|
The All New Sevco Back in Yer Bin Thread; Taking out the trash
|
|
Topic Started: 29 Apr 2018, 04:24 PM (2,086,658 Views)
|
|
Kingslim
|
4 Jun 2018, 09:39 AM
Post #7581
|
- Posts:
- 17,986
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #33,465
- Joined:
- 1 May 2014
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- Gothamcelt
- 3 Jun 2018, 10:31 PM
Better hope Chelsea are heading it up or the charity won't see a penny.
|
|
|
| |
|
FenianJack
|
4 Jun 2018, 09:47 AM
Post #7582
|
- Posts:
- 4,879
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #6,829
- Joined:
- 3 February 2007
|
- Tam Haas
- 4 Jun 2018, 09:37 AM
- Gothamcelt
- 4 Jun 2018, 08:33 AM
Keith Jackson saying that Robertson was not informed about Maclennan (after saying all clubs were informed) and also questioning Maclennans loyalty because of the wage he may be earning from INM, "So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year, Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie." SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
The SPFL should be saying no more on the subject. Ignore King if he pipes up again. That will infuriate him & the huns even more than saying anything anyway. Exactly. Jacksons a tool as well. He started this knowing GASL was looking for milk bottles to pour petrol into. Now he’s doing his Mrs Flanders will someone please think of the children.
|
|
|
| |
|
Luca
|
4 Jun 2018, 09:59 AM
Post #7583
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 12,109
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #32,629
- Joined:
- 8 July 2013
- Favourite all-time player
- Maradona
|
- Gothamcelt
- 4 Jun 2018, 08:33 AM
Keith Jackson saying that Robertson was not informed about Maclennan (after saying all clubs were informed) and also questioning Maclennans loyalty because of the wage he may be earning from INM, "So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year, Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie." SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766 Why is this even any kind of issue? What about when Gordon Smith was in charge of the entire game in Scotland? That was ok cos he was a Hun though, aye?
|
|
|
| |
|
Corky Buczek
|
4 Jun 2018, 10:06 AM
Post #7584
|
- Posts:
- 8,240
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,021
- Joined:
- 26 May 2005
|
There are ten other clubs in SPFL outside ourselves and Sevco. If they thought McLennan was nothing other than a Dermot plant I'm sure they would have something to say.
Incidentally all I know about McLennan is the rather unflattering stuff written about him in Private Eye over the past couple of years when he ran the Telegraph and was nicknamed Shifty McGifty. His record at the Telegraph wasn't good by all accounts but that has sweet FA to do with him being a stooge for Celtic.
If you look at the kind of stuff written by the "State Aid" guy or on Mark Dingwall's website, its almost how dare anyone who is a Celtic fan or who is connected in any way to those who run Celtic (no matter how tenuous) have a position of responsibility within a newspaper, broadcaster, governing authority, or government either at local or national level. That is level King is now operating in.
|
|
|
| |
|
lenobhoy
|
4 Jun 2018, 10:07 AM
Post #7585
|
Catch some light and it'll be alright
- Posts:
- 26,056
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #333
- Joined:
- 4 November 2004
|
- Luca
- 4 Jun 2018, 09:59 AM
- Gothamcelt
- 4 Jun 2018, 08:33 AM
Keith Jackson saying that Robertson was not informed about Maclennan (after saying all clubs were informed) and also questioning Maclennans loyalty because of the wage he may be earning from INM, "So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year, Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie." SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
Why is this even any kind of issue? What about when Gordon Smith was in charge of the entire game in Scotland? That was ok cos he was a Hun though, aye? He's a "good guy" according to Spiers.
|
|
|
| |
|
richiebhoy1888
|
4 Jun 2018, 10:10 AM
Post #7586
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 2,031
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14,254
- Joined:
- 20 January 2008
|
- lenobhoy
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:07 AM
- Luca
- 4 Jun 2018, 09:59 AM
- Gothamcelt
- 4 Jun 2018, 08:33 AM
Keith Jackson saying that Robertson was not informed about Maclennan (after saying all clubs were informed) and also questioning Maclennans loyalty because of the wage he may be earning from INM, "So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year, Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie." SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
Why is this even any kind of issue? What about when Gordon Smith was in charge of the entire game in Scotland? That was ok cos he was a Hun though, aye?
He's a "good guy" according to Spiers. Good guy or not ( and I’ve heard he is) he is still a Hun
|
|
|
| |
|
AmericanHistoryBhoy
|
4 Jun 2018, 10:12 AM
Post #7587
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 2,228
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #17,304
- Joined:
- 27 March 2008
|
- richiebhoy1888
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:10 AM
- lenobhoy
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:07 AM
- Luca
- 4 Jun 2018, 09:59 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
He's a "good guy" according to Spiers.
Good guy or not ( and I’ve heard he is) he is still a Hun Wiggy?
|
|
|
| |
|
snudge88
|
4 Jun 2018, 10:29 AM
Post #7588
|
- Posts:
- 745
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5,858
- Joined:
- 3 December 2006
|
- GoKartMozart
- 4 Jun 2018, 09:25 AM
- Gothamcelt
- 4 Jun 2018, 08:33 AM
Keith Jackson saying that Robertson was not informed about Maclennan (after saying all clubs were informed) and also questioning Maclennans loyalty because of the wage he may be earning from INM, "So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year, Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie." SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
What a lot of pish. Dave King is adamant. A born lying dick is adamant. Stuart Goddard is Adam Ant
|
|
|
| |
|
tenerifetim
|
4 Jun 2018, 10:32 AM
Post #7589
|
- Posts:
- 7,273
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #29,009
- Joined:
- 6 July 2011
- Favourite all-time player
- henrik larrson
|
- AmericanHistoryBhoy
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:12 AM
- richiebhoy1888
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:10 AM
- lenobhoy
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:07 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
Good guy or not ( and I’ve heard he is) he is still a Hun
Wiggy? Aye! The man who blamed Catholic Schools for all our troubles is a good guy !
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/scotland/2324719/Gordon-Smiths-honeymoon-races-past.html
|
|
|
| |
|
Kdy922
|
4 Jun 2018, 10:36 AM
Post #7590
|
- Posts:
- 933
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34,039
- Joined:
- 26 February 2015
- Favourite all-time player
- Kenny Dalglish, Davie Provan and Kieran Tierney
|
- Corky Buczek
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:06 AM
There are ten other clubs in SPFL outside ourselves and Sevco. If they thought McLennan was nothing other than a Dermot plant I'm sure they would have something to say.
Incidentally all I know about McLennan is the rather unflattering stuff written about him in Private Eye over the past couple of years when he ran the Telegraph and was nicknamed Shifty McGifty. His record at the Telegraph wasn't good by all accounts but that has sweet FA to do with him being a stooge for Celtic.
If you look at the kind of stuff written by the "State Aid" guy or on Mark Dingwall's website, its almost how dare anyone who is a Celtic fan or who is connected in any way to those who run Celtic (no matter how tenuous) have a position of responsibility within a newspaper, broadcaster, governing authority, or government either at local or national level. That is level King is now operating in.
Shifty McGifty was in most editions of Private Eye, renowned as useless techwise IIRC and made a disastrous appointment as editor of the Telegraph. Reckon this farce is down to the staunch-sounding McLennan not bending to the will of the scum, as was expected when he was appointed. Maybe he has standards and dignity that aren’t going down well in Govan, and even in the SPFL, and a slur like this is the scum’s way to start rolling the snowball to bowl him over. The INM job was known months ago and is a complete red herring.
|
|
|
| |
|
k3vkr
|
4 Jun 2018, 10:52 AM
Post #7591
|
The weather is fine in Majorca
- Posts:
- 6,454
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #13,749
- Joined:
- 7 January 2008
- Favourite all-time player
- The King of Kings
- Twitter Name
- @k3vkr
|
- Luca
- 4 Jun 2018, 07:02 AM
- jimthetim73
- 4 Jun 2018, 03:35 AM
- new yorker
- 4 Jun 2018, 03:18 AM
Nike Talk? Never heard of that before Might start a gutties thread on here, take some heat off the shaving thread
Nike Talk? What is their to say? To the shoe thread
|
|
|
| |
|
GoKartMozart
|
4 Jun 2018, 10:54 AM
Post #7592
|
- Posts:
- 548
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34,098
- Joined:
- 23 March 2015
|
- tenerifetim
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:32 AM
- AmericanHistoryBhoy
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:12 AM
- richiebhoy1888
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:10 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
Wiggy?
Aye! The man who blamed Catholic Schools for all our troubles is a good guy ! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/scotland/2324719/Gordon-Smiths-honeymoon-races-past.html He's a two faced bastard.
|
|
|
| |
|
AmericanHistoryBhoy
|
4 Jun 2018, 11:00 AM
Post #7593
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 2,228
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #17,304
- Joined:
- 27 March 2008
|
- tenerifetim
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:32 AM
- AmericanHistoryBhoy
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:12 AM
- richiebhoy1888
- 4 Jun 2018, 10:10 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
Wiggy?
Aye! The man who blamed Catholic Schools for all our troubles is a good guy ! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/scotland/2324719/Gordon-Smiths-honeymoon-races-past.html So McLennan then is the good guy. I know all about Hairpiece. That's why I was surprised when I though someone here thought well of him.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dubz
|
4 Jun 2018, 11:07 AM
Post #7594
|
- Posts:
- 4,757
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #27,189
- Joined:
- 7 November 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Daniel Fergus McGrain
|
- Kingslim
- 4 Jun 2018, 09:39 AM
- Gothamcelt
- 3 Jun 2018, 10:31 PM
Better hope Chelsea are heading it up or the charity won't see a penny. Usual suspects involved. If Goram can take £20 an hour from kids he’ll be getting a decent fee for this.
|
|
|
| |
|
Forza
|
4 Jun 2018, 11:15 AM
Post #7595
|
- Posts:
- 7,738
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #23,749
- Joined:
- 5 June 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik
- Twitter Name
- @ForzaKDS
|
The likeability factor is clearly not going to be high with McLennan. A career in newspapers is unlikely to endear him to anybody. Especially given he wound up at the Torygraph, with its frequently damaging and poisonous editorial positions that were more tabloid than broadsheet.
However none of that has any bearing on his role as chairman of the SPFL. He's there to do the League's bidding among others in that fraternity in the corridors, functions and boardrooms he currently moves between. If that yields something more constructive with regards the SPFL's commercial and media arrangements at home and abroad, then his appointment will have quickly paid for itself. The worry obviously would be the substantial reporting around him being a technophobe, indicating he'd probably favour old media.
A recent alternative is someone like Lex Gold punting all of his chips on zero at the roulette table by basically becoming beholden to Setanta's clearly flawed and failing business model. With inevitable consequences.
The problem is when you've got known loose cannons like King invoking Statement O'Clock twice a week, basically showing a willingness to set himself on fire just so everybody else can get slightly burned, then any credibility the SPFL has with prospective commercial and media partners takes a hit.
|
|
|
| |
|
burtbaw
|
4 Jun 2018, 11:17 AM
Post #7596
|
- Posts:
- 105
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30,816
- Joined:
- 9 March 2012
|
- Gothamcelt
- 4 Jun 2018, 08:33 AM
Keith Jackson saying that Robertson was not informed about Maclennan (after saying all clubs were informed) and also questioning Maclennans loyalty because of the wage he may be earning from INM, "So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year, Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie." SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766Looks as if the ex-succulent lambs Jackson and Spiers are being allowed back in the sheep pen
|
|
|
| |
|
DhenBhoy
|
4 Jun 2018, 11:48 AM
Post #7597
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 2,155
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31,669
- Joined:
- 8 September 2012
|
- Tam Haas
- 4 Jun 2018, 09:37 AM
- Gothamcelt
- 4 Jun 2018, 08:33 AM
Keith Jackson saying that Robertson was not informed about Maclennan (after saying all clubs were informed) and also questioning Maclennans loyalty because of the wage he may be earning from INM, "So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year, Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie." SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
The SPFL should be saying no more on the subject. Ignore King if he pipes up again. That will infuriate him & the huns even more than saying anything anyway. They cannot just ignore someone who is bringing the game into disrepute. It smacks of having no control over him or Sevco. Why is that?
It would indicate the organization or those in power within are compromised.
|
|
|
| |
|
Corky Buczek
|
4 Jun 2018, 11:59 AM
Post #7598
|
- Posts:
- 8,240
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,021
- Joined:
- 26 May 2005
|
- DhenBhoy
- 4 Jun 2018, 11:48 AM
- Tam Haas
- 4 Jun 2018, 09:37 AM
- Gothamcelt
- 4 Jun 2018, 08:33 AM
Keith Jackson saying that Robertson was not informed about Maclennan (after saying all clubs were informed) and also questioning Maclennans loyalty because of the wage he may be earning from INM, "So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year, Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie." SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
The SPFL should be saying no more on the subject. Ignore King if he pipes up again. That will infuriate him & the huns even more than saying anything anyway.
They cannot just ignore someone who is bringing the game into disrepute. It smacks of having no control over him or Sevco. Why is that? It would indicate the organization or those in power within are compromised. When Charles Green said Rangers treatment could have had a sectarian element they let him away with it.
When Romanov said the game was full of corruption they let him away with it.
When Allan MacDonald questioned Hugh Dallas's body language after he patted Van Bronkhorst's behind, they threw the book at him
|
|
|
| |
|
FenianJack
|
4 Jun 2018, 12:14 PM
Post #7599
|
- Posts:
- 4,879
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #6,829
- Joined:
- 3 February 2007
|
- DhenBhoy
- 4 Jun 2018, 11:48 AM
- Tam Haas
- 4 Jun 2018, 09:37 AM
- Gothamcelt
- 4 Jun 2018, 08:33 AM
Keith Jackson saying that Robertson was not informed about Maclennan (after saying all clubs were informed) and also questioning Maclennans loyalty because of the wage he may be earning from INM, "So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year, Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie." SPFL failing to rap Rangers over Murdoch MacLennan row points to a guilty conscience - Keith JacksonKeith reckons the row over the SPFL chairman's links to Celtic supremo Dermot Desmond has been badly mishandled from the outset. Spoiler: click to toggle ByKeith Jackson When the SPFL called in the lawyers last week for the fifth set in their statement tennis with Dave King, it was an indication squeaky bum time had come bouncing down Hampden’s sixth floor. Even by Scottish football’s bizarre standards, this public slanging match over Murdoch MacLennan’s links with Celtic has been a curious affair and it remains to be seen if there will be a winner. Or, more importantly, a loser. The very fact solicitors were required to respond to another exocet fired at them from King’s Johannesburg bunker merely added to the whiff of danger that now surrounds this meltdown in relations between the league and one of its biggest clubs. It created a feeling we may be one wrong move from a full-blown crisis. And a potential rolling of heads. On the same day this newspaper attempted to carry out a straw poll of opinions from top-flight clubs. That not one chose to make a public comment is another sign of the nervousness around the entire MacLennan issue. They may be happy to sit back and watch the ball fizzing across the net but not one of them feels like getting in its path, which is a great pity as this is an issue that affects every one of them. It is now surely time for someone to do something more than just fire up the office laptop and press the button on another public rebuke or insinuation. If King feels strongly enough to fight this out in public – and the Rangers chairman does have a point in terms of proper governance – why has he not formalised his grievance or taken his complaint directly to the SPFL boardroom or chief executive Neil Doncaster? King may well have a sound, legitimate reason for questioning how MacLennan was able to take a seat as non-executive chairman of a company part owned by Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien but he undermines the seriousness of the situation by engaging in grandstanding and playing to the gallery. Also, by calling for transparency and good corporate governance he might as well have added “yours pot, signed kettle.” If the SPFL feel their name or that of MacLennan or even Doncaster has been unfairly tarnished by King’s actions and accusations then pull him up for it. Demand he cease or throw the book at him on a charge of disrepute or whatever else is in your power. Because in terms of perception their lack of action points to a guilty conscience. That’s not to say MacLennan has been nobbled by Celtic’s biggest shareholder and his long-term business ally. Nor is it confirmation for the conspiracy theorists convinced Celtic have grabbed the game in this country by the short and curlies. It also opens the gates to a toxic swamp of whataboutery – especially given the roles Campbell Ogilvie and Gordon Smith once held within the SFA. The truth of the matter is MacLennan’s CV and background in media would most probably have had him on the shortlist for a role at a company like INM whether he was head of the table at the SPFL or not. But that’s not the point either. The point is MacLennan is being paid to act in the best interests of the Scottish game so when he was first invited on to INM’s board the onus was on him to raise a flag inside Hampden and to point out a possible conflict of interests. Whether there was or wasn’t should then have become a matter for others to determine. It was most certainly not up to him to decide there was none. It is unimaginable a man of MacLennan’s experience agreed to take on this role without carrying out his own due diligence on the structure of the company and its shareholding. It would have taken him 30 seconds on Google to discover Desmond – as the company’s second largest shareholder – also has the right to appoint his own nominee to the INM board. That’s all that would have been required for MacLennan to raise the issue internally with Doncaster. If for no other reason than to keep himself right. If he did not do this MacLennan has a case to answer. But if such a conversation did take place it is Doncaster who is left with his chin exposed for failing to share it with the rest of the class. King is absolutely adamant no such disclosure was made to Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson who also sits on the SPFL board. The SPFL had the opportunity to refute this when they called in the lawyers. That they chose not to appears to lend weight to King’s position and makes the league look highly disingenuous for previously insisting Robertson was in possession of all the relevant facts surrounding MacLennan’s appointment as far back as January. It seems obvious he was not. So Rangers have every right to examine this whole process especially as, according to the company’s accounts, the man MacLennan succeeded as non-executive chairman at INM was taking home a basic salary before bonuses of 165,000 euros a year. MacLennan’s remuneration is not yet a matter of public record but if it is in any way similar to his predecessor it dwarves the kind of money he’ll be earning from Hampden. Which presents another huge problem in terms of perception as, if it were ever to come to the crunch, legitimate questions would almost certainly be asked about where his loyalties lie. This entire issue has been horribly mishandled from the outset. And it will take more than just a bunch of statements to clean up the mess it has left behind. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-failing-rap-rangers-over-12642766
The SPFL should be saying no more on the subject. Ignore King if he pipes up again. That will infuriate him & the huns even more than saying anything anyway.
They cannot just ignore someone who is bringing the game into disrepute. It smacks of having no control over him or Sevco. Why is that? It would indicate the organization or those in power within are compromised. It’s been said before - how can the SPFL “rap” King ? What jurisdiction have they got ? They can rap Robertson but he’s said eff all. Funnily enough. Jackson’s article is balls. What are they supposed to do other than to tell him to stop talking shampooe. Which they’ve done twice. Tam Haas is right. Let him santer away.
|
|
|
| |
|
JohnRobertson
|
4 Jun 2018, 12:22 PM
Post #7600
|
Getting noticed in the reserves
- Posts:
- 86
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36,282
- Joined:
- 24 May 2018
- Favourite all-time player
- Jimmy Johnstone
|
- john67
- 4 Jun 2018, 06:38 AM
Anyone know the timescale to get your A and B pro license, is it a 2-3 week thing or months of hard graft. My recollection is that it's a minimum of a year to complete
|
|
|
| |
63 users reading this topic (38 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Members: jinkyscat,
donbhoy67,
remy mcswain,
atalan,
londonroad,
johnny88,
kevinm1967,
BoboBalde6,
Donaldc,
Hooped_Crusader,
StealthBhoy,
FlyBhoy,
The Presidents Box,
stalker,
Bodom Bhoy,
paddyb,
4-4-2,
faboo,
Midnight,
vfranchetti,
yeti,
don73,
leith bhoy,
johnbhoy,
D4nny
|