0
    0

    Comment on We’re Gonny Need Another Baw. by macfurgly.

    The SlimJim weapon is one that they have been salivating over using for a long time. Let it fly past, it was never going to reach it's target, however much they need it to. Let it fly, and let them be isolated in their impotent fury at CFC's historical achievements, as well as those of Aberdeen and DUFC. They will persist forever, as history does not die, (other than with liquidation, in this context).

    If I may return to my earlier point, £6,000 fine?. Am I the only one observing squirrel formations here?

     

     

     

    macfurgly Also Commented

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    From the latest sfsa newsletter:
    Hate crime at football – have your say
    This is a general reminder to notify you that  the Scottish Governemnt Hate Crime Bill Consultation is open for responses until 24th February and can be accessed via this link.

    https://consult.gov.scot/hate-crime/consultation-on-scottish-hate-crime-legislation/

    This may be of  interest to some as it deals with the definition of sectarianism in Scots Law.

     


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    On Sunday, after having read the latest SFSA newsletter (not to be confused with the SFA's Supporters Direct Scotland), I sent a pretty direct email to them saying that questionning FIFA and UEFA about transparency is one thing, but this begins at home. I specifically mentioned the 2011/12 TRFC licence issue and recent confusion over the refereeing / CO / Panel / Review process.

    Within 24 hours I had a detailed reply from Paul Goodwin reflecting many of the concerns expressed on here about the governance of Scottish football and an invitation to call him to discuss specific issues. I would reproduce the text of that reply here, but it contains some personal observations which I would rather not put into the public domain.

    Credit where it is due: the SFSA are working with few resources but seem to be doggedly taking these issues to the SFA and SPFL and pursuing them for answers, which I gather are not always readily forthcoming. I certainly did not doubt the sincerity of the conversation I have had.

    It is frequently expressed as a frustration that there is no organisation to coordinate fans. I can only say fair play to them for engaging with one ordinary supporter of no particular importance and that on that basis they are worth a visit at www.scottishfsa.org 


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    When Defoe realised that he had gone down over a tackle that hadn't occurred he picked himself up pronto to get on with the game, as that is the only way he might have avoided a booking for diving in the league he is accustomed to playing in. Up here, he had to stop running so he could be given a penalty.


    Recent Comments by macfurgly

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Timtim 17th November 2019 at 13:51

    ———–

    Thank you.


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Cluster One 16th November 2019 at 21:56

    ———-

    CO, I'm losing track now, whose signature is at the bottom of that side letter?


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Douglas Fraser's agonisingly twisted attempt to address the squirrel for the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-50422556


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    JC, that is a statement that needed to be made, and now is a most appropriate time to do it. Clear, concise and to the point, it deserves a response. Will it get one? I doubt it, but if it were to reach its target audiences and no response was forthcoming, that in itself would be damning.


    In Whose Interests
    When the TOP required DK to make an offer for the remaining shares and asked for proof of funds, was it not cash from a dividend from Laird that he offered, before allegedly running into problems with getting the money out of SA, then having his nominated intermediary rejected by the TOP, then being found by the TOP to have not contacted Investec as he had claimed to have done, before further delays with Investec meant that by the time the TOP said enough, he had sold enough shares to his pals to prevent the offer being voted through and therefore no cash from Laird was required?

    This time no guarantee of the funds from Laird has been provided. Am I remembering this incorrectly, or is this another worthless promise from DK?