The “Lawwell Letter” is trending everywhere this week. To elucidate, it is email sent to (among others) Peter Lawwell and Eric Riley of Celtic on 26 July 2012 by SPL CEO Neil Doncaster.
The email came with an attached copy of the Five Way Agreement (hereafter “5WA”, the deal between Sevco, Rangers, the SFA, the SPL and the SFL). Now that it has been made public, it seems safe to speak openly about what it all means for us as folk who believe in sporting integrity.
I would preface my comments with a caveat though. On the face of it, the Celtic Chief Executive appears to have misled the gathering at the recent Celtic AGM. He was asked by a shareholder if Celtic were involved in the Five Way Agreement. Lawwell replied, “No”, and gave same “No” response to the follow up question, “have you seen it?”
Given that a copy of that email was in the possession of a few folk before that AGM, I have to admit to being surprised by that answer – although even more surprised at the apparent lack of due diligence implied by the lack of knowledge of its content.
We have attempted to contact Mr Lawwell to ask him if he would like to comment on the apparent discrepancy between the evidence and his answer (and I am sure we are not the only ones to have done so). To date, we have received no response. Given the complete lack of acknowledgement of the existence of this anomaly in the MSM, we should perhaps assume that none will be forthcoming.
Perhaps there is an explanation (yes I know), but Celtic should know, like Rangers old and new have come to realise, that silence on these matters breeds deep suspicion and distrust.
Assuming for the minute that Occam’s Razor applies here, there may be an uncomfortable truth emerging for Celtic fans – that Rangers (old and new) do not have a monopoly on dishonesty. There is also an uncomfortable truth that should emerge for Rangers fans too – that as we have said all along, this has never been about just Rangers, but about the governance of the game.
If the Celtic CEO did lie to the AGM a few weeks ago what are the consequences? He broke no laws as far as I can see. One insider I spoke to said simply this,
“So he lied. So what? What happens now? It’s irrelevant”
That is of course absolutely true. As long as controlling shareholders are happy that Resolution 12 is buried, and that no deep inquiry into governance is held into the workings of the game in Scotland, the lie is nonpunishable, though it would be a mistake to believe that accountability is confined only to the corporate rules governing Boards and shareholders; the corporate veil of “I was only following company policy” can be readily challenged in the court of public opinion, which has no statute of limitations.
What all this demonstrates of course is that Celtic have been saying one thing to their fans and shareholders, nodding agreement in private meetings about how appalling Rangers behaviour was, tut-tutting over how amateurish the authorities were, and wringing their hands in frustration at what a sham the LNS inquiry turned out to be.
At the same time, they have done nothing, allowed small shareholders to spend not inconsiderable suns progressing the matter, and quietly hoped that the “appetite” for justice would diminish so they could get back to whatever it is they and the rest do when subject to little or no scrutiny.
Whilst ten in a row is on the table of course, they can get away with it. To Celtic fans right now, understandably, nothing else matters. But what if TIAR is derailed? Not a stretch to imagine that the Parkhead kitchen could get uncontrollably hot in that circumstance. And when the TIAR squirrel finally ends its scurry, in either success or failure, where will the fans attention be diverted?
Perhaps the arrogance that permits making (allegedly) false statements to a general meeting, and (allegedly) misleading shareholders over Res 12 is borne of the knowledge that the parachutes are ready to be deployed when either of the above scenarios come to pass? If TIAR is achieved or goes south, are they already prepared for an emergency exit?
Celtic have two major shareholders whose combined holding is over 50% of the club’s shares. Dermot Desmond and Nick Train. Desmond is now in his eighth decade and Train is reportedly having some business difficulties. Both may well be moved to get out anyway, but fan unrest would make their decision a whole lot easier.
And Lawwell himself is – if you believe the MSM – on the wanted list of nearly as many top clubs as Alfredo Morelos.
The foregoing of course is extremely “Old Firm” centric, and as the two biggest clubs in the country they certainly have the biggest impact on the game, culturally, socially and financially. However there is no get-out clause here for others.
We KNOW there is evidence of fraud surrounding the licencing issue in 2012. We KNOW there is evidence of a cover up over that, and the EBT-related registration issues for Old Rangers. We KNOW that the Five Way Agreement was signed by football authorities in the knowledge that it would rob their own rules of judicial authority with regard to compliance by RFC prior to 2012.
We also know that NOT ONE club has taken a meaningful stand against any of it.
Clubs are saying one thing to supporters and doing their best to derail those supporters’ efforts on the other. We can also infer (not unreasonably) that the folk who run the clubs think that we as fans have no right to interfere in how they run their operations.
As I said earlier, Celtic can do what they like whilst TIAR is live, but afterwards, however it ends, the fans and shareholders involved in Res 12 will still be asking questions. Celtic in particular know how fatal it can be to alienate their own fan base – a fan base that has flexed its muscles with devastating effect for the boardroom in the past. And it is the wrath of the fans of all clubs that will eventually see the charlatans get their just desserts.
Our job as fans is to continue to hold those who care little for the honour and beauty of football to account, to continue to press them on their refusal to deal with arguably the biggest sporting scandal in Scottish history.
The bottom line (which is of course what the folk in boardrooms care about) is this. They need us far more than we need them. As fans of different clubs, the sensibility of those of us at SFM recognises that the real battle, the real war, is not between rival fans or rival clubs, but between the arrogant, self-entitled clique who run our game; who lie for fun, who cheat and belittle the sport; and the good folk who make it possible for the game to prosper.
Resolution 12 is not just about Rangers – nor is it just about Celtic. It deserves to be embraced by every true football fan in the country. The Res 12 franchise needs to widened
Sooner or later the fans will demonstrate their unhappiness with the money men. They did it in 2012, and they will inevitably do so again.
Would the clubs have business disruption or other insurance that might cover this?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
John Clark, I think you'll find that the number of points deducted in the event of Administration would be "at the discretion of the Committee".
Ha!
How convenient would it be…?
It wasn't the £10M+ black hole in the accounts – but Coronavirus which killed 'The Rangers'!
John Clark 25th February 2020 at 12:49
From SPFL Rules and Regs . (there's more , up to E31.12).
E Club Financial Arrangements Insolvency E1 Where a Club takes, suffers or is subject to a Deductible Insolvency Event that Club shall, subject to Rule E4, be deducted 15 points and 5 points in the League in consecutive Seasons in terms of Rule E2 or Rule E3. E2 Where a Club takes, suffers or is subject to a Deductible Insolvency Event during a Season the 15 points deduction shall be applied immediately to take effect in that Season, with the 5 points deduction being applied in the immediately following Season such that the relevant Club shall commence that immediately following Season in the relevant Division on minus 5 points. E3 Where a Club takes, suffers or is subject to a Deductible Insolvency Event during a Close Season the 15 points deduction shall be applied in the immediately following Season, such that the relevant Club shall commence that immediately following Season in the relevant Division on minus 15 points, with the 5 points deduction being applied in the Season next following the immediately following Season, such that the relevant Club shall commence that next following Season in the relevant Division on minus 5 points.
Timtim 25th February 2020 at 10:05 Not only has there been no movement on the Interim accts being released there seems to be no discussion on the share issue that was announced at Novembers AGM. King stated that the share issue would ensure the club* would be on a firm footing and he could then step down , he anticipated it would take around 4 months . The massive investment promised in January by Alex Rae hasn't happened , yet nobody questions why , the share issue is another mute point , nobody in the media asks if or when it is happening. I believe tomorrow is D-Day for them , the Europa is the only viable honey pot left . The extra gate money, tv and advertising , prize money and the chance to showcase some future sales is all the hope they have left to stay afloat . Failure in Portugal leaves them with difficult decisions to make and should that be the scuttling of SS Sevco then the interims will never see the light of day. If the lack of funds makes administration inevitable then the only choice is when , to attempt to kick the can to next season would be foolish when a point reduction can be taken now during a season their fans have already conceded.
_______________________
I may be mistaken, but I think there's more at stake than a meaningless points deduction, for is there not a (3year?) ban from Europe for any club entering, and coming out of, administration? Surely administration is a definite sign of breaking the FFP regulations even if there is no actual rule stating administration, in itself, result in a ban!
Allyjambo
Yes uefa would not be happy with trfc and the sfa, once that pub is pulled they are finished
Hummel Park no more. Unless someone is at it again.
Adam812@13.17
The corona virus could conceivably affect travel for European ties as teams are prevented from travelling to affected cities like Milan never mind closed doors.
Ex Ludo 25th February 2020 at 09:50 Don’t know what all the fuss was about, this article explains everything.
Lubo i just read that as a lot of cobblers and an excuse to use Strachan as an advert for, Celtic fans should read the DR GS does, read below who gives a quote like “I’ve not been able to pick up my Daily Record” surely it would read i have not been able to pick up a paper or the social media or/and in particular the Record without blah blah blah. The DR is shi*te. if thats wee Gordons choice of news then he goes down in my estimation
“Over the last couple of months I’ve not been able to pick up my Daily Record without seeing some latest row blow up. We’ve had everything from gestures to statements, interviews and mysterious translations. Who was behind that? What’s this guy doing? What does that gesture mean? It’s been madness.
paddy malarkey 25th February 2020 at 13:45
'…From SPFL Rules and Regs . .'
%%%%%%%
Thank you, PM.
So, if the Admin plug is pulled before end of season, TRFC will be immediately docked 15 points, and if they manage to be brought out of Administration (by perhaps engaging better Administrators) they would star next season on minus 5?
redlichtie 25th February 2020 at 13:22
'…Would the clubs have business disruption or other insurance…'
%%%%%%%%
This link to the American Law.com gives some interesting info on the possibility of business loss claims triggered by corona virus .
But we know what insurance companies are like!
https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/02/12/for-businesses-suffering-from-coronavirus-losses-insurance-coverage-may-offer-a-remedy/?slreturn=20200125114743
John Clark
i remember the rules used to be 15 pts for admin but 25 pts for a second admin,if they have changed(possibly)then 15pts it is,if they haven't changed then if they want to say same club(don't laugh)then it is 25pts,giving them 15pts then tells us they think they are new club,but remember rules suit to whatever is playing at ibrox
You are partly correct Tony, the rules were changed for a second admin within 5 years. In this case the 5 years have expired so it would go back to 15 points.
@AJ
A 15pt reduction this season (no biggie) followed by a 5pt deduction next season ( makes stopping 10 even harder but not impossible) but the 3 years without any Euro cash will be a major stumbling block to anyone interested in a takeover . If I was a Rangers* fan I wouldn't yet have given up on this season though the odds are stacked in Celtic's favour. There is also the issue of what debt they could get rid of in admin , the outstanding transfer fees would seem to me to be the biggest problem . Then is there any realistic hope of attracting any investment even from their own fans , any real Rangers* man has been and gone and had his pockets emptied.
Darkbeforedawn
this is the first admin for TRFC,you know it i know it,but let's not go round in circles
John Clark 25th February 2020 at 16:39
they would star next season on minus 5?
……………………..
Timtim 25th February 2020 at 19:38
makes stopping 10 even harder
……………….
3 years without any Euro cash will be a major stumbling block
There is also the issue of what debt they could get rid of in admin
…………..
The loan players would be gone, and any player transfer fee not paid would see those players return to their original clubs. Would SG stick around with even less money to stop 10?A whole new austerity would have to kick in, would the ibrox fans buy into that as celtic go for 10. No matter how many fans phone in to talk shows and say give SG time to build, as the realisation kicks in will they hang around?
If there is an admin the ibrox club and fan base will just have to live with being a mid table team for a long time.
Ally Jambo.
Administration is a means of removing/reducing debt with creditors agreement and carrying on as the same club with the same SFA Membership.
So as far as UEFA are concerned TRFC would have more than the 3 years continuous SFA Membership (from 2012) and be eligible to apply for a licence.
The absurdity of the new insolvency rules is they do nothing to discourage a club from overspending and so creating a 15points gap with clubs below them because the deduction would not necessarily result in a loss of league placing.
In fact it encourages a club who have no intention of financing on a sustainable basis to take a punt every year.
Why other clubs allow it only they can say.
@C1
Are you sure about players being returned to their original clubs ? I don't see how that is feasible, they have no contract there and a majority of the fee may have been paid they may also be a long term injury problem since leaving and the original club doesn't want them .I don't think Liverpool would be happy to have Kent back and have to write off £Xm . Loan players would obviously be the first out the door but do those who have a contract not need to be paid off or can administrators just release them and make them free agents which would allow them to sign for a team outside the transfer window .
@Auldheid
So going into admin doesn't bar you from Europe in the next season ? Rangers* would still fail on FFP rules as they would be well over the €25m debts in 3 years . As JC has already stated this pre pack and associated admins are a Cheats Charter.
tony 25th February 2020 at 20:45
'….this is the first admin for TRFC,you know it i know it..'
%%%%%%%%%%
And, of course, I know it, too, tony!
We must never ever let ourselves be as the liars and the misguided are, and must keep insisting that TRFC is not RFC of 1872.
Even if less than 5 years had passed since RFC of 1872's insolvency events , we would insist that there could be no justification for treating TRFC as having a second Administration.
Timtim 25th February 2020 at 22:01
The last admin at ibrox seen players return i’m sure but i will look it up
.
edit. but when i think about it selling club would just become a creditor
Hirsute Pursuit
Thanks for your reply earlier. I'll touch on other points raised but interestingly on the question of the authority backing the 5 Way Agreement I had a conversation on Twitter in December with Roger Mitchell ex SPL CEO on that very subject. I have copied it over as the Doncaster e mail addressee list suggests not all clubs were consulted although that might have happened separately. Any comment?
From Twitter Conversation starts with
Judging EBTs:guilty
@AitkensDrum
Dec 15, 2019The SPL and SPFL *are the clubs*, yet not all clubs were asked about the creation of this agreement.
@RPMComo (Roger Mitchell)
has said before he couldn't have done so of his own volition. Outwith the bounds of his authority. So how on earth did it come to be and ratified by league sans clubs?
@RPMComo
in my day all big issues had a 11-1 vote needed. after the OF used that veto to block spltv, that was changed to 9-3. but you are correct, the spfl can do nothing without 9 clubs approving. there is NO independent power.
@Auldheid
Dec 15, 2019
So Celtic had to have seen it and approved? Why did PL say to gathered shareholders at AGM that he had not seen it? Protocol says he must or someone at Celtic did, like Eric Riley who was on SPL Board.
@Auldheid
Dec 15, 2019
Perhaps the rules have changed since your day Roger and only SPL Board & perhaps some sort of sub committee approval was required? It wouldn't be an agreement if not reached with proper consent , delegated or otherwise, of all SPL clubs. Don't see that happening.
@RPMComo
Dec 15, 2019
Trust me. It needs club approval. The spfl belongs to 12 shareholders. The shareholders agreement requires their approval. Board has no power.
@FansScarves
Dec 15, 2019
That’s consistent with what I said about the current SPFL as well AH. Mr Doncaster does not put his head above the parapet. He acts when the clubs instruct it. For that reason they dont turn on him as he’s not winging it. You can’t change his mind unless the clubs stance moves
@AitkensDrum
Dec 15, 2019
So. What now. If the league has acted without the authority of it's members, who are the only ones who determine anything of importance…..
@Auldheid
Dec 15, 2019
Now that is HUGE question. Is the 5 Way ultra vires? Surely not.
Fans Without Scarves
@FansScarves
Dec 15, 2019
Definitely not. Both Doncaster on behalf of the SPL and Longmuir with the SFL would have had authority to bind both
@RPMComo
Dec 15, 2019
The very idea, having died myself on a 11-1 vote, is very quaint.
@Auldheid
Dec 15, 2019
Can you clarify Roger? Are you saying all clubs had to see what they were voting in favour of the SPL signing up to or that it could be done by say the SPL Board on their behalf?
@RPMComo
Dec 15, 2019
I think I’ve been clear. Don’t make me repeat it. The SPFl Board has no power to bind the Spfl. It is a shareholder led organisation. The board is advisory.
@Auldheid
Replying to
@RPMComo
@FansScarves
and 4 others
Very helpful Roger. Thanks.
Cluster One 25th February 2020 at 22:26
1
0
Rate This
Timtim 25th February 2020 at 22:01
The last admin at ibrox seen players return i’m sure but i will look it up
.
edit. but when i think about it selling club would just become a creditor
…………………
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1232437867625902082/photo/1
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1232438014388785154/photo/1
Timtim 25th February 2020 at 22:08 Edit
@Auldheid
So going into admin doesn't bar you from Europe in the next season ? Rangers* would still fail on FFP rules as they would be well over the €25m debts in 3 years . As JC has already stated this pre pack and associated admins are a Cheats Charter.
========================
I was clarifying the position on the 3 year ineligibility which is based on Article 12 of UEFA FFP. Its not 3 years accounts it is 3 years membership of the national association which a new club as UEFA define a club in that Article cannot have.
That is why even had TRFC been parachuted into the top tier and reach a qualifying position in 2012/13 season they could not have applied until 2016 as the 3 years would have elapsed in August 2015, too late to apply in that application cycle (although I bet they and SFA would have tested the water in March 2015 when applications were being considered.
The one year ineligibility (which applied to RFC in 2012/13 ) came as a result of failure to provide audited accounts to SFA in March 2012 to back up an application. The relevant article then was Article 47 and Annexes.
Interestingly in the 2011 application Interim accounts dated 1st April 2011 were used (the ones describing the £2.8m wtc bill as a potential liability) under Article 48. This determines when interim accs are required viz:
" If the statutory closing date of the licence applicant is more than six months
before the deadline for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA,
then additional financial statements covering the interim period must be
prepared and submitted.
2 The interim period starts the day immediately after the statutory closing date and
ends on a date within the six months preceding the deadline for submission of
the list of licensing decisions to UEFA.
3 Interim financial statements must be reviewed or audited by an independent
auditor as defined in Annex V."
However the problem this licensing cycle now more or less underway might be two fold.
Either getting past Art52 " going concern" requirements (which I cannot copy paste) or the break even rules Articles 58 to 64, none of which I've tried to apply to TRFC's situation but against which they should be tested by SFA .
I think CQN might be looking into this aspect as the licensing cycle will be underway to be completed by the end of May.
Cheers AH, clinical and forensic as ever
@C1, so rip up the contracts and the clubs waiting on outstanding payments could end up with pennies on the £ !!!!
“In most instances, today’s rules are likely to see any sporting sanction for going into administration seriously increased from the 10 points at the moment and that’s a big change
…………….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18263819
Scottish football abandons plans to automatically relegate clubs in administration
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-football/10631856/Scottish-football-abandons-plans-to-automatically-relegate-clubs-in-administration.html
It has also been agreed that, in future, the SPFL Board will have the sole responsibility for adjudication regarding clubs who might face liquidation.
“It will be down to the board to determine any conditions for a transfer of membership if a club is liquidated and attempts to go down the newco route,” said the source.
bigboab1916@16.30
You know it’s a load of cobblers, I know it’s a load of cobblers and the dogs in the streets know it’s cobblers. That doesn’t stop the DR attempting to deflect from the issues in question by putting a Sellic man up to explain it all away.
Ps. I don’t believe WGS buys the Record.
HirsutePursuit 25th February 2020 at 02:45 Edit
Auldheid,
I think the answer is at the end of the first paragraph of the email Peter Lawell claims he didn’t read.
On the same day as Rangers’ SPL share was transferred to Dundee – and everything fell into place to make the 5WA ‘work’ – ESPN announced a 5 year TV deal. Sky had made it’s announcement just 2 days earlier.
I believe the combined value was around £16m per year. From memory, I think the SFL received £1m from the SPL to allow a certain number of ‘Rangers’ games to be broadcast.
It seems that keeping Rangers ‘alive’ was the key to getting those TV deals over the line.
The 5WA is a legal contract, whereby the parties have agreed, amongst other things, that Rangers FC is a separate entity from The Rangers Football Club PLC.
The problem is that I cannot see how the signatories to the 5WA would have the legal authority to create this new construct – absent the appropriate AGM/EGMs and members passing suitable resolutions. It seems to me that the SPL’s contract with the TV companies is likely to have been built on this significant falsehood.
Weeks earlier, I think it was Lord Glennie who ruled that the SFA acted beyond its powers when seeking to impose a transfer ban.
What the 5WA appears to have done is commit the signatories to treat Sevco in a manner that was at odds with the Articles, Rules and Constitutions of the SFA, SPL and SFL.
I think this is what Turnbull Hutton described as ‘corrupt’.
It seems beyond credence, that the office bearers would not understand that they were acting beyond their powers. They would know – because it had just happened – that a properly constructed legal challenge would set aside such actions as void. The illusion that Rangers FC is separate from The Rangers Football Club PLC would simply fall away.
If I am correct and the office bearers did knowingly
act beyond their powers, the 5WA could constitute a serious fraud.
The TV money may have been the original motive; but the ongoing consequences are potentially even greater.
Would the RIFC IPO have performed differently if the investors had realised that Sevco was a new club? Would the current investors have a claim? What about those who have bought season tickets?
We are all looking at documents that may or may not be genuine. So we don’t know with any degree of certainty whether or not a crime has been committed.
Someone who has seen the actual documents – and has been on the boards of two of the bodies involved – would find it difficult to claim ignorance.
I can’t help thinking of Peter Lawell in the voice of Sgt Schultz…
“I know nothing…”
======================
Thanks for your full response. To clarify " Work is continuing on the rights agreement with the SFL." refers to TV rights? Ive no doubt commercial considerations were paramount.
Re my earlier comment on the exchange with Roger Mitchell on SPL authority perhaps this was obtained when the SPL clubs met on 3 August on the basis the SPL Board recommended the 5 Way conditions then, although the purpose of the meeting is stated as agreeing to transfer of RFC PL share to Dundee?
" The overall effect of the attached is that we will ‘exchange’ signed documents tomorrow, but ‘Completion’ will take place at an SPL General Meeting next Friday 3 August (this meeting has already been notified to clubs) to approve a transfer of Rangers’ share to Dundee. "
The 5 Way agreement documents have been around for a while so not sure how they became public but the Doncaster e mail is quite new and comes from same source as produced the documents for the Resolution 12 Archive. It preceded the Celtic AGM and the questioner had no knowledge of its existence when he asked.
What I'm trying to come to grips with is exactly what is it that prevents Celtic, in spite of all the evidence they were provided with, having initially indicated seeking SFA reform was an aim, point blank refusing to either take the case to UEFA in 2013 or again in 2019 when it is clear SFA have no intention of acting and Celtic have no intention insisting that they do?
Is it only that the 5 Way Agreement could not stand legal challenge?
Did UEFA have reasons not to investigate their part in agreeing the monitoring submission of June 2011 in Sept 2011?
Is there a bigger picture in that all licences issued to RFC when they were using undisclosed ebts were invalid failing "fair presentation rules" leading to compensation claims wider than Scotland or is it that Celtic fear the backlash from their support for accepting an agreement that legitimised the continuity narrative, then failed to ask questions about the LNS Commission Decision that legitimised titles "won" by RFC when they had the opportunity to do so in February 2011 when Eric Riley was absent from the SPL Board Meeting that accepted it or from 2014 when he received from SFM the HMRC correspondence relating to DOS ebts for De Boer and Flo that would have made his decision untenable had it been provided?
It has to be something so serious, Celtic (or SFA) fear it being made public to the extent they are prepared to mislead some of their shareholders.
Auldheid,
That exchange with Roger Mitchell is interesting. However, you might want to think of this in another way.
Think of the SFA Judicial Panel's decision to impose a transfer ban on the old Rangers.
There is no question that the panel had the authority to consider the merits of the case and to make a determination.
But, as we found out, having the authority to set out the punishment is limited by the organisation's articles and rules. It would have made no difference if the board (or even the full cast of members) had been polled for an opinion. If the statutes do not permit an office bearer (or bearers) to undertake a particular course of action, that action is, by definition, ultra vires.
To be clear, I don't think the entirety of the 5WA would fall; but, the creation of a new construct for an association football club would require amendments to the articles, rules and constitution of the SPL, SFA ànd SFL.
No such amendments have ever been made.
There is an interesting nuance to this. I am in little doubt that the purported agreement to 'transfer' the association football club called Rangers FC from The Rangers Football Club PLC to Sevco Scotland Ltd was ultra vires.
…but who would be in a position to challenge the legality of that transfer?
The window for judicial review has long since closed.
Who has lost the greatest from the decision?
Who has purchased the emperor's clothes? Sevco's investors have spent millions on this illusion of continuity.
Did DCK not recently threaten the SFA with the 5WA?
How great would their liability be to those investors if the SFA and SPL were to recant on their commitment to treat Sevco as the original Rangers?
…how interesting would it be if DCK went nuclear and and it was he who challenged the validity of the SFA/SPL/SFL assurances of continuity in the 5WA?
He could claim those bodies had knowingly given false assurances that caused him and the other Sevco investors and fans to make financial decisions that they would not otherwise have made.
Anyone and everyone who was a party to the deception would be in the cross hairs.
Unlikely?
… I’m not sure.
Just one last point to clarify…
Yes, I believe that the TV deals were the primary consideration. But the phoenixing of football clubs in England is a fairly common occurrence.
Just my feeling; but, I’d be surprised if Sky and/or ESPN would have cared that much if their viewers were watching the Rangers or just a Rangers.
As long as the fans turned up and the team played in blue they’d probably estimate that their viewing figures would likely be the same.
Getting the fans to turn out was the real key.
Hirsutepursuit@01.27 and continuing
Somewhere in the east, a Lord of the realm is standing on a high tower in the middle of his estate, laughing.
From the minstrel’s gallery Bob Dylan can be heard singing,
“No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke
But, uh, but you and I, we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us stop talkin' falsely now
The hour's getting late, hey… “
Auldheid 25th February 2020 at 22:34
I find it quite interesting that Mitchell dodges your question, rather rudely, when you ask him if all clubs had sight of the agreement. His answer also stated that the SPL board was only advisory (suggesting that they are commanded by the clubs) but that doesn't mean some/many of the clubs don't just act/vote on their advice.
There's also a number of factors, in my mind at least, that would have made all clubs being a party to the 5WA impracticable. From memory, it was all a rather rushed job. Getting 11 clubs to read and take legal advice*, then agree, would surely have been nigh on impossible, while keeping a secret a secret is known to be just as impossible in line with the more people or institutions that are aware of it. It seems incredible that no one from the other 11 has broken ranks by now (even anonymously) and spilled the beans. Remember, too, that the 11 other clubs must surely have discussed the terms with their own boards (and if not, is that legal?) before agreeing, and so the number of people knowing the terms will have multiplied leading to a greater number of people knowing the secret. What could make so many people (even 11 is quite a lot for a secret) keep so silent on something as major as this? I can only think of two – fear or personal advantage.
It would be interesting to know, too, if there is any record of a vote being taken on the terms of the agreement, itself, or if they just voted to accept whatever the board had cobbled together – if, indeed, there was any vote taken on the matter, at all.
Do we know if a vote was taken? Are we expected to take the word of people like Roger Mitchell, an ex-employee, so the board of the SPL/SPFL is not compromised if his comments are untrue/inaccurate?
We must always remember that the Secret 5 Way Agreement is a secret agreement for a reason. And that reason cannot possibly be a good nor honest reason.
Unless people like Roger Mitchell are a party to that secret, or at least involved in some way, how can he possibly know that proper procedures were taken? And if he is involved, however marginal, he then has an interest in keeping the wool firmly in place over as many eyes as he possibly can.
*Something that should have happened but probably wouldn't have.
The Health Minister in the Republic of Ireland is today advising the rugby team not to travel to Italy for their Six Nations game in March. Just a matter of time until this advice is taken up by football clubs across Europe.
HirsutePursuit 26th February 2020 at 01:53
…how interesting would it be if DCK went nuclear and it was he who challenged the validity of the SFA/SPL/SFL assurances of continuity in the 5WA? He could claim those bodies had knowingly given false assurances that caused him and the other Sevco investors and fans to make financial decisions that they would not otherwise have made. Anyone and everyone who was a party to the deception would be in the cross hairs. Unlikely? … I’m not sure.
=============
Well, a few points about King seem valid, IMO;
– King doesn't seem to have an emotional attachment to the Ibrox club. It's questionable if he even likes football. His background did not seem to include an association with Rangers – or any other club. He seems to pick and choose which TRFC matches to attend when he is actually visiting the UK.
He is a businessman – and a well dodgy businessman as a Judge once implied. Whatever King does, it's for self-interest…and certainly not for an 'undying love of his club'. IMO.
– If King was to depart Ibrox permanently, having suffered a major financial hit to his wallet, then anything is possible, IMO.
At the very least, there could be a proper, [vengeful?], 'warts and all' book about his time at both Rangers and TRFC.
And King wouldn't care about any fallout, as he'll be far away in South Africa enjoying his retirement.
Ex Ludo 26th February 2020 at 07:57
The Health Minister in the Republic of Ireland is today advising the rugby team not to travel to Italy for their Six Nations game in March. Just a matter of time until this advice is taken up by football clubs across Europe.
…………………………………….
Hardly surprising Ex Ludo, the game is in Dublin
On the face of it, the office bearers of the SFA, SPL and SFL all appear to have given false warranties regarding the recognition of ‘continuity’ of the association football club named Rangers FC.
That is, they all appear to have put their names to something that was contrary to their respective articles, rules and constitution. And, lacking the necessary powers to give such warranties, those office bearers have worked together to present/maintain the falsehood in order that a number of practical results could be achieved.
It should be up to the courts to decide if their conduct amounts to a conspiracy to defraud.
Under common law, the question of who was the beneficiary and who was the ‘victim’ of the deception is largely irrelevant. However, simply in terms of motive, the football authorities had a clear financial incentive to pretend that Rangers FC could survive the liquidation process.
Sevco also had commercial advantage in ‘paying for the history’ and would have been a willing participant to the deal. It may have a defendable position, in that it’s representative did not (as far as I am aware) make any false representations. However, if the actions of the SFA, SPL and SFL do amount to a conspiracy to defraud, the other signatories to the 5WA may just get caught up by Section 31 of Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/section/31
Also… any other person, who through their business dealings, was aware of the fraud, would be guilty of an offence.
So, for example, someone who was party to the negotiations and had been sent the document for approval, might think it is prudent to claim not to have opened the email and therefore can say that he has never read the 5WA.
Well, I mistimed my Court attendance and arrived in Court room 8 at 9.15.The business was over when I got in.
I went into Court toom 7 for the Grier damages case, where proceeding were under way.
Happily, eJ was already there, and was able to tell me that the Memorial Walls business was a technicality: TRFC do not dispute they were in breach of contract, so it's only about the quantum of compensation, and that will be a matter of evidence as to costs of planning and design ,loss of other potential work through diversion of resources and what not, all of which will have to be argued over later.
eJ will probably put on one of his excellent concise reports on the Grier proceedings: I heard nothing very exciting-just the 'Defender' arguing that he should be awarded the expenses incurred in an earlier Sheriff Court hearing seeking a decree( a decision on expenses had been reserved by the Sheriff ), and my memory bank couldn't relate the technicalities to that Sheriff Court hearing!
Not much to report from court this morning.
In the Memorial Walls v TRFC case, a proof will start on 24 March and is expected to last 4 days.
Lady Wolffe noted that TRFC had already admitted that they terminated the contract, therefore the proof will be based on “causation and damages”. A number of witnesses will be called by both sides. “Late” statements from Memorial Walls and Stewart Robertson for TRFC were admitted as evidence.
In the Grier v Police Scotland case Lord Doherty heard a motion on behalf of Police Scotland seeking to be awarded expenses in their favour, following Grier’s failure to persuade Lord Bannatyne to grant summary decree. Grier’s counsel argued that expenses for the summary decree hearing should not be granted in isolation from the ongoing action that will ultimately be decided in a proof hearing later this year.
Lord Doherty decided that there was no need to deviate from the convention of awarding costs against the loser in a hearing, so awarded costs in favour of Police Scotland. On the back of that “success”, counsel for Police Scotland then sought to argue for an uplift in the expenses awarded for exceptional work. He also asked for the court to consider the costs from the earlier hearings at Glasgow Sheriff Court which had been “reserved” by the acting Sheriff at the time. These requests will be considered at a future hearing.
The award of expenses will not be a cost to Grier personally, as he is covered by D&P’s insurance from Novae Insurance.
The mention of Novae also prompted Grier’s counsel to allege that DCI Robertson had breached an interdict in contacting Novae, seeking that they provide some documents to him. Grier’s counsel added that he was looking forward to cross examining Robertson at some point in the future.
Edit: I should add that Lord Bannatyne’s earlier ruling has not been published as yet as he had anonymised certain details. The parties in court agreed that any restriction should be lifted and the decision made public.
Allyjambo 26th February 2020 at 07:50
'…..We must always remember that the Secret 5 Way Agreement is a secret agreement for a reason. And that reason cannot possibly be a good nor honest reason..
%%%%%%
Indeed.Aj.
Bad guys working in concert need secrecy to hide their bad deeds, and because each of them knows that he is acting untrustworthily, he knows the others can be as un-trustworthy as he, so the need for an NDA .
The more I think about it, the more mentally unbalanced appear the individual(s) who first imagined they had the power to say that a new club was a 140 years old club that had died the football death of Liquidation! As loony as Cnut trying to command the tide to stop coming in, or Nero ordering a slave to be killed so that he could command him to come back to life!
CQNs Article today OOOOFT ! Looks like Hummel and Elite sueing Rangers is right enough
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1232455561041416192?s=21
Normanbatesmumfc@10.32
“Send three and four pence, I’m going to a dance.”
I see CQN has published the break even position in their latest blog.
My beef is Scottish football did nothing to stop this happening by introducing domestic FFP although a licence granted on conditions that UEFA can set is the start of sustainable financial behaviour where it has been absent until now.
roddybhoy 26th February 2020 at 13:14 CQNs Article today OOOOFT ! Looks like Hummel and Elite sueing Rangers is right enough
———-
If it's the CQN article regarding the FFP regulations you are referring to, I can see nothing in it that confirms the report that Hummel and Elite are suing RIFC/TRFC, although clearly the writer is still of the belief that they are. I'll reserve my own OOFT! until it is confirmed, though see the continued mention of it on CQN as reason to consider it likely. Regardless, though, of the veracity of the 'statement' from last week, I'd be very surprised if Hummel and Elite do not sue RIFC/TRFC for what looks like very obvious damages.
Auldheid 26th February 2020 at 13:32
'…My beef is Scottish football did nothing to stop this happening..'
%%%%%%%%%%%
Aw, hey, steady, Auldheid!
You'll have SDM suing the SFA either for not, through sheer lousy administrative supervision, copping on to the EBTs and hauling him up early doors, or for turning a blind eye to what he was doing!
The blame for the death of a 140 year old football club loved by 500 000 000 worldwide falls absolutely squarely on the man who cheated the football authorities, the fans of the dead club, and the taxman and us all and that man is SDM.
AllyJambo
Yeah I know what you are saying but I honestly think it must be true . Paul67 ( I must add I dont always agree with his views regarding the Celtic board ) Is'nt the type of guy to print something like that for attention . For him not to retract the article from last week and then comment on his article today that the scottish media wont report it , is very convincing …for me anyway . But as I said I know where you are coming from
Auldheid , Regarding FFP at home. Im by no means the smartest poster on here (by a loooooong shot) but I cant get my head round why the clubs are'nt battering the SFAs door down about implementing it. Surely it must be galling for all the clubs who do the decent thing and live within their means .They then get knocked out of cups , lose league points possibly miss out on a European slot to one team that has not one ounce of goodwill towards the spirit of the game . In fact by the sounds of things they may be about to drop another big negative upon our game if they do in fact suffer another ( first ) insolvency event. When you actually take a step back and think about it it is utter and total madness that the clubs allow this to happen . Do you think Auldheid, Allyjamo and all the other excellent posters , if Rangers do suffer an insolvency event would there then be an appetite by the other clubs to call for FFP ?? Whats to stop Rangers doing the exact same thing for a third time? I listened to a bit of sportsound the other night and was flabbergasted that they were saying things like " Rangers look unable to stop Celtics 9 titles , they MUST stop 10 "……Whit why must they stop 10 ???? Your favourite team are killing themselves with this nonsense , get real ffs
Roddybhoy,
I've read other similar opinions of the writer of the piece and have no reason to doubt his honesty or sincerity, but think it best to wait and see before further disappointment at TRFC missing out on its just desserts yet again.
easyJambo 26th February 2020 at 12:16
"…DCI Robertson had breached an interdict…"?
What interdict? When was it granted? What were/are its terms? And most importantly why did the Pursuer feel the need to get a Court Order prohibiting someone doing something which they shouldn't be doing anyway?
roddybhoy 26th February 2020 at 16:34 0 0 Rate This Auldheid , Regarding FFP at home. Im by no means the smartest poster on here (by a loooooong shot) but I cant get my head round why the clubs are'nt battering the SFAs door down about implementing it. Surely it must be galling for all the clubs who do the decent thing and live within their means .They then get knocked out of cups , lose league points possibly miss out on a European slot to one team that has not one ounce of goodwill towards the spirit of the game . In fact by the sounds of things they may be about to drop another big negative upon our game if they do in fact suffer another ( first ) insolvency event. When you actually take a step back and think about it it is utter and total madness that the clubs allow this to happen . Do you think Auldheid, Allyjamo and all the other excellent posters , if Rangers do suffer an insolvency event would there then be an appetite by the other clubs to call for FFP ?? Whats to stop Rangers doing the exact same thing for a third time? I listened to a bit of sportsound the other night and was flabbergasted that they were saying things like " Rangers look unable to stop Celtics 9 titles , they MUST stop 10 "……Whit why must they stop 10 ???? Your favourite team are killing themselves with this nonsense , get real ffs
______________________
I have no knowledge of the workings of the SPFL (or any of the previous league guises) but I don't share the opinion that the clubs control the game and the boards of the SFA and SPFL/SPL as was. They probably should, but if they did, there would never have been an entity such as the Old Firm holding so much sway in Scottish football. I didn't like it before, thinking it was no more than a convenient media created superlative for the country's two biggest clubs, but to learn that it was an actual 'thing', a brand owned by the two clubs, beggars belief that the rest of our clubs allowed it to exist, particularly when it was known they were conspiring to leave Scottish football. Conspiring to leave Scottish football and neither got so much as the mildest of criticism from the game's governors, whose very duty it was to protect and preserve the game for all their members. Something they appear to have forgotten, a long, long time ago.
My point here, though, is not about the OF, itself, but rather that if the rest were so cowed as to allow it to exist to take ever more selfish power, then there is little chance that they would ever think of standing against 50% of what they appear to believe is Scottish football's cash cow.
I have long suspected that Murray used his position as the most powerful man in our game to give his people at Park Gardens, then Hampden, ever more power, as long as they did his bidding, and, as it now appears, with Celtic seeing their allegiance in the Old Firm as a road to greater riches, the majority of clubs became ever more marginalised.
We've seen how the authorities in the wider, and much, much bigger field of business and finance are happy to stand by and give as little hindrance as possible to the Kings and Murrays of this world, so why should we assume that Scottish footballs guardians are not as fly as everyone else in business?
So, in answer to your question regarding why are they not battering down the door to get FFP implemented, along with so many other things we feel they should be demanding, I'd quite simply suggest it's because they don't believe they have the power to stand up to them. Them being those who hold the genuine power within our game.
He may, himself, have been a disgusting fraud of a man, but remember when Vladimir Romanov stood up to the SFA, the Old Firm and the media, he got not one piece of backing from anyone else in football. That example of what happens to the little club standing up to the powerful has stood those we rail against in good stead ever since.
As we come closer to the deadline for donations/subscriptions, could I make a wee plea to my fellow kibitzers to chip in a mite to what is the most important site for the analysis of the continuous festering wound that RTC started to pick all all those years ago?
if you’re like me, you avidly read all sort of stuff about your own team and Scottish football generally but almost never contribute to the discussion. That’s OK- football without supporters is nothing and blogs without readers are the same.
I can say that SFM is the only football related site l contribute financially to as it’s the only one that I would really grieve the loss of.
There- it’s good to get that of my chest, now I can go for a lie down after all this typing.
To summarise the above, JUST GIVE.
LUGOSI 26th February 2020 at 17:05
easyJambo 26th February 2020 at 12:16
"…DCI Robertson had breached an interdict…"?
What interdict? When was it granted? What were/are its terms? And most importantly why did the Pursuer feel the need to get a Court Order prohibiting someone doing something which they shouldn't be doing anyway?
===================================
I don't know any of the details. I just heard Grier's counsel make the claim in court today. If an interdict has been breached then I suspect that the interdict came from a complaint from the D&P guys about him seizing legally privileged documents or having misrepresented the facts when obtaining a search warrant.
That's any immediate financial concerns for TRFC eased with another £1.1m earned in prize money for reaching the last 16. They will also get another £1.5m+ in revenue from their next home tie, assuming they are not forced to play behind closed doors because of their songbook.
In footballing terms, no-one can deny that they have done incredibly well to get that far.
A 2nd CL qualifying place, together with later entry to the competition, is all but guaranteed for season 2021/22 with the coefficient rapidly rising with both Celtic and Rangers efforts.
A good article on CQN from paul67. He was one of the first, if not the first to accurately predict the financial implosion of Rangers.
https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/newco-ffp-and-perilous-finances-here-we-go-again/
Auldheid 25th February 2020 at 23:50
Re my earlier comment on the exchange with Roger Mitchell on SPL authority perhaps this was obtained when the SPL clubs met on 3 August on the basis the SPL Board recommended the 5 Way conditions then, although the purpose of the meeting is stated as agreeing to transfer of RFC PL share to Dundee?
………………
Allyjambo 26th February 2020 at 07:50
There’s also a number of factors, in my mind at least, that would have made all clubs being a party to the 5WA impracticable. From memory, it was all a rather rushed job. Getting 11 clubs to read and take legal advice*
…………….
Aug 2012 was a busy time
Aug 1, 2012..The commission appointed by resolution of the board of directors of the scottish premier league ltd Aug 1, 2012 in relation to RFC 2012 PLC and rangers fc.
….Regan called gers Grass and irrespansible in an article.
Aug 2, 2012… SPL press release, has announced that it has appointed an independant commission to inquire in to alleged EBT payments.
Aug 3, 2012….SFA have confirmed that the rangers newco have been granted full membership. Full membership depended on rangers SPL share being handed to Dundee a formality that was completed on the friday morning.
Also in an article dave king blames Murray and whyte for killing the club.
Also the SPL disputes that rangers fc ceased to be a club on 14, june 2012, and argues that the relevent date is Aug 3, 2012.Also Doncaster was remaining tight-lipped on the value of new brodcasting deals.
Aug 4, 2012… club 12 replaces rangers in the SPL.
There was a lot going on in early Aug 2012.
https://twitter.com/kilmarnockfc/status/1232636705284526080?s=21
Lets just move on.
Cluster One 26th February 2020 at 23:01
‘…There was a lot going on in early Aug 2012.
%%%%%%%%%
Yes, indeed, a lot of rottenness.
Think of the frantic, panic-stricken, gutless men in football governance at that busy time, whose innate rottenness of soul led them to adopt a ridiculous, ludicrous path of deceit and dishonour rather than discharge their offices of trust faithfully and justly.
Think of them now having to live for the rest of their of their lives with self- disgust , knowing that, whatever obituary may be written about them when they breathe out their last rotten breath, their contribution to Scottish Football will be remembered for the deceit they practised and the lies they propagated.
And think of them with contempt and disgust, while they at present metaphorically thrust out their jaws, teeth clenched and arms folded aggressively, and tell us to ‘f..k off!’ in their defiant stance against Truth.
Braga Police Witness Appeal
Police wish to speak to a man who witnessed singing about Fenians, Popes, Famine, Child Abuse, White Supremacy and, they think, something about Aberdeen and Hamilton. The Police think he may be of assistance as during the singing he observed during a live television transmission that “the visiting fans were in fine voice.” The Police have already spoken to one Michael Stewart who assures us Guidelines are in place and will, no doubt, have been complied with. Mr Stewart also advised us to check if the witness has paid tax on his fee as there was some unpleasantness in the past. (Note To Self: Google ‘EBT’)
The witness is on the right of the photograph. (Don’t be confused if the fellow on the left shows up on the EBT Google search-long story.) (Note To Self: Google ‘SASH BASH’)
https://images.app.goo.gl/8GpzEtPSCuaizD7w7
Remember when there was an oft used phrase: “Show us ra deeds!” ?
Now it could be: “Show us ra Interims!”
I’ve just read the rambling, Club1872 statement – wanting Michael Stewart’s head on a spike, and BBC Scotland to kneel down at the steps of Ibrox, allegedly…
And recently I’ve also become aware of another phrase/term: ‘Psychological Projection’.
It’s where you accuse your opponent of what you are actually guilty of doing yourself.
It’s a tactic that can also be used e.g. in politics.
It’s not that long ago that Ibrox was a ‘loud and proud’ champion of blatant racism, b!gotry and social exclusion. It was such an open, normal part of life in the West of Scotland that it was never questioned by the local football governing bodies and even in local culture it could get a reference e.g. in comedy shows.
In recent years, Ibrox has had to tone it down in public – and learn to ‘play the game’ with regards to the government’s ‘One Scotland many Cultures’ initiative – and to keep UEFA sweet, as evidenced most recently by the rapidly, reactive ‘Everyone Anyone’ campaign.
…and that then leads us to today, with the truly breath-taking Psychological Projection from Club1872 alleging racism, intolerance, unfairness etc. against a pundit and against the BBC, [which it also allegedly claims to be Institutionally biased… against the Ibrox club!]
Absolutely mental!
Copied from SFA website;
“Fast Track Tribunal Update | James Keatings, Player, Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC Thursday 27 February 2020
Player: James Keatings, Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC
Match: Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC v Rangers FC on Sunday 16 February 2020
Competition: Scottish League Challenge Cup
Offence: B1k – Commits an act of simulation
Claim: Wrongful Caution
Fast Track Tribunal Hearing: Thursday 27 February 2020
Outcome: Claim upheld. B1k rescinded.”
=====================
Cleared to play in the ‘Caramel Wafer’ Cup Final.
That takes the biscuit… 😉
John Clark 27th February 2020 at 09:41 Cluster One 26th February 2020 at 23:01 ‘…There was a lot going on in early Aug 2012. %%%%%%%%% Yes, indeed, a lot of rottenness. Think of the frantic, panic-stricken, gutless men in football governance at that busy time, whose innate rottenness of soul led them to adopt a ridiculous, ludicrous path of deceit and dishonour rather than discharge their offices of trust faithfully and justly. Think of them now having to live for the rest of their of their lives with self- disgust , knowing that, whatever obituary may be written about them when they breathe out their last rotten breath, their contribution to Scottish Football will be remembered for the deceit they practised and the lies they propagated. And think of them with contempt and disgust, while they at present metaphorically thrust out their jaws, teeth clenched and arms folded aggressively, and tell us to ‘f..k off!’ in their defiant stance against Truth.
_______________
While every word you utter about those vile people is true and accurate, John, I very much doubt the contempt and disgust we all feel for them will bother them one little bit. They are very much of the same ilk as that now dead institution's supporters who used to chant, 'nobody likes us, we don't care', although that lot actually really did care, they cared a lot, but their hubris forced them to pretend otherwise. But those of the ilk of Doncaster, Regan and all do not care one bit for what people like us, their customers, think of them, they only care about the salary and bonuses they can 'earn' and the jollies they can go on. If only one person, the person who pays their wages, says 'well done', while a million curse their very soul, they will pat themselves on the back, do a fist pump, and think, 'I'm bloody good at my job, I'm a f**king superstar'.
They are all mini-Murrays.
StevieBC 27th February 2020 at 12:02 Copied from SFA website; “Fast Track Tribunal Update | James Keatings, Player, Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC Thursday 27 February 2020 Player: James Keatings, Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC Match: Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC v Rangers FC on Sunday 16 February 2020 Competition: Scottish League Challenge Cup Offence: B1k – Commits an act of simulation Claim: Wrongful Caution Fast Track Tribunal Hearing: Thursday 27 February 2020 Outcome: Claim upheld. B1k rescinded.” =====================
Cleared to play in the ‘Caramel Wafer’ Cup Final. That takes the biscuit… ?
_________–
So Stevie, are you having a 'who are these people' moment by hinting that you've discovered one of the panel of 'football experts' goes by the name of 'McVittie'?
Can you collect my coat at the same time as you collect yours?
Allyjambo
Collect your coat and your hat jack ?
… leave your worries on the doorstep ……
Big Pink 27th February 2020 at 15:09
‘…leave your worries on the doorstep ‘
“…Life is sweet on the sunny side of the street”
I think I was hearing that , back in the 1940s, ffs!
[And question: Is Mr Tunnock paying full VAT on his caramel wafer biscuits, ardent fan of the UK that he is?]
I hear the sound of silence? But it is no a Celtic site! A wee donation to SFM on the way from me because we should all keep on fighting against the "big lie". Celtic were sh**te by the way. Just sayin.
Bordersdon
Might be quiet a while longer then. EJ & co will be gutted?
Don’t agree they were poor on the whole either. Uncharacteristic schoolboy errors cost them big time. Good that TRFC are doing their bit for the coefficient though?
Bordersdon@22.38
C’est la vie. It really isn’t the end of the world for Celtic fans. Not good for the co-efficient, obviously but you’re right, this isn’t a Celtic site, it’s an ecumenical forum where bigger issues than mere results are in play.
I once had the pleasure to meet a ‘guy’ in The Coach (& Horses) in Soho, Londontown. Jeffrey Joseph Bernard. I can’t vouch for the man; but I did hang out there (in the hope of a conversation) and listened intently. More than twice. He’s dead now; but his words continue to resonate, albeit I reserve the right to interpret as I see fit. To quote:
‘One way to stop a runaway horse is to bet on him’.
What are the odds?
Sifflersmom
A little early for philosophy I think. Some bustin’ heids around. ☹️
did the supposedly all powerful clubs care? And were they specifically given that choice? Or worst of all, did they ‘vote’ for one and then watch the other manifest itself in front of them?
It seems Police Scotland is also unhappy with last night's result.
STV Sport@STVSport
Copenhagen goalscorer Michael Santos has been charged in connection with an alleged assault on a police officer during Thursday night’s clash with Celtic at Parkhead.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1233149647797006337
Away from the circus the real World keeps on spinning and whether it's the effects of the Corona virus or years of QE and a rigged financial system finally coming home to roost the stock market is taking one hell of a beating. I personally don't believe the 2008 crisis was ever fixed , too much debt is rarely fixed by creating more debt and reducing the interest rate to near zero to allow repayment. They are now discussing negative interest rates as a solution which is effectively paying people to borrow money while fining people for saving it . At this point faith and trust in the system collapses and the rules have been turned upside down. What the fixtures has this to do with football ? Well if you are in need of funding , if you owe a lot of people a lot of money and you are surviving paycheck to paycheck then usually you are the first of many casualties in a downturn/recession/depression. The Europa results have complicated matters , Rangers* need to keep the train running with more funding chasing a Euro dream before any Uefa cheque arrives while Celtic can concentrate on the 2 competitions that really matter. The half yearly report and any share issue news has yet to materialise although King can obfuscate the former and wax lyrical about the latter to appease the gullible while the mood is good . The midweek results do not alter the reality greatly , one team had a bad day at the office and one got lucky .
Easyjambo@10.24
I’m wondering now if Santos had immediately been arrested would Copenhagen have been allowed to make a substitution?
Ex Ludo 28th February 2020 at 10:43
I’m wondering now if Santos had immediately been arrested would Copenhagen have been allowed to make a substitution?
===============================
I don't see any reason why they would have been prevented from doing so, assuming they hadn't used up their three substitutions before any arrest.