, occasionally, the Champions League.”

    Celtic, meanwhile, will meet either CFR Cluj or Maccabi Tel Aviv in the third qualifying round of the Champions League, which guarantees a minimum of an extra £30m boost for clubs reaching the competition proper, 10 times the reward for participation in the Europa League.

    Last season Rangers’ average league attendance was an impressive 49,534. However, Celtic Park’s greater capacity saw them record average crowds of 57, 471. Over a Premiership campaign that amounts to an extra 150, 803 people attending their fixtures; at an average of £20 per ticket, that alone provides them with an automatic £3m advantage over their closest rivals.

    Celtic also benefit from a successful commercial and retail department and the value of Neil Lennon’s squad is also considerably higher than Gerrard’s, with no bids yet received for Alfredo Morelos or James Tavernier.

    In spite of missing out on the Champions League bonanza last season, Celtic still posted profits in excess of £15m and were able to reject Arsenal’s offers for Scotland full-back Kieran Tierney.

    Rangers fans are desperate to prevent Celtic, who have been champions for the last eight seasons, from setting a new record of 10 in a row and four months ago King stated that the club was within “tangible reach of becoming the dominant force in Scotland.” His latest legal reverse suggests otherwise.

    Unlike 2011, failure to travel deeper into European competition is unlikely to trigger another insolvency event; at the very least, though, it will severely hamper their ability to overtake Celtic.     


  19. Billy Boyce 28th July 2019 at 13:56

    '…From The Herald:..'

    +++++++++++++++++++++

     

    Is that piece by Ewing Grahame genuine?

    If there had been  a mention of SDM's vile cheating as having been the major factor in the death of RFC 1872,

    and if instead of 'Charles Green's 'newco' it had been  'Charles Green's new club', I believe that piece [ is it genuine??]

    and if there had been strong criticism of the Football Authorities and a call for record books to reflectthe newness of TRFC,

    the piece  might have been written by any one of us who do not buy into the 'Continuity Rangers' lie.

    Can we look forward to more such pieces, until the full truth of the 'saga' appears in the SMSM with a call for the necessary naming , shaming and condemnation of the people responsible for the 5-Way Agreement?

     

     

     


  20. John Clark 28th July 2019 at 15:35

    Is that piece by Ewing Grahame genuine?

    Sorry, John, I forgot to include the link:

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17799930.sports-direct-verdict-analysis-court-ruling-heaps-pressure-rangers-39-european-push/

    We should not be congratulating the SMSM for merely stating facts, albeit that even this piece is not quite the unvarnished truth.  I note Grahame has mentioned a figure of £10 million.  Is this to prepare the bears for bad news?  He also comments that failure to reach the group stages of the Europa League this season will not trigger an insolvency event. I think he is being a little bit optimistic, as King himself said recently that it was vital to the survival of TRFC.

       


  21. At the club’s AGM in November, 2017, King confessed that the possibility of Rangers ever breaking even is dependent on European football.

    “The only way we can be self-reliant is to have annual success in Europe,” he said. “The only way that we feel we are sufficiently resourced is to be reasonably sure that we get into the Europa League, get to the knock-out stages and, occasionally, the Champions League.”

    four months ago King stated that the club was within “tangible reach of becoming the dominant force in Scotland.” His latest legal reverse suggests otherwise.

    Unlike 2011, failure to travel deeper into European competition is unlikely to trigger another insolvency event;
    ………….
    Maybe Unlike 2011, failure to travel deeper into European competition is unlikely to trigger another insolvency event; But His latest legal reverse and failure to travel deeper into European competition could suggests otherwise.
    Fixed that for him, as i believe that is what he was trying to get at.


  22. Re the Liverpool friendly at Murrayfield. Whilst I think it’s a poor show to bring such an “international “ up here, a precedent has already been set by both Celtic and Hearts playing football at this rugby ground. 


  23. I was just saying to the wife as we flew abroad…the wings have gone, the tails buckled, the pilots dead and the landing gears a distant memory.  I fear this may “hamper” our arrival.

     

     


  24. Billy Boyce 28th July 2019 at 16:10

    John Clark 28th July 2019 at 15:35

    Is that piece by Ewing Grahame genuine? Sorry, John, I forgot to include the link: [to The Herald article]…

    ==================

     

    Curiously, I had read the same article – but in The ET – and was also rather surprised at its (almost) reasonable accuracy.

    But, The ET article does not credit it to Ewing Grahame, or even to "Evening Times Sports Online".

    In fact, nobody is credited as being the author.

     

    For such a lengthy and detailed article – and which is sure to attract attention – one would expect the author to ensure he was accredited?

     

    Is there a whiff of an 'unnamed freelancer' involved here…?

    indecision

     

    https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/17799929.sports-direct-verdict-analysis-court-ruling-heaps-pressure-rangers-39-european-push/


  25. Ex Ludo 28th July 2019 at 16:53

    Re the Liverpool friendly at Murrayfield. Whilst I think it’s a poor show to bring such an “international “ up here, a precedent has already been set by both Celtic and Hearts playing football at this rugby ground. 

    ==========================

    Today's attendance was 65,442, the biggest crowd for a football match in Scotland since 1989.

    I think there will be more games at the home of Scottish rugby in future seasons.


  26. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more TRFC supporters at Murray Park , sorry Murrayfield , than were at Ibrox today . Reflected glory us better rhan none at all .


  27. With the ongoing conversation about the pros and cons of football fixtures taking place at Murrayfield purely for financial considerations, and bearing in mind that, presumably, part of SFM's remit is to argue for parity between all 42 senior clubs, is it appropriate to broaden the discussion to our two best supported clubs being allowed to play potentially lucrative friendlies after the SPFL Premiership season has begun, thus pandering to those club’s finances while disturbing and distorting the early-season tables and statistics for the after-thoughts?   


  28. A 65K crowd for a friendly?

    That's impressive.

    And with tickets, pies and Bovril, merchandise, etc.

    that's mibbees a conservative c.£1M+ which could/should have been recirculated within the Scottish football economy.

    Any SMSM 'journalist' want to get a comment from the increasingly cash strapped SFA?

     


  29. StevieBC 28th July 2019 at 22:24

    '..A 65K crowd for a friendly?..'

    ++++++++++++++++

    But who the heck are they?  

    Can they all be Liverpool/Napoli supporters? 

    I know that Hampden has a never-to-be-beaten record attendance  for a match between teams from foreign countries ( one of which, as I remember, thrashed the now deceased RFC of 1872  by an aggregate score of 12-4)

    But that was serious stuff, and at a time (my time!) when TV coverage was still in its relative infancy and we did not see the European superstars as often as we now can.

    A friendly= exhibition game? between teams that at best are likely to be only the second or third teams of choice of Scottish club supporters( unless their first teams are  Liverpool or Napoli)?

    What's to see, if one is not a fan of either club? A charade, a facsimile of a football contest? 

    Someone please explain!

     


  30. John Clark 29th July 2019 at 00:16

    A friendly= exhibition game? between teams that at best are likely to be only the second or third teams of choice of Scottish club supporters( unless their first teams are  Liverpool or Napoli)?

    What's to see, if one is not a fan of either club? A charade, a facsimile of a football contest? 

    Someone please explain!

    ============================

    I spoke to a number of people in my local bowling club tonight who were at Murrayfield. Almost all of them thought the game was crap, but that they were happy enough that they had been there.

    I stopped going to such friendlies after Hearts played Barcelona at Murrayfield a few years ago. While the Barcelona side contained players such as Ronaldinho, Henry, Xavi, Iniesta, Thuram and Deco, it was a poor spectacle and not one I would like to repeat. 

    I think such games are just a step in the progression towards an elite group of maybe 20 franchised super clubs who will be able to command the lions share of football's TV revenue, to the detriment of national leagues.

    There is already plenty evidence to show that the younger generation has already been captured by that concept, if you look at the football shirts worn by kids at holiday destinations and increasingly locally.

    If  there are 20 elite teams each with a squad of 25, then you are talking about a group of 500 "world class" players, with all the national leagues subservient to the elite clubs. Players in the elite league will want to stay there because of the rewards on offer, whilst the next level down will aspire to it.

    Meanwhile, I believe that there will remain a healthy interest in local clubs who provide a modestly priced alternative, with many fans supporting both a local and an elite club. 


  31. Chase the day. That’s the mission. I’ve watched, read and listened. With the exception of SG and Neil Lennon, the MSSM have been pretty damn quiet otherwise. Steve Clarke’s ascension has been totally disregarded in the quietness of the closed season. 

    Digressing…

    Hoover once promised free flights to ‘customers’ purchasing more than £100 pounds worth of products. Round tickets to select destinations in Europe and the US. If you spent £100.

    In short, people bought into it; but it became undeliverable. Despite a 7 day week in Cambuslang. 

    The extra sales exceeded the estimated costs. 

    It became known as ‘the Hoover flights fiasco’. 

    As a result, the ‘british royal Family withdrew its royal warrant’ from Hoover. 

    Everyday people lost out. Despite precedent of such, ‘people’ continue to invest.

    But such investiture will ‘Dysoon’. 

    Gawd, I’ve better patter than this!

    (Please subscribe a quid)


  32. My view is that the Liverpool-Napoli game (and attendance) at Murrayfield was simply part of the 'event' culture that now seems to dominate entertainment. (I use the word 'entertainment' because it was never going to be a competitive football match!)

     

    As for Pattullo's contention that had Jim Farry still been in charge at the SFA, the likelihood of the game taking place would have been 'slim or nane' consider this: Farry left his post under a (McCann/Cadete) cloud 20 years ago.

     

    Unlike the journalist & his employer (the Scotsman) the world, including multi-continental football marketing, has moved on since them days. 


  33. John Clark 29th July 2019 at 00:16

    I was at the game yesterday and noted there were plenty English / Liverpool voices around the place.

    Some folks from down south had clearly come up and made a wee weekend of it while following their team. Edinburgh, as always, has a lot to offer for a weekend break and the football was maybe a nice little excuse/add-on. 

    While we all follow the Hearts I went because my son's pal and his Dad have a soft spot for Liverpool and this was the first chance for the lad to see them live.

    Its not always easy to get a ticket for EPL games involving the top clubs so many folks, either Liverpool fans or not, would have taken the opportunity to see the Champions of Europe.

    A family with two wee boys were in front of us. One lad had on a Liverpool strip the other had a Newcastle top one and was very happy when Napoli scored.  So there four tickets on a family day out as opposed to just one parent and one kid going.  (It was the only crowd trouble I saw as the Magpies fan taunted his brother!!)

    Saw plenty of similar families so easy to see how the stadium got filled.

    From a coaching point of view for the young team I help out with I was interested in how the teams warmed up etc along with seeing the standard of play/player, even though it is essentially a friendly.

    Other than the league cup semi last season the last time I went to watch football at Murrayfield was Celtic v Legia Warsaw.

    I went to that game with my Dad as it was a chance for him to see a Champions League game albeit a qualifier and Celtic were more or less out and struggling to recover from the 4-1 away defeat. We just went for the football.

    I note Celtic/SFA/UEFA etc were quite happy using the SRU facility for that night in what was a similarly guff performance as supplied by Liverpool yesterday.

    Of course Hearts did similar in between 2004 & 2006, so can't see what the outcry is when the SRU have taken the initiative to make a few bucks.

    Can't see what is wrong with folks who have Liverpool as their 'second team' or neutrals going along to watch a game of football on a summer's day between two quality teams.

    Despite the game fizzling out the longer it went on I saw more skill on show in Napoli's 4 v 4 warm up than I have at Tynecastle from Hearts or visitors for many a season. 🙂

     


  34. I think something that journalists and commentators should remember before they criticise (however mildly) the SRU for staging football matches in competition with the SFA/Hampden is that the SRU made a very good case to provide a home for Scottish football and were rebuffed. We know they need the revenue that that deal would have provided so no one should be surprised if they use their far superior facilities to prise showcase matches away from the SFA/Hampden (as if that would be hard). I'd also imagine that had Murrayfield become the home of Scottish football it would have included in the deal/lease an arrangement to share any revenue from such football matches played there (though the SFA would most likely have blown the chance of bringing the game there, as, I suspect, it would have been their job to negotiate it).

    I imagine the board of the SRU took great delight in getting one over on the SFA, though they'd never be so crass as to let it show, and will seek to do so many times in the future. Yesterday's game can't have harmed their hopes of bringing a European final to Murrayfield, one little bit, and it's probably ahead of Hampden in the pecking order anyway.


  35. Jingso.Jimsie 29th July 2019 at 09:29

    '..Farry left his post under a (McCann/Cadete) cloud 20 years ago.'

    ++++++++++++

    Indeed he did.

    And I hope and expect that one or two other persons who held/are holding governance posts in  Scottish Football may  also have their sins found out and will be similarly punished and disgraced , once the Res 12 issue has been fully investigated. 

    And it simply has to be investigated because the resistance to full and independent investigation very, very strongly suggests that investigation is being blocked because there is fear at what may emerge, and not just in football terms, but possibly a case for criminal investigation.

    Let us all see what the Licensing Committee sent to UEFA as showing that RFC of 1872  had fully met the condition of NOT actually owing any social taxes. Open up the correspondence , if there is nothing to hide, and also explain why RFC were allowed to tell the SFA CEO to bin his proposed letter because it would land them in trouble!

     


  36. wottpi 29th July 2019 at 11:07 

    ".I note Celtic/SFA/UEFA etc were quite happy using the SRU facility..'

    ++++++++++++++++++++

    There is a whole world of difference between  an arrangement negotiated with the SRU at the instance of   the  SFA and particular League clubs  to meet particular sets of circumstances, and the unprincipled poaching by the SRU of  an unauthorised match set up by an even more unprincipled, rule-breaking English league club.

    Remember it is not the SFA as such that has been/is the 'enemy': only those officers and Board members whom we believe to have been guilty of making liars of themselves ( and patsies of the rest of us) over the Res 12 issue and the 'saga'. 

    We need to get the SFA cleaned up, not destroyed! 

    Because we must keep Scottish Football in Scottish but honest hands ,and be damned to English clubs thinking that they can ride roughshod over another national Association.
    ps I’m very glad that you enjoyed the day, and I’m sure that I would also have enjoyed it as a day out
    accompanied by friends looking for a pleasant day out. And I go along with the general points of benefit you mention, of course.

     

     

     

     


  37. John Clark 29th July 2019 at 12:37

    ………… and the unprincipled poaching by the SRU of  an unauthorised match set up by an even more unprincipled, rule-breaking English league club.

    ==========================

    How would you describe Celtic's hosting of Rugby's Pro 14 final in May?   Unprincipled? Poaching? Unauthorised?


  38. Yes, well played the rugger chaps.

     

    And if there is anything the SFA blazers 'might' wish to learn is this;

    Whoever the SRU CEO is, they are smart, and will probably have a much wider view of the world and on the potential opportunities for both Murrayfield and Scottish rugby.

     

    Whereas at Hampden we have a 'time served' but inexperienced, unqualified SFA CEO – who will NEVER rock the boat.

    smiley


  39. easyJambo 29th July 2019 at 12:45

    You mean the Pro 14 Final held by a 'member club' on the same day as the SFA run Scottish Cup final 🙂

    Of course I get John Clark's argument but Celtic are amongst those clubs who aim to replicate Liverpool's and other EPL clubs world wide marketing strategy. Otherwise why would they be planning building a hotel next to their stadium if they didn't think they can attract people from far and wide.

    Like the team from south of the river they are more than happy to attract fans away from smaller Scottish clubs. They are happy to take up invites to glamour friendlies / tournaments played around the world. The have even been willing to muck up the domestic league season to take up such offers.

    Perhaps John is right, the SFA need to get on top of 'outsiders' like Liverpool and their actions but maybe they should sort out their own clubs too!!!

    BTW I'm looking forward to going to the opening concert of the Edinburgh Festival at Tynecastle later this week.


  40. easyJambo 29th July 2019 at 12:45

    "..How would you describe Celtic's hosting of Rugby's Pro 14 final in May?"

    ++++++++++++++++

    I just assume that ,no objection having made at the time by the SRU/World Rugby, either those bodies do not have their own rules about when and where such tournaments may be played or that they gave any necessary permission and , perhaps, were cut in on the profits?

    The important thing is that national football associations do have rules governing inter-Association relationships. 

    And the SFA have complained in this case.


  41. stifflersmom 29th July 2019 at 01:06

    Digressing…

    Hoover once promised free flights to ‘customers’ purchasing more than £100 pounds worth of products. Round tickets to select destinations in Europe and the US. If you spent £100.

    In short, people bought into it; but it became undeliverable. Despite a 7 day week in Cambuslang. 

    The extra sales exceeded the estimated costs. 

    It became known as ‘the Hoover flights fiasco’. 

    As you say, an uneconomic promotion that I believe they also failed to insure. We were amongst those who managed to get take advantage of this promotion and enjoy a very cheap holiday in the USA as a consequence. Hard work but worth it….

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  42. redlichtie, have you been hoovering up other promotions ever since?

     

    Apologies. heart

     

    I'll get my Shake'nVac…

     


  43. Where various “friendly” football matches get played is of little interest to me. 

    However this should be viewed as a competitor trying to capture market share and be dealt with accordingly. 

    The SRU aren’t doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They need money as desperately as the SFA. The SRU commercial set up is superior To the SFAs no question. 

    That the SFA “allowed” this match to proceed is the more curious issue


  44. I have to admit I'm more than a little chuffed that PMGB appears to see TRFC's continued sale of kit along similar lines to one of my wee thoughts from the other day

    https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2019/07/29/statement-o-clock-is-not-on-the-money-about-the-battle-with-big-mike/#more-13951

    I said this in part of my post:

    Allyjambo 27th July 2019 at 09:36

    "…Here's another wee thought. Once the dust has settled on the TRFC v SDI litigation it will be apparent that, rather than getting into bed with new merchandise providers, while determined not to deal with SDI, it would have been better to have had no merchandising deal, whatsoever, as it's going to cost the club more than it could possibly have made from any form of merchandising. But even after it became obvious that Big Mike had them by the short and curlies they continued to try and make money from kit sales. So, just how desperate must they have been for 'instant' income to turn a blind eye to what must inevitably happen, and what must it do to them now that that income is going to be swamped by the eventual cost of their battle with SDI? Especially when we remember that all income they made has already been spent while continuing to make increased losses during the period of that income!"

    Now, unlike PMGB, I have no contacts in football, anywhere, but it does seem so very obvious to me that for any business to expose itself so readily to litigation for the sake of instant cash, it must be in very dire financial straits, indeed.

    Yet another of my wee thoughts.

    I wonder what chance they would have had of circumventing UEFA's FFP regulations without that rather dodgy merchandising income!

    I have to think that, without a very healthy input of capital from some unobvious source, it's ever more likely that their rather tawdry chickens will be coming home to roost before this season is out.


  45. 'dom16 29th July 2019 at 14:38

    …However this should be viewed as a competitor trying to capture market share and be dealt with accordingly…' 

    ################################

    Playing the game at Murrayfield was indubitably a commercial decision. The SFA should be asking themselves why Hampden (the National Stadium!) couldn't compete commercially with Murrayfield.

    Does Hampden's location, capacity, amenities, atmosphere &  transport links make it less attractive for a prestige friendly attracting a multi-national crowd?

    A last point on the subject from me: had Celtic Park or Ibrox been available & utilised, would that also have been unfair (commercially) on the SFA?  


  46. dom16 29th July 2019 at 14:38 Where various “friendly” football matches get played is of little interest to me. However this should be viewed as a competitor trying to capture market share and be dealt with accordingly. The SRU aren’t doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They need money as desperately as the SFA. The SRU commercial set up is superior To the SFAs no question. That the SFA “allowed” this match to proceed is the more curious issue

    _______________-

    Could it be, Dom, that the SFA feel they need all the friends/support they can get in upcoming problems with UEFA and don't want to upset a neighbouring, friendly, FA or a leading member of that FA? I say that in view of the possibility (still?) of the SFA having to justify its actions to UEFA of an 8 year old case that may be heard by the CAS. Or could it just be that in world/European football the SFA is become ever more an irrelevance and they feel it best to avoid proving it by taking on one of Europe's leading clubs?


  47. I refer to my  post of  26 July at 19.53.( my draft reminder to the FCA)

    No communication from Mr Bailey of the FCA having appeared in my letterbox by 2.00 pm today I  changed the date on my draft letter to today's date, printed off the letter and went down to the post office and  posted it 'recorded delivery'

     

     


  48. Jingso.Jimsie 29th July 2019 at 16:57

    '..had Celtic Park or Ibrox been available & utilised, '

    ++++++++++++++

    I think it's likely that if either club (even the Ibrox club) had been approached , it would have sought the SFA's permission. 

    That is the central point: the SFA were not approached either by Napoli or Liverpool. If they had been I don't think there would have much in the way of problem: permission would probably have been granted, with or without some 'fee' attached.


  49. Re Murrayfield and Hampden
    In years gone by the summer season these grounds would generate income from Rock concerts. As half the bands today could not fill a concert hall never mind a stadium. The SRU and the SFA have to seek other avenues for income. I believe the SRU were ahead of the curve on this one, put it down as another failure for the SFA.


  50. Allyjambo 29th July 2019 at 16:46
    Yet another of my wee thoughts.

    I wonder what chance they would have had of circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations without that rather dodgy merchandising income!
    ………………..
    Would such a contract with Elite and Hummel gain the ibrox club/company a cash injection upfront hence scuppering circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations ?


  51. Cluster One 29th July 2019 at 19:47 Allyjambo 29th July 2019 at 16:46 Yet another of my wee thoughts. I wonder what chance they would have had of circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations without that rather dodgy merchandising income! ……………….. Would such a contract with Elite and Hummel gain the ibrox club/company a cash injection upfront hence scuppering circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations ?

    _____________________

    Wasn't meaning that having a merchandising contract might have helped circumvent UEFA's FFP regulations, rather that the income from the dodgy (dodgy as in they really shouldn't have made it) deal might have reduced the overall debt to a level that didn't make it impossible for the SFA to grant the UEFA license. There must be some point at which even the SFA won't go past for their most favoured, and troublesome, club.


  52. Cluster One 29th July 2019 at 19:47

    Allyjambo 29th July 2019 at 16:46
    Yet another of my wee thoughts.

    I wonder what chance they would have had of circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations without that rather dodgy merchandising income!
    ………………..
    Would such a contract with Elite and Hummel gain the ibrox club/company a cash injection upfront hence scuppering circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations ?

    ===============================

    I don't believe that there was any up front payment as part of the contract.  The days of JB Sports  £18m cash up front and £3m a year for 10 years are long gone.

    Some limited information on the Elite contract was disclosed in one of court judgements:

    We shall pay Rangers 20% of all receipts (excluding VAT) from the retail and online sale of kit and other products with a guaranteed minimum payment of £350,000 per annum.

    Rangers shall retain all royalties or other payments payable to it from its kit manufacturer. We shall have no claim in respect of any payments to be made to Rangers from third parties.

    20% seems a decent return for doing very little.  There was also a commitment by Elite to put £500k towards the refurbishment of the Ibrox Megastore.  


  53. Not to harp on – too much – about my favourite hobby horse, but…

     

    rather than buy Hampden, the SFA should have taken the recent opportunity to drop the obsolete, unfit for purpose Athletics Stadium.

    (I don't know the current status of the purchase, but I believe it has hit snags?)

     

    If the purchase has not gone through yet, would Maxwell even consider taking a timeout to revisit the business case for acquiring Hampden?

    [Rhetorical question.]

     

    AND

     

    Whilst the Internet Bampots rightfully deride the inept, blazered, diddies – the real scandal is that Petrie & co. are 'just passing through'.

    They probably won't be in office – or maybe not even be alive – when the true cost of all the accumulated years of SFA mismanagement has impacted the Scottish game: from top to bottom.

     

     


  54. easyJambo 29th July 2019 at 21:52
    don’t believe that there was any up front payment as part of the contract. The days of JB Sports £18m cash up front and £3m a year for 10 years are long gone.
    …………….
    Thanks for that. I had just wondered that if there was any issues with UEFA’s FFP regulations, That the desperation to try and cut out Ashley and the need for cash in a hurry (and maybe some upfront) was the reason for getting into bed with Elite and Hummel and worry later about the consequences of that, as the need for a cash injection was imminent.
    ………….
    Sorry Allyjambo 29th July 2019 at 20:39 if my point got lost and hope this post clarifies it a little better.


  55. Allyjambo 29th July 2019 at 20:39

    Wasn't meaning that having a merchandising contract might have helped circumvent UEFA's FFP regulations, rather that the income from the dodgy (dodgy as in they really shouldn't have made it) deal might have reduced the overall debt to a level that didn't make it impossible for the SFA to grant the UEFA license. There must be some point at which even the SFA won't go past for their most favoured, and troublesome, club.

    ===========================

    I think we saw that point in 2012 when Administration kicked in with an admission tax was owed. Unless that happens again I couldn't see the SFA ever refusing them a European licence under any circumstances. A scribbled set of accounts written on the back of a discarded fag packet will do fine. 

    As stated in the lead article the SFA simply couldn't envisage a future without Rangers. That clearly means rules which apply to other clubs will not be applied to Rangers. There is already a mountain of evidence that is the case. 


  56. Would the league and their sponsors in any other country have held an official season launch without the Champions represented? That is exactly what happened in Scotland yesterday as eleven Premiership Captains launched the new season minus Scott Brown. Celtic of course are playing away in Europe, so why not have the event when every club could have their Captain there? Pathetic stuff, and a quick glance around the media today shows they treated it as little other than a positive PR campaign for the views of the Rangers Captain, although I note the Aberdeen Captain spoke on Reporting Scotland last night.

    It's going to be a long season. 

     


  57. This is from @brianrussell73 on Twitter about that game played at the rugby park.

    “I sold my football soul today at Murrayfield. Sold it to the corporate machine of the EPL. I feel sullied. Never again.

    Liverpool ARE my English team (whatever that means), but to sit amongst 65k others with no atmosphere at all, was like a sham.

    Give me 5000 at Fir Park any day.”


  58. Ex Ludo 30th July 2019 at 08:02

    UTH@07.56

    Dare I say “anyone but Celtic” ?

    ====================

    I just think it was completely bizarre to hold such an event without the Champions represented.  Here is where my paranoia kicks in – given the penchant for statements coming from Rangers, Club 1872 etc, and an ever growing list of 'haters' would they have dared to have the event without the Rangers Captain? I very much doubt it. 


  59. I have to say I am struggling to see the controversy in the Liverpool v Napoli game being held at Murrayfield. Hearts have used the stadium, as have Celtic, as have the SPFL to host a semi-final. On the flip side Celtic Park hosted the prestigious Pro-14 Rugby final in May. Business is business after all.

    If the controversy is that the SFA were denied money then count me out on that one. The less money that organisation gets the better. They are as unfit for purpose as Hampden is. 


  60. upthehoops 30th July 2019 at 08:53

    .'.If the controversy is that the SFA were denied money then count me out on that one. The less money that organisation gets the better. They are as unfit for purpose as Hampden is. '

    ++++++++++++++++

    I think it's important to make a distinction between the SFA and its officers and Board at any given time!

    Scottish Football needs a national governance body( unless we would be happy if our clubs and entire football structure became members of the English FA!)

    What we don't need is a governance body which historically has had some very bad eggs in it who displayed bias and bigotry in ways damaging to clubs, and which in recent times has made a dishonest, incompetent arse of itself over

    the farce of the LNS enquiry,

    the absence of condemnation of SDM,

    its readiness to obey instructions from CW as to what they should say on the UEFA tlicence issue,

    the kid-glove  obsequious treatment of CG  and the resultant  ludicrous nonsense of the 5-Way Agreement,

    allowing the present Ibrox board to live a lie on the back of the genuine honours and entitlements of  dead football club

    Let's get the people immediately responsible for all of that  OUT, and with them the current Board or officers of the Board who refuse to face up to the truth and undo the wrong that has been done and which turned the Sixth Floor into a foul dung-heap of lies and deception.

     


  61. paddy malarkey 30th July 2019 at 13:02

     

    Squirrel alert !

     

    http://club1872.co.uk/news/update-on-bbc-scotland-dispute/

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    If they spent more time on football and financial matters they might not have to devote so much resource to issuing daily statements and maybe then they would have less to moan about.

    To paraphrase the great Alan Partridge: " Who, who, WHO……. do you think youse are?"


  62. upthehoops 30th July 2019 at 07:56

    Didn't  see the launch but as you will be aware the SPFL league season starts on Friday with Dunfermline v Dundee. The Premiership games start on Saturday.

    Standard PR is not to have 'launches' too far away or too close to the event.

    Therefore last week would have been pointless.

    Presumably Scott Brown was ready to board/or on a plane at the time of the photo-shoot.

    He wouldn't have been available last week as he was modelling that godawful 3rd Kit 🙂

    By the time he comes back, Aberdeen and T'Rangers will be otherwise occupied in their Euro preparations and not available until later on Friday to have all Captains present but of course by then teams will be all over the country preparing for the weekend fixtures and unable to come together for a photo-shoot

    No conspiracy, no anti-Celtic nonsense, just a consequence of timings and events.

    I cant see any photos of such a launch on the web, so were Celtic represented by a player in the photo-shoot?

    If yes – whats the problem?

     

     


  63. wottpi 30th July 2019 at 13:37

    ============================

    No Celtic player in the photo-shoot – fact. No-one from Celtic at the launch – fact. The problem? Having a season launch without the Champions represented – absolutely ridiculous, and I do not believe it would have happened in any other country. 

     


  64. upthehoops 30th July 2019 at 13:57

    So is Celtic not being represented the fault of the SPFL or did Celtic not think the promotion of the domestic competition worthy of sending someone along to kit up? Was an injured or younger player from the reserves not available?

    What would you have preferred? Delay Scott Brown's preparations for your Euro tie in favour of the photo-shoot or decline the invite to ensure there was no interruptions to seeking access to the millions on the table for CL football?

    You may not be aware of what happens with the rest of Scottish football but the  non- Euro qualifying Premiership teams all had two League Cup games last week so why should all the other captains/teams have to drop what they were doing to accommodate the issues caused by Celtic's success at home and in Europe?

    But as usual its all about the rest if us being expected to fawn over the treble treble champions because winning everything in sight, having the biggest fan base and money to spare is just not enough for some.

    As I say just an unfortunate consequence of events and your own teams success.

    Many would love to have such problems!! 

     

1 5 6 7 8 9 11
 

Comments are closed.