The fail blazers

[ian1964 10,461]

FIRST rule of the pub square go.

 

If you’re going to take a swing at the biggest guy in the place, make sure he doesn’t get back up.

 

Ignore it once and you might get away with a slap.

 

Twice? Well, just ask the SFA how it feels.

 

In the last year, they’ve now called out the TWO biggest dudes in Scottish football’s saloon.

 

And both times, they’ve proved they couldn’t punch their way through a wet sheet of lavvy roll.

 

Thirteen months ago, they were taking on Celtic to make Neil Lennon serve an eight-match ban, only for QC Paul McBride to drive the team bus through their case and have it reduced to two four-games bans running concurrently.

 

Now, they’ve tried to stick Rangers with a season-long transfer embargo as punishment for Craig Whyte not paying nine months’ worth of tax.

 

Only for fist to whoosh past chin and their target to stand there sneering: “Is that your best shot?” Those five words have been the last a whole lot of plastic hardmen have heard before the birdies start tweeting around their napper.

 

And in football terms, that’s what’s about to happen to the SFA.

 

After yesterday’s courtroom ruling that the embargo wasn’t worth the paper it was typed on, they’re going to get their blazers pulled up over their heads and their breeks pulled down. Then they’re going to get the metaphorical doing of a lifetime.

 

I was about to write that you can imagine how revved up the ranks of angry Bluenoses will be right now.

 

But with the speed of social networking, by the time you read this they’ll already have made plans to march on Hampden again and give the beaks even bigger pelters than they did last time. That first protest was to demand what they saw as fairness. The next will be the noisiest possible vote of no confidence in the people charged with running our game.

 

It’s surely a vote few followers of ANY club would go against in the current climate, because after this latest twist in the Rangers saga it’s hard to retain much faith in Stewart Regan and his administration.

 

There was a time when the SFA got stick for dragging their feet when it came to big decisions. Remember when wee Berti Vogts was making us a laughing stock and somehow it took them nine months after a 4-0 humping in Cardiff to bin him?

 

It was this kind of shilly-shallying that finally brought about an end to the old-school committee system and saw Regan airlifted in to modernise the whole shooting match.

 

His vow was that from that day on, they WOULD make the decisions that had to be made. And he’s been as good as his word.

 

Only trouble is, it seems they’re now making decisions SO fast they don’t think them through long enough to make them stick. They took on the referees, forced them into a strike and are now losing good men hand over fist. They took on Celtic over Lennon and the late McBride nutmegged them with a beach-ball in a phone box.

 

The Parkhead lawyer left them without a name, declaring that their bid to ban Lennon for eight games was a non-starter because “anyone who can read could see what the rules were”.

 

He told the Hampden mandarins to “grow up and start acting responsibly” and labelled them “institutionally dysfunctional”.

 

His words rings as true today as they did last April.

 

Because now they’ve taken on Rangers. And it’s cringe-makingly obvious that they didn’t brief the independent panel appointed to investigate the Whyte fiasco on what sanctions they could impose.

 

How must those fellas be feeling this morning? They’ve been taking appalling abuse for weeks after Ally McCoist forced the blazers into removing their anonymity — and now, just when they’re starting to disappear back into shadows, their lives get turned upside down again.

 

As for kicking Rangers out of football? Aye right.

 

Listen, if the SFA wanted to banish Rangers for the scandal of their financial meltdown, they should have had the balls to do it from the off. Instead, though, they ended up with some mish-mash of punishments that were plainly their attempt at looking tough-ish without actually putting he tackities on.

 

So what are they telling us now? That because they’ve lost Round One, they’re now going wait till the other guy’s back is turned and malky him with a pool cue?

 

That’s not being tough. That’s being vindictive.

 

It’s one thing increasing a ban on a manager or player who steps out of line then lodges a spurious appeal.

 

But when a club’s opposition to a ruling is vindicated in a court of law, to then bluster about the possibility of coming back with an even heavier sentence only serves to shred what remains of their credibility. Rangers SHOULD be punished. Craig Whyte SHOULD never be involved in football again. David Murray — he’s no more due the Sir part than Fred Goodwin was — CAN’T be allowed to get away with masterminding years of reckless over-spending and tax avoidance.

 

But for the love of God, someone please work out for absolutely certain who they can do what to and how.

 

And until that’s carved in stone and signed off by the men in powdery wigs, let’s not hear another damn word from the SFA.

 

If this lot walk away from this mess with their jobs intact, they’ll have done well. They’d also do well to remember that before taking their next gallus pill.

 

Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4345747/SFA-cant-put-up-fight-or-defend-themselves.html#ixzz1wIxj6qqj

 

By BILL LECKIE

Edited May 29, 2012 by ian1964

[GovanAllan 0]

Not too bad a piece from Leckie, the dating site must be working and he's getting his baws emptied these days.

 

Only bit I disagree on is why must we be punished more, a bit like finding a guy on death row for murder is innocent but making him serve life anyway just to save face.

Edited May 30, 2012 by GovanAllan

[Juancornetto 1]

If you ask any of our detractors why we should be further punished they can't actually tell you, all they do rhyme off lists of alleged "crimes" that have neither been committed nor proved to have been committed. Their perspective has long gone and been replaced with blind hatred.

 

I think it's startling how different the reporting styles are between STV and 'ra BBC, if you ever required any proof that BBC Pacific Quay CSC is in full effect then I suggest reading a few articles and reports from each side by side. It's almost laughably clear now.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

horribly written piece of pap but the anti sfa thrust is fine by me.

[Frankie 8,187]

Not a fan of Leckie but he's usually bad for all sides.

 

At least this time he's criticising the SFA which few people seem to be doing of late. Even FIFA will suddenly become credible for some people now they're on the RFC case.

[caseyjones 0]

Not too bad a piece from Leckie, the dating site must be working and he's getting his baws emptied these days.

 

Only bit I disagree on is why must we be punished more, a bit like finding a guy on death row for murder is innocent but making him serve life anyway just to save face.

 

Rangers have accepted their guilt, they were arguing that that specific sanction wasn't available to the JP and the judge agreed. There won't now be more punishment, just one that is permitted, which is what the judge also said.

[caseyjones 0]

Not a fan of Leckie but he's usually bad for all sides.

 

At least this time he's criticising the SFA which few people seem to be doing of late. Even FIFA will suddenly become credible for some people now they're on the RFC case.

 

FIFA will tear the SFA to shreds over their handling of this, but they will also be demanding that action be taken against the club for using the civil court system.

[Frankie 8,187]

Rangers have accepted their guilt, they were arguing that that specific sanction wasn't available to the JP and the judge agreed. There won't now be more punishment, just one that is permitted, which is what the judge also said.

 

Rangers suggested a Scottish Cup ban at the initial hearing. I suspect that's what will now be given - perhaps plus a nominal fine for going to the law courts.

 

Once again the SFA and Regan have shown themselves to be not fit for purpose. They acted unlawfully yet the BBC in particular want to suggest RFC are again at fault.

[Bears 0]

I've read that being banned from the Scottish cup will effect a CVA being accepted as we need to be in all competitions?

 

How true or false is this?

[GovanAllan 0]

Rangers suggested a Scottish Cup ban at the initial hearing. I suspect that's what will now be given - perhaps plus a nominal fine for going to the law courts.

 

Once again the SFA and Regan have shown themselves to be not fit for purpose. They acted unlawfully yet the BBC in particular want to suggest RFC are again at fault.

 

Cup ban will scupper the CVA do they really want to go there.