0
    0

    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 

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1981/jun/08/corporal-punishment

    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

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Cluster One 15th November 2019 at 20:08

    '…A firm  suing Rangers following a shelved plan….'

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

    There is the SMSM at its best!

    Not a mention of 'breach of contract'.

    Oh ,no. A 'shelved plan!' A mere nothing that some wee company is making much of!

    Honest to God! Memorial walls is suing for a substantial some of money because TRFC is, they say,  in breach of contract. 

    in the same way  as Lionel Persey QC found them to be in the SDIR case.

    This pussyfooting about anything to do with 'Rangers' , the minimising and misreporting of the facts about anything to do with either RFC of 1872 or TRF of 2012 , marks the SMSM as perhaps the most untrustworthy aggregation of 'journalists' outside North Korea, China, and other such places where journalist means party propagandist.

     

     


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    ulyanova 15th November 2019 at 22:33

    '..I wonder if there was a theory that 'purdah' rules during an an election would preclude a response from HMRC?'

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

    If  Llewellin thought that, he's even more of a dolt than I took him for!

    There was, is, nothing 'political' in terms of 'party politics' in Harra's  matter of fact statement of fact. 

    If Llewellin thought that HMRC could not defend itself against false accusations he's just a singularly uninformed eejit of a newspaper editor, and possibly a badly motivated one at that!

    HMRC should demand an immediate retraction of the falsehood.

     

     


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Right! Not having received any reply from either of the two email addresses of the FCA, I have sent this email to the Clerk of the Treasury Committee.

    To:treascom@parliament.uk

    15 Nov at 22:18

    To: the Clerk to the Treasury Committee

    "Dear Gosia McBride,

    I  know  that the Financial Conduct Authority is not a Civil Service department and is therefore perhaps less under any obligation (other than those imposed by conventional good manners and custom)  to reply to individual members of the public than  is a regular Civil Service Department.

    I have a wee problem, though, that I hope you may be able to help resolve.

    Briefly, on 25 June I wrote to the CEO  of the FCA suggesting that the FCA may have  been in breach of its statutory duty in the matter of the authorisation of the Prospectus for an Initial Public Offer of a particular company.

    Since then I have received only one acknowledgement , to the effect that the FCA had no trace of my letters, and could I send copies, and carried with it the suggestion that if I were to use email matters would be speeded up.

    I promptly emailed copies of all that I had previously sent whether by Royal Mail or email.

    The forwarded email below is the tail  end of it, and brings us up to date.

    The FCA appears to be grossly inefficient in its routine administrative functions, or contemptuous of people who write to them or unwilling to reply to questions which seem to imply some fault on their part.

    I still have received no substantive reply to my letters/emails!

    Whatever the reason (and any one of the three possibilities I mention should be of some interest to the Committee) the FCA is ultimately accountable to Parliament (and the electorate) through the Treasury Committee.  

    It is on that basis I write to you to ask, please, that you pass this email to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee and/or direct to  the CEO of the FCA.

    Given that Parliament is presently suspended for the general election I thought it pointless to 'write to my MP' as I otherwise would have done . I suspect that he may have  other things to worry about.

    Yours sincerely etc etc"

    _____

    I forwarded only the most recent reminder that I had sent to the FCA, but that should provide enough general info.[I don't have a clue how to send an email chain, tried looking it up but couldn't find anything I understood. heart]

    The point in writing to the Treasury Committee clerk, of course, is that she will have to do something. She cannot deal conclusively with my email on her own authority. She cannot just bin it! She must either

    send it to the Chairman and do what he says ,which will be either to tell her to flog it straight off to the FCA- in which case the FCA will see that the Treasury Committee clerk will have it on record- or himself take an interest in the content and be curious enough to  ask a question or two.

    or, she herself will consider it to be simply a matter for the FCA, send it there, and tell me that she has sent it to them as being simply a  matter for them.

    Standard stuff. 

    But knowledge of the 'issue' is spread a wee bit wider!

    We'll see what  Gosia 's reply may be. ( Pronounced Gohsha, a Polish version of 'Margaret')

     


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Bogs Dollox 15th November 2019 at 13:22

    '..raking over the coals only highlights the fact they were tax cheats.'

    +++++++++++++
    And  they were sports cheats!

    Doing the taxpayer out of money is one thing and damaging to the whole of society in a sort of abstract, non-immediately personal way.

    Telling lies to the other football clubs which are their 'sporting' competitors (via at the very least lying to the SFA about the payments they were making to their players and concealing the 'side-letters' and possibly having lied to UEFA about the European licence some years before that) is far more personally offensive and insulting to me and the rest of us. 

    RFC of 1872 deservedly are in Liquidation.

    Meanwhile TRFC continues to live a sports cheating existence in  claiming such sporting merit as the club in Liquidation had earned. 

    They have not yet been sorted out for that. 

    And the failure to deal with that is, one suspects, the clearest indicator that our football governance bodies are themselves so heavily involved in the sports cheating that they are themselves sh.t scared to act as they should.


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    I am by no means a dedicated reader of the business pages or the Financial Times nor have I been particularly interested in even my own personal tax affairs, so I may very well be off the mark, but I do not recollect ever seeing HMRC publicly assert the truth of their calculations in relation to a named tax-payer .

    Don't they usually say they never comment on particular cases? 

    Has new ground been broken here by HMRC ? 

    We should perhaps see a lot more naming and shaming of the low-life ,would-be high-living turds who cheat  us all. 

    And if any such have been honoured, we should see them as publicly dishonoured as certain bank chiefs have been dishonoured.