Comment on Does Money Indeed Ruin Football? by John Clark.

    StevieBC 11th March 2019 at 00:53

    '…Absolutely no point in focusing on those who tarnish Scottish football at the stadiums – if there is no focus on those who tarnish Scottish football from their positions at the SFA / SPFL."


    And that is a point that cannot be made often enough, StevieBC.

    The wrongdoing of nutcase fans (even if there may be thousands of such), is as nothing compared with the cynical cheating and lying of the very  Sports governance body!

    The Big Lie was  devised, constructed and put into effect by  unscrupulous men of no moral fibre whatsoever: men ready to swear away any regard for sporting integrity, and even common sense, and sell their filthy little souls for an outrageous fantasy. 

    If there were never to be another incursion by fans, or another episode of sectarian singing, the Governance of our game will still remain rotten at its core  for as long as the Big Lie is allowed to stand. 


    John Clark Also Commented

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    StevieBC 11th March 2019 at 22:15

    '..Good to see the Scotland manager has his finger on the pulse WRT his team…'


    And good to see that the unfaithful, 'committed'  manager who so contemptuously walked away from the Scotland job( but got it back) is so oo oo understanding of  McGregor's hissyfit.

    Honest to God!

    How much crap can we take from  our Football Governance body?  

    Leave aside Truth: have they no bloody idea of how to lie in any kind of integrated manner?

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    easyJambo 11th March 2019 at 21:12

    '..The case no. for the H&J action is P997/17'


    Aye, eJ, I should have checked the list! broken heart Just hoping for some interesting development.

    Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
    paddy malarkey's link at 19.07 this evening to the Strict Liability consultation document and the replies thereto [ what a brilliantly crafted series of intellectual arguments in support of their 'opposed' was provided by club 1872. Not Socrates, not Plato nor yet Aristotle could have matched it] made me turn to a Parliamentary debate about the abolition of corporal punishment in schools 


    I've been reading it on and off this evening. 

    Because I remembered:

    there was a fight at dinner time one day in 1955, on waste ground outside the school. 'Fight, fight, fight' was the cry, and I think every pupil who heard the cry was present to see as bloody a 'schoolboy' fight as ever was seen. 

    It happened that a wee wumman passing by stopped to try to break it up. She was hunted- and someone threw a clod of earth at her, some of which made a mess on her coat; and the fight carried on.

    When we all got back to our classrooms, we, that is, every class,  were asked 'who threw the clod'.

    No one owned up. 

    Result: the whole damned school got the belt.

    Even as a 13 year old I thought that a bit excessive- we had only just been reading about the Roman Army, where they were content just to punish one-in-ten!

    A more mature understanding of that and similar, one-classroom, experiences makes me instinctively opposed to SL. There can be no justification for punishing the 'innocent.' Doing so is essentially an admission of defeat, and a resort to the unprincipled behaviour of the bad guys. 

    We on this blog are strong in our condemnation of our Football Governance body's contempt for truth and justice when it comes to applying basic rules of sporting integrity: we should not , I believe, compromise ourselves by suggesting that there is a 'greater good' that can be served if we ourselves dispense with notions of fairness and truth and justice.


    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Bad Money?
    Leaving aside the particulars of the case , what is one to make of the criticisms of the legal teams, other than that as lawyers they seem to fall far short of acceptable standard in allowing their witnesses to waffle into discussing what the parties had intended their contracts to mean, when ,it seems that any first year law student by opening a text book could find that it is accepted law that “… The law excludes from the admissible background the previous negotiations of the parties and their declarations of subjective intent …”  

    from the 'judgment' of Mr Persey QC:

    "46. I have already referred to the extensive references to the parties’ subjective intentions and arguments on construction in the witness statements.   The witnesses should not have entered into the arena in this way.  Nor should their legal teams have allowed them to do so.  Much of the argument in Rangers’ skeleton argument refers to and relies upon this inadmissible evidence and argument.  "

    So not only was there one lawyer who actually lied, there were others whose knowledge of Contract Law seems to be not much more extensive than yours or mine! Or lawyers who do not adequately master their briefs and bone up on ALL  the relevant, established law. 

    A poor reflection on the English legal profession.


    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 23rd July 2019 at 13:14

    '…Isn't that the usual function of an SFA official?'


    And provided to TRFC Ltd free!!

    Bad Money?
    Finloch 23rd July 2019 at 08:55

    "…..Donalda your historic and current BBC silence is deafening and inexcusable"


    Finloch, absolutely true!

    Donalda  may have used up all her business skills ,intellectual powers , diplomatic and personal gifts in breaking through the 'glass ceiling ' and has opted for the quiet life.

    Or maybe she is as unfit for the job as her predecessor in office and  as our SFA Board members are for their jobs, and simply does what she's telt by those she's afraid to face up to. 

    Bad Money?
    Bogs Dollox 23rd July 2019 at 00:20

    '…In what way is it possible for the same legal entity to sell assets and the business to itself if it is in liquidation? Mental.'


    Ha ha, BD: two minds with but a single thought!broken heart



    Bad Money?
    Timtim 22nd July 2019 at 19:51

    '…..It's not looking good is it ? '


    The very second that the SFA publicly apologises for the Big Lie, and agree to deny TRFC any claim to the honours and titles of RFC of 1872, and record in the official record of Scottish Football the horrendous cheating of SDM's Rangers and the blight that that odious person inflicted on Scottish Football- that will be the very second when I would be ready to wish TRFC well( well, if King were removed)

    I simply could not be arsed with another sodding Administration, Liquidation, 5-feckin-way agreement and continuing rottenness in Scottish Football.