Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside. - Page 354 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.


Speirs  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Was Speirs talking the truth or lying

    • Yes
      54
    • No
      10

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

 

no wait a minute - he didn't make it up. its been widely reported that the roofs need attention. are the club not putting safety netting up to guard against bits falling on people? what isn't clear is the level of whats needed. and what he may have done is completely exaggerate the scale of the problem to suit his own agenda.

But as I say the scale of the problem wont be known until rangers start the job to fix whatever is wrong with the roofs.

 

No to the bit in bold.

Yeah you are right, I was wrong to say he made it up and what I meant was as you suggest that he greatly exaggerate the situation. The roof does need maintenance but it isn't going to fall down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Flure said:

The government have investigated the roof?
Do you have links to that?

There were some FOI requests published on twitter where the government investiagated the situation and were happy that it posed no risk to public safety. They also said that this wasn't really their domain and further enquiries should be made to Glasgow City Council. There were also some tweets from a MSP along the lines that this was an urgent matter and should be throroughly investigated before the game on hogmany. I don't have links to them to hand but I will see if I can find them when I have a few miniutes. There were also a number of blogs/tweets from Celtic fans saying that they had sent FOI requests but I haven't seen any replies associated with those requests. I can only assume the results were not what they wanted to hear.

Now, granted twitter isn't the most reliable source for accurate information and the only way I could fully trust such a document would be if I made the request and received the reply myself which I didn't. But all of this speculation about the roof is coming from the internet which many people are taking as truth so why not these letters as well.

EDIT: Here is a link to a FOI to Glasgow city council made earlier this year when, if I remember correctly, the rumours started.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/health_safety_certificate_ibrox

And an article about the MSP going to follow up on the issues raised.

http://videocelts.com/2016/12/blogs/latest-news/msp-raises-ibrox-safety-questions/

Edited by theweestevie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, theweestevie said:

 

No to the bit in bold.

Yeah you are right, I was wrong to say he made it up and what I meant was as you suggest that he greatly exaggerate the situation. The roof does need maintenance but it isn't going to fall down.

yeh fair enough. so the thing about safety netting was just a load of made up sh*te?  jees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

yeh fair enough. so the thing about safety netting was just a load of made up sh*te?  jees.

To the best of my knowledge yes. It was meant to be there for the game on hogmany and it wasn't. And even with the Celtic fans bouncing/jumping as much as they did for around 60 minutes the roof held up with no issues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, theweestevie said:

There were some FOI requests published on twitter where the government investiagated the situation and were happy that it posed no risk to public safety. They also said that this wasn't really their domain and further enquiries should be made to Glasgow City Council. There were also some tweets from a MSP along the lines that this was an urgent matter and should be throroughly investigated before the game on hogmany. I don't have links to them to hand but I will see if I can find them when I have a few miniutes. There were also a number of blogs/tweets from Celtic fans saying that they had sent FOI requests but I haven't seen any replies associated with those requests. I can only assume the results were not what they wanted to hear.

Now, granted twitter isn't the most reliable source for accurate information and the only way I could fully trust such a document would be if I made the request and received the reply myself which I didn't. But all of this speculation about the roof is coming from the internet which many people are taking as truth so why not these letters as well.

EDIT: Here is a link to a FOI to Glasgow city council made earlier this year when, if I remember correctly, the rumours started.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/health_safety_certificate_ibrox

And an article about the MSP going to follow up on the issues raised.

http://videocelts.com/2016/12/blogs/latest-news/msp-raises-ibrox-safety-questions/

Well that's all fine and good. But it doesn't say the government investigated.
I'd think this type of thing would be way out of the government's remit.
I'd be astonished if the government got involved in any official capacity in the inspection of a roof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't personally go out and look at the roof. Going by the FOI response they reached out to the relevant authorities to gather enough information to form a reply. I would count that as investigating it. If one of their sources came back and said it is going to fall down, I assume at that point they would step in and address the situation and not just say as far as they are concerned everything is ok. Again I don't mean personally going and fixing the roof, but asking the relevant authority to handle it.

Edit: maybe looked into, or enquired would be better phrasing than investigate.

Edited by theweestevie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Flure said:

Well that's all fine and good. But it doesn't say the government investigated.
I'd think this type of thing would be way out of the government's remit.
I'd be astonished if the government got involved in any official capacity in the inspection of a roof.

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-scottish-government-responds-on-ibrox-roof-issue/

According to Phil the Government and the Safety Advirsory Group have an ongoing dialouge with Rangers, so they are definately involved to some extent. But as you say, and as I said earlier, it is outside of their remit and that it is ultimately Glasgow City Council who should be managing things.

Edited by theweestevie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, theweestevie said:

They didn't personally go out and look at the roof. Going by the FOI response they reached out to the relevant authorities to gather enough information to form a reply. I would count that as investigating it. If one of their sources came back and said it is going to fall down, I assume at that point they would step in and address the situation and not just say as far as they are concerned everything is ok. Again I don't mean personally going and fixing the roof, but asking the relevant authority to handle it.

Edit: maybe looked into, or enquired would be better phrasing than investigate.

 

39 minutes ago, theweestevie said:

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-scottish-government-responds-on-ibrox-roof-issue/

According to Phil the Government and the Safety Advirsory Group have an ongoing dialouge with Rangers, so they are definately involved to some extent. But as you say, and as I said earlier, it is outside of their remit and that it is ultimately Glasgow City Council who should be managing things.

Interesting.

Thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a wheen of a difference between a roof requiring ongoing maintenance and a full-blown failure which puts it at risk of falling down. The fact that Rangers have been awarded a safety certificate and have continued to host football matches since these rumours started should be sufficient that it is at no immediate risk and that any works required fall into the "ongoing maintenance" bracket rather than "immediate attention required due to serious risk of collapse", however that wouldn't be very interesting to the online masses and rumour-mongers. An "ongoing dialogue" (assuming that is a direct quote from this Phil chap and assuming it has any realms of accuracy) again does not at all suggest that immediate attention is required.

Incidentally, I certainly haven't seen it "widely reported" that the roof needs "attention" anyway, other than from unreliable online blogs and the like and, in any event, the word "attention" has a wide-ranging scope, as stated above.

Finally. I've worked in construction for nearly 20 years and hadn't even heard of the Safety Advisory Group until this thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, theweestevie said:

That's enough internet for today Stevers.

That guy is an utter clown who continually posts complete fiction that the naive (for want of a better word) in our support take as gospel and pass it around social media, making themselves look very foolish in the process. Take the hard hats at Ibrox cringey stuff as an example. Thankfully these people don't actually go to football or that could have went ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Reevesy said:

That's enough internet for today Stevers.

That guy is an utter clown who continually posts complete fiction that the naive (for want of a better word) in our support take as gospel and pass it around social media, making themselves look very foolish in the process. Take the hard hats at Ibrox cringey stuff as an example. Thankfully these people don't actually go to football or that could have went ahead.

I was going to use a soure from a Rangers site but I thought that might get the reaction of "well of course they are going to say that" so I thought I would link to a source that does not have a leaning towards Rangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said:

The entire article is written as "Rangers don't have a pot to piss in". 

The actions of the club are different to those expected by Phil. 

He's just wrong. 

I have no idea about the roof issue mentioned by other posters but from what is said he's made that up too. 

Is there any recent evidence of him getting anything correct? 

So did he say there's an inability to pay living expenses then? It's not a trick question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Langtonian said:

Farcical if that had happened anywhere else e.g. outside a pub on a normal night out he wouldn,t have been jailed

Kicking someone, who's lying on the ground, in the head would get you the jail no matter where it took place.

Especially given the guy in question is already serving a sentence for a seperate matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Reevesy said:

Kicking someone, who's lying on the ground, in the head would get you the jail no matter where it took place.

Especially given the guy in question is already serving a sentence for a seperate matter.

The attacker is obviously an arsehole of the highest order. Jail is fully deserved and warranted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/01/2017 at 10:01 AM, BlueGaz said:

 

1 hour ago, Langtonian said:

Farcical if that had happened anywhere else e.g. outside a pub on a normal night out he wouldn,t have been jailed

 

Edited by dandydunn
This edit feature is terrible
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Langtonian said:

Farcical if that had happened anywhere else e.g. outside a pub on a normal night out he wouldn,t have been jailed

Utter nonsense. If he made a proper connection,he could've been up on a manslaughtet charge,never mind assault. 

No difference on the street or a football ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Reevesy said:

Kicking someone, who's lying on the ground, in the head would get you the jail no matter where it took place.

Especially given the guy in question is already serving a sentence for a seperate matter.

Nonsense,if that was the case there would by twats jailed left ,right and centre every weekend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Langtonian said:

Nonsense,if that was the case there would by twats jailed left ,right and centre every weekend

If people are caught doing what he did then they will be jailed every weekend and taken to trial eventually.

I suppose a custodial sentence would depend on each individual case but don't tell me it's nonsense to suggest it's a jailable offence kicking someone in the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Langtonian said:

It's a jailable offence if it happens at Hampden in front of cameras viewed by thousands in a cup final,sure if the same thing happened on the streets at chucking out time it's not

It's a jailable offence if you get caught doing that anywhere, it's doesn't matter if it's a football park in front of cameras or a street at 3am after closing time.

stop spouting pish 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...