Jump to content

Archie gives it tight to BBC


Johnny Hubbard

Recommended Posts

BBC documentary hardened views on Rangers but now different questions need to be addressed

Archie Macpherson

In the past few days, we have discovered that flash floods can take the form of a weighty 145-page tax judgment.

inShare

I suspect new-born babies in their cradles were the only ones not swept off their feet by the tribunal verdict on Rangers. Especially vulnerable to the roaring tide were those who had cosily presented themselves as judge, jury and executioner, all in one, over the fate of Sir David Murray. This would include those who, with an insouciance that was almost breathtaking, would tell me of their "contact in the Revenue".

Now, bloggers can be fantasists and there is no way of telling whether this was idle bragging or that their contact was no more than the tea lady supposedly drawing out revelations by tempting those in the know with digestive biscuits. I suspect these claims of getting people within Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to sing like linties will now quietly subside.

It is certainly indicative, though, of the extent of the involvement of those who, at the very least, clearly wished to influence perceptions of Rangers' misdemeanours. None of those people needed to tell me of Murray's failings. I criticised his prodigality, his rush of blood to the head over Tore Andre Flo, his acquiescence to Dick Advocaat on the construction of a vastly expensive training ground set against mounting debt, which admittedly was brought under control eventually, but not without considerable pain to successive managers at the club.

And I would vote for any party who would legally prevent rich men from employing clever lawyers and accountants to act as satnavs to tax avoidance, which effectively is like pick-pocketing the rest of us.

Yet all that is a country mile away from drawing a portrait of flagrant illegality over the use of EBTs. The paradox is that Murray's ditching of the club, when he did, meant he had no voice in the middle of the furore to fight back as Rangers took a right kicking from all quarters. This could be interpreted as a dignified silence or that of a man in an air-raid shelter waiting for the armistice to sound. Ally McCoist tried his best, but the Rangers manager is no Obama of soaring rhetoric. And Sandy Jardine on the steps of Hampden was no Mark Anthony on the steps of the Forum. So the boots swung in. And the wearer of the biggest tackety boots of all was the BBC.

It seemed so sequential, ranging from the odd editing of a McCoist interview which certainly was not intended to portray him as soothsayer of the month, right through various programmes which suggested it was open-season on Rangers, since they had no case to answer.

At the crux of all this was their award-winning documentary delving into what they perceived to be the murky depths of possible illicit payments at Ibrox. With respect to all the other media organs wading into Rangers, this programme was the real game-changer.

I have not met one person yet who came away from that programme not concluding that Murray was up to no good. Even though it performed a valuable public exercise in exposing the dastardly Craig Whyte for what he truly is, at its core was the reference to Murray and EBTs. For, without the Damoclean tax sword hanging over Murray's head on this issue, Whyte would not have materialised in the first place.

There is little doubt that views on Rangers hardened considerably on the back of a programme which allowed viewers to interpret inferences in their own way. That style was in fact a subtle and nuanced incrimination. The simple demonstration of the convoluted system of paying players by whatever means and the programme's passing on of evidence to appropriate authorities created that very sense of exposure of duplicity. As a piece of television it truly merited its award but, at the same time, whether through unintended consequences or not, it hardened views among Scottish Premier League members who were to vote on Rangers' future some weeks later and leant a credence to the word "cheating", effectively helping to move its province from the outlandish websites right into the heart of football discussion at the highest level.

Rangers were thoroughly discredited by this programme even though, if it was motivated by a presumption of guilt on Murray's part, that has now been blown out of the water. I hope the pendulum of journalistic impartiality still exists there in what is one of the most valuable of public institutions.

I admit to being hyper-sensitive about deliberate agendas as, when I joined the BBC more than four decades ago, I found myself in a departmental anti-Catholic, anti-Celtic ethos which I had to fight against; successfully, I have to claim, as Jock Stein became a regular associate of mine as an analyst when previously he would not have been seen dead inside Queen Margaret Drive. This was not done to curry favour at Celtic Park, although the other side of the city thought it was. It was just the right battle to take on for the sake of integrity.

To ensure that the pendulum of impartiality in the BBC's splendid new building is still pointing towards the centre of the earth and hasn't swung too far one way or the other, out of public interest, perhaps the same skilled people should put together a documentary dealing with the following questions:

Why were Rangers singled out for such forensic examination when other parallel schemes existed in other institutions?

Why did it take such an inordinate time for the tax tribunal to come to a decision when it was universally known that a club could have been on the verge of extinction?

Would an examination of alleged leaks by HMRC serve any useful purpose?

All this could not be done, of course, before the next tribunal chaired by Lord Nimmo in January, to which there should be no real objection and about which I have already been told by the same bloggers mentioned before that Rangers will have titles stripped and be forced to make reparations for the money they were awarded as a result, which could put them out of business before the end of this season.

So already the verdict is in. Who am I to question that? But, in preparation for an adjudication that might end up in another flash flood of surprise, those who have made up their minds already should have sandbag protection to hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect new-born babies in their cradles were the only ones not swept off their feet by the tribunal verdict on Rangers. Especially vulnerable to the roaring tide were those who had cosily presented themselves as judge, jury and executioner, all in one, over the fate of Sir David Murray. This would include those who, with an insouciance that was almost breathtaking, would tell me of their "contact in the Revenue".

Now, bloggers can be fantasists and there is no way of telling whether this was idle bragging or that their contact was no more than the tea lady supposedly drawing out revelations by tempting those in the know with digestive biscuits. I suspect these claims of getting people within Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to sing like linties will now quietly subside.

It is certainly indicative, though, of the extent of the involvement of those who, at the very least, clearly wished to influence perceptions of Rangers' misdemeanours. None of those people needed to tell me of Murray's failings. I criticised his prodigality, his rush of blood to the head over Tore Andre Flo, his acquiescence to Dick Advocaat on the construction of a vastly expensive training ground set against mounting debt, which admittedly was brought under control eventually, but not without considerable pain to successive managers at the club.

And I would vote for any party who would legally prevent rich men from employing clever lawyers and accountants to act as satnavs to tax avoidance, which effectively is like pick-pocketing the rest of us.

Yet all that is a country mile away from drawing a portrait of flagrant illegality over the use of EBTs. The paradox is that Murray's ditching of the club, when he did, meant he had no voice in the middle of the furore to fight back as Rangers took a right kicking from all quarters. This could be interpreted as a dignified silence or that of a man in an air-raid shelter waiting for the armistice to sound. Ally McCoist tried his best, but the Rangers manager is no Obama of soaring rhetoric. And Sandy Jardine on the steps of Hampden was no Mark Anthony on the steps of the Forum. So the boots swung in. And the wearer of the biggest tackety boots of all was the BBC.

It seemed so sequential, ranging from the odd editing of a McCoist interview which certainly was not intended to portray him as soothsayer of the month, right through various programmes which suggested it was open-season on Rangers, since they had no case to answer.

At the crux of all this was their award-winning documentary delving into what they perceived to be the murky depths of possible illicit payments at Ibrox. With respect to all the other media organs wading into Rangers, this programme was the real game-changer.

I have not met one person yet who came away from that programme not concluding that Murray was up to no good. Even though it performed a valuable public exercise in exposing the dastardly Craig Whyte for what he truly is, at its core was the reference to Murray and EBTs. For, without the Damoclean tax sword hanging over Murray's head on this issue, Whyte would not have materialised in the first place.

There is little doubt that views on Rangers hardened considerably on the back of a programme which allowed viewers to interpret inferences in their own way. That style was in fact a subtle and nuanced incrimination. The simple demonstration of the convoluted system of paying players by whatever means and the programme's passing on of evidence to appropriate authorities created that very sense of exposure of duplicity. As a piece of television it truly merited its award but, at the same time, whether through unintended consequences or not, it hardened views among Scottish Premier League members who were to vote on Rangers' future some weeks later and leant a credence to the word "cheating", effectively helping to move its province from the outlandish websites right into the heart of football discussion at the highest level.

Rangers were thoroughly discredited by this programme even though, if it was motivated by a presumption of guilt on Murray's part, that has now been blown out of the water. I hope the pendulum of journalistic impartiality still exists there in what is one of the most valuable of public institutions.

I admit to being hyper-sensitive about deliberate agendas as, when I joined the BBC more than four decades ago, I found myself in a departmental anti-Catholic, anti-Celtic ethos which I had to fight against; successfully, I have to claim, as Jock Stein became a regular associate of mine as an analyst when previously he would not have been seen dead inside Queen Margaret Drive. This was not done to curry favour at Celtic Park, although the other side of the city thought it was. It was just the right battle to take on for the sake of integrity.

To ensure that the pendulum of impartiality in the BBC's splendid new building is still pointing towards the centre of the earth and hasn't swung too far one way or the other, out of public interest, perhaps the same skilled people should put together a documentary dealing with the following questions:

Why were Rangers singled out for such forensic examination when other parallel schemes existed in other institutions?

Why did it take such an inordinate time for the tax tribunal to come to a decision when it was universally known that a club could have been on the verge of extinction?

Would an examination of alleged leaks by HMRC serve any useful purpose?

All this could not be done, of course, before the next tribunal chaired by Lord Nimmo in January, to which there should be no real objection and about which I have already been told by the same bloggers mentioned before that Rangers will have titles stripped and be forced to make reparations for the money they were awarded as a result, which could put them out of business before the end of this season.

So already the verdict is in. Who am I to question that? But, in preparation for an adjudication that might end up in another flash flood of surprise, those who have made up their minds already should have sandbag protection to hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article Archie but another programme can never undo the damage that has been done the people that count know the truth, the same people who stood by them through good and bad days so let the fans get on with build Rangers bigger and better. Quite frankly the Scottish Media is not worth a FCUK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagreed with him on HMRC.....there has to be an investigation into those leaks. Also I remember Advocaat saying Murray offered him another £7 million fo4r buying a player but he chose to build MP because he felt that was investing in the future.Advocaat was right !

Otherwise Archie's suggesting BBC were very one sided as Traynor has said. At least some journos are coming out on this formerly taboo subject

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly thought after a not guilty verdict the clamour would turn to the very real travesty of hmrc leeks and the insane ramblers of misinformation. It seems only the odd few will speak out. Then again anyone who does is instantly thrown on the trying to save thr asses scrapheap, where are these professional in what they do writers and investigative journalists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very tamely written and filled with gingerly described disgrace. Also re-ignites the age-old myth that every man and his dog were against Catholics at one point. Yawn.

I certainly didn't need to read it three times

you could have just skip read the 2nd and third postings of the content - l :pipe:

Link to post
Share on other sites

McPherson, Traynor (well apart from those who were murdering us with glee) and the rest of the press come under this heading - "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Not one lifted a finger to help. - This can never be forgotten ! EVER ! :sherlock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why come out with such a statement .its typical of this man that it's about his experience trying to portray himself as some sort of leader in change in the 60s .Fucking detest him and have since I was a wee boy .For years we had to listen to his commentaries and always having digs at Gers while talking up the beggars .Listen I've still got all the old VHS tapes of the old games and put together a montage of Conspiracy decisions that went against Rangers .Even in that he gets on my tits .Count me out of the Archibald McPherson fan club .with him it's always about him and no trying to defend us even slightly will convince me otherwise

Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

×
×
  • Create New...