Read it, nothing in that article worth investigating.
You are getting desperste to void the league as you lost 9 in a row on the park.
How far back do you want to go?
No investigation is necessary based on this.
'The Daily Mail has now seen' should be interpreted as 'the Daily Mail isn't particularly interested in Scottish Football and we didn't bother at the time
As they confirm, it is all covered in the accounts as it should have been.
The main learning from the article are-
1 Celtic were prepared to defer their money to help other clubs in need.
2 Celtic just did it. Their didn't seek credit or come out with some self-serving statement about being concerned about the smaller clubs. Action not mealy mouthed words.
That's what should be advertised here.
A world of a difference between advance to a few clubs and loans to all clubs.
There actually is little or nothing to see here.
Well imagine my complete and utter surprise to see that the first 3 posters are a) Celtic supporters and b) Claiming that there is nothing to see.
From the supporters of a side who historically have whined to/lobbied nigh on every establishment from Holyrood to the Vatican whenever there has been anything remotely shady occurring in Scottish football.
As I said - nothing to see here...
Well imagine my complete and utter surprise to see that the first 3 posters are a) Celtic supporters
---
Could it be because you fat cvnts are still sleeping off your several takeaways from last night?
Or because Magnum has chased all but three or four bears from the site?
Or because this actually is a multi-team board?
If your flaps are going to get so bruised by those howwid Celtic fans, I suggest you go post on a single-team site.
And I wouldn't admit to wiping my erse with the Daily Mail, never mind that I read it.
comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 19 seconds ago
Well imagine my complete and utter surprise to see that the first 3 posters are a) Celtic supporters
---
Could it be because you fat cvnts are still sleeping off your several takeaways from last night?
Or because Magnum has chased all but three or four bears from the site?
Or because this actually is a multi-team board?
If your flaps are going to get so bruised by those howwid Celtic fans, I suggest you go post on a single-team site.
And I wouldn't admit to wiping my erse with the Daily Mail, never mind that I read it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning starshine
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 29 minutes ago
No investigation is necessary based on this.
'The Daily Mail has now seen' should be interpreted as 'the Daily Mail isn't particularly interested in Scottish Football and we didn't bother at the time
As they confirm, it is all covered in the accounts as it should have been.
The main learning from the article are-
1 Celtic were prepared to defer their money to help other clubs in need.
2 Celtic just did it. Their didn't seek credit or come out with some self-serving statement about being concerned about the smaller clubs. Action not mealy mouthed words.
That's what should be advertised here.
A world of a difference between advance to a few clubs and loans to all clubs.
There actually is little or nothing to see here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So SPFL saying they couldn’t advance money because of rules, when they could, is proper and fair
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 31 minutes ago
No investigation is necessary based on this.
'The Daily Mail has now seen' should be interpreted as 'the Daily Mail isn't particularly interested in Scottish Football and we didn't bother at the time
As they confirm, it is all covered in the accounts as it should have been.
The main learning from the article are-
1 Celtic were prepared to defer their money to help other clubs in need.
2 Celtic just did it. Their didn't seek credit or come out with some self-serving statement about being concerned about the smaller clubs. Action not mealy mouthed words.
That's what should be advertised here.
A world of a difference between advance to a few clubs and loans to all clubs.
There actually is little or nothing to see here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👏 exactly
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
comment by * (U22266)
posted 13 minutes ago
Well imagine my complete and utter surprise to see that the first 3 posters are a) Celtic supporters and b) Claiming that there is nothing to see.
From the supporters of a side who historically have whined to/lobbied nigh on every establishment from Holyrood to the Vatican whenever there has been anything remotely shady occurring in Scottish football.
As I said - nothing to see here...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that your commemt is relevant in any way DC1972 but in that case, remember that it was your side who told us that we were just paranoid and there was no at there could be corruption in Scottish Football.
In any case, I'm not saying that there is no issue. I have no idea if there is or not.
I'm simply saying the the argument you have produced doesn't prove, or even suggest, any wrong doing.
Feel free to answer any of the points I raised.
It is just ignorance, or in the case of some posters it it is a lack of education!! It’s like saying that a football club, it’s players and it’s fans cannot be a trinity when if you actually understand the meaning you would understand that it can be!! If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!! Although, it feels safe to be in someone pocket who can fight off armed robbers single handedly!!
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 29 minutes ago
No investigation is necessary based on this.
'The Daily Mail has now seen' should be interpreted as 'the Daily Mail isn't particularly interested in Scottish Football and we didn't bother at the time
As they confirm, it is all covered in the accounts as it should have been.
The main learning from the article are-
1 Celtic were prepared to defer their money to help other clubs in need.
2 Celtic just did it. Their didn't seek credit or come out with some self-serving statement about being concerned about the smaller clubs. Action not mealy mouthed words.
That's what should be advertised here.
A world of a difference between advance to a few clubs and loans to all clubs.
There actually is little or nothing to see here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So SPFL saying they couldn’t advance money because of rules, when they could, is proper and fair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They did not say that at any stage as far as I'm aware.
The clubs are compleyely aware of the constitution as they put it in place.
These advances were based on the minimum prize money they clubs could have achieved. So there was no risk to the league.
Celtic effectively underwrote it. Presumably to allow these teams to start and complete the season.
It wasn't a loan.
There are provisions for these sorts of situations.
It's completely different to every club getting a loan.
I don’t think they’re corrupt I just think they’re utterly useless. Shower of jokers should be holding their hands up for the mess they’ve made and out a job.
The idea of an independent investigation is unlikely to happen unless we do have something big up our sleeve, as it’s already clear its been a complete shistshow. Enough bad blood in our game and this just makes it even worse, they’re not fit for purpose.
it’s players and it’s fans...If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!!
---
No apostrophe in those 'its', champ.
They're possessive adjectives, not contracted verbs.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see we are reopening outdoor building sites on may 18th? Full details below
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0501/1136167-road-map-details/
Yay golf courses opening
comment by Big Badge On A Little Corporal (U22371)
posted 1 minute ago
It is just ignorance, or in the case of some posters it it is a lack of education!! It’s like saying that a football club, it’s players and it’s fans cannot be a trinity when if you actually understand the meaning you would understand that it can be!! If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!! Although, it feels safe to be in someone pocket who can fight off armed robbers single handedly!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you just stop it please. I'd rather not have to complain every day.
Please define trinity and trilogy and tell us which one 'club, fan and player' best fits into.
Finally, if you're going to complain about English, you might want to look into the use of its and it's before you fire away.
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see we are reopening outdoor building sites on may 18th? Full details below
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0501/1136167-road-map-details/
Yay golf courses opening
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go mate. And hopefully we’ll learn to social distance on site although there is now talk of easing that to eh extent. I think demographics will have a huge part to play also things like outside and inside working.
comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 4 minutes ago
it’s players and it’s fans...If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!!
---
No apostrophe in those 'its', champ.
They're possessive adjectives, not contracted verbs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Superb comeback !! Yap Yap!!
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see we are reopening outdoor building sites on may 18th? Full details below
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0501/1136167-road-map-details/
Yay golf courses opening
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go mate. And hopefully we’ll learn to social distance on site although there is now talk of easing that to eh extent. I think demographics will have a huge part to play also things like outside and inside working.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No pubs until august
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Big Badge On A Little Corporal (U22371)
posted 1 minute ago
It is just ignorance, or in the case of some posters it it is a lack of education!! It’s like saying that a football club, it’s players and it’s fans cannot be a trinity when if you actually understand the meaning you would understand that it can be!! If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!! Although, it feels safe to be in someone pocket who can fight off armed robbers single handedly!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you just stop it please. I'd rather not have to complain every day.
Please define trinity and trilogy and tell us which one 'club, fan and player' best fits into.
Finally, if you're going to complain about English, you might want to look into the use of its and it's before you fire away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well guess who started this, again!, with their wee swipe on the other thread!! Saying I am in your pocket! Yet more hypocrisy!! As for trinity then here you go:-
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Trinity
2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things
Unless of course you think that a football club, it’s fans and it’s players are NOT three closely related things!! After spending all that time to think up and post that nonsense you failed at the basics!! Any chance you will admit you were wrong or will you yap away for your chums to help you out!!
comment by Big Badge On A Little Corporal (U22371)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 4 minutes ago
it’s players and it’s fans...If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!!
---
No apostrophe in those 'its', champ.
They're possessive adjectives, not contracted verbs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Superb comeback!! Yap Yap!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just trying to help. You seem like you're struggling.
Any chance you will admit you were wrong or will you yap away for your chums to help you out!!
---
It's 'yelp', by the way.
"Just yelp for help."
It even rhymes to make it easier for you to remember.
The more you know.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s accurate ginger. You yourself know how wording is essential, and despite it possibly looking like semantics, can make all the difference.
One of the differences may be that these payments look like the mid season payments that clubs receive, rather than the prize money that’s paid out at the end of the season. The fact it says ‘ These fee payments were not loans and were wholly within the amounts budgeted to be earned by those clubs, whatever final league placing was achieved by those clubs that season.’ and that Celtic (the club assumed in this part of the story) could defer payment suggests that there was still further funds to be made to them. It also suggests that the SPFL couldn’t loan any money either-as they didn’t have it and had to rely on the goodwill of another team to hand these funds over. The bit about money still being owed needs explained though.
I’ll repeat-I don’t think it’s been handled well, and I think there are lessons to be learned, but I seriously doubt the allegations aimed at the board are as serious as suggested. A review of what went on would probably suffice, but if there’s evidence to the contrary then more action will be needed.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 20 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely the point I was getting at but instead it got lost because of who the poster is.
It is abundantly clear that there has been a bit of 'jiggery pokery' by the point you have made and it does merit being investigated.
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s accurate ginger. You yourself know how wording is essential, and despite it possibly looking like semantics, can make all the difference.
One of the differences may be that these payments look like the mid season payments that clubs receive, rather than the prize money that’s paid out at the end of the season. The fact it says ‘ These fee payments were not loans and were wholly within the amounts budgeted to be earned by those clubs, whatever final league placing was achieved by those clubs that season.’ and that Celtic (the club assumed in this part of the story) could defer payment suggests that there was still further funds to be made to them. It also suggests that the SPFL couldn’t loan any money either-as they didn’t have it and had to rely on the goodwill of another team to hand these funds over. The bit about money still being owed needs explained though.
I’ll repeat-I don’t think it’s been handled well, and I think there are lessons to be learned, but I seriously doubt the allegations aimed at the board are as serious as suggested. A review of what went on would probably suffice, but if there’s evidence to the contrary then more action will be needed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully understand that but while it sits in the open domain as an accusation and all that entails then for me am investigation is now needed once and for all. This will continue to rumble on otherwise.
And why didn’t the SPFL clarify this instead of deliberately not mentioning it in the statement where they acknowledged the Gretna payment and the one other? They’ve left themselves wide open in my mind. More fool them.
Sign in if you want to comment
Nothing To See Here...
Page 1 of 3
posted on 2/5/20
Read it, nothing in that article worth investigating.
You are getting desperste to void the league as you lost 9 in a row on the park.
posted on 2/5/20
How far back do you want to go?
posted on 2/5/20
No investigation is necessary based on this.
'The Daily Mail has now seen' should be interpreted as 'the Daily Mail isn't particularly interested in Scottish Football and we didn't bother at the time
As they confirm, it is all covered in the accounts as it should have been.
The main learning from the article are-
1 Celtic were prepared to defer their money to help other clubs in need.
2 Celtic just did it. Their didn't seek credit or come out with some self-serving statement about being concerned about the smaller clubs. Action not mealy mouthed words.
That's what should be advertised here.
A world of a difference between advance to a few clubs and loans to all clubs.
There actually is little or nothing to see here.
posted on 2/5/20
Well imagine my complete and utter surprise to see that the first 3 posters are a) Celtic supporters and b) Claiming that there is nothing to see.
From the supporters of a side who historically have whined to/lobbied nigh on every establishment from Holyrood to the Vatican whenever there has been anything remotely shady occurring in Scottish football.
As I said - nothing to see here...
posted on 2/5/20
Well imagine my complete and utter surprise to see that the first 3 posters are a) Celtic supporters
---
Could it be because you fat cvnts are still sleeping off your several takeaways from last night?
Or because Magnum has chased all but three or four bears from the site?
Or because this actually is a multi-team board?
If your flaps are going to get so bruised by those howwid Celtic fans, I suggest you go post on a single-team site.
And I wouldn't admit to wiping my erse with the Daily Mail, never mind that I read it.
posted on 2/5/20
comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 19 seconds ago
Well imagine my complete and utter surprise to see that the first 3 posters are a) Celtic supporters
---
Could it be because you fat cvnts are still sleeping off your several takeaways from last night?
Or because Magnum has chased all but three or four bears from the site?
Or because this actually is a multi-team board?
If your flaps are going to get so bruised by those howwid Celtic fans, I suggest you go post on a single-team site.
And I wouldn't admit to wiping my erse with the Daily Mail, never mind that I read it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning starshine
posted on 2/5/20
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 29 minutes ago
No investigation is necessary based on this.
'The Daily Mail has now seen' should be interpreted as 'the Daily Mail isn't particularly interested in Scottish Football and we didn't bother at the time
As they confirm, it is all covered in the accounts as it should have been.
The main learning from the article are-
1 Celtic were prepared to defer their money to help other clubs in need.
2 Celtic just did it. Their didn't seek credit or come out with some self-serving statement about being concerned about the smaller clubs. Action not mealy mouthed words.
That's what should be advertised here.
A world of a difference between advance to a few clubs and loans to all clubs.
There actually is little or nothing to see here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So SPFL saying they couldn’t advance money because of rules, when they could, is proper and fair
posted on 2/5/20
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 31 minutes ago
No investigation is necessary based on this.
'The Daily Mail has now seen' should be interpreted as 'the Daily Mail isn't particularly interested in Scottish Football and we didn't bother at the time
As they confirm, it is all covered in the accounts as it should have been.
The main learning from the article are-
1 Celtic were prepared to defer their money to help other clubs in need.
2 Celtic just did it. Their didn't seek credit or come out with some self-serving statement about being concerned about the smaller clubs. Action not mealy mouthed words.
That's what should be advertised here.
A world of a difference between advance to a few clubs and loans to all clubs.
There actually is little or nothing to see here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👏 exactly
posted on 2/5/20
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
posted on 2/5/20
comment by * (U22266)
posted 13 minutes ago
Well imagine my complete and utter surprise to see that the first 3 posters are a) Celtic supporters and b) Claiming that there is nothing to see.
From the supporters of a side who historically have whined to/lobbied nigh on every establishment from Holyrood to the Vatican whenever there has been anything remotely shady occurring in Scottish football.
As I said - nothing to see here...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that your commemt is relevant in any way DC1972 but in that case, remember that it was your side who told us that we were just paranoid and there was no at there could be corruption in Scottish Football.
In any case, I'm not saying that there is no issue. I have no idea if there is or not.
I'm simply saying the the argument you have produced doesn't prove, or even suggest, any wrong doing.
Feel free to answer any of the points I raised.
posted on 2/5/20
It is just ignorance, or in the case of some posters it it is a lack of education!! It’s like saying that a football club, it’s players and it’s fans cannot be a trinity when if you actually understand the meaning you would understand that it can be!! If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!! Although, it feels safe to be in someone pocket who can fight off armed robbers single handedly!!
posted on 2/5/20
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 29 minutes ago
No investigation is necessary based on this.
'The Daily Mail has now seen' should be interpreted as 'the Daily Mail isn't particularly interested in Scottish Football and we didn't bother at the time
As they confirm, it is all covered in the accounts as it should have been.
The main learning from the article are-
1 Celtic were prepared to defer their money to help other clubs in need.
2 Celtic just did it. Their didn't seek credit or come out with some self-serving statement about being concerned about the smaller clubs. Action not mealy mouthed words.
That's what should be advertised here.
A world of a difference between advance to a few clubs and loans to all clubs.
There actually is little or nothing to see here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So SPFL saying they couldn’t advance money because of rules, when they could, is proper and fair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They did not say that at any stage as far as I'm aware.
The clubs are compleyely aware of the constitution as they put it in place.
These advances were based on the minimum prize money they clubs could have achieved. So there was no risk to the league.
Celtic effectively underwrote it. Presumably to allow these teams to start and complete the season.
It wasn't a loan.
There are provisions for these sorts of situations.
It's completely different to every club getting a loan.
posted on 2/5/20
I don’t think they’re corrupt I just think they’re utterly useless. Shower of jokers should be holding their hands up for the mess they’ve made and out a job.
The idea of an independent investigation is unlikely to happen unless we do have something big up our sleeve, as it’s already clear its been a complete shistshow. Enough bad blood in our game and this just makes it even worse, they’re not fit for purpose.
posted on 2/5/20
it’s players and it’s fans...If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!!
---
No apostrophe in those 'its', champ.
They're possessive adjectives, not contracted verbs.
posted on 2/5/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see we are reopening outdoor building sites on may 18th? Full details below
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0501/1136167-road-map-details/
Yay golf courses opening
posted on 2/5/20
comment by Big Badge On A Little Corporal (U22371)
posted 1 minute ago
It is just ignorance, or in the case of some posters it it is a lack of education!! It’s like saying that a football club, it’s players and it’s fans cannot be a trinity when if you actually understand the meaning you would understand that it can be!! If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!! Although, it feels safe to be in someone pocket who can fight off armed robbers single handedly!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you just stop it please. I'd rather not have to complain every day.
Please define trinity and trilogy and tell us which one 'club, fan and player' best fits into.
Finally, if you're going to complain about English, you might want to look into the use of its and it's before you fire away.
posted on 2/5/20
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see we are reopening outdoor building sites on may 18th? Full details below
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0501/1136167-road-map-details/
Yay golf courses opening
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go mate. And hopefully we’ll learn to social distance on site although there is now talk of easing that to eh extent. I think demographics will have a huge part to play also things like outside and inside working.
posted on 2/5/20
comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 4 minutes ago
it’s players and it’s fans...If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!!
---
No apostrophe in those 'its', champ.
They're possessive adjectives, not contracted verbs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Superb comeback !! Yap Yap!!
posted on 2/5/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see we are reopening outdoor building sites on may 18th? Full details below
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0501/1136167-road-map-details/
Yay golf courses opening
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go mate. And hopefully we’ll learn to social distance on site although there is now talk of easing that to eh extent. I think demographics will have a huge part to play also things like outside and inside working.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No pubs until august
posted on 2/5/20
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Big Badge On A Little Corporal (U22371)
posted 1 minute ago
It is just ignorance, or in the case of some posters it it is a lack of education!! It’s like saying that a football club, it’s players and it’s fans cannot be a trinity when if you actually understand the meaning you would understand that it can be!! If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!! Although, it feels safe to be in someone pocket who can fight off armed robbers single handedly!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you just stop it please. I'd rather not have to complain every day.
Please define trinity and trilogy and tell us which one 'club, fan and player' best fits into.
Finally, if you're going to complain about English, you might want to look into the use of its and it's before you fire away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well guess who started this, again!, with their wee swipe on the other thread!! Saying I am in your pocket! Yet more hypocrisy!! As for trinity then here you go:-
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Trinity
2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things
Unless of course you think that a football club, it’s fans and it’s players are NOT three closely related things!! After spending all that time to think up and post that nonsense you failed at the basics!! Any chance you will admit you were wrong or will you yap away for your chums to help you out!!
posted on 2/5/20
comment by Big Badge On A Little Corporal (U22371)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 4 minutes ago
it’s players and it’s fans...If I am going to be in anyone’s pocket I would rather it was in someone’s who has a basic understanding of English!!
---
No apostrophe in those 'its', champ.
They're possessive adjectives, not contracted verbs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Superb comeback!! Yap Yap!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just trying to help. You seem like you're struggling.
posted on 2/5/20
Any chance you will admit you were wrong or will you yap away for your chums to help you out!!
---
It's 'yelp', by the way.
"Just yelp for help."
It even rhymes to make it easier for you to remember.
The more you know.
posted on 2/5/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s accurate ginger. You yourself know how wording is essential, and despite it possibly looking like semantics, can make all the difference.
One of the differences may be that these payments look like the mid season payments that clubs receive, rather than the prize money that’s paid out at the end of the season. The fact it says ‘ These fee payments were not loans and were wholly within the amounts budgeted to be earned by those clubs, whatever final league placing was achieved by those clubs that season.’ and that Celtic (the club assumed in this part of the story) could defer payment suggests that there was still further funds to be made to them. It also suggests that the SPFL couldn’t loan any money either-as they didn’t have it and had to rely on the goodwill of another team to hand these funds over. The bit about money still being owed needs explained though.
I’ll repeat-I don’t think it’s been handled well, and I think there are lessons to be learned, but I seriously doubt the allegations aimed at the board are as serious as suggested. A review of what went on would probably suffice, but if there’s evidence to the contrary then more action will be needed.
posted on 2/5/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 20 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely the point I was getting at but instead it got lost because of who the poster is.
It is abundantly clear that there has been a bit of 'jiggery pokery' by the point you have made and it does merit being investigated.
posted on 2/5/20
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
Hmmm
I’m not so sure.
The argument being that the SPFL claimed there had been no loans for the past 7 years yet it appears as though advances have been made to 2 clubs.
You can dress these up as anything you like but imo they are loans and they are loans based on prize money which had yet to be determined. Now that to me is obfuscation and says that the SPFL weren’t truthful in their statement and that indeed money could have been advanced.
Yes it needs investigating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s accurate ginger. You yourself know how wording is essential, and despite it possibly looking like semantics, can make all the difference.
One of the differences may be that these payments look like the mid season payments that clubs receive, rather than the prize money that’s paid out at the end of the season. The fact it says ‘ These fee payments were not loans and were wholly within the amounts budgeted to be earned by those clubs, whatever final league placing was achieved by those clubs that season.’ and that Celtic (the club assumed in this part of the story) could defer payment suggests that there was still further funds to be made to them. It also suggests that the SPFL couldn’t loan any money either-as they didn’t have it and had to rely on the goodwill of another team to hand these funds over. The bit about money still being owed needs explained though.
I’ll repeat-I don’t think it’s been handled well, and I think there are lessons to be learned, but I seriously doubt the allegations aimed at the board are as serious as suggested. A review of what went on would probably suffice, but if there’s evidence to the contrary then more action will be needed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully understand that but while it sits in the open domain as an accusation and all that entails then for me am investigation is now needed once and for all. This will continue to rumble on otherwise.
And why didn’t the SPFL clarify this instead of deliberately not mentioning it in the statement where they acknowledged the Gretna payment and the one other? They’ve left themselves wide open in my mind. More fool them.
Page 1 of 3