Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by Spivco.
Rather pissed off that my post to Greenock Jack re worry about bombs and bullets at the club again was the reason why PL did not make a definitive statement about Sevco/Newco/Oldco/Hedgeco. This happens constantly. Is Greenock Jack TSFM?
Wouldn’t mind so much if a reason was given. Can you please explain why it was deleted. Was there a request from him (again) or did TSFM decide to eradicate it? If so, why? Irony overload, this blog is supposed to be about accountability!
Recent Comments by Spivco
Past the Event Horizon
Greenock Jack says: (205)
November 28, 2013 at 11:08 am
Is it plausible that Celtic have enjoyed an unfair financial advantage over other Scottish clubs because of the questioned terms the Co-op offered ?
NO. My co-op credit card has a better rate of interest than my friend’s. I am self employed, one man business, low turnover. I don’t expect that same rates of interest or favourable terms as my local garage which employs ten people. Nor do they expect the same terms as a local factory employing 1,000. Banks court big business. But I doubt the Co-op would offer another football club, the same size and run fiscally as efficiently as Celtic, far less favourable interest rates.
People are not objecting to the message because you are the poster. It is because you cannot compare apples with oranges. But keep striving to mitigate RFC’s litany of offences by throwing mud at Celtic.
Past the Event Horizon
Greenock Jack says: (198)
November 25, 2013 at 7:32 pm
Thanks. Don’t you think he (like others) will lose them all if the club goes into Admin or Liquidation again due to £14.5m debt? Kinda like the Club Deck people lost their seats for life?
The issue is whether there will be an insolvency event or not.
Indeed. But they are 14.5m in debt (minimum) and spending more than they make. Someone, somewhere, will want that 14.5m back. It is not just fresh air that can be puffed away. Unless they liquidate again, when of course, it can ‘disappear’. Just like that. So, how are your club going to repay the 14.5 million pounds they owe?
Past the Event Horizon
Sorry, Jack. Bombs and bullets are absolutely an issue here. As it the abuse and threats to journalists who avoid comment as they value both they and their family’s safety and privacy.Or the threats to other clubs like Raith Rovers. And who can blame them?
It is NOT Celtic’s job to define if RFC are a new club or not. Both they and their fans can, of course, raise eyebrows and scratch their heads when various persons and media outlets vigorously claim it is the same club, as this directly opposes legal and footballing regulations and precedents. It is the SFA’s job to determine if, as per their and UEFA rules, Sevco are a continuation or not.
Naturally, as all evidence (not rhetoric or spin) unequivocally says that they are a new club, Celtic supporters are perfectly entitled to raise the issue at the AGM, asking what the club’s stance on RFC fans and the media flying in the face of facts and logic. After all, chasing titles is what football is all about. They were not asking St Peter for a ruling, just clarification of the club’s stance. Not sure why that seems to have got you in a tizz.
As to most fans not agreeing with me on the living wage, that is the beauty of a democracy. I would have preferred the motion to be carried but it will be raised again. Another democratic delight. And I can sleep easy in the knowledge that even though some are only paid the minimum wage by my club, they pay all their social taxes and suppliers. Sad that I have to even mention this, as it should be the norm.
I do understand the point about ‘perception’. You refer to your emotional attachment. That fans were happy to cling to any NEW club calling itself RFC. However, non RFC fans are dealing with reality, not perception, as they have no emotional attachment and consider your club legally, factually dead. No one objects to you supporting the new club, of course not, be it Sevco 5088, Sevco Scotland, The Rangers or whatever. But they do object to you claiming the title and history for various reasons:
a) you can’t cherry pick – keep the titles/history but ditch the debt. They are inseparable if you are the same club.
b) even if you did agree to accept both you can’t. You have been liquidated. Titles are gone, the total reached by the dead club frozen in perpetuity.
c) football leagues evolve around competition. Hence sporting regulations to ensure all clubs abide by the same rules, that there is no sporting advantage, that titles and cups are won fairly. As RFC is dead (that is what liquidated means) the new team offering a spiritual sanctuary to its homeless fans has no titles except the one it won last year. Sure they have the fans – and (perhaps) the ground and training ground of the old club. But they do not have the titles. Or the history.
In essence, what you are really saying is we (the new club) have the same fans, some of the same players, some of the same management, and the same sporting facilities as the liquidated club RFC. And despite the facts, despite the legal definitions of liquidation, we are claiming the history as ours anyway and will become ultra defensive if anyone points out the unpalatable truth by claiming otherwise.
Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!
Dearie me, Ryan G
You say you accept that Rangers were liquidated and then go onto qualify your stance on this with ‘Rangers were liquidated and a new club was started, therefore the liquidation is just an event in the history of “Rangers”.’
Liquidation means your club is a gonner. Ceased to exist. Is not alive anymore. Dead. Therefore, the history died with it. It terminated too. What on earth is so difficult to understand about that?