buster. 5,196 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Trying to get support from other clubs on this wil prove difficult. Too many rubbished attempts of 'building any bridges' and we find ourselves very much as per the line....... 'no one likes us.......'. I hope we have more 'ammo' in reserve. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,196 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 14 hours ago, Big Jaws said: Hold on a second here? By whom? By The Club or by the SPFL? If you are suggesting that its a deflection tactic from the Club I've got to take issue with you on that. The Club, its brand, the fans and the chairman have been under attack since before the administration event and consequently the team which took over the Club and removed the spivs. Admittedly it would take some time to prepare a strategy but once said strategy is in place its just a matter of time before all the ducks are in a row. At the moment there is a three point attack on the Club a) Through the SPFL CO, b) TAB/TOP contempt papers served on Dave King and c) MA's temp injunction. I would suggest that there is a slight of hand here but make no mistake about it there will be a strategy in place and I for one am starting to see where the weakest point in the opposition might be. By the club. I very much get the fact that the club have been under attack for a LONG time. However, that has little to do with what appears to me as using the timing of the Saturday statement as more of a deflection tool and to help push a siege mentality amongst the support rather than a timely and considered response to the SPFL. IMO the more important issue are those converging matters that you describe as a three point attack. Lawyers and small print continue to be the frontline just when I was looking forward to the kicking of the baw on grass again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 If we want a fair and even playing field then we must fight these conflicts of interest all the way. Doubt anyone watched the bizarre refereeing last season and the re-emergence of title stripping and didn't come to the conclusion the SPFL and SFA was working on behalf of one club. It's at the stage that shares and season tickets in Celtic are a prerequisite of employment. No other country would see fans enter the field of play and attack an opposing teams players to zero punishment. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,196 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, trublusince1982 said: If we want a fair and even playing field then we must fight these conflicts of interest all the way. Doubt anyone watched the bizarre refereeing last season and the re-emergence of title stripping and didn't come to the conclusion the SPFL and SFA was working on behalf of one club. It's at the stage that shares and season tickets in Celtic are a prerequisite of employment. No other country would see fans enter the field of play and attack an opposing teams players to zero punishment. I agree with that and was clear about it on the relevant thread a month or so back where I advocated the pushing of the 'Private Eye' article as part of the offensive then in play. I also said then that I hoped we had more material to push because if we don't, then it'll go no further. We can only hope it's being kept in reserve pending what happens with the SFA charges. What I'm saying is that IMO it looks like we are now using the issue for another temporary purpose. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Gaffer 1,665 Posted July 9, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 9, 2018 19 minutes ago, buster. said: By the club. I very much get the fact that the club have been under attack for a LONG time. However, that has little to do with what appears to me as using the timing of the Saturday statement as more of a deflection tool and to help push a siege mentality amongst the support rather than a timely and considered response to the SPFL. IMO the more important issue are those converging matters that you describe as a three point attack. Lawyers and small print continue to be the frontline just when I was looking forward to the kicking of the baw on grass again. I thought the statement by the club was very timely and considered. What makes you think otherwise? I (like everyone else I'm sure) also want to be able to focus on the football, but this is an incredible situation where a governing body appears to be getting away with clear violations of codes of conduct. Why shouldn't the club challenge this, and especially before the start of the season? And what is the club deflecting from? As far as I see it, it's only good news at the moment on the footballing front. It looks like SD will try to cause a few problems more before they go, but that's all straight forward and will be sorted out hopefully without going to court. Other than that, what's to deflect? Weve got nothing but positivity around the club, but we won't maintain that unless there's an even playing field for us in the league. I'm right behind the board and the club in seeking justice and insisting on correct governance within our game. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMAA 3,658 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 It was encouraging to see the Evening Times join the Daily Record this morning in effectively supporting Rangers here though. It's absolutely extraordinary that the other clubs and so far everyone else are still denying the absolute obvious though, that you can't work for both the SPFL and Celtic's majority shareholder at the same time!! I've never been a conspiracy theorist but this whole episode has given infinitely more weight to accusations of institutional bias against Rangers than any number of dodgy decisions or fixture lists could. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,196 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Gaffer said: I thought the statement by the club was very timely and considered. What makes you think otherwise? I (like everyone else I'm sure) also want to be able to focus on the football, but this is an incredible situation where a governing body appears to be getting away with clear violations of codes of conduct. Why shouldn't the club challenge this, and especially before the start of the season? And what is the club deflecting from? As far as I see it, it's only good news at the moment on the footballing front. It looks like SD will try to cause a few problems more before they go, but that's all straight forward and will be sorted out hopefully without going to court. Other than that, what's to deflect? Weve got nothing but positivity around the club, but we won't maintain that unless there's an even playing field for us in the league. I'm right behind the board and the club in seeking justice and insisting on correct governance within our game. I agree with what was a counter-attack to the SPFL charges and that we should where possible develop it further, of course ! All I'm saying is that the timing of this particular statement has IMO, more to do with deflection, than the issue by itself. With benefit of the doubt, you could call it a '2 in 1'. Deflection is from what Big Jaws described as "a 3 point attack" (SPFL charges, Takeover panel & SDI Retail), although the present emphasis being on the latter two, especially SDI.....I doubt SD will be straightforward, their lawyers and small print are difficult to shake. The more important and immediate aspect to it is what comes out of court proceedings tomorow. Retail revenue will be an important part of financial projections. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 1 hour ago, DMAA said: It was encouraging to see the Evening Times join the Daily Record this morning in effectively supporting Rangers here though. It's absolutely extraordinary that the other clubs and so far everyone else are still denying the absolute obvious though, that you can't work for both the SPFL and Celtic's majority shareholder at the same time!! I've never been a conspiracy theorist but this whole episode has given infinitely more weight to accusations of institutional bias against Rangers than any number of dodgy decisions or fixture lists could. The problem with the other clubs is that they are not being "targeted" by the governing bodies - they have no fight to fight. As such, putting their head above the parapet does nothing (good or bad) for them, so why get involved at all. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Big Jaws 570 Posted July 9, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 9, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, buster. said: I agree with what was a counter-attack to the SPFL charges and that we should where possible develop it further, of course ! All I'm saying is that the timing of this particular statement has IMO, more to do with deflection, than the issue by itself. With benefit of the doubt, you could call it a '2 in 1'. Deflection is from what Big Jaws described as "a 3 point attack" (SPFL charges, Takeover panel & SDI Retail), although the present emphasis being on the latter two, especially SDI.....I doubt SD will be straightforward, their lawyers and small print are difficult to shake. The more important and immediate aspect to it is what comes out of court proceedings tomorow. Retail revenue will be an important part of financial projections. You're saying more or less the same thing in your posts in response to both myself and @Gaffer. I'll address it the statement may not be addressing MA's injunction and there may well be NDA's here that means they cant but I'm sorry @buster. you cant possibly describe the Clubs statement as a deflection when its in fact dealing with at least one of the points of attack I already mentioned. You'd prefer to attack MA first I get that however to me it doesn't matter what order we take them in. If that means slight of hand and keeping powder dry on other things then I'm perfectly comfortable with that. The SPFL refusal to act accordingly and above board is for me absolutely incredulous. I'll repeat it again in this case its the SPFL Chairman's appointment which is clearly a conflict of interest that has been met with their refusal to hold an independent investigation. Not only that but as far as the Private Eye article goes Chris Jack sites it in his article which although some what woolly round the edges is in agreement with the Rangers position. Added to that the SPFL either never bothered to consult Robertson who is a member of the SPFL board or they bypassed him altogether. Who the f&*k do they think they are thats not how you operate a board room? It doesn't matter how they cut it there is no escaping this for the SPFL and whether or not the other teams are public about it at at the moment there will come a time when they will have no choice on the matter and will have to issue a statement themselves. Of course we want to see the team kicking a ball around but it is important that the body who runs our game, appoints CO's chairmen, referees etc etc etc is held to account. Edited July 9, 2018 by Big Jaws 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,322 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 A fine statement from the club. If we are creating a siege mentality then I know which side of the wall I want to be on. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.