|
The Media
|
|
Topic Started: 1 Nov 2017, 11:12 PM (581,190 Views)
|
|
thenakattack
|
12 Nov 2017, 04:02 PM
Post #441
|
- Posts:
- 5,942
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #9,403
- Joined:
- 10 July 2007
|
- pedrok
- 12 Nov 2017, 01:32 PM
- idyllwild
- 12 Nov 2017, 12:50 PM
- pedrok
- 12 Nov 2017, 12:43 PM
Desmond didn't register at all on the BBC national news, unlike three cast members of Mrs Brown's Boys.
There was one reason, and one reason only, why this story appeared on BBC Scotland, and was actually reported during the midweek Sportsound programme.
The same reason why non-football stories about James Forrest, Leigh Griffiths, Craig Gordon, etc are all reported and discussed. There's an audience for "personal" news stories about people involved in Celtic and Rangers.
There is an audience for 'celebrity' guff in this country that fills pages and pages of newspapers, magazines and websites. The story about Desmond and his personal tax issues is not the same as Leigh Griffiths latest girlfriend. It is very clear why this particular story was broadcast on BBC Scotland, why Desmond was approached on his way to a Celtic game and why a final shot, with Daly and the Celtic Football Club sign, was shown. Because it sells, it’s pretty simple any story that can be linked to us or the huns will get more coverage than an equivalent that doesnt. The reaction here, the papers and other sections of the internet shows it was completely the correct approach and angle to take.
It is a celebrity guff story, it is the same as griff and a bird.
|
|
|
| |
|
dazabhoy67
|
12 Nov 2017, 04:24 PM
Post #442
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 18,315
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #26,754
- Joined:
- 17 August 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik Larsson
|
- Dubz
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:00 PM
- Sunny Jim Young
- 12 Nov 2017, 03:48 PM
Has the fact that a Former Rangers player is asking the SFA to investigate whether Former Rangers cheated him and his ex club out of money he was due made the news yet?
No, we ourselves are too busy burying that by keeping the DD story relevant.
I seen this posted last night on twitter and came in here and the hun thread to have a look and can't see anything on it at all. 
Did Ball really ask the SFA for an investigation of some sort into his transfer? If so when did he ask this?
|
|
|
| |
|
thenakattack
|
12 Nov 2017, 05:19 PM
Post #443
|
- Posts:
- 5,942
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #9,403
- Joined:
- 10 July 2007
|
- dazabhoy67
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:24 PM
- Dubz
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:00 PM
- Sunny Jim Young
- 12 Nov 2017, 03:48 PM
Has the fact that a Former Rangers player is asking the SFA to investigate whether Former Rangers cheated him and his ex club out of money he was due made the news yet?
No, we ourselves are too busy burying that by keeping the DD story relevant. I seen this posted last night on twitter and came in here and the hun thread to have a look and can't see anything on it at all.  Did Ball really ask the SFA for an investigation of some sort into his transfer? If so when did he ask this? He did reply to a tweet about it the other day. Dunno how offical that is.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sunny Jim Young
|
12 Nov 2017, 06:02 PM
Post #444
|
- Posts:
- 7,297
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #3,601
- Joined:
- 14 April 2006
- Favourite all-time player
- Bobby Lennox
|
- dazabhoy67
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:24 PM
- Dubz
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:00 PM
- Sunny Jim Young
- 12 Nov 2017, 03:48 PM
Has the fact that a Former Rangers player is asking the SFA to investigate whether Former Rangers cheated him and his ex club out of money he was due made the news yet?
No, we ourselves are too busy burying that by keeping the DD story relevant. I seen this posted last night on twitter and came in here and the hun thread to have a look and can't see anything on it at all.  Did Ball really ask the SFA for an investigation of some sort into his transfer? If so when did he ask this? He posted on Twitter that he was still waiting to hear from the SFA and PFA Scotland about this.
Some have tried to explain the DD story by saying that journalists are desperate to publish anything about Celtic or Rangers because it gets attention along with clicks and sales.
And yet no one in the mainstream media sees any interest in this story.
|
|
|
| |
|
Burnley Celt
|
12 Nov 2017, 06:08 PM
Post #445
|
Old fud, taking things easy......
- Posts:
- 8,834
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #11,442
- Joined:
- 23 October 2007
- Favourite all-time player
- Billy McNeill
- Twitter Name
- @burnleycelt
|
- tenerifetim
- 12 Nov 2017, 03:14 PM
- Forza
- 12 Nov 2017, 03:00 PM
- GetFunky
- 12 Nov 2017, 02:10 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Correct. And in my experience English people (and increasingly media) don't give a eff about all but the top six of the top flight. This is being shown in domestic TV audiences for games not involving these clubs. It's not really any bigger news than what they think of Celtic or Scotland. It's just the way it is.
None of the English/Welsh Spanish people here in my complex have a clue who DD is - I couldn't be arsed asking the Italian/Russian/Belgian neighbours as they were too busy eating . The Czech/Croatian/Italian waiters in my local Irish Bar didn't have a clue either even though DD has been there a couple of times with Daniel O'Donnel ! That last bit could be a bigger story.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wailer
|
12 Nov 2017, 07:15 PM
Post #446
|
- Posts:
- 57,396
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #625
- Joined:
- 9 February 2005
- Favourite all-time player
- Larsson
|
- idyllwild
- 12 Nov 2017, 08:12 AM
- Fearghas
- 12 Nov 2017, 02:32 AM
- idyllwild
- 11 Nov 2017, 08:04 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
it's not really. it's muddying the waters simple as that.
DD's tax situation is seen as newsworthy because of his involvement with Celtic. If you think that's a deliberate muddying of the waters, then I guess everyone discussing it on here (particularly in "Celtic" threads) is also complicit in this smear campaign against the club. Or maybe people recognise that things don't exist in a vacuum, there is a Celtic angle that makes the story worth discussing even though it isn't anything that directly involves the club. I think you and a few others are being a wee bit over-sensitive because this is a tax story. We don't hear these "smear" accusations against the BBC when they mention any other non-Celtic stuff that our players/club officials get up to. Fair enough although there are bigger stories out there waiting to be investigated and that's the issue. Seems these investigative reporters are picking and choosing what to investigate so they've chosen DD over bigger stories, and these bigger stories would have some suggesting that they're being picked upon.
Parity of esteem must have gotten through.
Maybe they will get around to these other stories and all will be well again.
|
|
|
| |
|
Oscar Strummer
|
12 Nov 2017, 09:22 PM
Post #447
|
The Artist Formerly Known As lubomir25
- Posts:
- 5,307
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #3,991
- Joined:
- 5 June 2006
|
- doyle07
- 12 Nov 2017, 01:11 PM
- pedrok
- 12 Nov 2017, 12:43 PM
Desmond didn't register at all on the BBC national news, unlike three cast members of Mrs Brown's Boys.
There was one reason, and one reason only, why this story appeared on BBC Scotland, and was actually reported during the midweek Sportsound programme.
After the programme, a hun I used to work with passed me in his car, stopped rolled down the window, and shouted, aye, it's no just us at the tax dodging, so MD tactics worked for that hun, p.rick
Thick Hun shouts to you to demonstrate that he is a thick Hun.
|
|
|
| |
|
tommybhoy87
|
12 Nov 2017, 11:23 PM
Post #448
|
- Posts:
- 561
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33,940
- Joined:
- 23 January 2015
- Favourite all-time player
- Larsson
|
- Dubz
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:00 PM
- Sunny Jim Young
- 12 Nov 2017, 03:48 PM
Has the fact that a Former Rangers player is asking the SFA to investigate whether Former Rangers cheated him and his ex club out of money he was due made the news yet?
No, we ourselves are too busy burying that by keeping the DD story relevant. What’s this?
|
|
|
| |
|
Pussyfoot
|
13 Nov 2017, 12:01 AM
Post #449
|
- Posts:
- 13,323
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #22,774
- Joined:
- 12 January 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- Sunny Jim Young
- 12 Nov 2017, 06:02 PM
- dazabhoy67
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:24 PM
- Dubz
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:00 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I seen this posted last night on twitter and came in here and the hun thread to have a look and can't see anything on it at all.  Did Ball really ask the SFA for an investigation of some sort into his transfer? If so when did he ask this?
He posted on Twitter that he was still waiting to hear from the SFA and PFA Scotland about this. Some have tried to explain the DD story by saying that journalists are desperate to publish anything about Celtic or Rangers because it gets attention along with clicks and sales. And yet no one in the mainstream media sees any interest in this story. Really effing bizarre to have a Twitter story handed to our intrepid reporters on a plate only for it to be ignored.
That source seems to be the lazy sports journalists go to for a scoop these past few years, yet this one with a direct query coming from the person involved goes unnoticed.
|
|
|
| |
|
BombJack
|
13 Nov 2017, 09:47 AM
Post #450
|
He twists, he turns, Tommy Burns...
- Posts:
- 8,553
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,468
- Joined:
- 7 July 2005
|
- maestromichael
- 11 Nov 2017, 03:46 AM
- BombJack
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:57 AM
Here's the question I'd like answered...
I'm a firm believer in the following, basic way of thinking. For the most part most mass media is produced for a reason - not solely as a public service for the good of the population. I'm not talking about freelance journalism, blogging or that kind of thing - but the sort of media that gets published on a large scale by large global media firms.
There is generally a specific motive or series of motives. For the most part, the main motive is to get viewers, because eyes on the publication, or TV show means potential eyes watching adverts that break up the content. Adverts = revenue for the TV station/newspaper/website etc etc. Someone somewhere pays the wages, and as a result, in the main, the guys that pay the bills make the decisions as to what is published or broadcast, and what isn't, or at least has a huge say in what gets aired and the direction the broadcaster/media company goes. This is why, and it's been shown time and again, that some actors, presenters, etc will be fired if a key advertiser thinks they've overstepped the mark. It happens all the time.
So - the BBC. The BBC supposedly is run off the back of licence fees. There is no advertising revenue, supposedly. So there has to be some other main reason for the BBC existing. My view on this is that the BBC is basically a propaganda machine. The whole point of it is to steer opinion and the behaviour of the viewers. It is supposed to be impartial, but it clearly isn't. Whether it's the biased nature of the Scottish referendum news reporting, the almost non-existent negative reporting of the monarchy, or the fact that every man and their dog in the run up to remembrance day is seen wearing a poppy (if that's not mind control, what is???) - the BBC clearly has an agenda - and will have an agenda for pretty much all the key stories it reports on.
I mean, if Corsica's story mentioned above gets spiked, when it seems like it's a slam dunk as Corsica has already done the donkey work, a half a million quid charity theft, and yet the "Paradise Papers" story gets spun to highlight Dermot Desmond (who isn't even a UK citizen) - someone somewhere has an agenda as to why one story is published and the other isn't. "No appetite" doesn't cut it for me.
Re: DD, could it be a misdirection? I mean, the biggest story, REALLY re: the Paradise Papers is the fact that the Queen isn't paying her due taxes and yet a lot of people have been expending their energy on DD and others - I mean Mrs Brown's Boys - FFS!? As some have observed, the Queen was the big story when the Paradise Papers story broke, but quite rapidly her part in the story was taken over by many many other protagonists, including DD.
But, back in 2011/12 - what was the point of the Mark Daley "The men who sole the jerseys" documentary? How come it made it to our screens in the first place? Most people had no idea about the EBT thing (apart from bampot paranoid Tims and so on), - it seems strange to me given their generally softly softly approach to anything RFC, why would BBC Scotland decide to broadcast the story? What was the real fundamental point of it? I'm not buying that it was just a huge public interest story. In the same way as Harvey Weinstein is a massive story globally, there has to be an underlying reason for why his behaviour is being brought into sharp focus right now. He's been known for a while as being a certain kind of person - he's supposedly been doing his thing for decades, and yet now it's a big deal. Why now?
And the same goes for the RFC things. The original Daley piece is broadcast back in the day, but as many have pointed out other key aspects of the story haven't been followed up to any real extent since. The whole thing has been soft soaped. Seems to me that in the main the EBT thing, RFC wrong doing, it's deliberate non-disclosure of documents and general obfuscation, the Resolution 12 thing - all of these things are interlinked, and yet don't seem to get the real forensic going over that you'd expect for such a far reaching story in this part of the world. The present day - King and the supposedly very questionable sources of revenue which are keeping the Sevco ship afloat - again potentially a massive story - but not covered to any extent at all.
So, getting back to it, why did the Daley piece ever see the light of day?
Was it to stir up the hordes for the impending doom that RFC was approaching? Kick in a siege mentality? I'm really not sure, but it's certainly strange to me anyway - and as we know, the story could probably have been released well ahead of when it was broadcast, as most if not all of the content had been well known for quite a while beforehand - and even then the program wasn't quite as hard hitting as I expected it to be...
Re the Weinstein issue my recollection is that it came to the fore because Ashley Judd, who had alluded to a shady mogul in a previous interview,decided to name Weinstein in an interview with, I think, the New York Times. Forced the whole thing into the open and the walls came atumbling Yes - but why now? What spurred her to do it now? And why not someone else before now? Is this an organic phenomenon, or has it been managed, for some other hidden reason?
|
|
|
| |
|
BombJack
|
13 Nov 2017, 09:57 AM
Post #451
|
He twists, he turns, Tommy Burns...
- Posts:
- 8,553
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,468
- Joined:
- 7 July 2005
|
- Sunny Jim Young
- 12 Nov 2017, 06:02 PM
- dazabhoy67
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:24 PM
- Dubz
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:00 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I seen this posted last night on twitter and came in here and the hun thread to have a look and can't see anything on it at all.  Did Ball really ask the SFA for an investigation of some sort into his transfer? If so when did he ask this?
He posted on Twitter that he was still waiting to hear from the SFA and PFA Scotland about this. Some have tried to explain the DD story by saying that journalists are desperate to publish anything about Celtic or Rangers because it gets attention along with clicks and sales. And yet no one in the mainstream media sees any interest in this story. Exactly....
|
|
|
| |
|
Dubz
|
13 Nov 2017, 10:26 AM
Post #452
|
- Posts:
- 4,757
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #27,189
- Joined:
- 7 November 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Daniel Fergus McGrain
|
- tommybhoy87
- 12 Nov 2017, 11:23 PM
- Dubz
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:00 PM
- Sunny Jim Young
- 12 Nov 2017, 03:48 PM
Has the fact that a Former Rangers player is asking the SFA to investigate whether Former Rangers cheated him and his ex club out of money he was due made the news yet?
No, we ourselves are too busy burying that by keeping the DD story relevant.
What’s this? Michael Ball transfer from Everton to Rangers contained clauses that Everton would receive 500k after a certain amount of games played and 50% of any future transfer fee.
When Ball was close to reaching the 60 (iirc) game mark, Rangers renegotiated the clause with Everton and Ball. Everton was now to receive 200k and 4K for every future appearance. The 4K was deducted from Balls salary with the intention of it being repaid from any future transfer fee.
When Rangers sold Ball to Feyenoord they arranged for 'a fee' of 250k to be paid to Rangers via agent Blair Morgan meaning it was a free transfer. This left Everton out of pocket and Ball missing out on the deducted amounts from his salary.
The above was given in evidence at the FTT by Andrew Dickson, ex football administrator at Rangers and current Finance and Administration Director at Sevco. The same Andrew Dickson who sat on the SFA Licensing Committee that awarded Rangers a European licence in April 2011.
Edited by Dubz, 13 Nov 2017, 10:35 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Smiley
|
13 Nov 2017, 11:07 AM
Post #453
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 14,803
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #33,119
- Joined:
- 9 December 2013
|
- Pussyfoot
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:01 AM
- Sunny Jim Young
- 12 Nov 2017, 06:02 PM
- dazabhoy67
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:24 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
He posted on Twitter that he was still waiting to hear from the SFA and PFA Scotland about this. Some have tried to explain the DD story by saying that journalists are desperate to publish anything about Celtic or Rangers because it gets attention along with clicks and sales. And yet no one in the mainstream media sees any interest in this story.
Really effing bizarre to have a Twitter story handed to our intrepid reporters on a plate only for it to be ignored. That source seems to be the lazy sports journalists go to for a scoop these past few years, yet this one with a direct query coming from the person involved goes unnoticed. It's hard to say if it's being ignored, there could be five hacks looking into it right now.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dubz
|
13 Nov 2017, 11:10 AM
Post #454
|
- Posts:
- 4,757
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #27,189
- Joined:
- 7 November 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Daniel Fergus McGrain
|
- Smiley
- 13 Nov 2017, 11:07 AM
- Pussyfoot
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:01 AM
- Sunny Jim Young
- 12 Nov 2017, 06:02 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Really effing bizarre to have a Twitter story handed to our intrepid reporters on a plate only for it to be ignored. That source seems to be the lazy sports journalists go to for a scoop these past few years, yet this one with a direct query coming from the person involved goes unnoticed.
It's hard to say if it's being ignored, there could be five hacks looking into it right now. And 10 creating something else that buries this one.
|
|
|
| |
|
Smiley
|
13 Nov 2017, 11:18 AM
Post #455
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 14,803
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #33,119
- Joined:
- 9 December 2013
|
- Dubz
- 13 Nov 2017, 11:10 AM
- Smiley
- 13 Nov 2017, 11:07 AM
- Pussyfoot
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:01 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
It's hard to say if it's being ignored, there could be five hacks looking into it right now.
And 10 creating something else that buries this one. Actually there's 20 tim journos looking into the Michael Ball thing so that outnumbers the 10 counter-op hacks.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dubz
|
13 Nov 2017, 11:20 AM
Post #456
|
- Posts:
- 4,757
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #27,189
- Joined:
- 7 November 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Daniel Fergus McGrain
|
- Smiley
- 13 Nov 2017, 11:18 AM
- Dubz
- 13 Nov 2017, 11:10 AM
- Smiley
- 13 Nov 2017, 11:07 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
And 10 creating something else that buries this one.
Actually there's 20 tim journos looking into the Michael Ball thing so that outnumbers the 10 counter-op hacks. For every 5 hacks...
|
|
|
| |
|
Ned Rise
|
13 Nov 2017, 12:06 PM
Post #457
|
These boots were made for hunbustin'
- Posts:
- 9,160
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #30,170
- Joined:
- 12 January 2012
|
- BombJack
- 13 Nov 2017, 09:47 AM
- maestromichael
- 11 Nov 2017, 03:46 AM
- BombJack
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:57 AM
Here's the question I'd like answered...
I'm a firm believer in the following, basic way of thinking. For the most part most mass media is produced for a reason - not solely as a public service for the good of the population. I'm not talking about freelance journalism, blogging or that kind of thing - but the sort of media that gets published on a large scale by large global media firms.
There is generally a specific motive or series of motives. For the most part, the main motive is to get viewers, because eyes on the publication, or TV show means potential eyes watching adverts that break up the content. Adverts = revenue for the TV station/newspaper/website etc etc. Someone somewhere pays the wages, and as a result, in the main, the guys that pay the bills make the decisions as to what is published or broadcast, and what isn't, or at least has a huge say in what gets aired and the direction the broadcaster/media company goes. This is why, and it's been shown time and again, that some actors, presenters, etc will be fired if a key advertiser thinks they've overstepped the mark. It happens all the time.
So - the BBC. The BBC supposedly is run off the back of licence fees. There is no advertising revenue, supposedly. So there has to be some other main reason for the BBC existing. My view on this is that the BBC is basically a propaganda machine. The whole point of it is to steer opinion and the behaviour of the viewers. It is supposed to be impartial, but it clearly isn't. Whether it's the biased nature of the Scottish referendum news reporting, the almost non-existent negative reporting of the monarchy, or the fact that every man and their dog in the run up to remembrance day is seen wearing a poppy (if that's not mind control, what is???) - the BBC clearly has an agenda - and will have an agenda for pretty much all the key stories it reports on.
I mean, if Corsica's story mentioned above gets spiked, when it seems like it's a slam dunk as Corsica has already done the donkey work, a half a million quid charity theft, and yet the "Paradise Papers" story gets spun to highlight Dermot Desmond (who isn't even a UK citizen) - someone somewhere has an agenda as to why one story is published and the other isn't. "No appetite" doesn't cut it for me.
Re: DD, could it be a misdirection? I mean, the biggest story, REALLY re: the Paradise Papers is the fact that the Queen isn't paying her due taxes and yet a lot of people have been expending their energy on DD and others - I mean Mrs Brown's Boys - FFS!? As some have observed, the Queen was the big story when the Paradise Papers story broke, but quite rapidly her part in the story was taken over by many many other protagonists, including DD.
But, back in 2011/12 - what was the point of the Mark Daley "The men who sole the jerseys" documentary? How come it made it to our screens in the first place? Most people had no idea about the EBT thing (apart from bampot paranoid Tims and so on), - it seems strange to me given their generally softly softly approach to anything RFC, why would BBC Scotland decide to broadcast the story? What was the real fundamental point of it? I'm not buying that it was just a huge public interest story. In the same way as Harvey Weinstein is a massive story globally, there has to be an underlying reason for why his behaviour is being brought into sharp focus right now. He's been known for a while as being a certain kind of person - he's supposedly been doing his thing for decades, and yet now it's a big deal. Why now?
And the same goes for the RFC things. The original Daley piece is broadcast back in the day, but as many have pointed out other key aspects of the story haven't been followed up to any real extent since. The whole thing has been soft soaped. Seems to me that in the main the EBT thing, RFC wrong doing, it's deliberate non-disclosure of documents and general obfuscation, the Resolution 12 thing - all of these things are interlinked, and yet don't seem to get the real forensic going over that you'd expect for such a far reaching story in this part of the world. The present day - King and the supposedly very questionable sources of revenue which are keeping the Sevco ship afloat - again potentially a massive story - but not covered to any extent at all.
So, getting back to it, why did the Daley piece ever see the light of day?
Was it to stir up the hordes for the impending doom that RFC was approaching? Kick in a siege mentality? I'm really not sure, but it's certainly strange to me anyway - and as we know, the story could probably have been released well ahead of when it was broadcast, as most if not all of the content had been well known for quite a while beforehand - and even then the program wasn't quite as hard hitting as I expected it to be...
Re the Weinstein issue my recollection is that it came to the fore because Ashley Judd, who had alluded to a shady mogul in a previous interview,decided to name Weinstein in an interview with, I think, the New York Times. Forced the whole thing into the open and the walls came atumbling
Yes - but why now? What spurred her to do it now? And why not someone else before now? Is this an organic phenomenon, or has it been managed, for some other hidden reason? People have been saying the BBC is not impartial for decades, most loudly the Tories.
Like all news organisations, the BBC is a business. It sells things to other countries. It sells box sets.
Rupert Murdoch was stated as being ready to bin Sky News the other day as part of his merger bid. Sky News makes a loss in millions a year. So if a commercial news channels is making a loss in millions a year, it could be reasonable to guess the BBC is too, with no advertising, so they make money in programming.
As to why it's all happening now with Weinstein, maybe it's one step too far for some person, maybe someone was going to leak it and someone wanted to take control of a situation rather than be another victim, maybe he didn't hold power the way he used to. Who knows, but these things happen.
As for the Panama Papers, it'll take years to go through all that stuff no doubt. There are 11.5million of items of information. So things are going to keep emerging. The other day it was Alex Ferguson.
From the Guardian:
"Are all people who use offshore structures crooks? No. Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so. Business people in countries such as Russia and Ukraine typically put their assets offshore to defend them from “raids” by criminals, and to get around hard currency restrictions. Others use offshore for reasons of inheritance and estate planning.
Are some people who use offshore structures crooks? Yes. In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies. From June, UK companies will have to reveal their “significant” owners for the first time."
So we have a right to know which group these powerbrokers and elites in our society belong to. Saying 'There's no suggestion that [insert name] broke and laws' could be just a good way of covering your arse until you find out one way or another, and the way to do that is by asking questions. It looked to me like Daly went into the offices first to try to get answers from Desmond/his representatives (just as he did with some oil executive who came out of his office to talk to him in a very strained conversation, where both parties looked to be dancing on the head of a legal pin).
He didn't get answers and so he jumped him at Celtic Park. It may seem tasteless but it didn't appear to be his first port of call and so the framing of the shot wouldn't have happened. Regardless of his citizenship or where he pays his taxes, Dermot Desmond's name is going to ring bells here. Similarly, Donald Trump, aside from being the unstable President of the US, would have got more publicity here because of his business interests, regardless of where he pays his tax. International celebs, sporting stars, with no connection to the UK, are making the news. Justin Trudeau too (what's a nice leader like that doing mixed up in all this murky business, tut tut).
To me, it would have been remarkable if Desmond's name had come up and it hadn't been mentioned (as it was it seemed part of a larger story involving the Isle of Man, aircraft and taxes). And if Desmond is mentioned, it would be amazing if his interest in Celtic wasn't mentioned.
The zombies who stop their car and roll down their window to shout 'see it wasn't just us with the tax-dodging' are misinformed, just as they are with Pacific Shelf and a whole host of other shampooe they regularly spout. It's easy to ignore them. There's no equivalence and no attempt to draw any as far as I can see.
|
|
|
| |
|
BombJack
|
13 Nov 2017, 12:25 PM
Post #458
|
He twists, he turns, Tommy Burns...
- Posts:
- 8,553
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,468
- Joined:
- 7 July 2005
|
- Ned Rise
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:06 PM
- BombJack
- 13 Nov 2017, 09:47 AM
- maestromichael
- 11 Nov 2017, 03:46 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Yes - but why now? What spurred her to do it now? And why not someone else before now? Is this an organic phenomenon, or has it been managed, for some other hidden reason?
People have been saying the BBC is not impartial for decades, most loudly the Tories. Like all news organisations, the BBC is a business. It sells things to other countries. It sells box sets. Rupert Murdoch was stated as being ready to bin Sky News the other day as part of his merger bid. Sky News makes a loss in millions a year. So if a commercial news channels is making a loss in millions a year, it could be reasonable to guess the BBC is too, with no advertising, so they make money in programming. As to why it's all happening now with Weinstein, maybe it's one step too far for some person, maybe someone was going to leak it and someone wanted to take control of a situation rather than be another victim, maybe he didn't hold power the way he used to. Who knows, but these things happen. As for the Panama Papers, it'll take years to go through all that stuff no doubt. There are 11.5million of items of information. So things are going to keep emerging. The other day it was Alex Ferguson. From the Guardian: "Are all people who use offshore structures crooks?No. Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so. Business people in countries such as Russia and Ukraine typically put their assets offshore to defend them from “raids” by criminals, and to get around hard currency restrictions. Others use offshore for reasons of inheritance and estate planning. Are some people who use offshore structures crooks?Yes. In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies. From June, UK companies will have to reveal their “significant” owners for the first time." So we have a right to know which group these powerbrokers and elites in our society belong to. Saying 'There's no suggestion that [insert name] broke and laws' could be just a good way of covering your arse until you find out one way or another, and the way to do that is by asking questions. It looked to me like Daly went into the offices first to try to get answers from Desmond/his representatives (just as he did with some oil executive who came out of his office to talk to him in a very strained conversation, where both parties looked to be dancing on the head of a legal pin). He didn't get answers and so he jumped him at Celtic Park. It may seem tasteless but it didn't appear to be his first port of call and so the framing of the shot wouldn't have happened. Regardless of his citizenship or where he pays his taxes, Dermot Desmond's name is going to ring bells here. Similarly, Donald Trump, aside from being the unstable President of the US, would have got more publicity here because of his business interests, regardless of where he pays his tax. International celebs, sporting stars, with no connection to the UK, are making the news. Justin Trudeau too (what's a nice leader like that doing mixed up in all this murky business, tut tut). To me, it would have been remarkable if Desmond's name had come up and it hadn't been mentioned (as it was it seemed part of a larger story involving the Isle of Man, aircraft and taxes). And if Desmond is mentioned, it would be amazing if his interest in Celtic wasn't mentioned. The zombies who stop their car and roll down their window to shout 'see it wasn't just us with the tax-dodging' are misinformed, just as they are with Pacific Shelf and a whole host of other shampooe they regularly spout. It's easy to ignore them. There's no equivalence and no attempt to draw any as far as I can see. Some decent points. Here's the thing though - in media - because it's big business - "these things happen" doesn't wash. Jimmy Saville was known for decades to be up to no good. He was protected. Likewise, Weinstein (who has yet to be tried of anything btw) may well also have been protected, to some extent. That protection may well have been removed somehow. He may have had an infrastructure which also protected him - but something has changed that has meant he's now fair game. Same with Spacey. I'm not buying that it's just something that's happened, as if it was, it could have an arguably should have happened a long time ago, if some reports are to be believed. Maybe it was just the right time? Maybe - but I tend to think some of these things are bit more orchestrated. Plenty of huge stories reach the light of day, but end up getting swept under the carpet - but this one hasn't, and it could be hugely financially damaging for some firms, such as Netflix. When mega bucks is involved, I don't buy the "these things happen" argument.
|
|
|
| |
|
Asgardstreasure
|
13 Nov 2017, 12:25 PM
Post #459
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 9,534
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #27,238
- Joined:
- 13 November 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Billy McNeil
|
- Ned Rise
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:06 PM
- BombJack
- 13 Nov 2017, 09:47 AM
- maestromichael
- 11 Nov 2017, 03:46 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Yes - but why now? What spurred her to do it now? And why not someone else before now? Is this an organic phenomenon, or has it been managed, for some other hidden reason?
People have been saying the BBC is not impartial for decades, most loudly the Tories. Like all news organisations, the BBC is a business. It sells things to other countries. It sells box sets. Rupert Murdoch was stated as being ready to bin Sky News the other day as part of his merger bid. Sky News makes a loss in millions a year. So if a commercial news channels is making a loss in millions a year, it could be reasonable to guess the BBC is too, with no advertising, so they make money in programming. As to why it's all happening now with Weinstein, maybe it's one step too far for some person, maybe someone was going to leak it and someone wanted to take control of a situation rather than be another victim, maybe he didn't hold power the way he used to. Who knows, but these things happen. As for the Panama Papers, it'll take years to go through all that stuff no doubt. There are 11.5million of items of information. So things are going to keep emerging. The other day it was Alex Ferguson. From the Guardian: "Are all people who use offshore structures crooks?No. Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so. Business people in countries such as Russia and Ukraine typically put their assets offshore to defend them from “raids” by criminals, and to get around hard currency restrictions. Others use offshore for reasons of inheritance and estate planning. Are some people who use offshore structures crooks?Yes. In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies. From June, UK companies will have to reveal their “significant” owners for the first time." So we have a right to know which group these powerbrokers and elites in our society belong to. Saying 'There's no suggestion that [insert name] broke and laws' could be just a good way of covering your arse until you find out one way or another, and the way to do that is by asking questions. It looked to me like Daly went into the offices first to try to get answers from Desmond/his representatives (just as he did with some oil executive who came out of his office to talk to him in a very strained conversation, where both parties looked to be dancing on the head of a legal pin). He didn't get answers and so he jumped him at Celtic Park. It may seem tasteless but it didn't appear to be his first port of call and so the framing of the shot wouldn't have happened. Regardless of his citizenship or where he pays his taxes, Dermot Desmond's name is going to ring bells here. Similarly, Donald Trump, aside from being the unstable President of the US, would have got more publicity here because of his business interests, regardless of where he pays his tax. International celebs, sporting stars, with no connection to the UK, are making the news. Justin Trudeau too (what's a nice leader like that doing mixed up in all this murky business, tut tut). To me, it would have been remarkable if Desmond's name had come up and it hadn't been mentioned (as it was it seemed part of a larger story involving the Isle of Man, aircraft and taxes). And if Desmond is mentioned, it would be amazing if his interest in Celtic wasn't mentioned. The zombies who stop their car and roll down their window to shout 'see it wasn't just us with the tax-dodging' are misinformed, just as they are with Pacific Shelf and a whole host of other shampooe they regularly spout. It's easy to ignore them. There's no equivalence and no attempt to draw any as far as I can see. Throughout all the criminality and shenanigans that has unfolded over at aye-brokes over the last several years I cannot recall any senior Rangers (IL) OR sevco figures being 'jumped' by the BBC or any other SMSM outlet in similar manner to the way in which DD was accosted by Daly. Even the GASL with his long-as-your-arm schedule for tax evasion has never been given a hard time by SMSM. Don't recall anyone shoving a camera in his face about his extensive record for dishonesty....and he was taking over a club whose predecessor stiffed british tax payers for tens of millions. The various figures at the SFA, Campbell Ogilvie for example. Has Daly or anyone else sought to ambush him in the street? Actually I cannot recall a previous club chairman ever being ruffled by SMSM in the manner that Daly approached DD. It was in the style of one of these consumer protection shows when the con-man behind some dodgy scheme is outed on camera. And not because he was defrauding the tax payer, or breaking the rules to give a club a euro licence, or any other corrupt activity. It's because he has some off-shore investments which are perfectly legal and not so distasteful as to dissuade the royal household from getting in on the act.
|
|
|
| |
|
maestromichael
|
13 Nov 2017, 12:31 PM
Post #460
|
- Posts:
- 156
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #35,505
- Joined:
- 12 March 2017
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- Dubz
- 13 Nov 2017, 10:26 AM
- tommybhoy87
- 12 Nov 2017, 11:23 PM
- Dubz
- 12 Nov 2017, 04:00 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
What’s this?
Michael Ball transfer from Everton to Rangers contained clauses that Everton would receive 500k after a certain amount of games played and 50% of any future transfer fee. When Ball was close to reaching the 60 (iirc) game mark, Rangers renegotiated the clause with Everton and Ball. Everton was now to receive 200k and 4K for every future appearance. The 4K was deducted from Balls salary with the intention of it being repaid from any future transfer fee. When Rangers sold Ball to Feyenoord they arranged for 'a fee' of 250k to be paid to Rangers via agent Blair Morgan meaning it was a free transfer. This left Everton out of pocket and Ball missing out on the deducted amounts from his salary. The above was given in evidence at the FTT by Andrew Dickson, ex football administrator at Rangers and current Finance and Administration Director at Sevco. The same Andrew Dickson who sat on the SFA Licensing Committee that awarded Rangers a European licence in April 2011. Unbelievable.. in a totally believable not surprised in the slightest kinda way.
Starting to think that the biggest story out there is a deal undertaken by that mob that actually passes the smell test.
Football in shock as institutionally corrupt newco sanction deal that is completely above board and on the up and up... credible evidence that everyone got paid and all payments were declared.
|
|
|
| |
| 3 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
|