Comment on Does Money Indeed Ruin Football? by ernie.
I'm not a fan of the old "why are you arresting me for speeding when there's real criminals to catch?" argument. SFM'ers, football authorities and society in general are capable of dealing with the bigger Scottish fitba corruption (for want of a better word) and crowd trouble. It's not an either or and in fact, as has been suggested by Tri, can be easily linked. Is it a coincidence that the sectarianism and crowd trouble at the fitba has got worse in the last few years?
ernie Also Commented
Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
I've found two UK teams, West Ham in 1980 and Villa in 1983, under UEFA rules had to play ties behind closed doors due to crowd trouble in previous round. Of course English teams were banned from Europe altogether for crowd trouble. Interesting one, apparently in the 2010-11 Heineken Cup Edinburgh vs Castres oft re-scheduled tie was held behind closed doors to protect the crowd in the prevailing weather conditions. It takes a lot for the authorities to close it down for one game and, thankfully, there is a range of sanctions long before ground closure. Of course the clubs always have the option to actually do something about sectarianism and crowd trouble in the first place. Abhorrent as this complicit acceptance is I can see why they don't, it's because there are no repercussions for them. Why are we accepting this?
Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
Strict liability mean the SFA and the clubs can't choose how or if they deal with any sectarian or crowd trouble issues. At the moment they can, mostly of course they choose to do nothing, why would they? Occasionally they hand out some token gesture of a punishment and why not? They choose to have no liability. I wish I could, imagine the possibilities!
On the "punishing the innocent" argument I'm sorry but that's disingenuous to say the least. Firstly, people are diving straight to ground closure when in fact there is a range of sanctions, fines, points deduction etc before a consistent repeat offender gets to ground closure. The fact is there is no threat of anything at all and that has to stop. Note also that both UEFA and the EPL (I haven't checked any others) both clearly match the sanctions with the effort made and steps taken by the club in question to deal with the issues. So a club demonstrably doing their best would not be sanctioned as much as, say, our current lot of shameless hucksters. That's scary to our clubs, imagine having to demonstrate effort being made.
Secondly, it's not really punishment is it, except to the club? Once again we seem to forget that we're talking about a game of fitba here, an entertainment run by some of the participants as a commercial enterprise. Not getting to go to a game of fitba is not a breach of any human right, being able to stage such an event and charge good money for it is, in fact, a privilege that is being abused. If there is some resultant hassle re ST holders getting refunds then that's even better, the clubs need to start facing up to their responsibilities and face some consequences otherwise they do nothing.
Does Money Indeed Ruin Football?
"Therefore the question has to be asked. Who exactly are the like of the Union Bears, the Green Brigade and others appealing to?"
That's a great question wottpi, to which I think the answer is "other deluded, angry men". It is possible to relate this to the rise in populism, fuelled itself by a sense of being abandoned, but it has been going on throughout many cycles of general, public trends. The problem is that the people who run our clubs and our game have convinced themselves that this is where the money is, or more realistically, to stop this stuff would threaten the income stream. The immorality of this is bad enough but I happen to believe they are wrong. It's often paraphrased from WW1 that we are "led by donkeys" but I think "led by dinosaurs" is more apt. Their time is up though, hence the upsurge, it's a lashing out at the death.
Recent Comments by ernie
Celtic’s Questions to Answer
A propos the quantum of the cheat I am reminded of the old chestnut.
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
Spot on Lugosi. The spooky thing though is that the Tories have a 10 point minimum lead in the polls.
So what about fitba? Well I think there is a direct link, the glib Mr King is populism personified, he is part of a trend of unashamed self servers who have noted that what is considered to be decent behaviour can be wiped away by installing hate figures both individual and communities, blaming someone else for "being left behind', transposing normal competition with a "war footing" and promising unicorns but not for traitors. Not to mention flouting regulation and indeed the law. It works, in the short term at least.
I never have any expectation that TRFC's financial woes with SD will lead to TRFC downfall. There is more chance of SD going bust in the near future than TRFC or as Big Pink puts it "it's only a matter of time before somebody takes a bigger chunk out of him." Why? SD is a bog standard stack it high, sell it cheap business and going bust is always an option worthy of consideration in such businesses with such an owner. TRFC on the other hand have a clientele who may find a "second liquidation" (as I've heard their fans call it!) hard to take and the business is small fry (about the same as good going hotel for example) requiring relatively small injections of dosh to keep it going. They can stumble on whereas SD would choose not to. GASL is gambling on this perchance?
DBD, this is your lucky day. Give me a call, I'm just back from Hong Kong and have some genuine, 100%, smells like, looks like etc Rolex, Rayban, Versace and Nike opportunities for you.
Edusport. I’m a co-owner having bought a share in 2018. We get to vote on various aspects including player selection (up to a very fine point!) but not the actual team management. The name change was voted by the members. I didn’t vote, happy to be a silent partner ( in a very small way) just to see how it goes. I like the academy approach, for what it’s worth it’s the only way I see Scotland ever competing at a high level country and club. But that’s another discussion! Edit to add, plan has always been SPFL by 2025.