Uilleam

There's no "manager", the team is keech, the Board members, it seems, are united only in their disunity, there's nae money, and we are talking about PR? It sounds ridiculous, but you are spot on.

Agreed. But to go forward, the far from stupid Board members have to stop the apparent, ridiculous infighting, off the record briefings, and careless talk, or take a walk off Govan dock.

Yes, but did they speak to Warburton, or merely drift a juicy financial arrangement past his man?

OK. But how many "discussions" come to fruition? How many in the fraught and fabulous football world do not end in "mutual agreement"? (Straight sackings, I suppose.) I think that it happened quickly and left the Club on the back foot. I think also the speed with which circumstances seem to have changed suited Warburton & Co, rather than the Club. As Harold MacMillan said, "Events, dear boy, events."

It seems, to me, that the writing was on the wall for Warburton & Co. Performances, and results, were piss poor; acquisitions did not deliver; Who knows whether he was tipped the wink by the Board? I doubt that such was necessary. McLeish and Rae? Well King and the Board are damned if they didn't speak to potential successors, and, equally, damned if they did. We are told that certain Board members are unhappy, that the Board is divided, that there are issues with the departure of Warburton, yet none of the apparent stand up guys are prepared to stand up. They prefer, it seems, to deal in rumour and innuendo, nods, winks, and taps of the nose, to those, and such as those. The unwillingness to speak truth renders them complicit in any of the malfeasance, which their whispering purports to condemn.

Forget Hollywood tripe. The Club issued statements. Either Board members agreed with them or not. If they did not, if they contained lies, they should have acted properly. If they disagreed with the lies, and said nothing, then they assume responsibility for the lies. In other words, they too are liars. Therefore, we may trust no one on the Board, even those who are leaking "the truth", to their friends, acquaintances, relatives, and 'football writers'.

It would seem that none of them are.

I am taking what the Club has said. If these statements were lies, or terminological inexactitudes, whatever, I would expect Board members to resign. I would in such position.

I am unconvinced that MW's departure was "engineered". Apart from any other consideration, if what you and other "ITK" guys have posted, here and elsewhere, is correct, the Board would fail to organise a piss up in a brewery with a free bar, far less be so successfully manipulative with the contractual position of Mr Cutey Pie and his circus. My reading is that MW, or his man, dealt the cards, they fell happily for the Board, which exploited that hand, for primarily financial reasons. After the resignation was tabled, there was no way back for the three caballeros. Nor should there have been. How anyone may countenance their retention is quite beyond comprehension. The timing was wrong, and the outcome unsatisfactory to date. Quite how the Board may be handed the totality of blame -if blame there is- is beyond me. Quite how part of the Board may be handed the totality of the blame -if blame there is- is beyond me, too.

It looked (and looks) to this observer that MWs departure was almost a fait accomplit presented by his man to the CEO/Board, and the Club, therefore had to react. As I said, it was not a clean offer, but was circumscribed by financial conditions, to which the Club, also, had to react. That the Club did not have a new man in place was surely determined by the fact that the resignation was unanticipated. It would have been, in my view, close to ludicrous to retain Warburton & Co as management, after the resignation. The outcome is less than optimal, and perhaps the Board should have installed a manager, pro tem, but that is easier said than done, quite frankly, as, if it was not to be an audition for the Big Picture, it would have to be a favour; given the circumstance, and the possibility of reputational damage a pretty big favour, at that. The description "shambles" is one I have heard bandied about on many, many occasions over the years, mostly inaccurately, lazily, and based on little analysis. It's a great shorthand for a situation you don't like, or which is not covered in the textbook. Again, I would say that if Board members are unhappy, let them say so, publicly, telling the truth and shaming the devil, rather than pee heeing with 'football writers', pals, or second cousins twice removed, powering the rumour factory, and, I may say, making themselves look like school lassies, and young ones at that.

Most of the ITK stuff is, as they would say in court, hearsay. It may be accurate, but, generally, it seems to be filtered through at least two pairs of lugs.....Add in that the information is from one witness or participant, or one side, is always off the record, and one may be inclined to take a measured view.

Precisely what was "shambolic" about Warburton's resignation? It was unexpected, for sure; unusually, perhaps, it was conditional on a compensation waiver, which, I imagine, meant that it required the imprimatur of the Board, which was given, as I understand it, reasonably timeously; Warburton, or his man, tried to withdraw it; this was declined, again in a reasonable timescale. Warburton pitching up at Murray Park was outwith the control of the Board, and was, clearly, a tactic on his part, probably under advisement, designed to provide some kind of "evidence" of good faith, etc., for any future claim against the Club. Shambles? At best, arguable, and not of the Club's making. I need hardly say that after tendering a resignation, esp. in the particular circumstances, Warburton could not have been welcomed back into the fold without let or hindrance.

I think that I agree with you. McKay is a low busted flush, who was, and could only be, rescued from the midden by Nhepotism FA

Appearance money?

I thought that MW (and the others) had resigned. As far as there being no consensus among Board members re: "the way forward", surely proposals should be put to a vote? If the losing members feel so strongly about it, they should resign. Oh, and demand an EGM. King is criticised for not having options, even in mind, for a post MW appointment, yet we hear now that he may have had actual discussions with potential candidates, over some time. Presumably, they were informal, sounding out exercises. If so I should not inveigh against him for this. The Board is criticised for inadequate funding, but we hear now that there is no agreement on "who will supply the funding". If external finance is sought, then it would be at least prudent (read essential) to have a coherent, united front, when dealing with potential investors, or lenders, or, even, philanthropists. Ultimately, dissension will do nobody any good, and it may be best to deal with it now, ie those troubled souls on the Board should put up, or shut up.

I see this getting worse. Are any of the 1st team pool saveable? They look like a job lot of barrel scrapings, which is, I suppose, what they are, and there are no players of sufficient character or quality to drag this dross even half way towards a performance. Where does one start? Well, at the back, I suppose, with the defence, which has let more men score than Annabel Chong. Foderingham: adequate Tavernier: dud Kiernan: dud Wilson: dud Wallace: on the cusp of dudness Hill: on the cusp of being done Senderos: dud Seriously, and before we start on midfield, are any of the above redeemable, retainable, re-trainable?

Maybe worse? Not a lot in it granted.

If Scotland lose v Slovenia, then surely both Broon and the bauchle will be off . That and ending the agony of another dismal campaign are enough to make one wish for a Balkan victory, Broon picking and choosing his games is utterly outrageous, particularly for a player who, when playing higher quality opposition than that he encounters in the SPL, disappears like the Cheshire Cat, leaving only the faintest trace of his ridiculous 1000 metre stare, fading ultimately to nothing...............

There is a fallacy to which politicians, members of the chattering classes , and even contributors to this forum are prone. It is the misconception that one may legislate things -problems, issues, bad behaviour, whatever falls short of the societal acceptable standard- out of existence. This misapprehension has existed since the days of the Ten Commandments, and, no I do not mean the 1923, or 1956 Cecil B De Mille versions, but the Mosaic proscriptions of everything from blasphemy to adultery via lying, murder, and rapine, all of which are common today, despite centuries, millennia, of prohibitions by secular (and sacred) law. Putting legislation on the Statute Book will not automatically result in a fair, reasonable, equitable and proportionate outcome. The major issues with legislating are 1. drafting of the statutes; basically governments do not pay enough to have this done properly 2. partly as a result of this, there are inevitable, often innumerable, questions of interpretation 3. these tend to be resolved by - the Police, in the first instance, whose understanding may be less than nuanced -the Procurator Fiscal's Service, which might very well 'take a view' on whether prosecution is valid, necessary, or winnable under whichever Act -the Court, most commonly, I imagine by the Sheriffs of this realm, or High Court judges, or the Lords of Session, or the Supreme Court, even, pro tempore, unto Strasbourg, or Luxembourg The same issues will arise with non statutory authorities - neutral; SFA 'observers', compliance officers, Tribunals independent of the SFA and Clubs, and so forth. (As an aside, Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes? Who will scrutinise these scrutineers?) It is not in the matter of legislation, but in the matter of that legislation's implementation, that there are, or are likely to be, problems, even if the policing, prosecution, and hearings are by non statutory actors. It is my contention, as I have suggested before, that "Strict Liability" in practice will be "Selective Liability". We have seen the Offensive Behaviour Act applied differently, via the organs of justice mentioned above. There is nothing to suggest that a Strict Liability Act, will in practice, be applied any differently to the OBA, nor that it will be any more effective in curbing whatever behaviour it is that the authorities wish to see checked, as interpreted by the Police, the PFs, and by those on the bench, and/or, another little problem, by the SFA, its officials, and its independent Tribunals. I think that we all know that any Act will be applied with more rigour to one set of supporters than to any others. A racing cert, gentlemen, a racing cert.

Ranieri is too nice a man to get anything out of the current squad of duds, dodgers, and delicates.

I don't think that the "common sense" argument was primarily to do with the fact that the Trusts established loan facilities. It was, I think, concerned with the fact that qualification for a Benefit Trust depended directly upon the beneficiary being employed by the Company, and hence disbursements to the employee's Trust would be seen, by that bastion of "common sense", the man on the Cessnock subway, to be part of a remuneration package, and hence taxable. I have no idea whether this argument will prevail at Supreme Court. It did occur to me at the time that the CoS's verdict was somewhat odd, and at odds with received wisdom. Drummond Young, as I have said before, showed his hand when, in the verdict, he declared that, without EBTs, the Club would not have been able to afford the calibre of player it employed, a clear irrelevance to the legalities, and pure speculation, even to the layperson. That opinion, rather than any declaration of fact, gave me cause to think that he, at least, wanted to sink the Murray/Rangers case, for reasons other than those which were strictly matters of law.

Yes, indeed......if he had wanted to

But Baxter was.......

Just noticed his obituary in today's Times. OBITUARY Roger Hynd No-nonsense footballing nephew of Bill Shankly who unfailingly flung the kitchen sink at the other team February 23 2017, 12:01am, The Times Roger Hynd had an indefatigable spirit SCOTTISH NEWS AND SPORT Share Save In the 1950s and 1960s Scottish football thrived on the emergence of a conveyor belt from the collieries, epitomised by men in the mould of Jock Stein, Matt Busby and Bill Shankly; a tough-as-teak, take-no-prisoners triumvirate who escaped the grime of the mine shaft and subsequently instilled a mixture of fear, fervour and fanatical fitness in their sporting charges. It’s no coincidence that the game was never more popular or successful than throughout that halcyon period and there were others, such as Roger Hynd, the nephew of the aforementioned Shankly, who both played and managed with sufficient success that he reached a European final with Rangers, was inducted into the Birmingham City Hall of Fame, and gained glowing reviews for the barrel-chested attributes he brought to Motherwell when he took charge of the Fir Park club in 1977. Hynd, who has succumbed to cancer aged 75, was no shrinking violet, or certainly not while he was earning a living from his football labours. A former Lanark Grammar School captain, he was a member of the side that won the prestigious Scottish Secondary Schools Shield in 1959. Colleagues testified to his tenacity, resilience and vigour; they also added that, even as a student, he possessed leadership qualities and a refusal to be second best. Soon thereafter he was offered an opportunity at Rangers, which he grasped with both hands. His career in Govan reached its apotheosis in 1967 when he was part of the Rangers collective that progressed to the European Cup Winners Cup’ denouement, only for the Scots to lose 1-0 to their formidable German opponents, Bayern Munich. It was a bittersweet and surreal experience for Hynd, a centre half, who was suddenly thrust into the role of centre-forward by his manager, Scot Symon. As it transpired, he nearly justified his selection, suffering the anguish of having a goal disallowed. But the player, as honest as he was whole-hearted in his endeavours, never changed his opinion that he had taken the place of his team-mate Alex Willoughby without meriting it. He declared: “I didn’t deserve to be there. I had only started three games that season, but Mr Symon must have had a hunch. I felt for Alex, I really did. I never wanted any favours in football: I was brought up to believe you had to put in the hard work and make things happen. But he never held it against me. In fact, we used to share a lot of fun about it.” That philosophy underpinned Hynd’s exploits when he moved to Birmingham City and assisted the Midlands team in securing promotion to the First Division (the equivalent of the modern Premiership) in 1972. He made more than 200 appearances for the club and, as somebody who watched him recalled: “Roger was rugged as hell, a big beast of a lad, and he never went out on a Saturday without flinging the kitchen sink at the other team.” That same indefatigable spirit was evident when Hynd, who is survived by his wife, Jane, graduated into management, appropriately enough with the Steelmen in Motherwell. As Craig Brown, the former Scotland coach, said: “He called things as he saw them. These lads who came from the pits weren’t interested in soft soap. They were straight to the point and you had to be ready to accept that.” Hynd’s peripatetic career — he also played at Crystal Palace, Oxford United and Walsall — reached its end in the 1970s and he returned to his alma mater in Lanark as a PE teacher, where he remained until his retirement in 2003. Yet rather than slow down, he displayed a Stakhanovite attitude to seizing challenges by the collar. Even after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and started attending the Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice, he began creative writing in his seventh decade. As he said: “I found it emotive, remembering things and connecting with all the people I had known, friends at school and college who had made an impression on me. There were a few times I was in tears, but I’ve found here [in the hospice] that tears don’t matter, they are almost expected, and nobody thinks of it as being embarrassing.” He had an unswerving dedication to family first and football second, and those priorities never altered. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roger-hynd-t8wwls08v

I fear the worst. We know from the front pages of The Daily Bedlam, and from other tabloids that the Justices of The Supreme Court are "Enemies of the People", and since We Are The People....................