Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Kerrydale Street. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.

If you decide to register, please be aware that we don't accept email addresses from free web accounts like gmail, Hotmail, live.co.uk etc. Sorry, but almost all of the abuse and spam that we get is from free web accounts. The software on the forum will automatically block any requests using a free email account.

Upon Registration, you will be given access to all our varied Forums, and you will be expected to comply with our fairly stringent Rules and Regulations. Meantime, enjoy your visit

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Board - general discussion (including Res 12); notes from the AGM
Topic Started: 15 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM (1,414,629 Views)
Mickeybhoy84
Member Avatar
Living the dream
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:28 AM
I don't see the big deal here. Journalists can be wrong, and newspapers can reject adverts for "normal" business or legal reasons. It probably happens pretty frequently.

It doesn't need to be part of a grand conspiracy.
The issue here is that they refused to run the advert without giving any valid reasoning. They then withheld the money for the ad for an unusually long period. Greenslades article is full of inaccuracies that a quick Google check could have resolved. In fact, if he read the statement he'd see that his article was nonsense.

There might not be a grand conspiracy, but so long as The Guardian refuse to explain why they really refused to run the advert then they're fanning the flames.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wanyerma
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:33 AM
Wanyerma
10 Jun 2016, 10:30 AM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:28 AM
I don't see the big deal here. Journalists can be wrong, and newspapers can reject adverts for "normal" business or legal reasons. It probably happens pretty frequently.

It doesn't need to be part of a grand conspiracy.
Issue is it's Greenslade who has painted himself as the master of ethics in journalism and ha slagged off the SMSM for poor journalistic ethics when he seems to have done the same thing for the benefit of the same people
I agree, looks like he's made an arse of it. I just don't assume that he's intentionally and knowingly doing it at the behest of Level 5 in order to benefit Sevco.
Oh indeed, anyone who thinks that is a rocket. This will all be to do with advertisers threatening to pull the plug. Everything about Rangers/Sevco and the myths being about same club etc are commercial decisions. From newspapers, to sky, to BT, it's about the blue moolah.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luca
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Can someone summarise this entire Res 12 situation - I'm not well versed enough on the ins and outs of it and my boss, a Londoner, just asked me if I could explain it to him :twitch:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smiley
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mickeybhoy84
10 Jun 2016, 10:35 AM
The issue here is that they refused to run the advert without giving any valid reasoning. They then withheld the money for the ad for an unusually long period. Greenslades article is full of inaccuracies that a quick Google check could have resolved. In fact, if he read the statement he'd see that his article was nonsense.

There might not be a grand conspiracy, but so long as The Guardian refuse to explain why they really refused to run the advert then they're fanning the flames.
The Guardian don't have to explain why they've removed something, they're not a public body. They might not have fancied a controversy, and don't want to further fuel a controversy worth talking about outside of fringe websites.

Did they hold money for an unusually long period? What is this being compared to?

I'm not buying one of the most pro-Celtic 'Southern' media figures is part of an anti-Celtic conspiracy. It's Hanlon's Razor if you ask me. He may well have not understood the issue; par for the course for journalism.

Tilting at windmills imo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
idyllwild


Wanyerma
10 Jun 2016, 10:37 AM
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:33 AM
Wanyerma
10 Jun 2016, 10:30 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I agree, looks like he's made an arse of it. I just don't assume that he's intentionally and knowingly doing it at the behest of Level 5 in order to benefit Sevco.
Oh indeed, anyone who thinks that is a rocket. This will all be to do with advertisers threatening to pull the plug. Everything about Rangers/Sevco and the myths being about same club etc are commercial decisions. From newspapers, to sky, to BT, it's about the blue moolah.
I agree, though I wouldn't even think it's about the blue moolah. Not directly anyway. I think they just don't want to be brought into (even if being paid for it) what is largely seen from the outside as a domestic football argument.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Forza
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 10:41 AM
Can someone summarise this entire Res 12 situation - I'm not well versed enough on the ins and outs of it and my boss, a Londoner, just asked me if I could explain it to him :twitch:
Rangers obtained a licence to play European football in season 2011/12 from the SFA despite *potentially* having overdue payables to tax authorities at a certain date. This would be against UEFA rules for obtaining a licence and the SFA would be culpable for allowing a member club to enter European competitor at the expense of other member clubs who were up to date with their taxes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rightsaidted
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 10:41 AM
Can someone summarise this entire Res 12 situation - I'm not well versed enough on the ins and outs of it and my boss, a Londoner, just asked me if I could explain it to him :twitch:
HMRC asked for Rangers to pay their tax, innit. Rangers told the ol' Ector to do one, my son. The SFA gave Rangers the ol' okaydokey to play against the johnnie foweigners. Too facking right they did, me ol' son. The Offshore Tax report gave it, - them SFA geezers 'ave slipped up a treat, and no mistake, guvnor. The Resolution one dos-ers put a bleedin advert in the posh news of the screws and it never appeared, neiver it did neever. The Guardian said ding, and Paul at CQN said dong, innit, 'Arry.

Hope that makes it clear to your boss.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wanyerma
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
rightsaidted
10 Jun 2016, 10:56 AM
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 10:41 AM
Can someone summarise this entire Res 12 situation - I'm not well versed enough on the ins and outs of it and my boss, a Londoner, just asked me if I could explain it to him :twitch:
HMRC asked for Rangers to pay their tax, innit. Rangers told the ol' Ector to do one, my son. The SFA gave Rangers the ol' okaydokey to play against the johnnie foweigners. Too facking right they did, me ol' son. The Offshore Tax report gave it, - them SFA geezers 'ave slipped up a treat, and no mistake, guvnor. The Resolution one dos-ers put a bleedin advert in the posh news of the screws and it never appeared, neiver it did neever. The Guardian said ding, and Paul at CQN said dong, innit, 'Arry.

Hope that makes it clear to your boss.
Gertcha! :boxer:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
He Cometh
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
murphio
10 Jun 2016, 09:23 AM
He Cometh
10 Jun 2016, 09:08 AM
Why would their legal department knock it back?

I really have no idea. The other day our legal department decided against using a picture of the guy struck by lightning in Lisburn. Don't know what the rationale was and didn't ask. I'd hazard a guess that in running the article (in affect it's an article rather than an ad) you are accusing an assortment of people of of impropreity. I'd want to be 100 per cent sure my facts were right first.
As stated, the Swiss paper cleared it and the Guardian also ran a similar advert from the same people in regards to Rangers (Sevco) being a new club.

There is dirty deeds at play here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smiley
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
He Cometh
10 Jun 2016, 10:59 AM
murphio
10 Jun 2016, 09:23 AM
He Cometh
10 Jun 2016, 09:08 AM
Why would their legal department knock it back?

I really have no idea. The other day our legal department decided against using a picture of the guy struck by lightning in Lisburn. Don't know what the rationale was and didn't ask. I'd hazard a guess that in running the article (in affect it's an article rather than an ad) you are accusing an assortment of people of of impropreity. I'd want to be 100 per cent sure my facts were right first.
As stated, the Swiss paper cleared it and the Guardian also ran a similar advert from the same people in regards to Rangers (Sevco) being a new club.

There is dirty deeds at play here.
The Swiss paper isn't subject to the same laws as the Guardian, and presumably the content of the previous advert was different.

I personally think they just didn't fancy the hassle but not sure we'll ever know. I wonder if the dirty deeds at play in The Guardian will continue in the form of employment for Roy Greenslade.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
murphio
Member Avatar
Could start a row in an empty room
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What interest would the Guardian have in protecting the SFA? What would be the dirty deeds? To me it seems like a pretty straightforward case of the paper's legal team deciding the risk wasn't worth the reward. I don't imagine for one moment they have any vested interest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quiet Assasin
Member Avatar
..for the maintenance of dinner tables for the children and the unemployed
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Smiley
10 Jun 2016, 11:02 AM
He Cometh
10 Jun 2016, 10:59 AM
murphio
10 Jun 2016, 09:23 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
As stated, the Swiss paper cleared it and the Guardian also ran a similar advert from the same people in regards to Rangers (Sevco) being a new club.

There is dirty deeds at play here.
The Swiss paper isn't subject to the same laws as the Guardian, and presumably the content of the previous advert was different.

I personally think they just didn't fancy the hassle but not sure we'll ever know. I wonder if the dirty deeds at play in The Guardian will continue in the form of employment for Roy Greenslade.
There also the issue that the 'New Club' ad lead to an investigation by the ASA. Probably didn't fancy being involved in another.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Torquemada
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
murphio
10 Jun 2016, 08:58 AM
There really is a climate of fear in regards to what is published these days. Some might say rightly so. In years past newspapers could afford to take libel actions on the chin, it was part of the business. With ever declining sales, staff numbers cut to the bone, profits down etc etc - newspapers simply can't afford to take chances any longer when it comes to the stuff they put in print. I'm guessing the Guardian's legal department put the kybosh on this - I have been following this story very closely for a number of years and I don't understand the legal arguments. It appears to be a bit of a minefield. I am not in the least bit surprised they pulled the plug on something which is, let's face it, not an advertisement at all but more of a public statement. It is indeed sad that people have had to resort to such measures in an attempt to get the truth out but nevertheless I understand why the Guardian's legal department thought it simply wasn't worth the potential hassle.
I agree with your reasoning but, seriously, who was going to sue them?

It looks to me more fear of commercial consequences than legal ones. In which case, shame on them.

As for Greenslade, he has totally misread the text and misunderstood the issue. Ah well... :brickwall:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ned Rise
Member Avatar
These boots were made for hunbustin'
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maybe they got wind of the fact that zombies were talking about taking out an 'advert' to publicise one of their grubby wee campaigns and that a English broadsheet wasn't the place to be getting into a slanging match between two sets of supporters. I suppose they're looking for a quick few quid with adverts, not to have to run to their lawyers everytime someone with calls with a fistful of crowdsourced money.

Obviously the best situation would be if the story was covered indepth, because it's of high importance, but I'm inclined to agree that they probably see it as a local squabble between two groups who can't stand one another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smiley
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quiet Assasin
10 Jun 2016, 11:08 AM
Smiley
10 Jun 2016, 11:02 AM
He Cometh
10 Jun 2016, 10:59 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The Swiss paper isn't subject to the same laws as the Guardian, and presumably the content of the previous advert was different.

I personally think they just didn't fancy the hassle but not sure we'll ever know. I wonder if the dirty deeds at play in The Guardian will continue in the form of employment for Roy Greenslade.
There also the issue that the 'New Club' ad lead to an investigation by the ASA. Probably didn't fancy being involved in another.
I didn't know that had happened - that's almost certainly the answer then. These things can be a bit of a paperwork nightmare for middle management, the hundreds of quid for the ad suddenly doesn't seem so appealing when a lawyer and two managers have to spend days and several meetings sorting out legals ins-and-outs, email trails, who-spoke-to-who and so on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luca
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
rightsaidted
10 Jun 2016, 10:56 AM
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 10:41 AM
Can someone summarise this entire Res 12 situation - I'm not well versed enough on the ins and outs of it and my boss, a Londoner, just asked me if I could explain it to him :twitch:
HMRC asked for Rangers to pay their tax, innit. Rangers told the ol' Ector to do one, my son. The SFA gave Rangers the ol' okaydokey to play against the johnnie foweigners. Too facking right they did, me ol' son. The Offshore Tax report gave it, - them SFA geezers 'ave slipped up a treat, and no mistake, guvnor. The Resolution one dos-ers put a bleedin advert in the posh news of the screws and it never appeared, neiver it did neever. The Guardian said ding, and Paul at CQN said dong, innit, 'Arry.

Hope that makes it clear to your boss.
He now understands it better than I :thumbsup: :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luca
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Forza
10 Jun 2016, 10:46 AM
Luca
10 Jun 2016, 10:41 AM
Can someone summarise this entire Res 12 situation - I'm not well versed enough on the ins and outs of it and my boss, a Londoner, just asked me if I could explain it to him :twitch:
Rangers obtained a licence to play European football in season 2011/12 from the SFA despite *potentially* having overdue payables to tax authorities at a certain date. This would be against UEFA rules for obtaining a licence and the SFA would be culpable for allowing a member club to enter European competitor at the expense of other member clubs who were up to date with their taxes.
So we were fleeced of a potential £10m-£12m of CL money? Or, if not us, another team was?

Is Resolution 12 the name of the rule?

Cheers :thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rightsaidted
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
murphio
10 Jun 2016, 11:07 AM
What interest would the Guardian have in protecting the SFA? What would be the dirty deeds? To me it seems like a pretty straightforward case of the paper's legal team deciding the risk wasn't worth the reward. I don't imagine for one moment they have any vested interest.
The Guardian was heavily criticised in the past for pandering to HSBC's wishes. HSBC have a huge advertising account at the Guardian. The Guardian don't give a monkey's about the SFA. They do, however, care about big advertising revenue and have probably pandered to a group of advertisers who DO give a monkey's about the SFA and continuity Rangers.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
murphio
Member Avatar
Could start a row in an empty room
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
rightsaidted
10 Jun 2016, 11:23 AM
murphio
10 Jun 2016, 11:07 AM
What interest would the Guardian have in protecting the SFA? What would be the dirty deeds? To me it seems like a pretty straightforward case of the paper's legal team deciding the risk wasn't worth the reward. I don't imagine for one moment they have any vested interest.
The Guardian was heavily criticised in the past for pandering to HSBC's wishes. HSBC have a huge advertising account at the Guardian. The Guardian don't give a monkey's about the SFA. They do, however, care about big advertising revenue and have probably pandered to a group of advertisers who DO give a monkey's about the SFA and continuity Rangers.
I think you give the reach of the SFA and Sevco far too much credit. To me they have simply viewed this is a game of oneupmanship between football fans (with potential legal ramifications) and thought it better avoided. I see no grand conspiracy - just a paper that decided a few hundred bucks simply wasn't worth the bother.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marado
Member Avatar
I'll give you a war you won't believe.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
idyllwild
10 Jun 2016, 10:28 AM
I don't see the big deal here. Journalists can be wrong, and newspapers can reject adverts for "normal" business or legal reasons. It probably happens pretty frequently.

It doesn't need to be part of a grand conspiracy.
Looks like they have managed to get to everyone. :o
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply