0
    0

    Comment on In Whose Interests by Jingso.Jimsie.

    StevieBC 5th November 2019 at 12:33

    And yet again, since the release of RIFC financials 4 days ago, and the questions / risks they pose to Scottish football…

    there's not a peep from either Maxwell or Doncaster.

    No leadership.

    No concern.

    #######################################

    You know how these things work by now.

    There'll have been a convivial, off-the-record conversation involving representatives of RIFC/TRFC & Maxwell & Doncaster on Sunday at Hampden.

    Assurances will have been sought & received by both sides.

    Positions of plausible deniability will have been established.

    So it continues…

    Jingso.Jimsie Also Commented

    In Whose Interests
    Watching the game from Ibrox last night on BT Sport, I was rather astonished to hear Rob McLean state that a certain player had added a couple of zeros to his potential transfer fee with his performance.

    As I thought that the player in question was already valued at £25m (according to the media), that would make his potential transfer fee £2500,000,000, or a quarter of a billion pounds! That would certainly sort out the cash crisis in Govan & be one in the eye for CFC! 

    (BTW, I note the same KK* 'couple of zeros' comment is in one of the Record's articles this morning. Shirley knot a Level Sinko briefing point?)

    *A favourite abbreviation of my teachers in the early 1970s when marking my work – 'Kanny Koont!'


    In Whose Interests
    'easyJambo 5th November 2019 at 11:35

    How other sports deal with financial doping.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50300756'

    #####################################

    I've just had a look at today's Guardian Online where there's an article by Robert Kitson, the paper's rugby correspondent:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/05/saracens-salary-cap-breach-asterisk-great-rugby-club

    In the article, he writes that: 'It is a significant story, if not a massive surprise. For months it has been an open secret that some jealous individuals within Premiership Rugby had plans for Wray.' 

    That's a nasty piece of 'succulent lamb-ism' in my book.

    Kitson implies that certain individuals brought the matter to the attention of the authorities, not because of altruism or a desire for sporting integrity, or for a fair & equitable application of the rules, but because of simple jealousy of Saracens' (or Wray's) achievements. A fine piece of deflection, indeed.

    I'd have expected pash like that from lazy, frightened Scottish journalists, but from the Guardian?


    In Whose Interests
    easyJambo 4th November 2019 at 14:40

    It was a horrible injury suffered by Gomes, but a ridiculous decision to send Son off.

    The ref correctly decided the foul was was worthy of a yellow card, but once he saw the injury he changed it to red. The VAR official appears to have backed up the decision by saying something along the lines that the challenge endangered the safety of an opponent.

    That is nonsense. If that was the case, then every foul that results in a player being injured and having to be substituted should also be a red card offence.

    ###################################

    A few points about the Gomes incident:

    Firstly, Son had already attempted to professionally foul Iwobe, intending to bring him down (he missed), before Iwobe passed the ball to Gomes. Son kept running & had a swipe at him, fouling him. Son had run approx. 40m & attempted to foul two players, succeeding once. It wasn't a heavy contact & the consequences could not have been foreseen. IFAB Law 12 indicates that 'excessive force' is required to 'endanger the safety of an opponent', which is a red card offence. If Son was 'reckless & acted with disregard to the danger to, and consequences for, an opponent', as per Law 12, then that's a caution.

    Secondly, I think the actions of Aurier in this sequence of play require further technical analysis. Had Son missed again, I think he was going to take out Gomes. From photographs, he makes contact with the sole of his boot on Gomes’ right ankle (Gomes is, by this time, already falling due to the contact from Son).

    Thirdly, the referee's apparent lack of response to the injury which occurred very close to him should be questioned. He has a duty of care to the players, yet seemed to display none.

    Fourthly, the reported statement by the EPL (which I can't find on premierleague.com) is confusing & confused. They may as well have issued the following: 'Look, a guy got a broken leg. That's got to be a sending-off, hasn't it?'

    Fifthly, I hope THFC appeal the red card. It was a knee-jerk response by panicked officials. 

    BTW, does anyone know when Sky's coverage of the (non-contact) Netball Super League commences? 


    Recent Comments by Jingso.Jimsie

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Dear TRFC fans,

    Want a 'feelgood' story to ease your angst after Sunday & a potential 'squeaky-bum' tie against Young Boys? Well, there's one in the Herald:

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/18094558.uefa-hand-pick-top-referee-rangers-vs-young-boys-bossed-champions-league-europa-finals/

    Yes, that's right! According to Alan Temple (who he?), UEFA has given you a 'top' referee, Felix Brych, for tonight. In fact, he's been 'hand-picked'! What could be better? 

    What's that? You're worried he may not be au fait with the TRFC house-style? You don't think he'll be swayed by the crowd? You're worried that Germany is too close to Switzerland (he's from Munich, barely a goal-kick away from Berne at 435km distance!)? You're worried that he has a history of making 'big' decisions in games, regardless of who's playing? You're worried he's 'card-happy' having issued eight red cards & fifty-nine yellow cards in the eighteen games he's refereed this season?

    Yep, UEFA's ‘hand-picked’ him alright! Perhaps not so 'feelgood' after all!


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    I don't think it matters where the three 'offside' players are standing when the free-kick is taken. It's not an offence in itself to be in an offside position & it's a subjective judgement for the officials whether they're 'active' or not at the precise moment the ball is played & it wasn't flagged or whistled up.

    The free-kick was about thirty-five yards away from the cluster which included Jullien & Helander. The ball was flighted towards the middle of the penalty area where Goldson attempts to head clear. If the ball falls to Jullien off Goldson's deliberate contact, then offside isn't an issue. It's a misdirected attempt at a clearance, which means there is no 'offside'. If Goldson misses (ie doesn't touch) the ball, then I think Jullien was offside, becoming 'active' when the ball fell to him. I've watched the event unfold from several angles & I'm unable to decide whether Goldson does or doesn't get a touch on the ball.

    Perhaps the referee or his assistant had a clear view & decided that the defender did play the ball? It seems the most-likely explanation.


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    'Allyjambo 5th December 2019 at 09:03

    I have no idea whether or not it should have been a penalty, but referees 'apologising' to Gerrard/TRFC? Do they apologise to every manager when they realise they've made a mistake? If they do, why are we not reading about it on a regular basis?'

    #####################

    I suspect that most managers have a conversation (of some sort) with the referee post-match. It appears that the content of the majority of these discussions remains confidential, so why did Gerrard come out with his version of what Beaton supposedly said? 

    I reckon it was genuine disappointment & an attempt at deflection on Gerrard's part: a poor second-half team performance & two dropped points weren't what he or the fans expected.

    <irony>Still, the Compliance Officer will be all over the comments.</irony>

     


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Re Lindsell Train & the 20% shareholding in CFC, as discussed above:

    My (admittedly cursory) reading indicates that, to qualify as a PSC, you have to have a greater than 25% shareholding & be an individual (ie. not a company). There are other conditions (the 'company' in this case would be CFC):

    'Essentially, the company is looking to see if there’s anyone who meets one or more of the following conditions:

    1. They hold more than 25% of the company’s shares
    2. They hold more than 25% of the company’s voting rights
    3. They have the power to appoint or remove a majority of the company’s board
    4. They have the right to exercise or actually exercise significant influence or control over the company
    5. They have the right to exercise or actually exercise significant influence or control over a trust or a firm that is not a legal entity which itself satisfies any of the first four conditions.'

    Taken from: https://www.informdirect.co.uk/company-records/psc-register-what-must-a-company-do/

    There's also a legal construct called a Relevant Legal Entity, whereby a business/company can act as a PSC under certain circumstances. You're welcome to visit that ultra-complicated rabbit-warren on your ownmailmailmail 

     


    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    'StevieBC 2nd December 2019 at 13:01

    …Traynor got off to a quick start with Juventus 'eyeing' Kamara for £8M…'

    ##########################

    The nuttiest part of the Kamara squirrel was that Juve were interested in signing a twenty-four & a bit year-old player for £8m on a 'development deal'. (For those that place any credence on such sites, Transfermarkt values him at £765k.)

    The Italians might sign teenagers for that sort of money to that sort of deal, but I think Kamara's at least five (and more likely, seven) years too old to fit the profile they'd be looking for.