Tic 6709 says: (565) December 1, 2013 at 2:49 pm Galling fiver …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by ecobhoy.

Tic 6709 says: (565)
December 1, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Galling fiver says: (51)
December 1, 2013 at 2:31 pm

===============
My post following yours in which I agreed with you was also removed. My post contained no insults or banned words,it was just a throwaway comment about circular arguments. I hope you don’t leave the blog because of what happened. We will just have to phrase any criticism differently.
——————————————————————-
Galling fiver I would echo what Tic 6709 has said and hope you reconsider. On any blog where trolls/deflectors operate then their success – especially when they are working to a PR script – is measured by the amount of posters they ‘sicken’ so that they walk-away.

I make no comment on the activities of posters on here whose motives might be suspect to some other than personally to ignore posts by anyone – especially new posters – whose offering are to me ‘iffy’.

I learnt a long time ago on various blogs that there can be no accommodation with people on a mission and no possibility of advancing the debate or actually coming to an understanding of an opposing point of view honestly presented and argued.

ecobhoy Also Commented

Comment Moderation Thread
@TSFM

I see my post quoting Galling fiver and Tic 6709 has been removed to the Moderation Thread as has their posts. I am assuming that ny post was sent to moderation because it quoted the other two posts and therefore assume that was why my post was sent to moderation.

I can see no reason for my post being morderated as it makes no accusation about anyone posting here being a troll but talks in general about trolling and my own attitudes towards it and how I deal with it. I genuinely can see nothing objectionable in my post.

Another recent post of mine on the ‘living wage’ issue – as it effects football clubs in particular – was placed in moderation which bemused me especially as I read the slew of posts which followed which were allowed. I really don’t get too miffed about moderation and leave the decsion up to the moderators but it seems to me that there has been a not too subtle sea change in moderation policy for whatever reason.

EB – I am dismayed by your implication that all posts moved to this thread are offensive 🙂
I assure you that no offence is taken – merely that the subject is appropriate to this thread.
I can also assure you that there has been no change to the moderation policy – nor has it ever been subtle 🙂
TSFM


Comment Moderation Thread
Danish Pastry says: (1717)
November 23, 2013 at 10:35 am

On the living wage issue DP quoted the following from the Scotsman:

“The argument by the Celtic chairman, Ian Bankier, that most of the lower-paid were match-day casual labour and, therefore, supplementing their income from their primary work, was a feeble attempt at a defence which simply body-swerved the moral point at the core of Findlay’s passionate protest. It is that, to comply with the club’s supposedly traditional rectitude, no employee, in any capacity, should earn less than the living wage. Clearly not given to pussyfooting, she referred to the board’s decision as “one that shames you and shames us”.

As i have made clear I dealt with the match day employees’ position in some detail and it unsettles me somewhat that the Scotsman’s views aren’t regarded as OT and deleted but mine, on the same subject, are.


Comment Moderation Thread
ecobhoy says: (2054)
November 23, 2013 at 11:43 am

On the living wage issue

This is a generalised comment and probably has little actual significance wrt to football club staff but it is important when looking at the living wage issue which I support in principle.
=======================================================
ecobhoy
No offence, but this takes us down a line of political debate we’d rather not be involved in. We’ve tried to accommodate some talk of the issue (which is specifically a Celtic AGM related one and borderline OT) but I don’t think a deeper probing of the issue will be helpful to the blog.
TSFM
=======================================================
I reject that I treated the matter in a political way and also don’t see it as a specifically Celtic one and I made that clear in my comments.

I would have thought anyone reading my post would have seen how complex a subject the implementation of the living wage is especially wrt football clubs because of the the large numbers of casual/matchday staff they tend to employ.

Seems strange, in view of the number of earlier comments made on the subject by previous posters, that my post has been deleted as OT especially as the way the issue has been reported from the Celtic agm by the SMSM has been woeful.

I am not the kind of poster who usually bothers about moderation and when it happens I think I have always accepted it without comment but on this occasion the rationale baffles me.


Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?
———————————————-

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
———————————————————-
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead 💡

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
________________________________________________

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
——————————————-
Couldn’t agree more!


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
———————————————–
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
———————————————
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.


SSL Certificates