A Question of Trust (Updated)

ByTrisidium

A Question of Trust (Updated)

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.)

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,893 Comments so far

andyPosted on3:17 pm - Jan 29, 2013


http://www.channel4.com/news/rangers-trophies-under-threat-as-commission-opens

View Comment

andyPosted on3:23 pm - Jan 29, 2013


29 January 2013

Alex, mate, seriously?
by Shane Nicholson | CRO Executive Editor

“This would clearly involve a massive and unprecedented re-writing of club history, re-engraving of a lot of silverware, and Rangers would be saddled with the reputation of being the biggest cheats in football history – in sporting history.”

I probably shouldn’t, but I can’t help it.

For one thing, the “biggest cheats” not just in the history of our sport, but all of sport? The hyperbole, even for you, Alex, is laughable. You do know we were bought out of the first Champions League Final, yes? Or that little bit to do with Juve? You are familiar with this man Lance Armstrong from the little known state of Texas? Ben Johnson? The Black Sox? We could go on…

I had an interesting conversation with an old friend the other day who pointed out a very simple truth in this case: any footballing agent — any — could torpedo this entire kangaroo court in a matter of minutes. But of course career suicide is not often best practice.

Because you see, Alex — friend, buddy, pal — we’ve moved on from Rangers being “guilty” or “not guilty.” We’re now talking about administrative errors, or portions of contracts left un-notarized, something done with every single football club around the world, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not, but certainly universal.

Setting aside that the independent and impartial overseer in our case is neither independent or impartial, the simple truth is that a wee look through the contracts of the 12 clubs of the SPL would uncover some dark little secrets. Administrative errors that would make your head spin. Pages and clauses left un-initialed. Think of the state of it!

Biggest cheats ever? Please, Alex, for your sake, stop with the rhetoric. It’s not doing you or the facts of this case any good.
______________________
where do you start with this nonsence

bought out of the first CL final ??

View Comment

fishnishPosted on3:56 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 12:27

sorry Spanishcelt

at the risk of incurring the wrath of TSFM….it’s NOT the same dog, it’s a new owner, new collar, new lead, new dog….the only thing the same is its name (and its aggressive, antisocial nature)

if we still had dog licenses, they would be using another, dead, dogs license
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
In Patagonia, I believe they have a phrase for this.

It is called “Trigger’s Dog”.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on4:00 pm - Jan 29, 2013


So it WAS ND talking nonesense:

St Mirren chairman Stewart Gilmour admits even his own board are split on league reconstruction plans as he stressed the Paisley club still needed more details before formally voting for the current proposal.

Saints and Motherwell have both arranged a meeting of supporters in the coming days to explain plans for a merged 12-12-18 Scottish league structure.

Scottish Premier League chief executive Neil Doncaster revealed on Monday after a meeting that the 12 top-flight clubs had given their “unanimous backing” to move forward with the plans, which will be debated by Scottish Football League clubs on Thursday.

But nothing has been decided yet and the St Mirren board will present their feelings to fans and listen to views at a meeting at St Mirren Park at 7pm on Thursday.

In a statement, Gilmour said: “I would wish to clarify that contrary to some media reports, no formal vote was taken although the clubs have agreed unanimously to take this proposal forward to the SFL for further talks and discussion.

“We as a club and many other clubs will not vote until we know exactly what is on the table in front of us, this will not be clear until discussion between the SFL clubs takes place and they take their view on this proposal.

“One thing is certain, we will never all agree on a system for 42 clubs, nor are any of us certain that our own thoughts are the correct ones, even the board of your club have differing thoughts, it is an impossible situation for us all to agree.

“However, it is important we discuss the options available to us which include the current one, which is under heavy criticism.”

Motherwell directors will meet on Saturday afternoon with members of the Well Society, the fans’ group with a stake in the club.

.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on4:02 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Just so you are clear how harshly the SFA treat “contract errors”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15672375

Contract error costs Spartans Scottish Cup place

Spartans have been thrown out of the Scottish Cup for fielding an ineligible player in their 2-0 win over Culter.
Striker Keith McLeod signed a new contract in the summer but it was dated only once and the Scottish Football Association want it to be signed twice.
Spartans chairman Craig Graham said the club were “disappointed” by the ruling, adding: “We wish Culter well against Partick Thistle [in round three].”
Spartans have also received a £4,000 fine suspended for 12 months.

The club had their case heard at Hampden by the judicial panel set by the SFA on Thursday, having been reported by the compliance officer for fielding an ineligible player during the second-round 2-0 win at Culter .
Scottish Cup rules now state that any club that plays a player who is ineligible will be thrown out of the competition.
The rules also state that neither the judicial panel or anyone at the SFA has the authority to change this rule.
Play media

Highlights – Culter 0-2 Spartans
“It’s always tricky for a club like ours with volunteers in all the key positions however we have made a number of changes to help ensure a mistake doesn’t occur again in the future,” said Graham.
“I apologise to our players, coaching staff and supporters for what has happened.
“However, I know we will bounce back. We have far too many great things happening at Spartans with fantastic people involved to allow this to be anything more than a minor setback.”
Scottish Division Three side East Stirlingshire were expelled from the competition last season for fielding an ineligible player in their fourth-round win over Buckie Thistle.
Goalkeeper Michael Andrews featured despite the SFA not having received registration documents for the extension of his loan from Falkirk

—————————————————————————————————————-

so 1 player, in 1 game – £4000 fine.

11 players in 40 games for 11 years – £19.36M fine, overturning of every result/title stripping for that year would be the absolute MINIMUM i would expect 🙂

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:07 pm - Jan 29, 2013


stevensanph says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 13:54


1) The SFA’s response to Wilsongate…
================================
Whilst in normal circumstances you may give an organisation ‘the benefit of the doubt’ wrt this eligibility query, unfortunately for the SFA it’s just another example added to a long list of dubious statements/actions emanating from Hampden.
Net effect – the customers’ mistrust of the SFA increases that little bit more.

2) The 5 Way Agreement Draft,
Assuming this Draft is genuine, then IMO, it would be reasonable to assume that the following extract would also be included in any Final version, unaltered;

“…8. Announcements and Confidentiality
Neither RFC nor Sevco may make any disclosure…whatsoever…except with the prior written consent of each of the SFA, the SPL and the SFL…”

So the SFA manages significant decisions affecting Scottish football as a whole, but deliberately keeps its customers uninformed.
Net effect – the customers’ mistrust of the SFA is magnified several times.

3) The SFA Mission Statement about integrity and trust.
Empty words, no more and no less.

4) The LNS Inquiry.
This could unintentionally generate ‘Armageddon’ – and ultimately it could be payback for the SFA’s serious lack of customer focus over the years.

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on4:17 pm - Jan 29, 2013


According to that particular draft, the debate over the transfer deadline appears to have been answered as at midnight 31st of August.

However I was looking at the section relating to player registration to the SFL, “treated as if they were relegated …”

But they were not relegated, the club was liquidated.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on4:33 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Here is the earliest published copy of the draft 5 way agreement that I can trace.

http://videocelts.com/2012/09/blogs/is-this-document-the-ebt-deal-drafted-by-sfa-and-spl

View Comment

andyPosted on4:43 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Jackie McNamara to be new Dundee United manager

Dundee United will unveil Partick Thistle manager Jackie McNamara as their replacement for Peter Houston on Wednesday.
Houston announced two weeks ago that he would be leaving the Tannadice club at the end of the season.
However, he brought forward his departure by leaving the Scottish Premier League club on Monday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21249708

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on5:52 pm - Jan 29, 2013


McNamara is an unusual choice imho

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on6:24 pm - Jan 29, 2013


So let me get this right
LNS will find on information in SFA files regarding players declared income .Good luck with that one .
On a totally different subject is the present CEO job due to come up for renewal .

View Comment

timalloy67Posted on6:34 pm - Jan 29, 2013


RE Bill1903 I think you will find salaries come into it. McNamara at Partick would not have been on a very high salary. Dundee Utd are cutting back so Jackie will be paid more than Thistle paid him, but LESS than Houston was on…
But Jackie seems to be an up and coming manager so good luck starting this weekend.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:40 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Does anyone understand why the detailed statement of reasons from September 2012 was released by LNS? Was it a legal nicety or necessity?

http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdf

Speaking totally subjectively, I’ve had the feeling since last September that some kind of fix was in. A compromise interpretation that will effect nothing of any consequence. But it’s just a feeling. Problem is, the BTC result added to the sense that a nod and a wink in the right company can affect decisions of this kind. Can’t help remembering that recently the nation was led into a catastrophic war based on a pack of lies signed off by legal eagles. But perhaps I’m being too cynical, or too political … or too bampotesque?

View Comment

Famous songPosted on6:45 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Excuse me, as I’ve been outwith the loop for a while, but do I recall that Sevco are due Hearts a payment by Thursday of this week? And, if so, might this prompt more merriment from the chief exec?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on6:52 pm - Jan 29, 2013


http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk/george-galloway-wants-rangers-to-be-pursued-for-14m-in-tax-1.66275#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Conload&id=I0_1359485196572&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecourier.co.uk

well done george galloway.
either they pay that TAX & N.I or stop using the name, badge, logo’s and remove it from the gate of the big hoose too !

View Comment

wottpiPosted on7:31 pm - Jan 29, 2013


famoussong says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 18:45

To heck with that, despite all the talk of boycotts was it ever found out if Dundee Utd ever got paid for the last Scottish Cup tie.

Maybe have I been out the loop on that one or is that yet another issue that has just been let go becasue it all got a bit ‘tedious’?

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on7:39 pm - Jan 29, 2013


have always thought utd will be keeping that debt off the gate money this weekend.
chucks boycott is most likely costing him nothing.

View Comment

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on7:48 pm - Jan 29, 2013


So it seems to some TRFC fans that the consequences of a guilty verdict from the LNS enquiry would be so far reaching and damaging to not only Scottish Footbal but European Football as well that a guilty verdict would be unthinkable.No claims of innocence just claims that the crime is basically too big too return the proper verdict. Where do you start to reason with this mindset? Or even more seriously: Are they correct in their asumption? God may not be able to help us if this is the case.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on8:19 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Carfins Finest
IMO they all to a man know that the EBTs were issued for one purpose and one purpose only and of course to achieve this purpose the proper registration of the players could not be divulged ,as to do so would negate the reason for the EBT scheme altogether .
So what if a club knew there were no way to aviod a guilty verdict ,IMO the only option left would be damage limitation for the most lenient sentence possible .Bearing in mind we have had it drummed into us for months that the worst sanction is title stripping (It is in the sevco fans minds )
How could you minimise the sanction of title stripping ,What about admitting to and allowing HMRC /LNS find proof of say 5 players being registered wrongly .If said players happened to be the 5 players who had made the least amount of appearances for the club out of all players under investigation ,could that help ?.Maybe ,maybe not ,who knows? .
I think someone posted a list of players M Daley had revealed in his BBC documentary as having so called side letters ,I think I will check back and see the appearances recorded by these players and if I can maybe guess as to who the five in the FTT appeal were .

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on8:25 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Has Neil Doncaster announced a unity between the spl clubs on changing to the 12-12-18 when it doesn’t exist? Is this why a vote wasn’t actually taken?

Now the SFL clubs will be tasked with taking a decision on Thursday, removing a bit of heat from Doncaster as he will be able to point at them for rejecting the 12-12-18 (8-8-8-18!), and not his own ‘organisation’ (in both senses).

View Comment

ianagainPosted on8:34 pm - Jan 29, 2013


For spivs everywhere. Heres the trick to avoiding tax the easy (not the rangers) way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_four?t=8.893

View Comment

ianagainPosted on8:37 pm - Jan 29, 2013


borussiabeefburg says:

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 20:25

Has Neil Doncaster announced a unity between the spl clubs on changing to the 12-12-18 when it doesn’t exist? Is this why a vote wasn’t actually taken?

Seems like.

Borrussia put the link to your site from the previous attempt to bully Stenhousmuir here if you would. Lot of folk wont remember this.

View Comment

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on8:40 pm - Jan 29, 2013


jonnyod says:

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 20:19

3

0

Rate This

Carfins Finest
=====================
Very interesting point of view. 5 of the least known, least used players offered up as sacrificial lambs. Then a very short, hard slap and told to behave in future.I fear there is no limit to the corruption within our game or our country.

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on9:04 pm - Jan 29, 2013


As far as i’m concerned there will be no titles to strip, only history to be amended.

The born agains and the waens they take to the TRFC game at present, won’t last or pay more than the discounted rate they pay at the minute, for another year of bottom rung mince (no offence). Which would be a disaster for TRFC.

Of course it’s going to be rigged (LNS and reconstruction), as per.

I’ll support and follow my team, which is a change of heart for me. The shenanigans of the summer seen me not renew my book. But it recently occurred to me that nothing has changed, I don’t expect it to change in my life time. I have never known anything else, I’am back attending and will buy a pair of ST’s next year.

At the risk of this being a swan song.

Many red cards is that noo?
Who’s naw been paid yit?
Stuart McCall …….Well….. earned …….Ahem,
Over censored.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on9:19 pm - Jan 29, 2013


valentinesclown says:

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 15:16

Interesting that Alex Thomson is drawing the attention of the English tax payer to the fact that they too have been and continue to be shafted by aggressive tax avoidance and loopy insolvency laws.

If Galloway’s EDM ever gets to a point where the Govt have to respond that response will settle the Rangers continuity argument.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:37 pm - Jan 29, 2013


More discourse on St Mirren DU and Well sites indicating that the reps at the SPL meeting were very less than unanimous. Well Soc meeting with management Saturday.

More nonesense from ND reported without checking facts by the media as per usual.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on9:39 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 21:19

If Galloway’s EDM ever gets to a point where the Govt have to respond that response will settle the Rangers continuity argument.
———————————————————
Sorry to say Auldheid but EDMs rarely amount to nothing.

View Comment

NawlitePosted on9:41 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Now that Charles Green has got the money out of the RFC* fans through ST sales and the share issue, surely if everyone else’s concern is only the income (the clubs and the football authorities) and the reader/viewer numbers (Sky and the msm) that RFC* and their fans can generate, do those bodies really still need to pretend that it’s the same club?

IMO, the RFC* fans are simply trying to prove a point i.e. that they are the ‘biggest’ club in Scotland/the UK/the world (delete as necessary) and that is why they are continuing to turn out in such numbers. I believe they would continue to turn up for Charles Green’s Rangers-flavoured club even if it was announced that it was a new club. I believe that would be the case even in the lower Divisions for the next few years. All that matters to them is proving they’re still a big club, even if they’re a new club. Do any RFC* supporting posters agree with this or am I barking up the wrong tree?

If they would still turn out, the question is why the bodies mentioned are so afraid of saying it’s a new club?

Hope this topic is allowed, TSFM.

View Comment

SchneebPosted on9:53 pm - Jan 29, 2013


nawlite says: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 21:41

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

They may well still turn up but they will always deny that it’s a new club – irrespective of any statements from the govt, courts, media or even Mr Green. The numbers may dwindle but shouting the lowest common denominator will rally them back.

It’s kinda part of that superiority/supremacy thing and the fact that everyone now hates them – I wonder why?

View Comment

angus1983Posted on10:31 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Schneeb – “… everyone now hates them …”.

It used to be that I hated RFC in an almost cartoon-like way. They were the pantomime villain to us in the North East. The Peepil were a bunch of clowns, obviously, with a bit of a nasty streak – but could mostly be taken with a pinch of salt.

Over the last year, however, things have changed. Sections of the WATP have degenerated into an almost extremist organisation. It is genuinely not pleasant to think that the WATP could be what people from other countries see when they look at Scottish fitba.

In Hungary, Ferencvaros are seen in a similar way – Hungarians are embarrassed that FTC and their (generalised) rabid, violent, racist support are what people in the outside world see of Hungarian fitba.

We risk the whole outside perception of us being tainted by the WATP goons and supremacists.

Really.

Where are the decent TRFC fans who support their club for what it is – a fitba team? Why on earth can they not haul their club into the 21st century (actually, the 18thC would be a start)?

View Comment

goosyPosted on11:00 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Forget about morality and sporting integrity
The 5 Way Agreement draft clearly shows our governing bodies have neither
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

But there is one silver lining in this disclosure

The agreement ends the cheating debate in the court of public opinion

It sets a floor level for the number of honours to be be stripped as far as governing bodies are concerned
Perhaps the final document was different from the draft we have seen
But
the all important
BUT
All that matters to fans is what the starting point was
Since the SFA controlled Scottish cups their “legitimate” position is withdrawing 4 cups
Since the SPL controlled SPL titles their “legitimate” position is withdrawing 5 SPL titles
Since the SFL controlled Scottish league cups their “legitimate”position is withdrawing no cups

Nobody can now dispute that the SFA and SPL together believe that 9 honours should be withdrawn.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It doesn`t matter now what LNS decide

Faced with immorality and zero integrity the fans can now do what they always have done

They can claim what is right for their club whether it is formally awarded or not

They can take back all the honours stolen by the cheats

They can immortalise them in their minds as a legitimised correction of history

And TRFC can do nothing about it

View Comment

SchneebPosted on11:05 pm - Jan 29, 2013


angus1983 says: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 22:31

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Even as a Celtic supporter, when Rangers went into admin I didn’t want them to be liquidated – I was hoping for justice and fairness and hopefully a fresh start. The reality has been vitriol and aggression from the ‘fans’ which seems to be fully supported by the club. Meanwhile the authorities stand idly by and ignore behaviour that would have any other club hauled over the coals.

I hope that Dundee Utd win on Saturday as I dread the thought of them being drawn against another SPL tea. Given the current attitude emanating from Govan I truly hope Celtic never have to play them again.

View Comment

thereekPosted on11:09 pm - Jan 29, 2013


angus1983 says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 22:31
15 0 i
Rate This

Schneeb – “… everyone now hates them …”.

It used to be that I hated RFC in an almost cartoon-like way. They were the pantomime villain to us in the North East. The Peepil were a bunch of clowns, obviously, with a bit of a nasty streak – but could mostly be taken with a pinch of salt.

Over the last year, however, things have changed. Sections of the WATP have degenerated into an almost extremist organisation. It is genuinely not pleasant to think that the WATP could be what people from other countries see when they look at Scottish fitba.

In Hungary, Ferencvaros are seen in a similar way – Hungarians are embarrassed that FTC and their (generalised) rabid, violent, racist support are what people in the outside world see of Hungarian fitba.

We risk the whole outside perception of us being tainted by the WATP goons and supremacists.

Really.

Where are the decent TRFC fans who support their club for what it is – a fitba team? Why on earth can they not haul their club into the 21st century (actually, the 18thC would be a start)?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A question that’s been asked many times here angus. Never had a proper response.The club has been left to those with the loudest voices and least sense. The ones you want there have long gone and who can blame them ?

View Comment

thereekPosted on11:24 pm - Jan 29, 2013


Schneeb says: (Edit)
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 23:05
0 0 i
Rate This

angus1983 says: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 22:31

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

I hope that Dundee Utd win on Saturday as I dread the thought of them being drawn against another SPL tea. Given the current attitude emanating from Govan I truly hope Celtic never have to play them again.
~~~~~
Agreed Schneeb and I believe a lot (not all) of ‘Tic fans feel the same. More to the point I think any Bears watching their current group of players would shudder at facing their city rivals from the SPL. I extend that to facing most if not all SPL teams. Sometimes I think we don’t always appreciate the low level to which they have already sunk in terms of playing personnel. Even decent standard SPL players like Shiels, Wallace & Templeton are struggling badly and would find it very hard to raise their game. The Utd cup tie will be informative in several ways.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on11:47 pm - Jan 29, 2013


They still beat a good Motherwell team easily earlier this season.

It will be an interesting game to watch on saturday(if I can see my telly from under my Craig Whyte mask 🙂 )

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on11:54 pm - Jan 29, 2013


ianagain says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 20:37

Borrussia put the link to your site from the previous attempt to bully Stenhousmuir here if you would. Lot of folk wont remember this.

————————————————————-

ianagain, thanks for the publicity: the blog’s an exercise in discipline, rather than intended as a seeker of viewers. You see, I’m old. Here tho’>>>>>>

http://borussiabeefburg.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-press-sided-with-rangers-in-their-illogical-attempts-at-bullying/

I remember the upset this caused at the time, and the whole affair dragged out for a number of years before the media announced a ‘Rangers victory’.

Triumphalism then- Triumphalism now- Triumphalism forever

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:23 am - Jan 30, 2013


jean7brodie says:

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 21:39

Yup which is why word of it needs wider publicity. It only needs the likes of The Sun to focus on it to give a very valid question the airing it deserves on the impact of flawed laws on the public purse.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on1:12 am - Jan 30, 2013


borussiabeefburg says: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 23:54

ianagain says: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 20:37


————————————————————-

http://borussiabeefburg.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-press-sided-with-rangers-in-their-illogical-attempts-at-bullying/

I remember the upset this caused at the time, and the whole affair dragged out for a number of years before the media announced a ‘Rangers victory’.

Triumphalism then- Triumphalism now- Triumphalism forever
====================================================

Yes, but that was in the 60’s – times have changed.

If that scenario was to happen today – then the stadiums of the 5 dissenting clubs would simply be torched…allegedly… 🙄

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on1:14 am - Jan 30, 2013


Stadia 🙁

View Comment

saskya1888Posted on5:14 am - Jan 30, 2013


Here is a link to the EBT list from the BBC.
Take your pick as to the 5 they chose……..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on5:18 am - Jan 30, 2013


Statement from Clyde FC.

Club Statement: League Talks
Tue, 29th Jan 2013 11:30pm

Clyde FC representatives will be attending this Thursday’s SFL meeting, where the main agenda item will be the proposed plans for league reconstruction, including details on governance and the distribution model.

The club has been informed that no formal vote will take place at Thursday’s meeting, but rather the day is an opportunity for all SFL clubs to discuss the proposal in depth and find out the latest developments on the subject.

We trust that the meeting at Hampden will provide us with the necessary clarity to allow the club to make an informed decision. We are particularly interested in the detail behind the proposed voting arrangements and the arguments for larger leagues which, although dismissed as not being competitive enough for top clubs due to the prospect of meaningless games, is deemed suitable for eighteen other clubs.

Prior to any formal vote the club will consult with its owners in order to ascertain their views on the proposed fundamental changes to the structure of the game.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on7:23 am - Jan 30, 2013


Schneeb says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 23:05
50 0 Rate This
angus1983 says: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 22:31
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Even as a Celtic supporter, when Rangers went into admin I didn’t want them to be liquidated – I was hoping for justice and fairness and hopefully a fresh start. The reality has been vitriol and aggression from the ‘fans’ which seems to be fully supported by the club. Meanwhile the authorities stand idly by and ignore behaviour that would have any other club hauled over the coals.
I hope that Dundee Utd win on Saturday as I dread the thought of them being drawn against another SPL tea. Given the current attitude emanating from Govan I truly hope Celtic never have to play them again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One game at a time Schneeb. Let’s get the first game out of the way before we worry about the return visit.

View Comment

tomtomPosted on9:09 am - Jan 30, 2013


borussiabeefburg says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 23:54
ianagain says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 20:37

Borrussia put the link to your site from the previous attempt to bully Stenhousmuir here if you would. Lot of folk wont remember this.

————————————————————-

ianagain, thanks for the publicity: the blog’s an exercise in discipline, rather than intended as a seeker of viewers. You see, I’m old. Here tho’>>>>>>

http://borussiabeefburg.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-press-sided-with-rangers-in-their-illogical-attempts-at-bullying/

I remember the upset this caused at the time, and the whole affair dragged out for a number of years before the media announced a ‘Rangers victory’.

Triumphalism then- Triumphalism now- Triumphalism forever
————————————————————————

Let’s not forget their intervention into the Hampden debate at a time when conveniently they were rebuilding Ibrox

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19800609&id=YcJAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-aUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4196,1653888

How much cost did the delays add to this project? Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of rebuilding Hampden Rangers intervention was an act of greed on their part. To paraphrase Rae Simpson at the time “why rebuild Hampden when we will have a world class facility that can be used”

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on9:45 am - Jan 30, 2013


tomtomaswell says:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 09:09
0 0 Rate This
borussiabeefburg says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 23:54
ianagain says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 20:37

Borrussia put the link to your site from the previous attempt to bully Stenhousmuir here if you would. Lot of folk wont remember this.

————————————————————-

ianagain, thanks for the publicity: the blog’s an exercise in discipline, rather than intended as a seeker of viewers. You see, I’m old. Here tho’>>>>>>

http://borussiabeefburg.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-press-sided-with-rangers-in-their-illogical-attempts-at-bullying/

I remember the upset this caused at the time, and the whole affair dragged out for a number of years before the media announced a ‘Rangers victory’.

Triumphalism then- Triumphalism now- Triumphalism forever
————————————————————————

Let’s not forget their intervention into the Hampden debate at a time when conveniently they were rebuilding Ibrox

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19800609&id=YcJAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-aUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4196,1653888

How much cost did the delays add to this project? Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of rebuilding Hampden Rangers intervention was an act of greed on their part. To paraphrase Rae Simpson at the time “why rebuild Hampden when we will have a world class facility that can be used”

================================================

a great wee debate!

if you take the self interest of RFC (the original and dead one) out of this article…it is bang on

What was the point in spending so much money on a 3rd large stadium in glasgow that would be used occasionally?

if anything money should have been used to expand existing stadiums in Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen – or ideally a new all purpose facility somewhere around perth/stirling area

A truely neutral venue with better access for everyone in the country – and would provide a real opportunity for the country to bid for a euro championships

hampden is a terrible stadium – a total white elephant. Waste of money and indicative of how inept the blazers in “park gardens” were (and remain in their shiny new home!)

View Comment

tomtomPosted on10:22 am - Jan 30, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 09:45

——————————————————–

I totally agree with you in respect of Hampden.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:37 am - Jan 30, 2013


tomtomaswell says:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 10:22

Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 09:45

——————————————————–

I totally agree with you in respect of Hampden.
========================================
If I recall correctly,Hampden cost circa £66m to renovate,most of which was used to build one stand.Even then,the committee in charge almost went bust and had to make agreements with creditors to stop any action.
Fergus McCann,who also slated Hampden as a white elephant,rebuilt Celtic Park,far superior for viewing,facilities, for just over £40m.
That £66m,at that time,would have built another 6 football centres like Toryglen across the country!

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on10:43 am - Jan 30, 2013


I also agree with the Hampden comments although I loved the old midden before it was updated

View Comment

* (@enmac75)Posted on10:43 am - Jan 30, 2013


saskya1888 says:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 05:14
—————
Dan Eggen
Federico Nieto
Jerome Bonnissel
Tero Penttila
Jesper Christiansen

will it be this 5 ? or some of the backroom staff ?

the cynic in me tells me it will be. the biggest brush used to sweep under the biggest carpet

is it really only 5 that will be scrutinised over ? shirley it has to be all with an EBT

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on10:52 am - Jan 30, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 09:45

There is so many things to be ashamed of in Scottish football – and Hampden is one of them. One nice shiney stand for the nobs and press, and one pathetic seated terracing surrounding the pitch for the paying customers. I’d like to read a report by just one member of the MSM on how much they enjoyed a match from a seat behind the goals in row 2! I well remember, many years ago, watching a cup semi-final from row 2 or 3, opposite the old main stand, and I couldn’t even make out the touchlines, as I was so low down, let alone get a perspective on where the ball actually was – and I doubt it’s changed much today! Just another example of just how much (little) the true fans actually mean to the SFA.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on10:52 am - Jan 30, 2013


the investigation has NOTHING to do with EBTs

it is about what was in the contracts submitted to the SFA versus what the players received

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:54 am - Jan 30, 2013


Hampden should have left untouched, for Queens Park to play in, and as a “world heritage site” for those interested in how a large football stadium was around 1970. You could charge them £10 a head to view the “facilities” (entry price to include a complementary empty Tennants can)

A real national stadium could then have been built, somewhere central, at half the cost of the Hampden fiasco. It does highlight how our game is run by a rather unintelligent group of people (that’s me being kind, by the way) with absolutely no financial acumen.

A more current example of this financial incompetence being the TV deals negotiated by these jokers. Somebody posted figures on RTC a few months ago demonstrating that countries like Norway and Denmark were getting a much better TV deal from Sky than Scotland. Time for a good rid-oot at the top, I think.

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on11:02 am - Jan 30, 2013


StevieBC says:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 01:14
8 0 i Rate This

Stadia
—————————————————————–

Once a new (ish) word from another language has become well integrated into English it quite naturally begins to lose any of its former grammatical features and it becomes quite acceptable to apply English grammar features – such as as the English plural rather than the original Latin one.

Nothing wrong in using the Latin plural either while we still retain a memory of the word’s origin BTW. Just it’s nothing to bother about either way.
🙂

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on11:11 am - Jan 30, 2013


Schneeb says:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 23:05
87 0 Rate This
angus1983 says: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 22:31

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I hope that Dundee Utd win on Saturday as I dread the thought of them being drawn against another SPL tea. Given the current attitude emanating from Govan I truly hope Celtic never have to play them again.

—————————————————————————————————————-

Totally agree I do not want the team from Govan playing Celtic for many years as the attitude from their fans is vile towards any team in Scotland. This is worse for Celtic as you only need to look at the forums from the Govan team fans at the hatred towards Peter Lawell (as the SFA are his puppets), Neil Lennon (no words required) and Harper McLeod (Celtic lawyers now working for the benefit of Celtic through the SFA) I KNOW…… When you get PR men like Traynor involved then I dread the day they played Celtic as the build up to such an event from his poisonous pen could place fans life in danger. (IMO this is not an over the top assertion).

Any SPL team’s fans are under threat from the followers of the Govan team, but Celtic fans are at more risk.

Bearing in mind these fans gave death threats to Mr Green not that long ago. Lest we forget.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:27 am - Jan 30, 2013


IF….they do get past DUFC (hope not) and they happen to draw Celtic (away) then things will get interesting.

I don’t imagine CG will call for a boycott…unless the fans do.
I don’t think the bears will call for a boycott of the Celtic game.

However, if they do, and the club backs it….I would hope Celtic (the club) would take take action against the zombie club via the SFA

It’s about time the SFA were forced to act on this clubs nonsense behaviour.

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on11:36 am - Jan 30, 2013


Wales has their National Stadium. England has Wembley. Where did we do wrong?

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on11:37 am - Jan 30, 2013


“go” wrong. Smiley

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on11:42 am - Jan 30, 2013


neepheid says:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 10:54

Hampden should have left untouched, for Queens Park to play in, and as a “world heritage site” for those interested in how a large football stadium was around 1970. You could charge them £10 a head to view the “facilities” (entry price to include a complementary empty Tennants can)

A real national stadium could then have been built, somewhere central, at half the cost of the Hampden fiasco. It does highlight how our game is run by a rather unintelligent group of people (that’s me being kind, by the way) with absolutely no financial acumen.

A more current example of this financial inco,mpetence being the TV deals negotiated by these jokers. Somebody posted figures on RTC a few months ago demonstrating that countries like Norway and Denmark were getting a much better TV deal from Sky than Scotland. Time for a good rid-oot at the top, I think.
============================================
How much is the Sky deal worth?.
Say it’s £4m per season.
That’s 200k fans at £20 average.
There are 228 SPL games a season.
If each club could get around 880 extra fans at every game the TV cash would be recouped.
Obviously the bigger clubs would hopefully get more but this is the average figure.I don’t think this is insurmountable.All games kicking off at 3.00pm every Saturday would go a long way towards this,in my opinion.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on11:45 am - Jan 30, 2013


The Hampden fiasco was also about being Glasgow centric.

Simply put Glasgow had two perfectly serviceable stadia; there was no need for a third in Glasgow. Edinburgh had a purpose built Rugby stadium which could have served as a neutral venue for Glasgow derbies in semi-finals and for the finals of the cups. Internationals could have been rotated between Murrayfield, Celtic Park, Ibrox for larger ones and around the country for smaller friendlies.

The SFA and SPL could have had their offices built just about anywhere. Ultimately however they wanted to stay in Glasgow and as neither side of the city would have been happy at opting for Celtic Park over Ibrox park or vice versa the White Elephant was built.

The scandal was magnified when the entire budget went on the main stand and facilities for the Brogues and the Hangers on, whilst three quarters of the ground was cheaply constructed and designed in such a way as to kill the atmosphere of what was, up to then, undeniably the most atmospheric and dramatic staium in all of the UK.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on11:51 am - Jan 30, 2013


monsieurbunny says:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 11:02

Once a new (ish) word from another language has become well integrated into English …
——
Quite. And the opposite applies too, where the plural form “media” is often used to describe one “medium”, e.g. newspapers.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on12:06 pm - Jan 30, 2013


Graham Spiers ‏@GrahamSpiers

Amid all the acrimony I see Dundee Utd are offering full-time students – home + away fans – £5 entrance for DU v Gers Saturday. Pretty good.

View Comment

readceltPosted on12:08 pm - Jan 30, 2013


Hampden was a vanity project.

The sensible thing to do would have been to tour national games round the country and used the money spent on the renivation to invest in coaching and facilities.

Instead we got ‘great’ stadium without any great players to play in it.

View Comment

readceltPosted on12:11 pm - Jan 30, 2013


should be renovation #eating a sandwich

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on12:22 pm - Jan 30, 2013


A partnership with the SRU using murrayfield and would’ve been a better solution

View Comment

dentarthurdent42Posted on12:31 pm - Jan 30, 2013


Maybe someone can clear something up for me with regard the Lord Nimmo Smith enquiry.

If I understand correctly the question is with regard to whether or not the players’ registrations were processed correctly. In short, were the authorities notified of the “side letters” at the appropriate time.

If that test is failed then the ruling would relate to whether or not that specific player was elligible to play or not.

If it was ruled that they were not then the standard practice would seem to be the result of that specific game would be over-turned and the opponent awarded the points. That is certainly the sanction UEFA imposed in relation to SION, albeit I know the background was different. The offence itself was actually the same. Fielding an inelligible player.

If that is the case, and someone can correct me, then title stripping would not actually be a punishment. The title being taken away would only be a consequence, if the points deduction was enough to overturn the league win.

In reality Rangers could lose those titles from the history books, in addition to any punishment they were given for deliberately making false declarations to the footballing authorities.

Or is the points deduction not an option in Scotland.

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on12:37 pm - Jan 30, 2013


iceman63 says: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 11:45

“The Hampden fiasco was also about being Glasgow centric.”

Iceman? Nail on the heid. Officials had got used over many years to the Ibrox/Hampden/Ibrox corridor for regular travel and visits home. Anyplace else would have caused trauma to the system.

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on12:41 pm - Jan 30, 2013


In regard to the LNS enquiry, should there not be two punishments/consequences?

One for fielding ineligible players and a second punishment for deliberately hiding the side letters from the SFA.

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on12:42 pm - Jan 30, 2013


Anyone tweeted Chris McLaughlin yet about his title stripping statement?

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on12:43 pm - Jan 30, 2013


My view on potential punishments if OldGers are found to have breached league rules (I say “if” not because there is any doubt that tgey didn’t obey the rules but because we have all witnessed attempts by “the powers that be” to not apply the rules equally when it comes to that club) is that they are a newco and hence we are dealing with a club in liquidation. Despite his verbal protestations, I think this may also be mr charles’ view (hence no presence from NewCo), after all that would add grist to the gratuitous alienation mill wouldn’t it?

Anyway I think, well I would like, any games won using illegally registered players to be declared null and void. This would mean the loss of titles but due to the scale/longevity of the rule breaches I don’t think wins or titles should be awarded retrospectively. It would be unmanageable and what of teams that were relegated or missed on European revenue? No simplest to declare those null. Equally I wouldn’t bother asking for medals back from players or any of that BS.

I think a fine should be levied equivalent to a multiple of the prize money won – say 2x. This would run into millions but as OldCo are in liquidation, the numbers are immaterial – the fine won’t be paid but it sets down a marker/precedent for future rule breaches.

This upholds sporting integrity, sets a precedent and also drives clear (blue?) water between co’s old and new, which I think is also integral to the whole of Scottish football moving on…

On the subject of “moving on” or not… An ex-player from the glory days of OldCo being appointed by the NewCo to be an ambassador? Holy cow. Disregarding the obvious grat alien link, they they claim to be cutting expenses to the bone but are employing the equivalent of Princesses Bea and Eugeinie to drive around europe in a union jack mini? And/or press the flesh on matchdays against Montrose or Annan Athletic (no disrespect to those teams, I just like their names!)? I assume Laudrup will get some sort of remuneration for this valuable work?

A cynic might say that is a cheap price to buy a history unearned by newco, a Celtic fan would say our brand is big enough not to need an “ambassador”!

View Comment

NawlitePosted on12:54 pm - Jan 30, 2013


jockybhoy says:

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 12:43

Spot on in my opinion, Jockybhoy. Those are the consequences/punishments I would like to see. You never know, you might then actually get someone asking publicly “So, why aren’t RFC* paying the fines applied?” to which the answer will be “Well, they’re not actually the same club?”. Do you think Yorkie would pay the fines just to avoid this sort of dialogue?!?!

More importantly, what are the chances of this sort of outcome given the current crop of authorities we are working with? Gawd!!!

View Comment

angus1983Posted on12:54 pm - Jan 30, 2013


dentarthurdent42 says:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 12:31

If that is the case, and someone can correct me, then title stripping would not actually be a punishment. The title being taken away would only be a consequence, if the points deduction was enough to overturn the league win.
——

That’s about the size of it, arthur.

Several of us have recently suspected that LNS may find several examples of non-conforming “side-letters” amongst players who did not make enough appearances to affect the points total significantly. Genuinely wouldn’t surprise me.

View Comment

rabPosted on12:58 pm - Jan 30, 2013


ianagain on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 14:24
Hope they got paid up front.

Field Fisher Waterhouse corporate finance partner Christine Phillips spent much of 2012 on one of the highest-profile deals of the year, advising Rangers FC.

Rangers’ assets have now been floated on the AIM-listing and the club has raised £22m to improve its facilities and capital and boost the squad after liquidation saw it go from its premier position among Scottish football clubs to a lowly place in the third division of the Scottish Football League.

“It was a business that supported a lot of other suppliers,” says Phillips, “so inevitably for any football club to struggle economically in any city it causes problems for a lot of local businesses.

.“It’s important that you feel you’re doing something constructive for the local economy and with that club it was such a massive brand with a very dedicated and loyal supporter base that it has also been very rewarding to think that you’re helping the survival of the club.”

The deal was a rewarding but trying one, with the club’s fortunes all the while in the public eye. The consortium led by Charles Green, the club’s former owner, attempted to structure assets as acompany voluntary arrangement to try and ensure the survival of the club and its Scottish premier League membership.

Key creditor HMRC refused to support this, which meant the construction of a newco and the subsequent vote by the Scottish Football League for Rangers to

join the third rather than first division.

Phillips has both secured admission to AIM and an offer to fans to buy shares in their club, the total value of which is now £45.6m. Her work will make her popular with at least half of Glasgow.

===========================================

I dont know if this is badly worded or i am reading it wrong, but the part that says the deal was “lead by charles greens consortium, the clubs former owner”

is that not textbook pheonix trading and gratuitous alienation.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on1:10 pm - Jan 30, 2013


It does seem to me that the ineligibility if established, takes care of the titles. Logically therefore Celtic, even if their fans don’t want them – must inherit the titles.To declare them void, would imply a wider failing within the organisation itself (there clearly was – I suspect that the registrations were ok’d by individuals who knew they were not kosher – just as they gave Rangers a licence to play in Europe in 2011 when they knew they did not qualify – a real inquiry would look at the workings of the organisation and its intrinsic corruption – but the consequences for all of Scotttish football – even those who suffered as a result of the cheating and corrupt practices could be severe – by right the entire association should face a suspension in my honest opinion) and that would never do.

The wider punishment options are interesting.

Fines of OLDCO are pointless and punishing The Rangers would be against Natural Justice as they are not the club responsible.

I hope LNS is clever and thus eschews the option of the punishing of NEWCO and instead targets all of the individuals who served on the board at Ibrox at the time – I would suggest he imposes a ban on all board member at Ibrox at the time of the offences for a period of 5 years coupled woth six figure fines – say 100 grand a piece – would ruin a night out for each of them I know – and give a life ban to Murray himself.

Now that would be one for the SFA to chew on.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:14 pm - Jan 30, 2013


Interesting take on the Clyde comment earlier. I see BBC are also tweeting the SFL will veto the proposals.

Firstly on the Clyde statement. They have a sly dig that they might not quite have all the facts they need to come to a decision. I’ll take a stab in the dark that the information they have requested clarification on is;

1/ no-one is telling them categorically what would happen to THEM allowing cynicism, unlike Cambell, to enter the room. (I will be fair and say ND was conspicously clear on this point on Monday right enough. He must have taken the train to work that day!).

2/ no figures will be put to the new structure. You as a club will get x% of whatever the TV rights are, something along those lines. ND doesn’t know what the TV rights are because I suspect, just like in August that he hasn’t asked Sky for a figure yet, being too scared to admit that OF clashes aren’t on the horizon just yet. Nothing like a positive sales pitch eh!

3/ I believe the voting rights issue is basically linked to the main point below.

Clyde’s particular point related to the bottom 18 – specifically why 18 wouldn’t work at the top but is deemed fit for the bottom. My take on this is admittedly based on a blind faith in the top clubs chairman (I know). I like to think under the Petrie’s, the Milne’s, the Thompsons et al there is a business brain in there somewhere. If they tell me that a top 12 league is competitive and 18 aren’t I have to at least recognise their view. My take on the restructure proposal is that the SPL (old) acknowledge that there are another 12 clubs capable of forwarding 4 realistic contendors each year. In this respect I agree that there is a third division made up of ‘abdy else’. I cannot deny the fact.

On the premise though that there are roughly 18 – it might be 16 it might be 20 – clubs who intend to continue as they are – part time, volunteer fuelled, very popular locally on a town by town basis, maybe a derby match locally, the chance of a big cup tie every 10 years or so what exactly is wrong with that? Yes a pyramid structure to make sure an ambitous junior can get a leg up and to keep the established 18 on their toes, but apart from that? I’m not entirely sure what Clyde’s point is?

And just to be clear I am not asking what the point in Clyde is!!!

If it helps I’m not completely sold on the restructure plan. I said I had blind faith in the Chairmen. I didn’t say I was completely stupid.

View Comment

dentarthurdent42Posted on1:18 pm - Jan 30, 2013


If it transpires that there were inelligible players, but even after a points deduction there was no loss of title, then presumably that would be that.

Rangers fielded inelligible players, the points have been deducted for the relevant games, Rangers have been punished.

Or would people expect there to be in effect a second ruling, with regard to Rangers’ conduct of not making the appropriate declaration. Would that be considered a separate issue, or would it be covered witht the first punishment, i.e. the points deduction.

That would seem a bit unbalanced. Spartans were thrown out of the Scottish Cup for fielding an inelligible player (date in the wrong place on his registration form or something like that). It would seem a bit unfair if one club lost out on much needed income and possibly a cup run, due to what was clearly and universally accepted as a meaningless clerical error. Whilst another would appear to have gotten away with little in the way of meaningful consequences.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on1:21 pm - Jan 30, 2013


nawlite says:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 12:54

…“So, why aren’t RFC* paying the fines applied?” to which the answer will be “Well, they’re not actually the same club?”.
——

Notwithstanding the fact that they haven’t been condemned yet, LNS already pointed out in his Statement of Reasons that for the purposes of the enquiry Rangers FC are thennowforever. It is the owner/operator of Rangers FC that has changed (Oldco/Newco), but in his view Rangers FC – and therefore whoever their current owner/operator is – would be held responsible for misdemeanours.

Which means that, in the first instance, TRFC are liable to cop any punishment which results from a guilty verdict.

I say “in the first instance” because Mr Green will undoubtedly wish to clarify the Oldco/Newco/Club situation in a legal sense if Rangers FC are found guilty and any meaningful punishment handed down for TRFC to accept in good grace.

View Comment

Comments are closed.