Rick Roberts

6 minutes ago, 26th of foot said:

Who is the journalist penning the piece?

 

The article is behind a fire wall.

PATRICK MCPARTLIN

Just now, Waltersgotstyle said:

I am most concerned about Mike Mulraney. I live in Alloa and everyone who knows him or his brother could tell you how much their family hate anything remotely related to Rangers.

 

It is deeply concerning that a man of his character has managed to worm his way into the SFA.

Agreed. He's effectively a punter picked out of a pub by Celtic, for Celtic.

 

Its horrible to think that he's even around the game at all, let alone for years to come.

This is a few days old now but thought it was worth discussion. Sorry if covered elsewhere.

 

Obviously the names Petrie and Mulraney are toxic.

 

Not quite sure of the process but cant help feel Rangers (or club1872) should be commenting on this in some capacity. Would hate to think that moves like this can just happen "unopposed" in this day and age.

 

 

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibernian/new-sfa-president-rod-petrie-calls-on-scottish-football-to-be-best-it-can-be-1-4946284

 

 

 

Rod Petrie has expressed his pride at becoming Scottish FA president and insists it is validation of his ability to make a positive contribution at the top of the game’s governing body.

The Hibs chairman was elected unopposed to the role at the annual general meeting of the SFA at Hampden on Wednesday afternoon.

 

There has been criticism of a system which sees the office bearers of the organisation appointed by a line of accession. But Petrie, who has been a director on the SFA board since 2007, has pledged to prove his worth as he succeeds Alan McRae and begins a four-year tenure.

“My appointment is not a reward for what I have done, rather a recognition of the contribution I can make during my term of office as president,” said Petrie.

 

“I take the responsibility seriously and will continue to work hard in the best interests of Scottish football.

“We are a members organisation with responsibility for all of the game. We need to harness our strengths and engage in a constructive way with all of our stakeholders to make the Scottish FA and the national game the best it can be at all levels.”

 

Petrie becomes the third representative from Hibs to become SFA president, following former Easter Road chairman Harry Swan (1952-56) and ex-director Tommy Younger (1983-84).

 

“It goes without saying that today is a proud day and I am grateful to the membership for endorsing my presidency,” added the 63-year-old.

“It is an honour to become president and follow in the footsteps of Harry Swan, the respected former Hibernian chairman of 30 years standing, who became president in 1952 until 1956.

“Harry was a pioneer. He was a visionary president of the Scottish FA whose influence and forward thinking persuaded the game to look beyond its domestic horizons and embrace the possibilities that lay in European football.”

 

Alloa chairman Mike Mulraney was named as the new vice-president, also unopposed.

 

“I will leave no stone unturned in helping to take the game forward with a clear direction and in a collaborative way,” said Mulraney.

“During my time as a Scottish FA board member I have seen progress in working closer with the membership and as vice-president my commitment is to continue to advocate working more efficiently and effectively with and for our member clubs so that the pursuit of higher standards is achieved in an integrated fashion.”

 

https://twitter.com/ProfTomkins/status/1134099571246809089 

 

2 minutes ago, stewarty said:

Would be impossible to say exactly given it would fall under the general bracket of professional services in their accounts but the fact that law firms have dedicated sports lawyers says just about everything you need to know.

Yep, lawyers are good at creating markets for themselves.

 

If this costs the game, say even, £200k, a year then its money wasted. It's added nothing this year.

 

Another side observation, is that we've had 12 or so citations. We've challenged half of these. That's costing money (and time and effort). Celtic obviously haven't had many citations (when they should have) so have avoided that hassle. They obviously had the Brown antics after the game at parkhead, but they didnt take long to bat away.

 

 

 

Does anyone know how much all the lawyers cost the game, and clubs?

 

Here's some recent tweets from MSP John Mason. The contortion to avoid appropriation any blame to Celtic is incredible to watch. 

 

Another line I've noticed recently from Celtic fans is if that if something is not proven through the courts, then it never happened. 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, buster. said:

Bump now that page has turned.

 

Well worth a read !!

Thank's Rick !

Thanks Buster. 

 

Hopefully i've kept it concise and factual and it lands under the right persons nose at some point. 

 

Annoyingly couldn't get the link to the tweet to work properly - if any admin want to fix? 

I put some thoughts down on it. Or recent events. 

 

One nagging issue is that coverage just doesn't fit. It's not organic or normal in the slightest. Which implies its been manipulated, apparently from all angles.

 

https://uppingtheoutput.home.blog/2019/05/26/cynicism-and-consequences/

 

https://twitter.com/RickyBobby1872/status/1132658475371253760

Great listen as always. Thanks and well done to all for providing the content.

 

On the goals summary, i think someone mentioned it, but the lack of 25-30 yarders has been evident for some years now. I would take winning any day of the week but hopefully its an aspect we can improve on. 

5 hours ago, 26th of foot said:

As I remain in France, Cordes sur Ciel to be exact; and as such do not have access to BBC Scotland's highlights, how has Mikey Stewart reacted to Edouard's dive to win a penalty? A solid Jambo is Mikey, or will he allow his seething hatred of Craig Levein to 'cloud' his judgement?

 

There must be at least ten differing camera angles?

He hasnt mentioned it on twitter. Not sure of their post-match stuff.

14 hours ago, JohnMc said:

I've got some sympathy for Clyde on this. Firstly I think we have to accept that child abuse is a very difficult subject to talk about on a sport's programme. Super Scoreboard has a wide audience age wise, that creates problems in subject matter, it's on in the early evening when children could be listening. Personally I'd turn over a programme that was discussing child abuse if my 11 year old was listening. It's not an appropriate subject and it is most certainly not an appropriate programme to be discussing it. Secondly no one on that programme is even remotely qualified to discuss the subject matter. I mean the presenters and guests struggle to say anything vaguely informative on football, what possible insight could they bring to this subject? And a phone-in on it is a horrifying thought. 

 

I understand why some people feel there's double standards being displayed. After all no one on Super Scoreboard is an insolvency or tax expert yet they were happy to discuss and comment on that for months on end. However, I think there's a huge difference between spouting ill-informed gibberish about EBTs and spouting it about a paedophile ring. For me the latter is a subject that should only be covered by the 'news' shows. Whilst it concerns a 'sports' club it's not a suitable story for sport journalists to cover. It's news story, it's a big news story, potentially a huge one. A paedophile ring operating inside one of the biggest and most successful sporting institutes in this country, apparently for decades, requires a level of investigation and analysis no sport's programme is capable of providing. I agree with those that have called for a public enquiry, that's not point scoring either. I knew boys who played for Celtic Boys Club, their families were so proud of them. Even as a Rangers supporter you recognised the kudos that came with being able to say you were good enough to play for them. Evil, evil men preyed on young boys, deceived their families, lied and abused their positions and ultimately destroyed the lives of who knows how many people. That shouldn't be allowed to simply be forgotten. 

You make good points and you're correct. I don't think there's any need to go through grisly details. I dont think anyone should stumble through details that upset or offend any victims.

 

However, there is a secondary layer that is more suitable for discussion. Concerning the actions of the club, its legal stance and a cover-up. From the top of my head.

- Links between  board and predators.

- Links between predators and outsiders (i.e. Bennell)

- Hiring policies.

- Comment on celtics own investigation into the boys club in the 80s.

- How many people at senior club knew?

- Fergus McCanns actions?

- Payments from club to 3rd parties.

- Public calls from club (and associates) reaching out to victims.

- ...those made no mention of police. Was any info ever passed to police?

- What did the police know and not act on?

- Did celtic contacts victims directly?

- How many non-disclosure agreements are out there?

- When and how did celtic adopt their first defence strategy? Was this a shared tactic with the CC?

- When did separate entity defence appear?

- Compare clubs actions with those in England.

- Compare Man Cities response with celtics.

- Compare case and actions with Penn State.

- Discuss whether Penn State precedents and punishments should apply to Celtic?

- What options were available to SFA?

- What options are available to SFA?

- Discuss whether member clubs should meat to discuss celtics behaviour?

- Discuss whether celtic scandal has been covered up? And by who. 

 

There's plenty scope for open and informed discussion on this. Some of this is documented fact, other points speculation and hearsay. They could get months worth of content out of this and people would want to know about it. They would if it were Rangers. Also, I'm sure Hugh Keevins could give some very accurate answers to many of those questions, if he wanted to. 

 

But there's the crux. He doesn't want to. Celtic don't want him to. To have the celtic support, and other supports, discussing that is damaging for them, which is why it is never mentioned. 

 

From what I've seen on twitter a lot of celtic fans are genuinely in denial or in the dark about it. The coverage and content for a scandal that size has been extremely limited.

 

There's also some pretty murky stuff going on to cover it up. Accounts popping up and attacking anyone talking about it, including victims. I've seen tims setting up accounts pretending to be Penn State fans. We currently have a group driving the "victims cause" in Hampden and Holyrood that are knowingly excluding victims. That group appears firmly in the "dont blame the club" camp. Call me cynical. But when millions of pound are at stake then anything goes. Including radio stations opting to limit exposure.

 

Clyde SSB, of course, have history with inconsistency. During one of the raging storms on Rangers singing nasty songs, when celtic fans were caught red handed singing sectarian songs, Keevins simply changed the subject. A change of editorial policy so to speak.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

The answer with Clyde is to not tune in. Unlike the BBC who take all our money if we watch 1 second of live telly Clyde would suffer almost immediately if their listening figures dropped of a cliff. If every Bear gave them a miss for a month the message would get through. 

Totally agree. I dont listen these days but its difficult to avoid seeing examples of the double-standards they spew out. Like the example above. 

 

 

I saw this posted on FF earlier. For anyone unlucky enough to have listened to Clyde SSB at all, or in the past decade in particular, this really is something else. If not unsurprising...

 

It reads like its straight from the forked-tongue of the high priest of the East End himself, Hugh Keevins.  

I've went for Arfield. I think he's been at the centre of our best performances and has been the most missed when out.

 

Tav has been excellent at times. Would be happy to see him get the vote too.

 

A few months ago i wouldve said Morelos, by a long way, but he ruined it with the red at celtic.

3 hours ago, Bluedell said:

I don't see why we would have discussed Celtic's allocation with them, so don't see why Killie would discuss with us.

 

It's up to them to decide what they give us, as long as it's not less than the specified minimum.

Us and the them is a bit different. 

 

I would have thought Killie would have to tread a bit lighter with us tho, given size of our away support.

 

Yeah. Looks that way. If amicable then Rangers would've released statement wishing them luck etc etc

Is this not something that wouldve been discussed beforehand, between the clubs? 

23 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

In any case, Rangers - and any other club - should demand that the panel members as well as the referees deciding in the first place should be named and their pedigree and reasons published.

 

It simply is not on that no-names in shadowy rooms decide on the well-being of the game. Likewise, the referees deciding should give a written explanation why any sort of penalty is given or not given, citing the relevant laws of the game.

 

We saw Candeias being sent off for being man-handled by an opposition defender, and the appeal was rejected. We saw Simunovic floor Shaw with a blatant elbow attack (caught on camera) and there was no evidence for even a yellow card. Brown can wade through blood without getting a card ... it is simply not on.

Correct, whole thing is a joke.

 

Have said it elsewhere, but club needs to bring it to a head and sort it out this season. No way can we risk next season sabotaged by this shower of shite.

 

I would have club formally submit incidents to CO system. Including Scott Browns stamp at Dundee. That way we are in no doubt what the panel are looking at and what decision they reach. 

 

 

 

Players (multiple) being fatigued at same time is a bit concerning. We have squad to rest and bring back some of these guys over season. Likewise, some players carrying injuries. I don't think anyone except Morelos is replaceable so no real excuses.

 

One thing i never see mentioned is the Gerrard factor. He allows us to attract certain players, open doors that other managers perhaps wouldn't. We need to maximise this. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45 minutes ago, pete said:

Yes I don't think this is a free podcast. People can listen to the new free Gersnet podcast 036 instead of course.

Of course Pete. Both equally excellent. And Gersnet is infinitely better value. ?

https://www.patreon.com/posts/murray-and-me-25438092

 

On Patreon site. Subscription only, i believe. 

Martyn returns to quiz David on his time with the RST and his relationship with then-Rangers owner David Murray. In this episode, they look back to the battles over songs Rangers found themselves embroiled in during the 00s. How did Murray react to the changing climate - and how did David? 

__________

 

Fantastic listen, as always, for latest in their David Murray series.

 

So tragic and sad that agendas against us were so blatant and so effective and yet as a support we're still in denial about these things.

 

 

14 hours ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

Cheers mate.

 

I agree with the spirit of your comments. However, I reckon a lot of supporters who would potentially turn up are slightly put off by some of the perceived baggage that the VB or UB for example, have; rightly or wrongly. Club1872 maybe aren't the vehicle that some of us thought it could be, but I would envisage that some of our less politically motivated supporters would feel more inclined to support something en masse that they put their name to.

 

Something for our supporter chiefs to chew over?

 

A big protest akin to the Main Stand/Easdale/Sommers one in Jan '15 would send a message to the BBC in London never mind Glasgow.

As a member of Club1872 I asked if they would back the demo. They said they hadn't been asked and weren't sure on arrangements/permissions etc, so couldn't commit at this time. They also said no other members had asked them.

 

Likewise, i believe other Rangers forums hadn't publicised event. Because of history/personality stuff.

 

There's some questions here. The bigger picture should have been all encompassing. A chance for an olive branch from either side and opportunity to be the bigger person. These groups dont have to like each other but at times they have a duty to suck it up, imho.

 

Likewise, organiser could've reached out more (i'm assuming they didnt, they maybe did) and then at least they've done their bit.

 

Ultimately, should've been postponed with the weather.