by Auldheid for the Scottish Football Monitor
On these pages at least there is a mounting lack of trust that the Scottish Football Association can or will govern our game in a fair and honest manner that recognises the principle of sporting integrity as paramount.
This mistrust is equalled only by the frustration at being unable to do anything to change the attitude and action of those at the SFA (and Leagues) responsible for that governance, a frustration compounded by the reluctance of the mainstream media to focus on the very issues of trust and integrity that concern us.
Back in early 2010 Celtic supporters represented by the Celtic Trust, various Association groups and individuals felt the same frustration and found a way to make their voices heard at the SFA – by using their club as a channel of communication to articulate their concerns.
A resolution was agreed and passed to Celtic to convey to the SFA and it was heeded by the club. There is no reason in why a similar conduit cannot be used by supporters groups of all clubs.
The enormity of the task, to get the majority of trusts and associations of all clubs to support this approach and give it sufficient weight, should not be underestimated, but in the interests of amplifying our voice, it is worth the effort.
Based on that 2010 experience, and on the discussion that has taken place on TSFM we have arrived at a (now amended) resolution below under the auspices of TSFM and which has been sent to all representative club supporters groups.
We believe one of the reasons the SFA and SPL were able to mislead (or simply fail to provide leadership) was because of the lack of clarity surrounding who should take provide that leadership and what principles should have been paramount.
The SFA were as tied to the commercial impact of Rangers demise as the SPL and indeed had to be reminded by the supporters of the importance of that sporting integrity. In the aftermath of the Rangers implosion, both the SFA and Leagues on the face of it appear still too commercially oriented to act in a way that balances commercialism and sporting principles.
We have attempted to address this in the resolution below. It also contains additional points raised already on TSFM and elsewhere. It is designed to assist in the widening of accountability in the sport.
We are not wed to the draft or the language. It is there to be revised but we hope it contains enough food for thought to be acceptable to the supporters groups and the clubs.
As recently as today, the SFA has published a Fans Charter. We welcome this development, and although it does not address our specific concerns with respect to governance it is a step in the right direction (http://www.fanscharter.com/).
Some of the principles published are;
- Challenge is to make a National Fans Charter known, accepted and influential
- Getting fan involvement in drafting charter important to acceptance, influence and growing awareness.
We think our resolution is an even bigger step in the direction of those principles.
DRAFT Proposal for Representative Supporter Groups e.g. Trusts or Associations to send to their club to convey to the SFA/SPL/SFL Boards.
We [Insert Association/Trust name here] and in association with fans’ groups of other clubs, ask [Insert Club name here] to convey the following to the Scottish Football Association, SPL and SFL on our behalf.
1 We believe that the commercial viability of Scottish football at the professional level depends absolutely on the belief by supporters that sporting integrity is at the heart of all competition, and that those governing them and the rules by which they exercise governance, must hold sporting integrity as paramount above ALL other concerns. This belief can be summed up in the one word “trust” Without trust in those responsible for governing Scottish Football, commercial viability will suffer, to eventual ruin of our game.
2 There is a perception (accompanied by some dismay and anger) among football supporters throughout Scotland that those who were charged with upholding the rules of the SFA and SPL/SFL, only did so partially – and even then only because of the threat of supporter action if they did not.
3 There appears to be no distinction or order of hierarchy between those governing the game (the SFA) for whom we believe preservation of sporting integrity should be the prime purpose, and the leagues (SPL/SFL) for whom commercial aspects are (understandably) uppermost. As a result sporting integrity lost its primacy and it was left to supporters to insist on it.
4 Consequently many Scottish football supporters have lost confidence that the Scottish Football Association will fulfil their purpose of safeguarding the sport. Indeed their silence following the revelation of a 5 way agreement last summer on the future of the liquidated Glasgow Rangers has exacerbated this loss of confidence in the SFA’s ability to administer professional football in Scotland in a manner that reflects their duty of care to all aspects of the game and everyone who takes part in it.
5 Decisions and deals have been taken by the SFA, SPL, and SFL without any public scrutiny. The operations and decisions of those bodies lack transparency and they are not accountable in any recognisable form to the football supporters throughout the land, without whom there is no professional association.
6 In our view this loss of trust can only begin to be restored by the SFA publically committing itself to:
(i) The production of an unequivocal “mission” statement of purpose/intent which will state (in whatever form they may exist) that maintaining sporting integrity is and will always be their prime goal. The statement will also describe how they intend to ensure this principle is followed in their interactions with Leagues and Clubs, particularly when commercial decisions that might undermine sporting integrity are implemented by the Leagues. (e.g. In the case of TV contracts, sponsorship or any significant league reconstruction).
(ii) Further: in recognition of the inability of some individuals to provide leadership during the past year simply because of conflicts of interest, take steps to remove any such conflict, and in doing so enable the organisation and its office bearers to function unhindered.
(iii) In the interests of transparency, publish the “five point agreement” that allowed The Rangers entry into SFL and SFA, provide a supporting rationale for entering into the agreement, and confirm that the terms have been or are being complied with.
Along with other trust restoring measures (see attached Annex) these steps should mark the end of the continuing lack of trust in the authorities.
7. We appreciate that it may be the start of next season before there is any visible evidence of our concerns being addressed although the statement of purpose/intent by the SFA (i) and action at (ii) can be readily put in place – would be a welcome early development.
8. All club’s supporters groups will be watching closely for signs of progress before advising our members and our other supporters if we feel the necessary trust restoring steps are being taken and advise that they can purchase their season books for 2013/14 knowing that sporting integrity is once more absolutely paramount in Scottish football to the betterment of our game.
Signed __________________________ on behalf of
[Insert supporter trust/association name here]
Date ______________
Annex to resolution.
The following is a list of other measures that the SFA should take in order to satisfy supporters that they should be entrusted with the job of governing Scottish football.
- To increase transparency and accountability in a meaningful way – possibly via creation of an active supporter’s liaison group drawn from representative supporter groups of each club. Its remit, using an agreed consultative mechanism to generate dialogue, to hear supporters’ concerns and consider them before key decisions are made. In an industry that is totally interdependent it is folly to exclude a major stakeholder from key decision making.
- A tightening of and an annual and independent audit of the process for granting UEFA Club (FFP) and National Club licensing reporting to the representative supporter liaison group as well as other SFA members to ensure all clubs are living within their means.
- Introduction of a rule requiring all Scottish football club directors to declare any financial interest/shareholding in any club other than their own and to rule that disposition of those shares/interest should be a part of a fit and proper assessment of a person’s qualification to hold office at an association club.
- A feasibility review of Scottish refereeing to assess the potential for creating a professional service that the SFA provide to the leagues by recruiting and training referees, but where the leagues monitor and reward consistently good performances to an agreed standard. Given the sums dependent on referee decisions, the current system must change for everyone’s sake including the referees.
- A full explanation about the circumstances (including dates) surrounding the award of a UEFA Club licence to Rangers in spring/summer of 2011 when there was unpaid social tax that prime facie did not meet the conditions for deeming the granting of a licence acceptable under the UEFA FFP rules on unpaid tax (the wee tax bill).
The [Insert Club Name here] Trust/Supporters Association asks [Insert Club Name here] to convey our concerns above with their provenance to the appropriate authorities as they see fit viz:
- Football Authority in Scotland (The SFA)
- Europe (UEFA)
- Scottish Government (on the issue of accountability to supporters and proper checks and balance governance.)
Wallace is a fine player but I maintain my stance that playing week in week out in the bottom tier of Scottish football is not good enough for international football.
However worse than that Kenny Miller is a shocking inclusion. I’m a big fan of him in a Scotland shirt as he always turns up and gives the proverbial 110% but surely it is time for WGS to move things on a bit an get as many youngsters in as possible in preparation for the next qualifying campaign.
Frankly I’d be looking to say thanks and bye to Caldwell and possibly Hutton and Adam as well.
Harsh as it sounds anyone over 26 should be viewed on as possibly being past it for our future needs.
We have hung onto the old guard far too long in the past and it has done us no favours whatsoever.
Maybe Gordon Strachan just thinks that Lee Wallace is one of the best players available to him in that position, based partly on the advice of his assistants.
Given that it is a friendly it gives him the chance to watch the player himself and judge what standard he is actually at, whilst playing the SFL3
Interesting to look at Rangers International AIM Flotation Prospectus and what it said about the SPL Commission:
In September 2012, RFCL explained in a public statement that it is unrelated to these investigations and would not be participating in the Commission investigation as it has no jurisdiction over RFCL.
RFCL does not have any liability in relation to the EBT, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over RFCL for the purpose of any investigation or any resulting determination made, and therefore has no jurisdiction to impose sanctions on RFCL.
Recent Tweets from Alex Thomson in the last hour
alex thomson@alextomo
The Commission press release is quite clear : “Mr Mure QC represented…The Rangers FC Ltd (“Newco”) ” at the Commission today. Not RFFF.
Expand Collapse
1. What’s interesting is that Rangers said they would boycott the Commission and verbally trashed it – then Charles Green sent club lawyers
Expand
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 19:06
RFCL does not have any liability in relation to the EBT, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over RFCL for the purpose of any investigation or any resulting determination made, and therefore has no jurisdiction to impose sanctions on RFCL.
======
As I understand it, the fact of turning up means that you accept that the tribunal has jurisdiction, and you then can’t argue jurisdiction at any higher level. Maybe a lawyer can correct that if I’m wrong?
IMO GS knew the MSM would be clambering over themselves to ask the most pressing and important question when he named his first squad .
Is there a sevco 2012 player from div 3 in it .So he has headed them off at the pass and picked Wallace ,I suspect that every squad picked from now on will leave GS with the perfect answer when he leaves them out ,I cannot have any agenda against sevco ,I picked Lee Wallace in my very first squad ,job done .
Ecobhoy
Yet another example of CG speaking with forked tongue ,that reminds me I have ran out of snake oil .
Longmuir talks about bringing back a more formal reconstruction package to the 30 SFA clubs, thereby allowing them to make an informed decision.
Since there will ultimately be a vote on the issue, shouldn’t that properly read 29 (+ 1 associate member club which has no voting rights)?
Why is CGs sevco anywhere near the LNS inquiry it has absolutely nothing to do with them .
The fact that LNS allowed them representation should worry all fair minded Scottish football fans .
Looks to me as if there will be guilty verdict with a minimal sanction due to a technicality argued well by the sevco lawyers
Have sevco paid for Lee Wallace yet??? Good point about sevco being anywhere near the LNS enquiry ?? But then again does ANYTHING surprise us these days regarding our football authorities and rules 🙁 I wonder what ‘major event’ will be the cover story for the LNS decision being announced 😉 so many questions too few answers.
Re LNS, this seems to me to be a no win situation for the authorities.
If the appropriate consequences and sanctions are applied, inevitably this will prompt outrage and demands for revenge from the persecuted hordes.
If they are cleared or token sanctions applied, cue fans revolt and pressure applied to the boards of every other club in the country. If they try to pull another stunt like last summer, they know this time around that they are in for a fight, especially with a heavy hitter like Alex Tomo taking such a keen and continued interest. Reconstruction could be scuppered due to complete loss of confidence.
Still, that’s where they have chosen to position themselves. Damned if they do or don’t.
Damn the lot of them, they have nobody else to blame for this unholy mess than themselves. And I suspect that they know this.
SFA needs to buy some goodwill now: throw Ogilvie ‘under the bus’ ?
======================================================
It would seem that regardless of the outcome of LNS and Reconstruction, there are going to be a lot of fans unhappy, or even more unhappy, with the SFA.
Following these decisions, the SFA cannot simply keep its head down and bumble along as though things will soon be ‘back to normal’ in Scottish football.
That’s not going to happen: too much water under the bridge etc…
So, in the short-term will the SFA have to offer up something as a goodwill gesture ?
To buy time for the authorities – and to keep the fans onside, and buying their season tickets ?
Perhaps Ogilvie will be ‘fired’ by Regan, [as directed by Ogilvie himself], to generate the illusion that Regan has finally grown a set, and is the right man to lead Scottish football?
The SFA is not going to promote merging with the SPL/SFL administrations, but they have to offer something now IMO – regardless of how cynical/insincere it might appear to most.
What’s the story with Strachan and Lee Wallace? I’m sure GS knows more about football than I do, but even I can understand how hard it will be to step up from playing in SFL3 to international football. Ffs I even worry about SPL players stepping up, to the extent that I sometimes think we should play the EPL guys ahead of SPL guys, given that they are playing against better players week in week out. Wallace is a decent player, but is it likely that GS has picked him because he will be the most ready Scottish left back when the game comes around? That seems unlikely to me. Even Levein steered clear after the first time.
Is it likely that GS has picked him because he has been influenced by others? I don’t know GS but that seems unlikely. Any manager’s biggest hate is to not be able to select the team he thinks is best in football terms. Would GS start his career in international management by being told who to pick? As I said, it seems unlikely.to me.
That leaves me with GS picking Wallace for non-football reasons (you know what I mean). As Johnnyod says above, perhaps this is GS being smart to avoid the question from the msm and, no doubt, the ire of the RFC* fans. Is that likely? To me, it seems the most likely of the options, but if that is the case, I am extremely disappointed! Effectively, he’s anticipating that he’ll get a hard time and allowing himself to be bullied, before the chance for some bullying has even arisen! Is this what we have come to?
Good of Longmuir to begin a tour of the SFL clubs to explain things to the fans. He is speaking to all the clubs, right? Or is this a world-recordly short campaign?
It seems to me it’s mostly some people on here who are bothered if there is a Rangers player in a Scotland squad or not. Talk of managers being ‘leaned on’ is a bit far fetched and it’s more than possible Strachan looked at all the left backs available to him and came to the conclusion Wallace was good enough for the squad.
I don’t think he should be in the squad but I really don’t see Strachan as the type of person who would let himself be told what players he should pick. I think people are all too keen to see a corrupting Rangers influence on, well, basically everything in Scottish football and I’m not sure that’s the case.
Brenda says:
Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 19:54
” I wonder what ‘major event’ will be the cover story for the LNS decision being announced”
——————————————————————————————————-
The whole nation will be glued to the box as Gail and Lewis get chased out of the street by Audrey and they elope to Italy in a fast car driven by Cambell Ogilvie.
You heard it here first Brenda 🙂
One of the more literate members of RM has penned a mighty epistle in response to the rap on the knuckles TRFC got for their Remembrance Day farce, which he is firing off to any Rt Hon he can find who has “Defence” in their job title.
It goes on for ages and ages, and contains the following gem – which the writer has actually seen fit to highlight …
—–
“Those who serve our country are often reminded of the words of the famous war poet, Wilfred Owen, who wrote ‘DULCE ET DECORUM EST – the first words of a Latin saying (taken from an ode by Horace). The words were widely understood and often quoted at the start of the First World War. They mean “It is sweet and right.” The full saying ends the poem: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori – it is sweet and right to die for your country. In other words, it is a wonderful and great honour to fight and die for your country.”
——
Wilfred Owen, I fear, would turn in his grave to read this – almost a century after he utterly destroyed Horace’s original quote forever.
Is there no beginning to the wit of the average bear?
iamacant @ 21:34
Love it lol you could be onto something there 🙂
When GS brought in mark McGhee the MSM and especially chick young complained that there was no sevco involvement, very soon afterwards Stuart mccoll was given a back room job in the Scotland set up.
I agree that Wallace is a decent player but this looks like an appeasement to the MSM and the sevconites.
“Flocculent Apoidea says:
Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 21:17
Good of Longmuir to begin a tour of the SFL clubs to explain things to the fans. He is speaking to all the clubs, right? Or is this a world-recordly short campaign?”
I’m waiting with bated breath on him appearing at new bayview…..
StevieBC says:
Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 20:22
SFA needs to buy some goodwill now: throw Ogilvie ‘under the bus’ ?
======================================================
Stevie Boy
Take it from me
Anybody who spent £90k on a good night out would have fell under a bus
I just feel very disappointed with Gordon Strachan. The man is a legend. Yet, for what ever reason, he has followed Craig Levein, and picked a player for his squad, that all logical thinking football brains think, what is that about?
I really thought that this was a new start. My depression deepens.
It is not because I dislike TRFC. I have not a shadow of a doubt that Lee Wallace is a great footballer, who should not be playing at the level he is. It is truly because I believe that if you play against slower less talented players (but yet really good footballers, that their mums, dads, daughters, sons and friends are proud to say they know), then the Scottish international is not being fully tested, or training as hard. It is human nature.
It is just not logical. It makes no sense. Gordon Strachan has always come across as a logical sensible thinker. If he had ever played in the 4th level of Scottish football (maybe he did?), then he would never have thought for a second he would have been capped.
These are strange times, but most logical sensible thinkers can only accept so much strangeness. There will come a time when, we have to draw a line and say, enough is enough.
Nice wee article from Phil Mac made me smile before sleep 🙂 night night 🙂
Just picking up on the Lee Wallace discussion: Strachan signed Danny Fox for Celtic and released him 6 months later after a ‘mole’ fed a story to the press about WGS and McGeady having a barney in training. I think it’s fairly safe to say WGS is not a big fan of Danny Fox, hence the inclusion of Lee Wallace.
As you were 🙂
At the risk of having this post deleted, and I won’t protest if it is, but I thought it was worth mentioning that Andy Walker, one of the pundits on Clyde SSB yesterday, was quite adamant that the current Rangers are a new club and that the timeline for the former club stopped in 2012 – and this in the face of some quite emotional callers arguing that the company alone demised.
I know it’s become a moot point on here but it’s not often you hear such a forensic voice on that particular phone-in, on this matter at least.
Danish Pastry says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 08:18
Andy Walker has went up in my estimation, hopefully he is renting out the tower room in Castle Grant :).
Joking aside I honestly hope more pundits and ‘journo’s’ end the myth and start to tell the truth rather than what they want us to believe.
Danish Pastry says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 08:18
6
0
Rate This
At the risk of having this post deleted, and I won’t protest if it is, but I thought it was worth mentioning that Andy Walker, one of the pundits on Clyde SSB yesterday, was quite adamant that the current Rangers are a new club and that the timeline for the former club stopped in 2012 – and this in the face of some quite emotional callers arguing that the company alone demised.
================
Why would you think the post might be deleted? Have i missed something? Has TSFM taken a position that Sevco are same club as old Rangers, and banned discussion or dissent?
Danish Pastry says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 08:18
At the risk of having this post deleted, and I won’t protest if it is, but I thought it was worth mentioning that Andy Walker, one of the pundits on Clyde SSB yesterday, was quite adamant that the current Rangers are a new club and that the timeline for the former club stopped in 2012 – and this in the face of some quite emotional callers arguing that the company alone demised.
I know it’s become a moot point on here but it’s not often you hear such a forensic voice on that particular phone-in, on this matter at least.
___________________________________________________________________________
Yeah it was good to hear. Also the other caller, Tommy I think his name was, was telling it how it is with regards to the new club, and the only objection Guidi could muster was ‘does it bother you that other people see them as the same club?’ to which Tommy replied ‘the fact they shed their debt through liquidation yet still claim to be the same club bothers me’. Tumbleweed then passed through the studio.
Call me i’m naieve but maybe, slowly but surely, facts will start to seep into the public domain and be accepted rather than shot down. And maybe the hordes will start showing some remorse for their actions of the past century and a third. Somebody stop me…
Partizan says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 09:09
5 1 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 08:18
6
0
Rate This
At the risk of having this post deleted, and I won’t protest if it is, but I thought it was worth mentioning that Andy Walker, one of the pundits on Clyde SSB yesterday, was quite adamant that the current Rangers are a new club and that the timeline for the former club stopped in 2012 – and this in the face of some quite emotional callers arguing that the company alone demised.
================
Why would you think the post might be deleted? Have i missed something? Has TSFM taken a position that Sevco are same club as old Rangers, and banned discussion or dissent?
——–
Not at all Partizan, but the mods have politely asked us to drop the newco/oldco debate for the time being or until something substantial happens to change the common perception. I thought a pundit on SSB speaking sense on the subject was worthy of a mention – without opening the debate again. The pundit line-up was pretty good yesterday.
Yes, Martin, Tommy was well spoken. An irate fan came on later and ‘accused him’ of being Tommy in Glasgow. Well, it must have been a newco Tommy in Glasgow because it wasn’t the unique bampot 🙂
Wallace had picked up half a dozen caps before he Tuped over to Div 3
I think that until he screws it up on the pitch he is entitled to fight for his place
Strachan knows that there is a capable player at this level in Wallace but if he doesnt let him
participate at the higher level then the capability will be lost maybe forever
Use him or lose him ?
On LNS. Timescale was interesting. 3 days including presumably a morning of intro’s and dealing with perception vs reality, pre judgement by the media, especially them nasty bampots etc etc plus an afternoon with Mr Yule exclaiming “donnae take wur titles.” That’s not a long time at all.
In terms of evidence it is obviously fairly open and shut. Either they were at it, or they weren’t (I’m assuming that “that they didn’t realise they were at it isn’t an option” but this may be extremely presumptious on my part) or thirdly, that LNS can’t formally judge until the FTTT appeal. As regards this latter option many posters on here including myself have already blown that one out of the water I feel.
Interesting times.
smugas says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 10:27
On LNS. Timescale was interesting. 3 days including presumably a morning of intro’s and dealing with perception vs reality, pre judgement by the media, especially them nasty bampots etc etc plus an afternoon with Mr Yule exclaiming “donnae take wur titles.” That’s not a long time at all.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
When you factor the tea breaks, lunch, afternoon coffee etc. the would hardly have had time to warm their seats.
Re the LNS enquiry.
So say there were 30 players whose registrations were being checked, say two full days of investigation, with one of intro & terms of reference, listening to the SPL & RFC / TRFC guys, and wind up, etc, thats 15 per working day of say 7 hours, so that’s half an hour to check each players registration files against whatever other information they might have. Seems pretty thorough, and you’d have to think that if there were no problems with the registrations it wouldn’t need half an hour for each one.
So my calculated guesses are that there were problems to look at and they took time to agree a judgement on each one.
But maybe just wishful thinking!
Playing of Unregistered Players.
____________________________
CONSEQUENCES.
If a club, having played an illegal player and consequently are found to have breached the rules the resulting consequence will be that the innocent club will be awarded this game on a scoreline of 3-0 and any title acquired as a result of this cheating shall be forfeited.
PUNISHMENT
_______________________
Apart from the consequential stripping of titles as a result of playing unregistered players, the guilty club will be fined an amount of money commensurate with the amount of money they defrauded from all clubs in that particular league.
The amount of money in this case will, potentially run into millions, and will not be collected. This should not, however, stop the SFA from handing down exemplary fines (of the order of millions of pounds) to deter others in the future (who wish to win titles by cheating)
P.S.
If a club were found to be cheating with unregistered players they would automatically forfeit the game 3-0 and face a substantial penalty. It will be interesting to see if cheating on a grand scale will be treated more leniently. Perhaps the old adage ‘better a sheep than a lamb’ …………although I hear nowadays that the lamb is more expensive than the sheep………… over to you Highlanders on here, your moment has come! .
I see the Phil Mc rumour is having an effect someone is getting out at 82p. Presume he got them at sub 70p. Looks llike this ones heading back where it started.
08:36:31 01-Feb-2013 Price82.00 Vol15,000 £12,300.00 Ordinary Trade – delayed publication request
BBC reporting that some 350 away-end tickets have been sold for Tannadice.
The consequences for these supporters among their ursine friends will be interesting to observe.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/spiers-on-sport-on-league-reform-were-all-groping-in-the-dark.1359647779
Here is the blunt truth about the current league reconstruction debate in Scottish football. And it is a dangerous truth.
No-one with the power to change the game really knows which way to turn. There is no conviction. There is a very evident lack of certainty.
To paraphrase the scriptures, every one appears to be looking through smoky glass, seeing only smudgy, indistinct images on the other side.
Some want 12-12-18. Some want 16-10-16. Others want 14-14-14. Others still, with new clubs being added to the mix, want a pair of whopping 20s or even 22s.
Which one is right? Which solution will, if not lead Scottish football to the Promised Land, then at least take us out of this bitter harvest?
Among the powers that be – Neil Doncaster, Stewart Regan, some club chairmen, even long-time observing “hacks”, and I’ve spoken to them all – I’ve yet to come upon a voice of singular conviction.
What you hear constantly is that “there is an appetite for change in the game in Scotland”. Well, this is true, but only to a degree.
In fact, there are quite a few who could live with the current 12-10-10-10 set-up, and I’m among them.
For me, it wouldn’t be the end of the world if we had to plough our way through this current downturn in the Scottish game, until green shoots were seen again.
But that won’t happen. We are going to get change, because change is being demanded, whatever shape or form it takes. My point remains, right now I’m not convinced there is a strong enough consensus over what that change should be.
I’ll say it again: there are aspects about 12-12-18, despite its cumbersome arithmetic, which I like. I like the fact that it is aspirational: potentially four new clubs joining the top-12 each season, and four clubs gravitating from the bottom 18 to the middle 12.
I also like its financial distribution model, in which hundreds of thousands of pounds will be released – so it is alleged – from the top 12 to the lower clubs.
It may look confusing but there is much good in all of this. And Rangers – a successful, recovering, upwardly mobile Rangers – will be neither aided nor hindered by a switch to a 12-12-18 next season.
But the question remains about our top league: to stay small or go big?
Reading HeraldScotland’s League Reconstruction Dossier released this week, in which fans across the country are participating in the debate, it is perfectly obvious that this remains a sore point.
Most Scottish football fans appear to want a bigger top league: of 16 or 18 teams. Poll after poll appears to have confirmed this.
But what are the SPL and the SFL effectively doing? They are saying: “Now look chaps, we know you want a bigger top league, but we’re sorry, you don’t know what you are talking about, so this is it…”
The “it”, come hell or high water, appears to be a top league of 12. In a variation on an old theme, the fans are effectively being told to both put up AND shut up.
Then it comes to this (and it is a most unpopular stance): I believe the Old Firm have to be protected to a degree. And the only way to do that is to have them playing in a smaller – not a bigger – top league.
I say this with some caution, because across Scotland other fans are contemptuous of Rangers and Celtic. But these two clubs make up a huge chunk of the financing of the game in this country. To an extent they underwrite Scottish football, and they certainly drive the multi-million pound TV deals.
My heart doesn’t bleed for either half of the Glasgow divide, but I know their importance to Scottish football. Until football’s international borders are broken down, we need them, and we need to heed them.
As things stand, we are in a mess. I’d go for a 12-12-18 model next season because it is the best I can see so far. I don’t want a larger, “cannon-fodder” top league.
But I’m like everyone else. I’m far from convinced about it.
—————————————————————————————————–
(didn’t Henry McLeish spend years investigating this and make several suggestions which have largely been ignored and now we have everyone and his dog just barking numbers/set ups with no real info behind it? Why not start by merging the SPL/SFL (and even the SFA) and once that is streamlined, lets revist mcleish’s proposals or conduct another investigation if his suggestions aren’t good enough)
AT tweeting that the LNS decision could take weeks to write up.
From the Daily Ranger
We also understand that Biggart Baillie, the lawyers representing Rangers oldco, are quietly
confident of securing a positive outcome.
They believe the findings of the first-tier tax tribunal – which cleared Rangers of cooking the books – has significantly weakened the case against the club.
They believe their case is so solid they did not require “star witnesses” including Murray and former director Mike McGill to give evidence.
Spiers provides a perfectly reasonable basis for discussion here. He speaks of a lack of consensus about the change, but there he ceases the reasoning process.
It seems obvious that in the absence of a consensus, there should be an attempt to build one.
This would require a pause for thought – but Spiers ploughs on regardless (another biblical metaphor?) and fails to challenge the false premise that the change needs to take place next season, as well as failing to highlight the other reasons why deferment is a fairer option.
Without providing any rationale, he decides that since Celtic & Rangers have an effective veto, he will back 12-12-18. Clearly he is not up to speed with the Rangers stated preference for 14-14-14.
Do ANY of these guys ever actually sit down for ten minutes to research – or even consider what it is they say?
Shoddy, lazy, untidy, badly argued…. Where do you stop with this?
I suspect that LNS will delay his write up for months – not weeks – probably be issued during the Galsgow Fair!
League reconstruction is the giant smokescreen – a huge diversion to draw the fire away from the complicty of the authorities in the shambles we now have – no-one believes it will make the slightest difference – and in that Spiers is correct. I am kind of with him – as it happens that 12 12 18 is the best solution proposed but that is neither here nor there.What is actually required is a complete rebuilding of confidence in the institutions running tha game – a whole new leadership, the formation of pyramidal regional leagues below the present league and then a considered reconstruction.
My actual preference long term is a top league of 20 – and two regional leagues of 18 – that would have 56 league clubs – many from Juniors, Seniors or Highland leagues to join the present system – and underneath a merger of Senior and Junior association leagues to feed into the regional leagues.
That to me is a long term strategy that would allow clubs of ambition to rise rapidly, stop the boredom of four matches a season, and be a model for more even wealth distribution.
But we need to have secure and trustworthy governance first. And that is looking as far away now as it ever has done.
Martin Hutchison (@Squire_67) says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 01:39
20 14 i Rate This
Just picking up on the Lee Wallace discussion: Strachan signed Danny Fox for Celtic and released him 6 months later after a ‘mole’ fed a story to the press about WGS and McGeady having a barney in training. I think it’s fairly safe to say WGS is not a big fan of Danny Fox, hence the inclusion of Lee Wallace.
As you were
——————————————————–
Tony Mowbray signed Danny Fox. Strachan had no involvement whatsoever.
Better go back and update your taxi driver
League Reconstruction
Graham Speirs quotes: “there is an appetite for change in the game in Scotland”.
Oh Yeh? but whose appetite is it?
Roger Mitchell, former CEO of the SPL, speaking on BBC2 Newsnight Scotland last night,
said, without hesitation, it’s those at the top who want change.
And why?
So that the Gers can be back in the same league as Celtic asap and the ‘Old Firm’ games can be back on Sky TV.
The whole reconstruction thing is a scam run by the usual suspects Regan, Doncaster and Muirhead.
The ONLY thing that matters to them is the big money from SKY, which they can’t get UNLESS the Old Firm play each other regularly every season.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Warning. Readers offended by the continuing use of the term OF (Old firm) should prepare themselves. You all know what I mean and I can’t be bothered typing one digitly the full version! What am I, a journalist?
On reconstruction. Isn’t it frustrating when Spiers actually puts some sense and reasoning into a debate? The way I see it now the 12-12-18 basically creates a split between full time (24) and part time (18) football. It won’t quite work out that way but that’s basically the distinction they are seeking to make. They are also masking the preservation of the top 12 with some encouragement to another 12 potential contendors. I have said before I believe the middle 8 structure will actually give the bottom four in the SPL as is more chance of remaining there, not less.
On his OF point I would quite like to draw a distinction though. The Chairmen collectively (?) clearly like the top 12 as a maximum. Is that based on the number of ties? (easily fixed by creative thinking re the league cup but I digress). Or 2 visits by 12 ‘large’ clubs? Or 2 visits by specifically 2 clubs? I’d be interested to hear what proportion the chairmen put between these categories. Add into the mix then that 12 playing four times co-incidentally means 4 OF ties to sell to the TV guys and there’s a fourth category to add (assuming Doncaster ever actually gave us figures on the with and without scenarios, some hope).
My point, if there is one, is this. If it is the case that essentially the top 12 chairmen’s view is based on 50% that the OF come twice to visit and 50% that TV monies arise out of 4 OF clashes then that would be a much more truthful position from which to start. I’m not saying I like it. I am not saying I agree with it. What I am saying is that in creating this reliance it has led to the dominance and also to a clear element of self fulfilment. How many kids, deciding which team to support, watched Aberdeen St Johnstone on ESPN the other night with Liverpool/Arsenal and El Classico to compete? For me to continue to support this position (IF that is the only position my chairman tells me will work (and to be fair he has), Longmuir and Doncaster need a helluva lot better sales pitch to me come August. More importantly, continue treating me like an idiot and hoping I just don’t notice the above will lead to me and the next generation not even bothering to listen to the sales pitch at all.
Oh and not too bothered about Strachan picking Wallace. Anything for a quiet life – for evidence see stooshie now being created by ‘resting Celtic Players.’ Journalists eh. What are they like.
And as regards the Sevco Lawyers. When have you ever heard a lawyer come out and say to his client “well you’re f****d!”
Mr Spiers has indicated on twitter that there will be 10,000 fans at Tannadice tomorrow.How gratifying to note that the citizens of Dundee have splashed out and the love of football prevails.The atmosphere will be convivial and no hint of bitterness on the terraces,except ,of course ,the east coast wind!
Why should the LNS enquiry take ‘weeks’ to write up? what are they trying to avoid? Bedlam down govan way? They, deadrfc are either Guilty of cheating or Not Guilty of cheating simples 🙂
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 12:40
From the Daily Ranger
We also understand that Biggart Baillie, the lawyers representing Rangers oldco, are quietly
confident of securing a positive outcome.
They believe the findings of the first-tier tax tribunal – which cleared Rangers of cooking the books – has significantly weakened the case against the club.
They believe their case is so solid they did not require “star witnesses” including Murray and former director Mike McGill to give evidence.
==============
If RFC(IL) lawyers thought that they could have put Murray and McGill on the stand without weakening/wrecking their defence they would have.
It’s all spin in the same way that Mr Charles was positive of a good decision going his way regarding the walk away players. We all know what happened there.
angus1983 says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 12:09
7 0 Rate This
BBC reporting that some 350 away-end tickets have been sold for Tannadice.
The consequences for these supporters among their ursine friends will be interesting to observe.
________________
they have convinced themselves on FF that most of them are supporters of other teams esp aberdeen
Of course the powers that be want Celtic and Rangers in the same league for the sake of commercialism, and as quickly as possible. They won’t want to take any chances that Rangers might fail to get out of the 18 team league, or fail to get from SPL 2 to SPL 1 (or whatever they might be called. For that reason, there will be ample opportunity for promotion.
Here’s my thoughts:
— Top two leagues of 12 with 8-8-8 split as proposed.
— Beneath that, 18 team league (could be increased to 20 or more) with top 2 promoted by right, with teams 3-6 playing off for 3rd promotion spot (much as they do in England). This, of course, means 3 are relegated from the bottom on the 3rd 8.
— A regional pyramid could be introduced to freshen up the bottom of the 18 league. How that works, yet to be decided, but could be interesting.
Result: I believe this makes for a dynamic league with there should be a minimum of “meaningless” games. The top 8 will fight for 3 / sometimes 4 Europe places – can’t see too many “meaningless” games where half the league might be “winners”. The middle 8 will have 4 “winners” and 4 “losers”, you can’t get more “meaningful” than that. 3 of the bottom 8 will be relegated – I imagine the only “meaningless” games will be towards the end of the season between clubs who are safe. There won’t be many though. For the 18, fighting to be in the top 6 will keep things interesting for many clubs (don’t be surprised if you find that with 3 or 4 games to go there are still at least 10 clubs in with a shout).
Rangers would expect to finish in the top 2 of the 18. There is a play-off just in case. You would also expect them to finish in the top 4 of SPL 2. Rangers have a clear path to SPL 1 that only rank rotten form will spoil. Scottish football gets a dynamic new league format. There will be plenty of opportunity for those clubs with ambition, plenty of exciting games. And, most of all, plenty for us to talk / moan / complain, stamp our feet about.
I’m excited about it, but it only works (IMHO) if you have the 3 up / 3 down and playoffs elements for the 18 team lower league. Ambitious clubs like Rangers should see a clear path to the top. Club Chairmen should see many meaningful games (and the crowds that might come to watch them). Fans will have too much to talk about. MSM will have too much real stuff to write about (so maybe they can park the puff pieces). Where to even start with such a busy and exciting league?!
The promised land at last.
If I was a betting man…
The leagues will change for next season, for definite.
The Sevco plan (the newest one that Ally helped sell in yesterday) will be the chosen route.
i.e.not the old plan with some leagues of 14 teams but the new one with 12,12,10 and10.
The reason is it ticks more boxes.
So when The Rangers FC get back up to the top there will be 4 top billed matches vs Celtic on paid for tv, which is the main driver for Doncaster and his pals Premier League Chairmen pals.
Also it allows promotion for the team at the top of SFL3 this year into SFL2.
This team will not get fast-tracked.
And there will be less need to “educate” fans on the 8,8 8 split.
Ask your clubs – they were at the meeting yesterday and should be canvassing the views and opinions of their stakeholders i.e. the fans.
the reason sevco want 12 12 10 10
is so that they can increase season tickets for next year
12 12 18 and they would not get away with an increase
Brenda says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 13:23
Why should the LNS enquiry take ‘weeks’ to write up? what are they trying to avoid? Bedlam down govan way? They, deadrfc are either Guilty of cheating or Not Guilty of cheating simples.
——
I should imagine they have a verdict that they know the reasoning behind, but will be wanting it nailed down in writing with extensive reference to the Rules they’ve been given to apply, then double-checked prior to release – in order to avoid speculation, denial and hole-picking by whichever side ends up taking affront at the result.
Being as the most likely potential appellant is Rangers FC (i.e. I can’t see the SPL appealing if it’s found that RFC acted correctly), a reasonable person would have to imagine that the verdict will go against them. Otherwise the verdict would have been announced, with a statement of reasons to follow at some future point.
That’s how it appears to me at this point, anyway.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 12:33
AT tweeting that the LNS decision could take weeks to write up.
————————————————
Parchment takes time to manufacture you know, and quills aren’t as readily available as they once were. Add on the need to book time with a couple of monks who are capable of doing the illuminated script for the first letter of every new section, and it all takes time.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
They believe their case is so solid they did not require “star witnesses” including Murray and former director Mike McGill to give evidence.
Andrew Woods says:
If RFC(IL) lawyers thought that they could have put Murray and McGill on the stand without weakening/wrecking their defence they would have.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Much in the same way as…..
Francesco "Frankie Five Angels" Pentangeli's brother, Vincenzo ?
angus1983 says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 14:55
Brenda says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 13:23
Why should the LNS enquiry take ‘weeks’ to write up? …
——
…
Being as the most likely potential appellant is Rangers FC (i.e. I can’t see the SPL appealing if it’s found that RFC acted correctly), a reasonable person would have to imagine that the verdict will go against them. Otherwise the verdict would have been announced, with a statement of reasons to follow at some future point.
That’s how it appears to me at this point, anyway.
========================================
Good spot angus1983 !
Was that not the approach at the original Independent Tribunal, [or was it the appeal], where the decision was publicised almost immediately, with the detailed reasoning issued a few days later, IIIRC ?
As you surmise, it would seem ‘reasonable’ then that the decision has gone against ‘Rangers’ ?
So do we get an announcement ‘soon’, or will it be delayed indefinitely ?
Re – Time taken to write up the LNS decision.
Come on guys you know the score by now.
Lawyers can never come out with a simple verdict, “it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, therefore it is a duck” – they need to flesh it out.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but they see a cow then it takes three times as long to explain to the rest of us how they come to such a conclusion based on the fine complexities of the law. Which many a time is neither a duck nor a cow but is an Ass.
The decision will come when it comes and we will just have to sit tight until then.
This is the Rubicon moment for Scottish football if LNS fails to deliver justice or fudges such a clear cut issue as dual contracts,the games over for me and Id imagine thousands of other fans will melt away like snow of a dyke.
For someone who loves Scottish football its a scary thought,please give these men the strength of character to do the right thing.
Senior says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 11:42
Playing of Unregistered Players.
____________________________
CONSEQUENCES.
If a club, having played an illegal player and consequently are found to have breached the rules the resulting consequence will be that the innocent club will be awarded this game on a scoreline of 3-0 and any title acquired as a result of this cheating shall be forfeited.
PUNISHMENT
_______________________
Apart from the consequential stripping of titles as a result of playing unregistered players, the guilty club will be fined an amount of money commensurate with the amount of money they defrauded from all clubs in that particular league.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
A lateral thought
From a legal perspective is it the role of the LNS Tribunal to announce “consequences”?
Surely their role would be to determine guilt or innocence and if guilty to decide a “punishment”
Think about it
LNS could announce that RFC were guilty of fielding players who were not registered in accordance with SFA rules for over 10 yrs.
He could say this was a grave offence deserving (say) a massive fine or expulsion from the SFA
He doesn`t have to make any comment on title stripping since this is a “consequence” not a punishment
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If LNS took this view he would be leaving it up to the SFA to decide whether or not to strip titles as a consequence of fielding incorrectly registered players.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The parallel is how UK courts apply the law on theft
They do not as a matter of routine make it obligatory for stolen items to be returned.
It is up to the victim to sue the thief.
Lee Wallace is obviously a decent player.
However, even great players suffer a dip in form at some point, sometimes only for a portion of the season.
How on earth can any one gauge Wallace’s current form when he’s playing in the 4th tier of football ? How much lower is it accceptable to trawl for talent ?
” He had a great game against Neilston Juniors, give him a call”.
I see your point Delbhoy but GS can assess LW in a friendly if as you imply his form will have dipped the evidence will be there for all to see ,we are poor enough off for defenders without”throwing the baby out with the bath water” or on the otherhand give them enough rope……..I suspect your right but lets see how it pans out,he will probably pull out injured after tha Arabs game tomorrow !
angus1983 says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 14:55
8
0
Rate This
Brenda says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 13:23
Why should the LNS enquiry take ‘weeks’ to write up? what are they trying to avoid? Bedlam down govan way? They, deadrfc are either Guilty of cheating or Not Guilty of cheating simples.
——
I should imagine they have a verdict that they know the reasoning behind, but will be wanting it nailed down in writing with extensive reference to the Rules they’ve been given to apply, then double-checked prior to release – in order to avoid speculation, denial and hole-picking by whichever side ends up taking affront at the result.
Being as the most likely potential appellant is Rangers FC (i.e. I can’t see the SPL appealing if it’s found that RFC acted correctly), a reasonable person would have to imagine that the verdict will go against them. Otherwise the verdict would have been announced, with a statement of reasons to follow at some future point.
That’s how it appears to me at this point, anyway.
_______________________________________________________________
A just thought that LNS and the team needed a bit time to scarper.
Interesting number of thumbs up / down to my post earlier about what I would like to see in league reconstruction. The reaction to my idea that something that helps Rangers AND Scottish Football in general seems curious in its unpopularity. My point was that a structure that helps Rangers will be popular with those who wish to aid Rangers to the top league. The spin-off benefits is that everyone will benefit. There are no losers.
I’m a Celtic fan. My wish is to see Celtic play, and remain, in a strong Scottish setup. Helping Ranger is neither here nor there for me. If pro-Rangers powerbrokers latch on to the setup suggested for their own reasons, what do I care. Sometimes you can use other people’s motivations to promote your own agenda.
The number of thumbs down I got for suggesting something that might help Rangers just shows how anti-Rangers this board is.
Delbhoy says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 16:22
hayzaboy says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 16:42
Given we are short of goal scorers for the national team will WGS now be considering a recall for Lee McCulloch given he is the top Scottish goalscores in Div 3 with 13 to his name. If the standard of league doesn’t matter then he must a better shout that Kenny Miller of 2 goals with Vancouver.
No the lad Wallace (along with others) made his bed by deciding to play in Div 3 and he and the fans of Scottish Football should just face up to the consequences of that.
smugas says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 13:18
And as regards the Sevco Lawyers. When have you ever heard a lawyer come out and say to his client “well you’re f****d!”
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Paul Cullen who represented Jim Farry and the SFA.
Farry’s fall from grace
Scotland on Sunday
Published Date: 22 February 2009
By ANDREW SMITH
THE MOMENT the SFA’s own counsel, Paul Cullen, threw down his pen in frustration at Jim Farry’s “very poor” performance under cross-examination, the writing was on the wall for the man who had ruled Scottish football with a rod of iron. But the embattled chief executive, a punctilious power-broker of fearsome repute, probably wouldn’t have recognised it. In a supreme irony, it was the Great Administrator’s misadministration that proved to be his downfall.
Here we are; no surprise that “several weeks” is being mentioned for an SPL verdict to be made public when the statement made below, which seems like a long time ago now; did they regret the “prior to the start of season 2012/13” ? They did not even mention it when announcing the LNS enquiry – funny that.
Of course, if the unthinkable happens and the LNS enquiry does confirm what the vast majority think, then there will be the inevitable appeal to the SFA which will take some additional time (but I suspect not too long this time given the pending elections to office in the SFA), and then it will be finally known what the sanctions will be, if any.
Tick, tock…..
Anyhoo, THAT statement, on Prima Facie day….
_______________________________
A statement from the SPL read: “The SPL Board heard a report from its solicitors following the investigation into payments to, or for the benefit of, players allegedly made by Rangers FC outside of contract.
“The delay in concluding the investigation was caused by an initial lack of co-operation from Rangers FC.
“The investigation has now been completed and, in the view of the SPL, there is a prima facie case to answer in respect of its rules.
“Disciplinary charges will be brought when the future status of Rangers FC is clarified and prior to the start of season 2012/13”
——————————————————-
beatipacificiscotia says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 17:21
The number of thumbs down I got for suggesting something that might help Rangers just shows how anti-Rangers this board is.
________________________________________________
My impression of this board is that it is anti-corruption.
It so happens that a great deal of evidence has been gathered that one particular Scottish football club has played an enormous part in corrupting Scottish football. Nobody who is anti-corruption would want to see that club benefit from the havoc which it has caused, especially when that club still refuses to give the slightest indication that it recognises its culpability or feels any remorse.
Henry Clarson says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 17:52
beatipacificiscotia says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 17:21
The number of thumbs down I got for suggesting something that might help Rangers just shows how anti-Rangers this board is.
________________________________________________
My impression of this board is that it is anti-corruption.
It so happens that a great deal of evidence has been gathered that one particular Scottish football club has played an enormous part in corrupting Scottish football. Nobody who is anti-corruption would want to see that club benefit from the havoc which it has caused, especially when that club still refuses to give the slightest indication that it recognises its culpability or feels any remorse.
========================================================================
I would agree with HC that it feels anti-RFC* because it is anti-corruption and the biggest corruption story is RFC*. I wonder, too, if some of your TDs were due to your apparent acceptance of the ‘commercialism over sport’ approach, which isn’t favoured here (though I think we know some compromises may be required).
beatipacificiscottia
So let me get this right …you are surprised that the people on this blog gave you TDs because you suggested a set up that helped the new club that browbeats everyone in Scotland into seeing them as the same club that stole £14m of tax payers money to ensure they made it to the end of the season to avoid being completely thrown out of Scottish football and indeed accusing the SPL of stealing their £2m prize money for finishing in 2nd place ahead of other short of cash SPL clubs who had paid all their dues only to finish below ragers .
The old club that but for the real football fans in this country would have been illegally put into the top tier off our game and were eventually illegally allowed into the bottom tier of our game and the real football fans expect the peepil at the top to do everything in their power to fast track them up to the spl .
What exactly is it that surprises you ?
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/conflict-interest-football-lawyers/3982
Alex Thomson’s Latest
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/conflict-interest-football-lawyers/3982
Rangers bloggers fabricating a story but SPL not providing sufficient clarity?
You would not believe it eh?
Very disappointing listening to Tam Cowan on Sportsound tonight saying that he wasn’t interested in seeing the old Rangers being stripped of titles. Somebody texted in asking if Lance Armstrong should be allowed to keep his titles and Tam appeared to completely miss the point. Mr Cosgrove should take this up with him tomorrow.
I’d be astonished if the LNS doesn’t recommend the stripping of titles following a series of 0-3 reversals but I’d be more than happy if all the titles which end up being stripped are just left as “No title awarded” as opposed to them getting reallocated to the runner up. Tam suggested it would be embarrassing/ludicrous if titles are reallocated and I agree with him there, but he missed the point. If no title is awarded it will be an excellent reminder for everyone that THEY cheated and it will be go down in history, irrespective of what becomes of Sevco FC? Surely even Celtic fans will be happy if the upshot is the award of no title?
Tam also suggested only CFC fans were interested in title stripping. I think he has misinterpreted the fans of football in Scotland massively there. Fans of integrity, irrespective of club, all want these titles stripped.
The proper, but unfounded, claim should be ‘partiality’ by HM, but not ‘conflict of interest’.
Yes, we want the titles stripped, but not for the sake of stripping titles.
It is because every game in which an improperly registered player took part should be voided. The loss of titles would then be a “consequence” when the points totals were recalculated. I agree that titles should not go to the original runners-up. They should leave Rangers name on the trophies, but strike it through.
This assuming that there were imrpoperly registered players, of course.
If Tam was suggesting only CFC fans would be in favour of this, he was entirely wrong.
‘The Rangers’ had to agree to pay all footballing debt as part of obtaining their licence to play football. If there is a fine levied by LNS is this classed as a footballing debt?
If titles are stripped do members clubs have a case for legal action to recover lost footballing prize money such as Euro participation cash?
Will ‘The Rangers’ have to hand back prize money as this becomes a footballing debt and it was money illegally obtained?
With regards to AT’s recent blog it is not like the SPL or the SFA leave a company or a group of people hanging in the wind unbacked, unsupported, andposition unclarified while doing their work.
They may be pants at running our game but you have to hand it to them they are world beaters at covering their rear ends.
Having said all that the clubs themselves MUST be happy because not one of them is saying anything with regards to the current ruining, sorry running, of our sport.
Henry Clarson says:
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 17:52
I stick by my original assertion, this board is anti-Rangers. It is a shame that people will hide behind other arguements. Rangers are a new club, albeit supported by the fans of the old club. Is it the Rangers fans you think are guilty of corruption? The current Rangers board haven’t been around long enough to commit the levels of corruption suggested. Some people on this board seem confused.
The current Rangers are not the same club, no matter what they might pretend for commercial reasons. I assume many on the board agree? If so, decide which club is guilty of corruption and direct your anger there. The old Rangers have my anger and disgust. The new Rangers, with their eccentric CEO and plying their trade in the 3rd division, are no threat to me or my club. I have tins of soup in the cupboard older than the current Rangers. The difference between the two clubs is very clear in my head.
I’ve done my bit to expose the corruption of old Rangers and encourage action. I have written to our football authorities, and football authorities abroad who represent clubs that have suffered by losing to a club with players I believe were not properly registered (watch out for some very interesting news coming from UEFA if Rangers are found guilty – I’ll give you Denmark and Cyprus to get you started). I have written and spoken with members of the press in this country and abroad on the same subject. I have been active, I have done my bit.
A pro-Rangers leopard can’t change his spots. My suggestion that supporting something that pro-Rangers people may find acceptable, for my own reasons, is perfectly pragmatic. We live in the real world, not some utopian bampotland where all our ills are sorted by everyone agreeing to the same partisan anti-something line. This board can be excellent with some top quality contributions that I enjoy to read. Much of it, though, is a mix of anti-Rangers laughter / gloating / indignation / anger / other (circle appropriate).
So to be clear – I was talking about league reconstruction and how it might appeal to people with an interest in the current Rangers. If anyone wants to throwTax Evasion or EBTs and their implications on player registrations into the mix with my ideas, please don’t. That’s the old Rangers. Anyone still confused about that?
Support league construction or don’t – your choice. It gets the thumbs up from me.
beatipacificscotia,
your original assertion is wrong.
this board is not anti-Rangers. It seeks the application of the rules, and pursues justice.
if you’d care to highlight why any suggested outcomes mentioned by posters are unjust or against the rules, I would be interested to read it.