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



    The Scotsman being confused….! Both Airdrie and Rangers/TRFC shown with their original founding dates, but at least Liquidation is acknowledged. I just don't get how they can square the two opposing thoughts in their head!!

    nawlite Also Commented

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.

    This report doesn't make it sound like 'death threats'.

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Jimmy Bones, it's being reported (I know, I know) that there will be "no action" on the McGinn and Power incidents because "…there was not enough evidence for the compliance officer to raise a fast-track notice of complaint." The SFA should be much more transparent than this and it would save all the anger/headscratching. That 'reason' could mean many different things, I believe. 1. The CO viewed the incidents and did not think the referee had made an obvious incorrect decision 2. The CO took the view that the decision may be wrong; asked the referee for comment and he stood by his decision 3. The referee on being asked by the CO admitted he may have made a mistake, but when the ex-referees panel reviewed the incident, one or more of them decided against further punishment. I can see no reason why the SFA would not communicate the stage at which the possibility of further punishment fell down.

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Tx Jimmy Bones

    Para 1 – Would you agree then that the awareness raised by Sportscene etc means that the whole process is unfair on clubs who feature most i.e Premier league clubs? Especially when you consider how partisan some of the people involved are, be it TV, radio or newspaper.

    Para 2 – Still seems unfair that a referee can derail the correct referral/decision just by saying "I still believe I'm right", don't you think?

    Para 4 – Who is the JP? Another group of ex-referees?

    Despite the fact that "all of the clubs agreed the protocol", it still seems a total Dogs B****x. Do you have any view on improving it at all?


    Recent Comments by nawlite

    In Whose Interests
    I don't know enough about what Belgium etc did to really argue with you EJ, but I can't understand this claim/statement that we can only improve if we implement a common strategy across all clubs. If every team chose or was forced to play the same style – be that 4-3-3, say, or a high pressing style etc etc – surely the competition in the league and among managers/tacticians would be very much lessened. Every club or manager has their own tactics (sometimes based on budget) e.g. Livi are imo quite long ball; St Johnstone will sit in and hit on the counter etc etc. Are you/the Belgian guys saying they can't do that anymore? That would mean the buying power of Celtic would mean their players, being better/more expensive would win more often than they do already, does it not? I know that the Scottish league and international team is anything but perfect so I might be arguing against myself here because if Livi improved at a Scotland-wide preferred style, that might help them and the Scottish national team, but I really don't see that happening elsewhere. In Spain – a competitive league and succesful international team – all teams don't play the same way. Hell, even their top 3 of Barca, Real and Atleti each has a very different style. In Germany, which is one of the countries that claims to have reset, Bayern and Dortmund don't play the same. Without knowing the Belgian league very well, I imagine that teams play different styles. For every passing, probing team in the EPL a la City, there's a fast counter attacking team like Liverpool or a defensively-strong yet creative Spurs. I can absolutely understand a club insisting on a preferred formation throughout all age groups, or even a country with their chosen elites at all age groups doing the same (as with England, I think), but this suggested panacea that Belgium, Germany etc made everyone adopt the same style is untrue imo. I think perhaps it's just within the National teams set-ups, rather than across the whole competitive league. 

    Bad Money?
    CO, if they haven't enough cash to pay SDI what the judge thinks they lost out on as well as their court costs, I think the only option open to him to ensure SDI make up their losses is to insist on the forced deal to be so heavily weighted in SDI's favour that TRFC will be lucky to get even that. To get that money from 2020-21 strip sales, SDI will probably use their manufacturing contacts to get strips made. The Bears then have the decision to buy or boycott again. What a laugh!

    Bad Money?
    CO they will have kit to wear next year, just not via Hummel. The judgement forces the retail deal back to SDI for season 2020-21, so they or TRFC will arrange a deal with another kit manufacturer. 

    Bad Money?
    Think that's only a portion of SDI's total costs, PM, but yes they are supposed to discuss acceptable damages soon or the court will make a judgement. Of course, TRFC are still claiming that the £1m cap to damages applies. The judge and SDI are saying it may be allowed to stand, but even if it does the judge has already indicated that £1m isn't enough to cover the amounts SDI lost out on, so if TRFC and SDI can't agree, he will undoubtedly find a way to award SDI what he sees as acceptable. Whether that is by way of a cash payment or a future retail deal overwhelmingly tilted in favour of SDI remains to be seen. Basically, this either screws them immediately or slowly in my opinion. 

    Bad Money?
    I see that the court document Phil posted includes a statement that…

    "16. Rangers application to appeal is dismissed."

    No one anywhere seems to have commented on that, but does that mean King has no option to kick the can down the road? I know he can still drag on the suggested discussion re damages a little.