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.)
Big Pink says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 01:12
4 21 Rate This
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 00:50(Edit)
_____________________________________________
… I just hope that any proposal is not looked at through the prism of Rangers. Whatever is decided should be based on a holistic approach to the game …
—————–
Well said BP. I suppose the SFL could choose to restructure regardless of the SPL. They might opt for two bigger leagues with 2-3 team P/ R along the English model. At some point the message is going to get through that 4 x season fixtures against the same teams is mind-numbingly boring.
Who knows, perhaps a unilateral restructure by the SFL could set things moving towards what the fans are crying out for? The SFL might be able to generate TV money too, especially around coverage of play-offs and fixtures involving top teams. There’s some great competition in SFL 1 this season and some of the crowds put a few SPL clubs in the shade. I don’t see the current SPL structure, with some teams potentially meeting 6-7 times season, as having any future.
Has anyone asked ally if the rangers are not going to make a profit this year what’s happening to his £10 million war chest green promised him for next Xmas transfer window?
jonnyod says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 01:25(Edit)
big pnk
this 14-14-14 is very interesting in as such that Derek Johnstone was saying that it was better than the 12-12-18 proposal Yet I bet my house on it that he or anyone else advocating it could explain how the 3x 14 will work .
Now I know and any other football fan must surely know that CG is now just bumping his gums trying to look important and the longer the season goes on that is going to be harder to portray
___________________________________________________________________________
Can’t speak for anyone else, but it seems fairly straightforward to me. Two round robins, home and away on the 14 (26 matches) and a split of 8-6 which will give the top teams another home and away round robin of 14 matches.
Could be tweaked if necessary (even to three rounds of 13), but it is no more unworkable or odd than the current setup.
Incidentally, the home/away imbalance in that latter suggestion has already been embraced by UEFA in the UEFA Cup, so even that isn’t without precedent.
I imagine that DJ is looking at it through that blue prism, but it also seems to be the main focus of others as well – only for a different reason.
Not being argumentative here, but is the reason you are against it simply because it may afford Rangers an advantage? If it is not, then I apologise for the inference, but my view is simply this. Any reconstruction should be carried out responsibly, in the spirit of the rules of football and fair competition, and for the advancement of the game itself – irrespective of whether it hands a perceived advantage or disadvantage to any individual club (without fear or favour in other words).
If the prime motivation for reconstruction is to assist any one club, then that is wrong, but if the prime motivation is to ensure the discomfort of any one club, then that is equally wrong, and is what this blog and its predecessor set out to fight against when they started.
I’ll be slightly mischievous here on the back of BP’s comment above. In the absolute long term the restructure must be for the good of the game with no ‘nod’ to any one club or clique. Agreed. In the absolute short term I understand any TV and sponsorship deal, and thus revenue, is based proportionately to how high up the rangers appear in the equation. I don’t like it. I don’t agree with it. I wish we had a set of world leading administrators capable of dealing with it. I don’t however ignore the point either, much as I’d like to.
In the medium term however (thinking two or three seasons) here’s the mischievous part. The SFL has needed income for years. The SFL now has a cash cow of epic, world record proportions. If the SFL continue to ‘vote them down’ who benefits most? The SFL.
CG thinks he has the SPL exactly where he wants them. To a worrying extent he does. The SPL could vote them back to an invite only SPL (1 or 2) tomorrow, or at least in 4 months time but I’d like to think they are aware of the probable consequences.
But don’t forget the SFL also has CG where they want him too, and unlike the SPL they have ‘integrity’ by which I blatantly mean potential fans foot fall, on their side. CG’s hand against the SPL is strong, some (most?) would even say stacked. But I can’t help but feel he’s under estimated one of the players at the table.
the div3 and majority of div2/1 clubs would be daft not to stick with status quo. they all get a couple of visits from the sevco fairy, very often with her (very) good friend the sky fairy.
theres no money in the world can replace that………
smugas says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 11:30(Edit)
________________________________________________
A good point Smugas. The only doubt I might have about your SFL theory is the quantum (if I can use that word) of the said cow’s benefit to the SFL clubs. I suppose it is relatively greater to smaller clubs than it would be to most SPL clubs, but I also assume there will be greater overheads associated with hosting Rangers.
I know Albion Rovers are mightily pissed off that they will probably miss a Rangers home fixture because they look like going down to D3 whilst Rangers will come up to D2.
Perhaps if your assumption about the SFL chairmen’s integrity is correct, then it is because most of the guys running clubs in the lower leagues are in the business because they want to maintain a community resource, whilst the SPL chairmen are largely wedded to the idea of acquisitiveness.
Comes back to what we want our clubs to actually DO. This farce that we have seen and are still seeing played out is only being played out because of the desperate need for people to amass more cash or power.
The biggest mistake we make (in my humble opinion) is to confuse the notion of aspiration with acquisitiveness. They are two totally separate things.
If we confuse the two, we end up in with Scottish Football 2012/13.
Returning to the issue of SFA jurisdiction I have to say their statement to Alex Thomson which was
“The Scottish FA has no jurisdiction over the competition rules of league bodies. Through the Professional Game Board, we can provide a forum for debate on matters such as league reconstruction.”
puzzled me because it suggests the SFA have no power over the leagues in how they set up their competitions even if that set up damages sporting integrity. For example a set up requiring 4 Celtic v Rangers games to be televised a season risks damaging the integrity of the competition if one of the big two gets into trouble staying up, or in Rangers case alive. The TV contract has to cover what happens if either is unable to stay in the SPL. Who checks this is covered?
I say puzzled by the jurisdiction point because I was reminded since AT’s blog of an exchange between the Celtic Supporters Trust and the SFA which can be found at
http://www.celtictrust.net/index.php?func=d_home_article&id=373
and the SFA reply here
http://www.celtictrust.net/index.php?func=d_home_documents_view&id=35 (click “open” to read.
In the letter to the SFA the point about the relationship between the SPL and SFA is raised in terms of the application of club licensing and it points out that SPL (note SPL rules) say.
96. Nothing in these (SPL) Articles shall relieve any Member of the Company from its obligations as a full member club of the SFA to comply with the applicable articles of association of the SFA for so long as it remains a member of the SFA. Each Member shall (in so far as it is lawfully able and permitted by the exercise of its voting powers to do so) procure that the Company observes and complies with all relevant articles of association of the SFA applicable to it.”
which seems to me to put the SFA in the driving seat.
Then on the matter of sporting integrity in SFA Articles (note SFA Articles) it says
Article 5.1 Obligations and Duties of Members which, under Article 4.3 applies to the SPL as well as its member clubs, states that
5.1 All members shall observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play”
Which suggests the leagues or in this case the SPL are bound to observe THE PRINCIPLES of sporting integrity and fair play and since it is in the SFA articles the SFA have to ensure the principles are heeded.
In his reply Stewart Regan opens with
” You are quite correct that all member clubs are subject to the terms of the Scottish FA’s Articles as a consequence of that membership.”
and finishes with
“As previously confirmed, all member clubs are bound by the Scottish FA Articles. Not all Article breaches bring with them suspension or withdrawal of membership however.”
In the other responses there is information on the licensing process that naturally leads to the oldco/newco debate but PLEASE not on this blog. This is about the SFA mission statement and whether sporting integrity is being given its place under the SFA articles and crucially whether the SFA have the jurisdiction over the leagues to make sure that they conform to the SFA’s own articles.
I am wondering if the belief I had that the SFA was in charge of Scottish football and had a duty to protect it is shared by many but if it is the SFA have a responsibilty to clarify what they meant in their response to Alex Thomson re jurisdiction.
I am also surprised (well I’m not actually) that the Scottish msm (apart from Stuart Cosgrove) have not latched on to the jurisdiction statement or just as important the diparity between what the SFA Mission Statement says and how the SFA have acted since 2011 after embarking on that mission. The disparity when you read the lead mission statement is pretty stark in terms of breeding a culture of performance, unity and TRUST.
SFA Mission
The Scottish FA
leads the national
game with integrity
and innovation to
breed a culture of
performance, unity
and trust.
Looking forward to football this weekend. Just a pity ICT v Hearts game is not on TV, as it looks like a sell out. Common sense at last to play this game a Easter Rd and not Hampden, will make for a great atmosphere.
Also 12/12/18 Reconstruction is worth a go. No way should Sevco have an influence or any shape or form at present until they change their attitude to Scottish football..
with regards reconstruction, RFC should not be near any top league until it has been established that they are a new club. Their dislike for all other teams magnified by their sense of injustice is a recipe for disaster. Once it has been established that they are a new club and have been treated favourably, their anger will subside.
smugas says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 11:30
Perish those thoughts. 🙂
I understand George Galloway’s early day motion at
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/913
could simply be ignored by the Government.
Yet here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2013/jan/24/davos-2013-david-cameron-tax-video
The Prime Minister says aggressive tax avoidance must be tackled.
What better way to do so than respond to that early day motion or is it just another empty speech by yet another body charged with governance who talk a good game rather than play it?
pau1mart1n says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 11:38
0 0 Rate This
the div3 and majority of div2/1 clubs would be daft not to stick with status quo. they all get a couple of visits from the sevco fairy, very often with her (very) good friend the sky fairy.
theres no money in the world can replace that………
———
To be fair to TRFC fans (now there’s a phrase you don’t hear much 😀 ) I get the impression that many feel duty-bound to work their way up almost as a kind of football penance. Aren’t the people who really want them promoted ASAP certain west-coast media types plus administrators who want to sell the big-two rivalry?
The whole ‘big club gallantly working its way back’ narrative suits Mr Green’s business venture perfectly. If he was catapulted into the SPL now he’d most likely have to spend money, which is not really his ambition. I agree with those here who believe Mr Green’s tenure will end when he sees that there’s no more money to be made in the short term, which will be when promotion to higher leagues will mean that he’ll have to make good on his £10m fighting fund promise for new players, and when the bills for stadium repair and upkeep come rolling in. Then there’s also the chance the club will have to pay for the rights to use logos and branding taken from the liquidated club. I imagine Mr Green could probably leave right now with enough to enjoy a luxury retirement, there might never be a better time for him to move on than now.
If the current impetus for reconstruction has been helped along by the Ibrox story, fine and good. Reconstruction is long overdue. As BP says, as long as it’s not tailor-made to help or hinder one club only, then bring on some change to freshen up the game.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 12:07
2 0 Rate This
Returning to the issue of SFA jurisdiction I have to say their statement to Alex Thomson which was ….
———
Auldheid, your posts on this blog are an inspiration. Not only informative and insightful but written in a fair-minded way with a focus on the big picture. An example of this blog at its best.
Danish Pastry says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 12:37
If the current impetus for reconstruction has been helped along by the Ibrox story, fine and good. Reconstruction is long overdue. As BP says, as long as it’s not tailor-made to help or hinder one club only, then bring on some change to freshen up the game.
—————————————————————————————————————–
I couldn’t agree more because it is so easy to continually get caught up in the psychodrama comedy of the Rangers march to wherever.
We all have to look beyond that to the health of a game as a whole as long as there are no secret deals done to benefit one club.
Speaking about the ‘march’ I see the Scotsman have a piece today suggesting that Rangers could take the FA to court to gain admittance to the top or near it of the English pyramid. More friends made along the way 🙂
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 12:33
Re: EDMs
—————————————————————————————————
Bsically EDMs are a useful device for an MP or small group of MPs to get constituents off their back by be seen to do something. They are also handy for a bit of publicity in terms of their local paper to show that the MP is hard at work – even though you never see him/her on the televised House of Commons they are actually beavering away behind the scenes working hard for their constituents 🙂
As to the usefulness of EDMs in a legislative sense they are as much use as loo rolls and disappear even more quickly.
I have just filled out mine and my sons Celtic Questionnaire that fell through the letterbox.
There is a few parts where the fans can put our opinions across, are you going to renew of season 2013/14 etc If not why not, This was my replay on both forms.
I said I was unhappy about the rule breaking in the last 6 months to accommodate the new club, and would not renew my season book if they are helped up the leagues any faster. I also stated That I would expect CFC to take issue if the side contract issue from the old rangers fails to deliver the correct verdict, consequences and/or punishments. Sporting integrity is paramount and money was spent in good faith in purchasing Season books to support Celtic play in an even playing field. Failure to address this imo, would put the league on a par with WWF and I would tale no further part in it.
I would urge any other Celtic fans on the forum who have not already filled this in to do so and let them know your grievances.
ecobhoy says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 13:07
Possibly but not sure if GG’s constituents would have had a scooby about Rangers but not debating it could provide poltical capital to the opposition in light of David Cameron’s speech at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2013/jan/24/davos-2013-david-cameron-tax-video
It only needs English media to focus on what the motion says and what DC said to highlight the disparity between words and action to put the issue firmly on the table and into the national consciousness.
Funny how it remained unreported for over a week.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 12:19
Yes, but that’s just it. The SFL voting on a structure to leave RIFC where they are (the 12-12-18 springing most readily to mind) could be construed, and certainly reported as “no fair.” I would understand that arguement. I would also understand the self serving interests of the other 17 in voting that way, plus odds on the teams above would do likewise as they would get their ‘fairytale visitation’ in the short term future. So thats 17 plus say 10 of the 12 above. When a given deal is supported by 27 of the 42 clubs, and I would suggest the majority of fans of the remaining 14 at what point does that not become for the good of Scottish football. I would further propose, your honour, that in the event of a ‘suspect’ LNS verdict that this eventuality might just pick up even more votes.
And yes I’m still being gloriously mischievous.
Rangers Ltd didn’t have a share issue.
Charles Green formed a new company Rangers International and floated that on the stock exchange. He also converted shares in Rangers into shares in that Holding company. So as I understand it that holding company (the plc) is the sole owner or Rangers Ltd.
Rangers don’t have money in the bank, the holding company which owns Rangers has that money. If Rangers spent that money then it would almost certainly have been loans from that holding company which funded that expenditure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-21198131
I’m sure that The Rangers would be absolutely fine once they worked themselves up from the Blue Square Premier or wherever. They are, after all, cash rich with a proven track record of prudent financial management going back several months. In fact, I expect Charles is already working on his ‘We can save English football’ sales pitch.
Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 08:09
51 2 Rate This
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/41460079664/wheres-the-money-gone
Charles Green declared on Wednesday that an advance was taken on the season ticket for seasons 2012/13 and 2013/14.
_____________
where did charles Green declare this i never seen it in any of the reports i seen from his meeting at ibrox ?
dentarthurnt42 says
Good point raised which should be at the forefront of the minds at the SFA/SFL. Have they been made aware by CG either at the start of the season or afterwards, when their business plan was approved to join the league, that there would be such a holding company in place apparently leaving “the club” with no real funds of its own?
It would seem to me that there is but only a few reasons to have such a structure in place and that would include easier ways for the main shareholders to keep as much profit as possible if or when the company is wound up, sold etc.
The seemingly complex issue of club / company criteria when possible administration or liquidation re-appears on the horizon might not be an issue this time as it seems that neither would survive if RIFC or TRFC are wound up.
Maybe Campbell is still there to prepare the ground for the next crisis, administrating to a world class standard.
Lord Wobbly says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 15:35
They are, after all, cash rich with a proven track record of prudent financial management going back several months.
——
True. Except for the “proven” bit. 😉
Possibly off-topic, but I’m guessing of interest …
16:49 – GOAL
Rangers 1-1 Montrose – David Gray scores a late goal for the visitors to Ibrox.
Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 08:09
Charles Green declared on Wednesday that an advance was taken on the season ticket for seasons 2012/13 and 2013/14.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
These are the words of a Spiv
Therefore
The one thing you can be certain about is that the comment is not a simple truth
So the comment is either
Untrue
Or
It is a distorted version of the truth
I suspect it is a distorted version of the truth
, intended to defend a future leak that taking on part of the Ticketus debt of £27m was included in the asset purchase agreement
Why worry about a leak now?
Because
The share issue is over
Too many people kmow that Ticketus are involved including some non Spiv employees
big pink 10:42
My point was that DJ on SSB was against the 12-12-18 proposal but advocating the 14-14-14 when IMO he would not know how the 14-14-14 format would work .(that of course is just an assumption on my part )
You are correct that I would be against it if it led to sevco 2012 gaining the advantage of moving through the leagues faster that they normally would as I would just not believe this set up was thought out for the benefit of our game as a hole rather than one team only .
IMO our games credibility has been damaged enough already ,if after the botched attempt of trying to place Sevco 2012 into the SPL the blazers now restructure the leagues in such a way that sees Sevco 2012 move through the leagues faster ,then that would be a coincidence too far .
Call me old fashioned but I prefer to believe I am paying my hard earned money to a game that starts form a level playing field for every club involved were the rules are concerned and lets just say that from what has gone on since February ,I am less than convinced
goosygoosy says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 16:57
3 0 Rate This
Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 08:09
Charles Green declared on Wednesday that an advance was taken on the season ticket for seasons 2012/13 and 2013/14.
_______________
has anyone seen him quoted anywhere as making this comment
i would have thought there would have been uproar if he had said that
Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20
Our Report so far indicates that Rangers are still the same club and have retained their previous membership with the SFA
Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20
As a result, liabilities may continue to exist against the club. That much has been kept away from Rangers’ fans.
Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20
Such transfer though keeps the old club alive and at the same time all liabilities and debts [sporting and otherwise]
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
24m Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20
The NewCo wanted a transfer of membership and not the creation of a new club [with the view to keeping titles].
andy says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 17:41
1 0 Rate This
==================
I thought the tweet stated: that CG said there would be two season ticket amounts in this years accounts which would help reduce the loss?
The Rangers as constituted and run at present are, according to best estimates in the absence of any audited accounts, spending somewhere between 5 and 8 million more this year than they are getting in on income ( ignoring the RIFC cash injection) hence the necessity for next year’s season books to close the gap.
What they do next season is anybody’s guess – without the ST money and without any cuts in expenditure, this his will leave a loss on present guesstimates of expenditure of between 13 and 16 million assuming that no additional players are signed. The ten million war chest would presumably be spent on more expensive players pushing up the expenditure and corresponding losses. The failure to spend the 10 mill on players but instead use it to keep the club afloat might lead to a loss of income as the fans begin to realise they are being duped or simply become bored watching the second most highly paid group of players in Scotland stutter to an eventual inevitable promotion against teams of part-time players.
The real possibility is that TRFC will simply be wound up at some point next season, and the money invested in RIFC will be put to other uses.
There is quite simply no strategy in place at Ibrox for a profitable, or even sustainable, Rangers playing out of Ibrox in the foreseeable future.
What the “investors” in RIFC are actually purchasing and seeking to make their profit from is not clear to me – what I can say is that they are not investing in a Scottish football club. Asset sales down the line – TRFC being forced into admin and having to be bought out by distressed fans – money laundering, I have no idea.
None of it good for the Ibrox masses though, I would have thought.
jonnyod says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 17:04(Edit)
big pink 10:42
You are correct that I would be against it if it led to sevco 2012 gaining the advantage of moving through the leagues faster that they normally would as I would just not believe this set up was thought out for the benefit of our game as a hole rather than one team only .
IMO our games credibility has been damaged enough already ,if after the botched attempt of trying to place Sevco 2012 into the SPL the blazers now restructure the leagues in such a way that sees Sevco 2012 move through the leagues faster ,then that would be a coincidence too far .
___________________________________________________________________________
Understand your anger, but why can’t we make our own minds up? Even if we suspect that motives are less than pure, surely we can decide for ourselves whether or not it is in the wider interest anyway?
I think life is chock-full of coincidences, but a bit less populated with conspiracy. One doesn’t usually lead to the other.
My main point though, is that no club should be bigger than the game itself. By allowing a Rangers consideration to be the key factor we are I think tacitly accepting that they are in fact bigger than the whole. Whatever, if any action is taken against Rangers, it should not impede the progress of the rest.
It is also worth considering that the clubs appear to be set against the 14-14-14. Also, if carried out in the spirit of fairness, it wouldn’t help Rangers at all.
If it was introduced next season they would not be in the top 28 on merit. If it happened the following year they wouldn’t make the top 14 on merit either.
By any route, Rangers earliest entry to the top league would be 2015/2016 – unless there was jiggery pokery taking place. That however has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the reconstruction plan, and any such shenanigans should be confronted separately.
Smugas
I tweeted on the idea of postponing restructuring earler today and the principle at the end is one I think should be adopted
Auldheid@Auldheid
@OHenleyAlex Thought it (postponing restructuring) highly likely as motivations were doubtful whether that be accelerate or hold back The Rangers.
3hAuldheid@Auldheid
@OHenleyAlex To get clear of suspicions any change cannot allow Rangers into top flight until that would happen under current structures.
3hAuldheid@Auldheid
@OHenleyAlex I make that Aug 2016 if promoted from SFL3 in 2013 to SFL2 in 2014 to SFL1 in 2015 to SPL 2016. This principle would remove suspicions.
andy says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 17:41
1 0 Rate This
goosygoosy says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 16:57
3 0 Rate This
Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 08:09
Charles Green declared on Wednesday that an advance was taken on the season ticket for seasons 2012/13 and 2013/14.
_______________
has anyone seen him quoted anywhere as making this comment
i would have thought there would have been uproar if he had said that
——–
Andy,
I took a quick look at recent statements & press releases on the official website. The mention of ST’s by CG I found was in the context of them being available earlier than last year. But there was also an exclusive interview with CG on offer for 0.99p, so he may have said something there. I wasn’t prepared to cough up a quid to listen to him though. Apparently D&P are touting three other clubs for him to rescue. Probably old news here, but quite a development indeed, if true.
big pink
If the 14-14-14 set up leads to no fast tracking of Sevco then all well and good and if the clubs agree that it would be benifical to our game then by all means look into it but IMO reconstruction should be planned in conjunction with measures to to encourage fans to come back to the game (discounted ticket schemes ) and there should be a publicity drive to inform fans properly ,this in my view won’t be done for 2013/14 season .It seems to me they are hoping that more meaningful games will be enough to attract the lost fans back .IMO this is a mistake as it will take more than this alone to get the fans back in significant numbers .
Captain Haddock says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 16:53
Structuring it they way Mr Green has allows him to
1, Provide loans to the club rather than it have it’s own money.
2, Take repayments with interest, removing profits from the club.
3, Make management charges to the club, again taking money out.
4, Sell the whole club 100% to another consortium.
As I understand it he is CEO of both, so doing pretty much whatever he wants is not going to be difficult. He and the institutional investors are also well covered. They bought their shares for amounts varying from from 1p to about 30p. They currently trade at 86p. As owners of the club and controlling the board they also have all of the assets, which could be liquidated if required. Either wholly or in part.
My view is that Mr Green intended making some money whilst he can (he is taking a rather nice salary along with a pretty much guaranteed bonus), then selling the club to another consortium. He could then liquidate the holding company and split the proceeds between the shareholders. It would basically just be dividing up whatever cash they raised through the sale.
The “ordinary” shareholders might be a bit miffed at that though, as they seem to think they bought shares in Rangers (the football club). Depending on what the holding company raised they may not even get their money back, as they paid 70p for their shares. So if it worked out at 50p each they would be losers. Mr Green on the other hand would have made a pretty tidy sum.
It’s actually all just smoke and mirrors again.
if there is any league reconstruction, Rangers would still be playing in the bottom tier of Scottish football next year. If they win division 3 and we go to 3 x 14 they will be in division 3.
listening to Kenny Shiels on the radio no wonder nobody trusts the SFA. Why can’t the SFA be transparent instead of giving the impression that the whole of the SFA and referee setup feels tainted.
I am convinced that reconstruction next season will be pushed through for only one reason- to accelerate the arrival of TRFC in the top flight. There will be jiggery pokery all right, just as much as it takes. If sporting integrity meant anything to those running the game, then the very simple fact is that TRFC would not be in the SFL at any level. Some other club, eg Spartans, would be in SFL3 instead.
Levering TRFC into the SFL was only stage one of the plan. Stage two is to ensure TRFC’s rapid elevation to the SPL. There is no other explanation for this reorganisation of the leagues with such unseemly haste, after years of total inaction.
So I’m sorry, but this IS all about Rangers. It certainly isn’t about anything else. 12/12/12, 8/8/8, 14/14/14, it’s all a load of baloney, designed to create a smokescreen, from behind which TRFC will rapidly emerge as members of the top flight.
That will be called pragmatism, expediency, realism, or whatever weasel words are in favour at the time. But the truth is that every principle of sporting merit and integrity will have been trampled underfoot as the herd of clubs stampedes at the mere smell of money. My only consolation is that at point it won’t be my money they’re smelling- because I’ll be out of it.
In total agreement neepheid, it’s only to benefit one team, everything else is a smokescreen.
Reconstruction should not go through this / next season. There should always be one full season at least between a change being agreed and it being implemented.
It is totally unfair on everyone to change the outcome of a competition during that competition. The end result should be the same as was understood at the start.
If clubs knew for example that the SPL was expanding, say to 14, and there were therefore two additional places then their spending and plans at the start of the season may have been different.
Agree changes certainly, but bring them in 2014/15 at the earliest. Give everyone a chance to plan for them.
neepheid says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 18:56
—————
Well said,and yet they still squeal they have been punished enough.
I don’t think that reconstruction is all about Rangers at all. I think there has been a backlash to events last year and the SFL clubs want a bigger piece of a pie that they see as being cut up unfairly at the moment.
The difficulty is that any reconstruction is seen as a knee-jerk reaction the Rangers-nearly-Armageddon saga and that it won’t be properly thought out and that will give rise – particularly in the Celtic constituency – that there is a great Conspiracy.
However the notion that the clubs are all coming together to assist Rangers flies in the face of the reality and wide acceptance of the fact that DM’s Rangers are the cause of the problems within Scottish Football. If RTC taught us nothing else, then surely it was the fact that all non Celtic or Rangers fans (or club officials) were not closet bears with insufficient transportation funds to make the fortnightly pilgrimage to the Big Hoose.
Just off the top of my head, in what Universe would Aberdeen, Raith Rovers or Dundee United for example be actively pursuing a quick entry to the top for Charles Green?
The establishment which perhaps would have leant towards Rangers have had their fingers burned as Judicial Panels club officials and journalists were exposed to threats, diluting any support from that area.
The other lesson that the clubs will have learned this year is that beyond the panic of Regan and Doncaster and their Plastic Armageddon, Rangers are NOT as vital to the financial well-being and continued existence of the rest. The longer this season goes on, the evidence of that grows stronger.
Looking behind the spin, and the headlines, the reality is that if anything, Rangers (the movement not the club) have less friends than they had this time last year. Fewer backs are ready for bending, and the increasingly vocal rhetoric from Green is landing on increasingly deaf ears.
In that climate, I cannot conceive of a situation where they will be favoured. In fact, given that we know CG is not a fool, we may be better employed deducing just why his rhetoric appears to be ensuring that The Rangers are held back.
@OHenleyAlex I make that Aug 2016 if promoted from SFL3 in 2013 to SFL2 in 2014 to SFL1 in 2015 to SPL 2016. This principle would remove suspicions.
——
Seems a bit mixed up. Assuming that TRFC can start winning games on a regular basis, then …
Aug 2013 – to SFL2
Aug 2014 – to SFL1
Aug 2015 – to SPL
In a new 3-tier system, assuming TRFC get held back in their (quasi) rightful place …
Aug 2013 – 3rd Div
Aug 2014 – 2nd Div
Aug 2015 – Top Div
It was bound to come. I’m surprised Mr Green didn’t think of it himself …
——
instead of renaming Ibrox for a year why don’t we get big Chuck to rename himself by deed pole, Charles Blue? everyone donates money to the cause for his surname and if they want any corporate entities can come in for.his middle name, I.e., Charles Sports Direct Blue.
could be a goer if we got the main man on board, what do you think?
——
Funnily enough, the idea is being taken half-seriously by some of the bears.
angus1983 says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 19:40
@OHenleyAlex I make that Aug 2016 if promoted from SFL3 in 2013 to SFL2 in 2014 to SFL1 in 2015 to SPL 2016. This principle would remove suspicions.
——
Seems a bit mixed up. Assuming that TRFC can start winning games on a regular basis, then …
Aug 2013 – to SFL2
Aug 2014 – to SFL1
Aug 2015 – to SPL
In a new 3-tier system, assuming TRFC get held back in their (quasi) rightful place …
Aug 2013 – 3rd Div
Aug 2014 – 2nd Div
Aug 2015 – Top Div
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Having watched some of the game against Montrose the chances of successive promotions are slim at best.
Big Pink says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 19:33
Just off the top of my head, in what Universe would Aberdeen, Raith Rovers or Dundee United for example be actively pursuing a quick entry to the top for Charles Green?
=======
That might be the same universe in which Aberdeen and Dundee Utd were parties to the utterly despicable effort by the SPL clubs to bully, bribe and blackmail the SFL clubs into placing TRFC straight into SFL1, That, to me, is the reality, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it is what actually happened only 6 months ago. So, having seen them try that one on, how can I have any confidence that they are not now trying to achieve the same end by different means? Their motives certainly haven’t changed in 6 months, whatever those motives are.
Angus1983
Yup I let an extra year slip in somehow but principle of not reaching top level before 2015 by any means other than merit to apply.
neepheid says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 19:57(Edit)
Big Pink says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 19:33
Just off the top of my head, in what Universe would Aberdeen, Raith Rovers or Dundee United for example be actively pursuing a quick entry to the top for Charles Green?
=======
That might be the same universe in which Aberdeen and Dundee Utd were parties to the utterly despicable effort by the SPL clubs to bully, bribe and blackmail the SFL clubs into placing TRFC straight into SFL1, That, to me, is the reality, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it is what actually happened only 6 months ago. So, having seen them try that one on, how can I have any confidence that they are not now trying to achieve the same end by different means? Their motives certainly haven’t changed in 6 months, whatever those motives are.
_____________________________________________________________________________
I actually picked Aberdeen and Dundee United because they were the (only) two SPL clubs who WEREN’T involved in that scam. Not a universal truth then 🙂
Big Pink says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 19:33
Just off the top of my head, in what Universe would Aberdeen, Raith Rovers or Dundee United for example be actively pursuing a quick entry to the top for Charles Green?
_____________________________________________________________________________
I actually picked Aberdeen and Dundee United because they were the (only) two SPL clubs who WEREN’T involved in that scam. Not a universal truth then
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“The ONLY two SPL clubs”? Expand please, for I would like to know where my club stood in this charade.
Big Pink says:
I actually picked Aberdeen and Dundee United because they were the (only) two SPL clubs who WEREN’T involved in that scam. Not a universal truth then
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What I recall is Doncaster rushing around promising to give the SFL clubs money from the SPL if they voted yes to Sevco in SFL1, and promising to withhold SPL money if they didn’t. Plus armageddon of course, lots of that. Now Doncaster certainly wasn’t acting on his own, he must have had the backing of the SPL clubs before talking money to the SFL clubs. I certainly wasn’t aware of any disunity on the part of the SPL clubs. Maybe I missed Dundee Utd and Aberdeen saying “not in our name, we’re totally against this.” If so, I apologise unreservedly.
parmahamster says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 21:41(Edit)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“The ONLY two SPL clubs”? Expand please, for I would like to know where my club stood in this charade.
______________________________________________________________________
I should have qualified that statement with ” if my information is correct “.
The salient point though is that both Aberdeen and Dundee United were the only two SPL clubs to state publicly that their preferred option was for Sevco (for that was their name at the time) should go to D3 and NOT to D1 and maintain a distance from the SPL’s intervention in the SFL matter.
Direct evidence came from the SPL’s correspondence to the SFL pressing for a D1 entry.
I also inferred that the scam took place because of the statements attributed to the St. Mirren and ICT officials expressing outrage that Sevco were not allowed into D1. A further inference drawn by me at the time (since verified) was the silence from the other SPL clubs on the question of that direct SPL interference and the fact that both Aberdeen and DU took the trouble to distance themselves from it.
neepheid says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 22:05(Edit)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What I recall is Doncaster rushing around promising to give the SFL clubs money from the SPL if they voted yes to Sevco in SFL1, and promising to withhold SPL money if they didn’t. Plus armageddon of course, lots of that. Now Doncaster certainly wasn’t acting on his own, he must have had the backing of the SPL clubs before talking money to the SFL clubs. I certainly wasn’t aware of any disunity on the part of the SPL clubs. Maybe I missed Dundee Utd and Aberdeen saying “not in our name, we’re totally against this.” If so, I apologise unreservedly.
____________________________________________________________________
No need for an apology neepheid. Your main point is correct in that the SPL clubs were collectively guilty as sin, but Stewart Milne was first to public to distance himself from Doncaster’s threats by diplomatically stating that his preferred option was for Sevco to go to D3. He was closely followed by Stephen Thomson. I may be doing others a disservice if I have failed to mention further dissent but I am not aware there was any.
My earlier point was a general one though, and although the SPL were collectively trying to do a deal for CG, I think the goodwill has run out somewhat – and they are all aware by now that Armageddon did not come about.
Also, any gerrymander on league reconstruction will require the assent of the SFL clubs. They have already shown an unwillingness to bend the rules.
Thus my conclusion that Rangers don’t have enough friends or dependants to swing it.
Big Pink says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 22:05
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fair comment. IMO it was OK at the time for Dundee Utd and Aberdeen to do so as although both clubs might have had present or historic issues with Oldco, this would have been met with less sound and fury than had Celtic came out and did likewise.
I’m still of the opinion that Celtic did the right thing by keeping their counsel while this was going on and to continue to do so until such time as it becomes necessary to offer any opinion.
But it is clear, certainly to me, that CG and sundry others are doing their level best to have Lawwell stick his head above the parapet in order to confirm the suspicions of the ‘radicals’ about the “unseen F****n hand”.
parmahamster says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 22:28(Edit)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fair comment. IMO it was OK at the time for Dundee Utd and Aberdeen to do so as although both clubs might have had present or historic issues with Oldco, this would have been met with less sound and fury than had Celtic came out and did likewise.
I’m still of the opinion that Celtic did the right thing by keeping their counsel while this was going on and to continue to do so until such time as it becomes necessary to offer any opinion.
But it is clear, certainly to me, that CG and sundry others are doing their level best to have Lawwell stick his head above the parapet in order to confirm the suspicions of the ‘radicals’ about the “unseen F****n hand”._______________________________________________
Or even to force PL into a conciliatory statement which would give him the opportunity to say, “Celtic are with us”?
Curiously though, after CG made his “I’ll be speaking to Peter Lawwell very soon”, statement in June, I thought the logical conclusion to that would be to either have a meeting and claim that Celtic were on board with his plan – or announce tearfully that PL had snubbed him.
Neither happened afaik – and I have asked. There are certainly formal and informal routes that exist to facilitate such a dialogue. There is the SFA of course, and there is also the mutual acquaintance route. I seem to remember David Low explaining that he had introduced CG to some local people. Low of course has long been associated with Celtic.
Nothing dodgy there of course, but when it comes to Celtic, CG has pretty much avoided direct confrontation. That doesn’t seem to me to fit with his general rabble-rousing strategy.
parmahamster says:
Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 22:28
PH. I’m glad you think the Aberdeen chairman, with a significant personal stake, branded in his own name, in a massive housing complex somewhere east of Bearsden had little to risk.
Further, my recollection of events was that as well as distancing himself from the Div 1 scenario, Milne also left a wee kick in there, something along the lines of “we had to listen to the fans” but also “I couldn’t go along with what was some party’s clear plan B,” something like that. I took this to mean an accelerated entry back to the SPL and I recall it was at the same time the killie Chairman said something stupid, as well as, surprisingly for me, the Caley Chair also.
Going back a step of course. It still makes me laugh that Regan and Doncaster had a solution in their hands from the 15th February onwards. A ‘constructed’ oops we’ve played a (Note One) ineligible player. That’s 0-3 for each game 2011/12. Congrats Dunfermline, we’ll see you all in a year following our journey through the 1st. But they just couldn’t see it, or rather they couldn’t accept it..
Just listened to last night’s SSB (I know!).
Mr Keevins argues with callers that it is not the SFA, SPL and SFL who are responsible for the current situation in Scottish football but the clubs themselves. He stated that the individual clubs as a result of listening to their fans (apparently) voted against Rangers (at the time still called Sevco 5088) being allowed to play in the SPL and also against this new club being shoehorned into SFL1.
This has become an all too common mantra in the Scottish mainstream media and the effect of these decisions has been highlighted a number of times in terms of proposed boycotts by fans of The Rangers and now in realtion to the proposed reconstruction of the leagues, however it is a gross misrepresentation of the reality of the situation the clubs found themselves in.
The fact is that these questions should never even have been asked of the individual clubs in the first place. The clubs should not have been put in the position of having to make a choice between commercial and sporting considerations nor asked to vote on these matters. The SFA, as the supposed guardian of Scottish football, should simply have applied their own rules without fear or favour and treated this club as they would have with any other new club.
In my humble opinion, these votes were manufactured as a piece of political theatre, designed to deflect any focus and blame for the Rangers fiasco away from the authorities to the clubs themselves. It also served to delay any decision-making until so close to the start of the new season (remember Club 12) that the ‘wrong’ decision could have a ‘Deep Impact’ on the clubs’ revenues (thus the SFA’s promulgation of the Armageddon scenario) .
This financial ‘threat’ coupled with fan demands for integrity during the peak of season ticket sales only added to the severe pressure club chairmen (and particularly the smaller clubs many of whom can barley operate profitably) were unnecessarily put under. One might also argue that it had an ancilliary ‘benefit’ of giving no time to the likes of Spartans to properly consider an application to the SFL even though this had an obviously detrimental effect on Dundee’s preparations for life in the SPL.
In my view getting club chairmen to vote on these matters was deliberately divisive and machiavellian, planned purely to ensure that there was a club called Rangers, playing in blue at Ibrox. To my mind this action is one of the most dishonest and dishonerable aspects of the SFA’s handilng of the entire shambles and is likely to be one of the persistent barriers to much needed reconcilliation
Hi folks just want to say before I start I want to say i’m still engrossed in this wonderful website and thank you all for the continuing education.
The reason i’m writing this is that I have the bones of what I think may be a great idea for a new league system that would provide excitement for clubs of all levels and gives EVERY club (40 of them) a fighting chance of earning a shot at the big time (games against the bigger clubs).
The reason I bring it to this forum is that you all have an uncany knack of sniffing out problems that are hidden to your averge Joe like myself, and to that end I can only claim vague undefined beginnings of an idea but i’m hoping to merely get the ball rolling.
My question at this point is, is anyone willing to hear these ideas and where, if not here, would be the best place to put it? Maybe construct a blog of my own for TSFM (blogging being something I haven’t done as yet so could be quite messy)? Or maybe someone could direct me to a decent site that has a section specifically for this ‘brain-storming’ type of thing? I don’t know the best way about it I just know it seems to me like a good idea that could work for everyone and don’t want to just let it drift ut of my mind without sharing it.
I hope I haven’t looked like TOO much of a dimwit here ha
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/juve-got-to-be-mad-if-you-leave-now.20021977
Firstly, I agree with just about every word that Mr Dodds says in the article about Hooper, Wanyama and Celtic. It would take an extraordinary offer to tempt Celtic into selling before the summer. £10 million for either player would not be extraordinary enough imho.
Secondly, I agree with everything Mr Dodds says about The Rangers.
However, I do take issue with the last two sentences of the final paragraph.
Whilst I agree that it would be a bit rich if the SPL came back and said titles should be taken away because of EBTs, the fact is that whether or not the EBTs were administered correctly (remember that HMRC have appealed) is not relevent to the SPL inquest. What is relevent is whether or not Rangers declared every aspect of players contracts. If Rangers failed to declare all aspects of players contracts (regardless of whether the EBTs were correct; regardless of whether the contracts went undeclared deliberately or by accident; even if they declared them but neglected to date them a second time) then Rangers will have fielded players that were incorrectly registered. In those circumstances the penalty would be a 3-0 win for every game such a player featured. If that means Rangers shouldn’t have won titles then they absolutely must be stripped.
Finally, whether the Rangers (or The Rangers) fans forgive the SPL is irrelevant.
Military chiefs brand Remembrance Day tributes
at Rangers game as ‘inappropriate’
THE half-time Remembrance tributes organised by Rangers have been banned and will be replaced by just a minute’s silence in future following the compaints.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-remembrance-day-parade-branded-1558062
Rules are what keep sport organised and competitive. Without
players obeying the rules then sport becomes meaningless…
http://thisisfutbol.com/2013/01/blogs/why-do-scottish-footballing-authorities-continue-to-discriminate-against-rangers
Now these rules. They extend to player registration past and present, yes?
Lord Wobbly
Thank you very much for the link to The Record piece on Remembrence Day at Ibrox.
How far behind the times are these people.
A contributor on this board received a reply from the military chiefs months ago and published it on this site.
The Record has done a cut and paste job IMO.
Typical of the MSM.
they still seem to miss the question of cost though.
we all paid for this.
if they move it to armed forces day we’ll still be paying for abseiling, howitzers etc.
& did these personell really pay for their own travel & accomodation?
Wjohnston1
“The Record has done a cut and paste job IMO.
Typical of the MSM.”
I’d refer this comment also to Andrew Smiths piece in the SoS today, prevaricating on the forthcoming LNS inquiry and suggesting its maybe a little bit more important than the Utd game in the bigger scheme of things. The piece seemed particularly well researched, one would almost say familiar to readers of this clog. An almost condescending listing of all ex Rangers possible wrongdoings with regards to side letters which then comes to the inescabable conclusion that “a slap on the wrists is the most likely outcome.” WTF as kids of today allegedly say.
Now I suspect he has, much as with the rest of his article, also lifted that conclusion from here. I can’t help but feel he’s possibly missed the ironic sentiment however.
Clog. CLOG. I give up.
starbucks nipped in and have booked the marines for next november.
they’ll be abseiling in a mall near you.
maybe no howitzers though.
Slightly off topic, but an interesting fair play conundrum from the world of tennis. I have been wondering for the past two years how Djokovic suddenly improved his physical fitness and went on a run of success almost unseen in tennis history. His stamina and powers of recovery have been remarkable. The gluten-free diet alone could not have made that much of an impact. Now here’s an angle I hadn’t heard about before today. Details are sketchy, but it makes you wonder about how far players should be allowed to go to gain a competitive advantage.
http://www.dropshotdispatch.com/2011/10/13/djokovics-cvac-conundrum-djokovics-controversial-training-method-examined/
Danish Pastry says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 13:36
5 0 Rate This
Slightly off topic, but an interesting fair play conundrum from the world of tennis. I have been wondering for the past two years how Djokovic suddenly improved his physical fitness and went on a run of success almost unseen in tennis history. His stamina and powers of recovery have been remarkable. The gluten-free diet alone could not have made that much of an impact. Now here’s an angle I hadn’t heard about before today. Details are sketchy, but it makes you wonder about how far players should be allowed to go to gain a competitive advantage.
http://www.dropshotdispatch.com/2011/10/13/djokovics-cvac-conundrum-djokovics-controversial-training-method-examined/
—————————————————————————————————
Interesting article. A lot of footballers use hypobaric chambers. Rooney used one when he broke his metatarsal, in an attempt to recover for the 2008 world cup. The FA have a hypobaric chamber at their new training complex. Bradley Wiggins used one to win the Tour de France. One of the reasons Wiggins said he didn’t think he would be competing in the sport too long, he didnt like having to go off and sleep in a tent every night.
The CVCA thing is interesting but opens up a myriad of questions around what is a fair and unfair advantage.
Congratulations to St Mirren. No complaints. The better team won.
What a fabulous season this is for top flight Scottish football.
Its certainly an interesting season.
well done St Mirren
got what they deserved
readcelt says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 15:48
2 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 13:36
5 0 Rate This
Slightly off topic, but an interesting fair play conundrum from the world of tennis. I have been wondering for the past two years how Djokovic suddenly improved his physical fitness and went on a run of success almost unseen in tennis history. His stamina and powers of recovery have been remarkable. The gluten-free diet alone could not have made that much of an impact. Now here’s an angle I hadn’t heard about before today. Details are sketchy, but it makes you wonder about how far players should be allowed to go to gain a competitive advantage.
http://www.dropshotdispatch.com/2011/10/13/djokovics-cvac-conundrum-djokovics-controversial-training-method-examined/
—————————————————————————————————
The CVCA thing is interesting but opens up a myriad of questions around what is a fair and unfair advantage.
——————-
Being a bit of a tennis buff, it’s slotted a few things into place for me. I’m not sure that the regular use of these new portable units is in the spirit of fair play, since it is supposed to be almost as effective as blood doping. This is from The WSJ:
“In 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency ruled that such oxygen tents enhance performance and violate “the spirit of sport,” but did not add them to the list of banned substances and methods, saying they would wait until further studies were conducted.”
Andy’s up against it. Basically, the ATP and WTA should make these units available to all players. Otherwise, it’s very much like a performance-enhancing EBT 🙂
smugas says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 11:39
I’d refer this comment also to Andrew Smiths piece in the SoS today,
——
I don’t know – Andrew Smith has been on the ball in his Stramash column for many months now, pointing out all manner of nonsense emanating from Ibrox, and mentioning their troubles weekly.
I’d say he probably does read this clog, but I think he has a pretty good grasp of the LNS situation. And he’s probably not far wrong in saying a slapped wrist will be the outcome, is he? Do any of us really expect anything much more than that?
He does point out that only games where players found to have broken the rules will be turned into 0-3 results. What’s the odds that some clever little beaver has been working behind the scenes to ensure that “some” players are found to have been in breach but that, with the games they played in getting their results changed, the consequent points loss will not be enough to void the titles … ?
When will this Armageddon come to an end?
Lord Wobbly says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 16:23
19 0 Rate This
Congratulations to St Mirren. No complaints. The better team won.
What a fabulous season this is for top flight Scottish football.
yourhavingalaugh says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 16:26
6 0 Rate This
Its certainly an interesting season.
andy says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 16:26
12 0 Rate This
well done St Mirren
got what they deserved
……………………………………………………….
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I’m lovin this Armageddon season. 🙂
OWTS…..
angus 1983 says;
Sunday, January 27 at 16;52
kind of agree with your view re; behind the scenes machinations to ameliorate the potential punishment /s dished out for fielding players with undeclared dual contracts…
What if the manager of a team, let’s call them Rangers for talking sake, had an undeclared dual contract? Does the possibility of declaring every result 0-3 exist for that scenario?…
Whitmalike?
Big Pink says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 17:13
3 0 Rate This
When will this Armageddon come to an end?
———
There was a touch of Armageddon at Pittodrie today, another dreary goal drought in a televised Aberdeen match 😀