Boab: “Suffice to say I can understand why you were …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by Angus1983.

Boab: “Suffice to say I can understand why you were banned.”

Indeed. There are things which shall remain untalked about, eh?

——
helpmaboab says:
November 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm

Angus1983
Why the snide asides?
——
No snideness, trolling, stupidity or indulgence intended – presumably you refer to my “hoops” comment? Can I not note that I had a wee laugh at an obvious pun – albeit no doubt completely unintended by the intelligent chaps who thought the slogan up?

Evidently my place is not here, which is a bit sad. Pointing out hypocrisy where Celtic or its fans are concerned, in however gentle a fashion, appears to be unacceptable on TSFM. Dog forbid a fellow should make a joke at their expense. It’s fairly plain that an over-riding respect for all things Parkhead is a prerequisite for attendance at this here table – a fellow has to think hard before posting anything that is not 100% supportive of Celtic.

One has to seriously consider how to word things to make a point, and that’s approaching a level of self-censorship which I’m not happy with.

I wish you all well. May this football season have a happy ending for you all (especially Bill1903). 🙂

Toodle-pip.

Angus1983 Also Commented

Comment Moderation Thread
Boab – not really, cos last time I spoke about it I got banned until I apologised. 🙂

Suffice to say that Mr Lennon’s background is well known to personnel who have served in Ireland, and it’s not pleasant (allegedly).


Comment Moderation Thread
Stupidity … Daft … Trolling badge of honour … Winding up … Indulgent … Grow up?

Wow, just wow!

There is a general perception around other forums that this blog is something of a Celtic-minded place. I fervently hope against hope that this is not the case, as I’m sure many of us do. To be called a number of names (not least by the blog’s owner) for quietly and as diplomatically as possible asking for comments on CFC’s declared intent of the upholding of Scottish football’s reputation in Europe, and how it applied to some (28 arrests, I believe) of those present in Amsterdam is kind of evidential, though.

Yes, my post was provocative, in the sense of attempting to provoke a response. This is not automatically trolling. I am not sitting here rubbing my thighs thinking “wahey, this’ll wind the buggers up!”. Believe it or not.

The perception that I actively dislike Celtic and/or its supporters is redolent of the “Rangers Hater” scenario, whereby if you don’t exhibit a full and active backing of something then you must be a Hater. Balderdash.

(Aye, Mulgrew’s booking was of course eventually confirmed, but there remains the (afaik unproven) allegation that the referee didn’t actually record it at the time in his match report. This may be Aberdeen paranoia, or it may be not.)


Recent Comments by Angus1983

To Comply or not to Comply ?
I have said this before, but it likely passed without much notice.
TOP “cold-shouldering” applies for a time decided by them, and only “to transactions that fall under the Takeover Code”.
It is not nearly as wide-ranging sanction as some would like to believe. What it would do is stop any person regulated by the FCA from acting on behalf of the cold-shouldered person in a takeover or merger.
So, no takeovers or mergers, in the UK. Aside from reputational damge, that’s it.
I can’t imagine King is too worried by that.


The Elephant in the Room
jimboJanuary 15, 2018 at 16:28
It would be a very sterile site if we were to limit ourselves to your preferred way of working Angus.
—–
Indeed. “Sterile”, as in “dealing with known facts”? Kind of like how the legal process that we’re all relying on functions?

What I often see here is a couple of known facts, which are the subject of dot-joining. Now, this is fair enough. It’s when the next level of dot-joining happens, connecting some of the purely speculative dots together, that things can come unstuck a bit.

Before you know it, new “facts” appear and become accepted wisdom – when they have little basis in reality. For example, Dave King is refusing to comply with the TOP. Therefore the TOP may implement the cold shoulder. Therefore TRFC/RIFC will not be able to perform any financial dealings. Therefore admin is the only way out. Therefore admin is imminent and will probably happen this Friday, after 5pm.

Speculation is never a bad thing, but one must be careful not to start seeing its results as an accepted fact. That’s all I mean.

Anyhow, having been here since RTC days, I’ll just go back to lurking here in the Frozen North now, having discovered that I still don’t need sarky comments from the current “in-crowd”. 🙂


The Elephant in the Room
HomunculusJanuary 15, 2018 at 13:56
… He said he didn’t have any money.
——
Indeed, and I don’t think many people doubt that Mr King is economical with the truth.

I just think that observers of the situation need to try to avoid making assumptions (which can lead to the formulation of Q2-5 without knowing the response to Q1 🙂 ). There should be a bit more scrutiny of claims emanating from other blogs, too – sources which have made claims and predictions in the past which have not been validated.

You can bet that we don’t know the half of what’s going on behind closed doors and, although it’s always interesting and mentally stimulating to speculate, sometimes it’s all too obvious that the speculator isn’t being entirely objective.


The Elephant in the Room
JC – thank you for the idiom correction.

My point is that, despite lots of speculation, there’s precious little real evidence of the opposite – that TRFC are *not* living within their means (means which include internal debt), are trading whilst technically insolvent, are getting quotes from insolvency practitioners, etc. They give all the appearance of a club operating relatively normally, but within budget constraints. Certainly they appear to be taking risks, but none which currently place them at the door of Administrators.

Where, for example, does the story that players paid their own air-fares to Florida come from? An un-named “source”, perhaps?

There seem to be several people claiming inside knowledge, but events in the real world simply do not back up their claims. In the trade, we call rumours that aren’t backed up by verifiable sources “hearsay”, and treat them accordingly until such time as they are.


The Elephant in the Room
Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but …

… application of the “cold shoulder” involves a formal statement being published by the Takeover Panel. I’m not aware of any such statement.

“The consequence of such statement is that members of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and certain professional bodies would not, in accordance with their respective rules, be able to act for such person in a transaction subject to the code (ie, that person would be ‘cold shouldered’)” – International Law Office. 

Thus, “cold-shouldering” only applies to transactions related to the Takeover Code. In other words, not general financial business. I’d suggest that Mr King will probably not be too concerned by this, unless he’s planning any other takeovers in the mid-term future.

Meanwhile, I have to agree with Bill1903 that – for all the conviction at SFM, JJ and Phil McG’s sites that TRFC/RIFC are uncontrollably approaching an administration event (which has been imminent for months, if not years, now) – there seems to very little hard, or even soft, evidence to that effect. It all appears to be speculation and wishful thinking, with information coming from un-named “sources” that doesn’t appear to be backed up in reality. Mr McG’s set of questions to the Ibrox press office do not constitute evidence.

TRFC’s continued signing of players on loan deals would indicate that they have every intention of continuing. Loans rather than firm signings could be seen simply as a way of “cutting their cloth” – which is what we’ve all been moaning at them for not doing up til now, isn’t it?


SSL Certificates