From the TSFM Manifesto 🙂
A spectre is haunting Scottish Football — the spectre of Sporting Integrity. All the powers of the old firms have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Billy and Dan, Blazer and Cassock, Record and Sun, Balance Sheet and P&L.
Where is the football fan in opposition to these that has not been decried as a “sporting integrity bampot” by his opponents in power?Two things result from this fact:
I. Sporting Integrity is already widely acknowledged to be itself a power for good.
II. It is high time that Lovers of Sport should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Sporting Integrity with a manifesto of fair play.
To this end, Lovers of Sport of various partisanship have assembled on TSFM and sketched their manifesto, to be published on tsfm.scot.
Those who love sport though are challenged not just by the taunts of the monosyllabic automatons in the MSM, but by the owners of our football clubs who have displayed an almost total disregard to our wish to have a fair competition played out in the spirit of friendly rivalry. In fact the clubs, who speak those fine words, are not nearly as outraged as we are by the damage done to the integrity of the sport in the past few years .
In fact the term Sporting Integrity has become, since the latter stages of the Rangers era, a term of abuse; a mocking soubriquet attached to those who want sport to be just that – sport.
Sporting integrity now lives in the same media pigeon-hole as words like Islam, left-wing, militant, Muslim – and a host of others; words which are threats to the established order now set up as in-jokes, in order to reduce the effectiveness of the idea.
In fact, a new terminology has evolved in the reporting of football by both club officials and The Succulent Lamb Chapel alike;
“.. Sporting Integrity but …”.
For example
“We all want sporting integrity, but finance is more important”
Says who exactly?
Stated in such a matter of fact way that the obvious question is headed off at the pass, it is sometimes difficult to re-frame the discussion – perhaps because crayon is so hard to erase?
This is the backdrop to The Scottish Football Monitor and the world in which we live. Often the levels of scrutiny employed by our contributors are far in excess of any scrutiny employed by the MSM. Indeed our ideas and theories are regularly plagiarised by those very same lazy journalists who lurk here, and cherry-pick material to suit their own agendas; regularly claiming exclusives for stories that TSFM and RTC before us had placed in the public domain weeks earlier.
This was going to lead into a discourse about the love of money versus the love of sport – of how the sacred cows of acquisitiveness, gate- retention and turnstile spinning is far more important to the heads of our football clubs (the Billys, Dans and Blazers of the intro) than maintaining the traditions of our sport.
However events of Friday 14th November have given me cause to leave that for another day. The biggest squirrel of all in this sorry saga has always been the sleight of hand employed instil a siege mentality in the Rangers fans. The press have time and again assisted people (with no love of football in general or Rangers in particular) to enrich themselves – legally or otherwise – and feed on the loyalty of Rangers fans.
A matter for Rangers fans may also be the identity of some of those who had their trust, but who also assisted the Whytes and Greens by their public statements of support.
Our contention has been that rules have been bent twisted or broken to accommodate those people, the real enemies of the Rangers fans – and fans everywhere.
Through our collective research and group-analysis of events, we have also wondered out loud about the legality of many aspects of the operating style of some of the main players in the affair. That suspicion has been shared most notably by Mark Daly and Alex Thompson, but crucially now appears to be shared by Law Enforcement.
I confess I am fed up with the self-styled “bampot” epithet. For the avoidance of doubt, the “bampots” in this affair are those who have greater resources than us, and access to the truth, but who have lacked either the will or the courage or the imagination to follow it through.
We are anything but bampots. Rather, we have demonstrated that the wisdom of the crowd is more effective by far than any remnants of wisdom in the press.
I have no doubt that the police investigation into this matter is proceeding in spite of great opposition in the MSM and the Scottish Football Authorities – all of whom conspired to expose Rangers to the custodianship of those for whom football is a foreign language.
I have no doubt that the constant exposition of wrong-doing on this blog, in particular the questions we have constantly raised, and anomalies we have pointed out, has assisted and enabled the law enforcement agencies in this process.
If we are to be consistent in this, our enabling of the authorities, we MUST show restraint at all times as this process is followed through. People who are charged with a crime deserve to be given a fair trial in the absence of rumour or innuendo. We must also, if we are to continue as the spectre which haunts the avaricious – and the real bampots – be seen to be better than they, and give them no cause to accuse us of irresponsibility.
This affair has now evolved way beyond one club gaining unfair advantage over others. For all the understandable Schadenfreude of many among us, the real enemy is not Rangers, it is about those who enabled and continue to enable the farce at Ibrox.
This is now about systematic cheating at the heart of the Scottish game (in the name of cash and in spite of lip service to sporting integrity), and how the greed of a bunch of ethically challenged officials allowed another group of ethically challenged businessmen free rein to enrich themselves at the expense of the fans.
Whether laws were broken or not, the players at Rangers have come and gone and are variables, but the malignant constant at the SFA and SPFL are still there. Last night, even after the news that four men had been arrested in connection with the takeover at Ibrox in 2011, they were gathered together at Celtic Park with their Irish counterparts, tucking into succulent lamb (perhaps) and fine wines, doing some back slapping, making jokes about the vulgarities of their fans, bragging about the ST money they have banked.
The revolution won’t be over until they are gone, and if they remain, it is Scottish Football that will be over.
Auldheid says:
November 24, 2014 at 11:56 am
3 0 Rate This
John Clark
I’ve made three attempts to post links to the Supporters Direct Web site one to their source of funding ( which includes the SG) under FAQs and the other to their full remit under About but I’m getting a duplicate post message but no post.
So anyone interested will have to look them up. Maybe the two links is causing a problem.
===============
I tried to post about the remit of SD earlier today, and had exactly the same problem, maybe because I too included a link to the SD website.
Hypothetically: if a company is due to hold and AGM and as part of that process produce audited accounts etc. if that company were to go into administration, does the need to hold an AGM and to publish audited accounts then fall away?
Long Time Lurker says:
November 24, 2014 at 1:14 pm
1 0 Rate This
Hypothetically: if a company is due to hold and AGM and as part of that process produce audited accounts etc. if that company were to go into administration, does the need to hold an AGM and to publish audited accounts then fall away?
=================
In effect, yes. Once the administrators are called in, there is no AGM of shareholders, just regular meetings of creditors. The administrators produce a statement of affairs at the point they take over. That can be a fairly approximate document. I can’t imagine they would pay auditors to certify accounts.
Lots of rumours on twitter today that administration is about to happen, but I take that with a pinch of salt. Too many false alarms already on this one.
neepheid says:
November 24, 2014 at 1:26 pm
—————————-
Cheers, I don’t believe that administration is on the cards, unless Mr Ashley decides not to provide any more short term loans etc.
I would imagine that this year, the accountants are going to require stronger evidence that the company is a viable going concern.
Going into administration for any company to avoid holding an AGM sounds to extreme to me.
Danish Pastry says:
November 24, 2014 at 1:02 pm
————————–
one shouldn’t always believe what one reads on the ‘inter web’ 🙄
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C.#Ally_McCoist_and_insolvency
see note [78] 😳
Ashley will only be interested in shirt sales up to and including the very day the cash runs out
Which will be on or around the date when the Dec payroll is due
I read that piece in the DR by our award winning sports hack.
Deary, deary me.
If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that most of that was lifted from Phil’s latest blogs.
The brass content of Keefy’s neck would truly seem to be off the radar.
@TBK If what that note says was true then what was left to liquidate? Smoke & mirrors formulation to me, no doubt so CG could spin the myth that earned him so much dosh. A bit like those mediums who cash in on the vulnerability of the grieving by giving them some yarn about the lately departed communicating!
Charles was perhaps the quintessential happy medium?
Long Time Lurker says:
November 24, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Hypothetically: if a company is due to hold and AGM and as part of that process produce audited accounts etc. if that company were to go into administration, does the need to hold an AGM and to publish audited accounts then fall away?
++++++++++++++++++++++
The current deadline is for Accounts / AGM is an AIM requirement. If RIFC were to enter Administration I believe the shares would de-list anyway. Account / AGM would become irrelevant.
GoosyGoosy says:
November 24, 2014 at 1:44 pm
1 1 Rate This
Ashley will only be interested in shirt sales up to and including the very day the cash runs out
Which will be on or around the date when the Dec payroll is due
=====================================================
Are you suggesting Ashley may do a runner once he has the kiddies Xmas orders for strips etc in the bag 😛
Seriously- while they are in deep dodo financially not sure how Admin helps anything if the aim is still to get back to the premiership. Currently a 15pt penalty would put them down to 6th place and six points behind Hibs. Therefore it is more of a struggle to get a play-off spot that just holding tight in the current position.
OK you can get rid of McCoist and his pals and maybe some excess baggage but who do you get in and at what cost. Will loan players and even coaching staff from Newcastle be the answer (is that even allowed)???
wottpi says:
November 24, 2014 at 2:19 pm
0 0 Rate This
——————-
Under UEFA rules would administration mean no European football until at least 2018/19?.
wottpi,
I would agree if it was March April. Getting them to the end of the season is going to be the thick end of what, 6-7m anyway. You then need to factor in what is happening during that period. A probable cup exit, probable struggling in the league, as now and a new headline every other day, not to mention a UTT appeal, a fraud hearing etc.
Ok, so how do you change this? Buy players? Costs more money. Replace managers? Costs more money (although it might be a way for Ally to leave with dignity if he turns down the pay off, or gifts it to whichever faction is flavour of the month). Anything else? Sell players. Ok that generates some cash but will likely come back to haunt in terms of reduced crowds and reduced chances of promotion. Admin (or more likely straight to MVL) would provide a finality. The chance to regroup and come at it afresh with reduced onerous contracts apart from the Sports Direct one obviously, reduced player and management bill more reflective of where they are and of course there’s still an outside chance in the play off this year.
I don’t think an event is the most likely scenario either for what it is worth. I am struggling to see however that he has any alternative, unless he really does think he can sink, what £10m, and recoup it a la Fergus. Its less likely that a BK type investment will come, simply because Mike knows that at present he has them by the short and curlies!
Everyone’s wrong.A new partnership announced.
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/club-news/item/8139-new-north-america-partner
Smugas says:
November 24, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Agree is is just one big clusterfeck.
The only hope the Bears have is that Ashley may just about be the only person with the brains and money to come up with a solution. It is certainly beyond me!!!!
However, having no connection to the club, it is just as likely he could walk away and say he tried his best but it wasn’t worth it.
Just can’t see how the club would survive admin as even if the fans turned out and filled the stadium, once again, the money would not be seen on the park.
Would reality finally bite in that it would mean another year in the Championship and a long road to sustainability. That being said there was Dundee with a talented young manager making it difficult for Celtic at the weekend so progress is possible if you are realistic in your aims.
Torrejohnbhoy
As TRFC 2012 their UEFA history in terms of uninterrupted membership of SFA began in August 2012.
By August 2015 they will have served that probation period.
If they enter and actually exit administration as opposed to being liquidated as RFC were in 2012 then they will not have had their SFA membership interrupted.
However they will have to be able to present a set of annual accounts ratified at an AGM for prior year to UEFA licence application with a clean bill of financial health to meet UEFA licensing requirements which would only be possible after they emerge as a going concern after administration.
I’ve no idea how long that will take but you have also to factor TRFC post an administration event having a team playing by FFP rules actually qualifying on sporting merit to be considered for a place in UEFA competition at any level.
Europe League by 2017 at the earliest assuming promotion to Premiership this season.
CL? The dreams and promises of an IPO that anyone who had any idea of the risks of achieving would have run a mile from.
But they’re the same thing Shirley, Richard Wilson said so. 😈
Smugas
Not as UEFA rigorously apply their licensing rules they ain’t.
Neepheid 1.12
My original post re Supporters Direct was a result of research a while ago into looking to them as a vehicle for promoting good governance.
I concluded that as they were dependent on SG funding and SFA cooperation they would be unable to bring extra leverage to the party. Tea and biscuits stuff.
I’m off to check up on my assumption as I note there has been a change in SD leadership and I’m wondering why.
If SD had any relevance at all in giving supporters a greater say in football then demonstrating reasons why, ie poor governance would surely have added to their credibility.
Instead they appear to have been neutered and as the SG are funders you have to wonder what if any role they played.
I received an unexpected update below from a normally very reliable, old friend.
These are only allegations, of course, and I can’t substantiate at all.
Thought it might be of interest here…
==========================================
“…He told me today that Mike Ashley APPOINTED advisor has already said they should walk away right now as the club is toxic and inextricably linked to 0rganised crime and p@ramilitaries
Craig White has so much information on Murray and others it is meant to be astonishing. Watch this space…”
====================================
Again, I can’t substantiate, but I did hear from a separate, VERY reliable source – early this year – that there were indeed undesirable ‘links’ as mentioned above.
Steviebc
What are the chances of CW being around to give evidence?
The more we come across, the more we wonder at the degree of cover up and who is sitting on our smsm, because although the redtop sport guys have something to protect their fellow journos have the equivalent of an Oscar or Pullitzer if they really did some digging.
Yet in spite of being spoon fed stories they simply refuse to even a knowledge or refute the claims.
Why is that? How deep and far does this story go?
Auldheid says:
November 24, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Steviebc
What are the chances of CW being around to give evidence?
…
Why is that? How deep and far does this story go?
=================================================
To be clear I don’t know much more than the above, and probably not any more than the average Bampot wrt Craig Whyte specifically.
The continued subservience of the MSM, and the SFA/SPFL does make one wonder though.
My gut feeling is that there are people in high places who will attempt to make sure their actions/influences are never uncovered.
It could be 20/30 years down the line before we get the ‘full’ picture about what has happened – if at all.
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:00 pm
It could be 20/30 years down the line before we get the ‘full’ picture about what has happened – if at all.
______________________________________________________
FFS I’ll be pushing up daisies by then 😥
jean7brodie says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:06 pm
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:00 pm
It could be 20/30 years down the line before we get the ‘full’ picture about what has happened – if at all.
______________________________________________________
FFS I’ll be pushing up daisies by then 😥
==============================================
Don’t worry jean7brodie, we’ll organise a weekly ouija board seance to collect your inputs to the site… 😕
Was Walter Smith compensation paid to the SFA ?
=================================================
I just received a reply from the Scottish Government as follows;
“…Thank you for your email and apologies that I did not get back to you last week but I receive a lot of emails and am getting back to you as early as I could.
From what I can see you have a specific query about a financial entry (or lack of it) in the SFA accounts dating back to 2007. As you acknowledge yourself these accounts were at the time externally audited precisely to avoid queries of financial impropriety. From what I can see from the email chain the way the payment was to be handled was contained in a private contract which you do not have access to but which the external auditors would have had access to. We are entitled to rely on the Professional expertise and integrity of external auditors who are themselves subject to regulation.
We also have instructed and received a Due Diligence Report from our Delivery Partners, Inspiring Scotland which included a positive assessment of their financial management and performance as a robust partner of the CashBack programme.”
==========================================================================
OK, at least I got a reply.
I have limited audit experience, and hope others can confirm/otherwise.
The reply seems to imply that the auditors ‘knew’ about the payment, and for confidentiality reasons the payment detail was ‘lost’ in the published accounts.
My thinking is that the prescribed format of the published accounts overrides any personal preference for ‘hiding’ any transactions – even if the auditors are sympathetic.
i.e. the payment should still have been a clearly defined, ‘Exceptional Item’ in the publicly available accounts.
Can anyone help here ?
Was Walter Smith compensation paid to the SFA ?
=================================================
Meant to add;
– BDO – no response yet from the SFA auditors in 2007.
– Grant Thornton – no response yet from the SFA current auditors.
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:10 pm
__________________________
Thanks Stevie. I’ll be well toasted/burnt by then though 🙄
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Stevie, if possible, can you post a link to the 2007 SFA accounts, please?
neepheid says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:45 pm
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Stevie, if possible, can you post a link to the 2007 SFA accounts, please?
========================================
Don’t know how/where to link.
I’ve sent the pdf file as a PM attachment to you.
mungoboy says:
November 24, 2014 at 1:45 pm
34 1 Rate This
I read that piece in the DR by our award winning sports hack.
Deary, deary me.
If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that most of that was lifted from Phil’s latest blogs.
The brass content of Keefy’s neck would truly seem to be off the radar.
————————————————————–
I have top admit that I had little chuckle when I read that piece in the DR this morning.
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:34 pm
7 0 Rate This
Was Walter Smith compensation paid to the SFA ?
=================================================
The reply seems to imply that the auditors ‘knew’ about the payment, and for confidentiality reasons the payment detail was ‘lost’ in the published accounts.
My thinking is that the prescribed format of the published accounts overrides any personal preference for ‘hiding’ any transactions – even if the auditors are sympathetic.
i.e. the payment should still have been a clearly defined, ‘Exceptional Item’ in the publicly available accounts.
Can anyone help here ?
==============================================================================
Stevie…I can see what you are trying to achieve here.
However, three things must be borne in mind:
1) The responsibility for the production of accounts, in the accepted manner, and in accordance with the usual accounting “standards” etc lies with the SFA, who must have these audited prior to publication. They alone would decide what would be disclosed, in the body of the accounts or by way of note.
2) The amount of the compensation paid to Lord Cardigan, c. £400k if I recall correctly, would probably be regarded as”not material” to the overall results, based on current criteria (again laid down in prescribed formulae)
3) Again, if the amount of the compensation is £400k, the “exceptional item” disclosure, as laid down by the accounting standard, now superceded, would be deemed “not material”
Merely my own thoughts, and I would sign off without losing much sleep, however, I would imagine some “horse trading” took place prior to sign off.
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:55 pm
2 0 Rate This
neepheid says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:45 pm
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Stevie, if possible, can you post a link to the 2007 SFA accounts, please?
========================================
Don’t know how/where to link.
I’ve sent the pdf file as a PM attachment to you.
======================================================================
Stevie….me too please…?
It may show if I am “talking mince” to use an expression I think I have seen you use! 😉
http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/livingston-charged-by-spfl/?
Martin says:
November 24, 2014 at 5:24 pm
1 0 Rate This
———
Cracker from Neil D. If only he meant it. All go on twitter, also regarding Peterhead and Ayr United — ineligible players anyone?
http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/livingston-charged-by-spfl/?
Martin says: November 24, 2014 at 5:24 pm
http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/livingston-charged-by-spfl/?
=============================
Two “sporting integrity” decisions by the SPFL
A 5 point penalty to Livingston for non disclosure of non payment of tax.
Peterhead ordered to replay a game against Ayr and a fine after playing an ineligible player.
I thought the norm was a 3-0 defeat. Oh wait! this is the Scottish football authorities “make it up as you go along” rule book.
Danish Pastry says:
November 24, 2014 at 5:35 pm
I’ll see your Neil Doncaster quote and raise you – “In the interests of sporting integrity and fairness to both sides, the game will be replayed.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/peterhead-forced-play-ayr-match-4687172?
Re Livingston and Peterhead. Surely an appeal from both Clubs citing past precedent cannot fail. The details are all there.
Further to my post of 3.26 I had a look at the SD Site (covering English football and on seeing a news announcement sent this to Supporters Direct who should pass it to their Scottish equivalent for an answer.
Re the following from your web site
Supporters Direct welcomes Labour proposals for ‘Radical shake-up of football’ Press Release: Supporters Direct welcomes Labour proposals for ‘Radical shake-up of football’
Supporters Direct welcomes the announcement of the Labour Party’s plans for a shake-up of football governance, centred on Supporters Direct’s objective of ensuring fans have a real role in the ownership and running of their clubs.
The most important element of this proposal is the right for Fit and Proper supporters’ trusts to appoint and remove up to a quarter of a football club’s board of directors; this signals the establishment of the formal relationship between supporters’ trusts and their clubs, which we have sought for many years.
No-one in football denies the special social and community nature of football clubs, yet there has always been a resistance to measures across the board that would actually increase the role of those fans in their clubs.
The importance of having a seat at the table where decisions are made has been the central plank of our movement and this organisation since the seeds were sown by our founder, Brian Lomax, at his own Northampton Town in 1992.
We have seen the success of clubs where ownership has been shared willingly and openly with supporters’ trusts. Indeed even the most sceptical of those in football have expressed admiration for this model, not least at Premier League Swansea City.
We also welcome an introduction of a ‘Right to Buy’ of 10% of shares on offer during a change of ownership.
We expect to be a part of the continued discussions around this issue with Clive Efford and his team. We also hope that this serves as message to football itself that the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s findings that demanded a greater role for supporters, real and tangible transparency and more openness in the way our national game is run, are not destined to gather dust on a shelf, like the previous five reports since 1967 on football governance.
We would like to thank Clive Efford and his team for listening and acting on the serious concerns, and for the equally serious proposals made during his consultation process. His willingness to listen, learn – but also argue his point – with fans deserves great credit in a time when politicians are often accused of cynicism.
Figures showing the existing number of directors on the board in the top five divisions in English football’s top five, and Scottish football’s top four divisions are available via the link. – See more at: http://www.supporters-direct.org/press-release/supporters-direct-welcomes-labour-proposals-for-radical-shake-up-of-football#sthash.0ZhTSPxQ.dpuf
Can you tell me if the Scottish Government equivalent of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committees are as committed to improving the governance in Scottish football where the reputation of the SFA is in tatters.
Further to my post of 3.26 I had a look at the SD Site (covering English football and on seeing a news announcement sent this to Supporters Direct who should pass it to their Scottish equivalent for an answer.
Re the following from your web site
Supporters Direct welcomes Labour proposals for ‘Radical shake-up of football’ Press Release: Supporters Direct welcomes Labour proposals for ‘Radical shake-up of football’
Supporters Direct welcomes the announcement of the Labour Party’s plans for a shake-up of football governance, centred on Supporters Direct’s objective of ensuring fans have a real role in the ownership and running of their clubs.
The most important element of this proposal is the right for Fit and Proper supporters’ trusts to appoint and remove up to a quarter of a football club’s board of directors; this signals the establishment of the formal relationship between supporters’ trusts and their clubs, which we have sought for many years.
No-one in football denies the special social and community nature of football clubs, yet there has always been a resistance to measures across the board that would actually increase the role of those fans in their clubs.
The importance of having a seat at the table where decisions are made has been the central plank of our movement and this organisation since the seeds were sown by our founder, Brian Lomax, at his own Northampton Town in 1992.
We have seen the success of clubs where ownership has been shared willingly and openly with supporters’ trusts. Indeed even the most sceptical of those in football have expressed admiration for this model, not least at Premier League Swansea City.
We also welcome an introduction of a ‘Right to Buy’ of 10% of shares on offer during a change of ownership.
We expect to be a part of the continued discussions around this issue with Clive Efford and his team. We also hope that this serves as message to football itself that the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s findings that demanded a greater role for supporters, real and tangible transparency and more openness in the way our national game is run, are not destined to gather dust on a shelf, like the previous five reports since 1967 on football governance.
We would like to thank Clive Efford and his team for listening and acting on the serious concerns, and for the equally serious proposals made during his consultation process. His willingness to listen, learn – but also argue his point – with fans deserves great credit in a time when politicians are often accused of cynicism.
Figures showing the existing number of directors on the board in the top five divisions in English football’s top five, and Scottish football’s top four divisions are available via the link. –
Can you tell me if the Scottish Government equivalent of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committees are as committed to improving the governance in Scottish football where the reputation of the SFA is in tatters.
An ineligible player cannot be deemed ineligible until after it becomes apparent that he is in fact ineligible and this can only happen in retrospect. So because the SFA didn’t know he was ineligible before the game then he is in the clear. Which is more than I am….
StevieBC…many thanks for the PDF re SFA accounts.
Whilst I may not be talking the “full pound of mince”, and if the amount of compensation re Lord Cardigan was indeed £400k, then this amount would appear to me material under two of the three materiality criteria currently in force.
I note that BDO received £20k for audit fees and £5k for “non-audit fees” so I presume that they may have actually produced the accounts as well as audited them.
I think you should keep banging on about it but are unlikely to receive much satisfaction, on the grounds of the passage of time, i.e. 7 years and “commercial confidentiality 🙂
However, I do think it is an area where TSFM may wish to pay some more attention in future…but as John Clark has pointed out, this disreputable outfit take substantial amounts of public funds, but are not subject to FOI regulations! 👿
Ayr-Peterhead.
If only we had a set of written rules to make it clear what should happen in this sort of situation.
essexbeancounter says:
November 24, 2014 at 5:48 pm
…
Whilst I may not be talking the “full pound of mince”, and if the amount of compensation re Lord Cardigan was indeed £400k, then this amount would appear to me material under two of the three materiality criteria currently in force…
=============================================================================
Agreed, £400K was material in the context of the 2007 accounts – and it is inconsistent with other ‘Notes to the Accounts’, quoting lower amounts e.g. £48K receivable from the Scottish Football Museum.
The only ‘wiggle’ room, IMO, is if the compensation paid was nearer £40K, or £4K !
But, at the time of “Walter’s” departure from the SFA, Scotland was looking to qualify for the Euro’s, and the SFA quite rightly rejected Rangers’ approach to speak to Walter.
Rangers was in disarray after the firing of PLG.
Hence Walter had to resign, and loudly complained in the media about the SFA’s ‘unreasonable’ demands for compensation.
So the SFA was in a very strong negotiating position.
Accepting anything less than the quoted c.£400K would have been highly unusual, IMO.
Esteban says:
November 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm
2 0 Rate This
Ayr-Peterhead.
If only we had a set of written rules to make it clear what should happen in this sort of situation.
——
What will the Poles be thinking? As it is, oor authorities would help a losing team gain a replay by using an ineligible player tactically 🙂
#Bonkers
Taysider says:
November 23, 2014 at 12:47 pm
———————————————-
I was sitting a few feet from Peter Lawwell in the presser when he said those words.
It is an accurate quote.
I have him on audio.
SFA not doing anything positive, rather not doing anything at all it seems
SFAs job is to prohibit malfeasance, not let it run, or
Not stick their heads in the sand and hope it just goes away
Major oversight failure on evidence to date
(Not the first time we`ve posted on this!)
They`ll either sort this – or they won`t
Are there no Men guiding Scots Football?
We`ll see soon enough
tp
Is the 127 day review now not worth the paper it was written on,and does it now just look like a big smoke screen. The scouting system was a number one priority on it almost a year ago, and i don’t know if anyone will ask questions at the next AGM (if it goes ahead) what points in the 127 day review ever came to fruition
Danish Pastry says:
November 24, 2014 at 6:13 pm
—
Aye, it’s a chancer’s charter, but that’s part of the risk of making it all up as you go along.
Well, a new progressive newspaper wants feedback. Possibly an opportunity to approach them with suggestions for sports coverage and information about this story? The scandal needs at least one mainstream media outlet to tell the truth. No chance of any of the others doing it.
SPFL Chief Executive Neil Doncaster commented: “The tax default and reporting rules are an integral part of maintaining a fair league competition.”
It all makes sense now. Tax default is an integral part of maintaining a fair league competion.
💡 🙄
Re, the amount of compensation re Lord Cardigan not shown in accounts?
Has this ever happened before, i mean has compensation been paid before to the SFA and has it shown or not shown in accounts ❓
Sorry as i don’t know if StevieBC has already looked out such information.
I would come at the cardigan compo issue from a different tack and ask the auditor on record if they were made aware of, and thus duly accounted for a compensation package widely reported to be £400k. The answer provided which has PR (so a lawyer who failed the exams) written all over it, leaves one outcome, that no such transaction existed, Open which really should be closed off first.
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:55 pm
Stevie, many thanks for sending me a PDF of the 2007 SFA accounts. I also had a look at the press reports around the time the compensation was agreed, and I see that the amount was never confirmed, just “thought to be” £400k. My suspicion is probably the same as yours, that a much lower figure was actually agreed, but the press were fed the £400k figure by some high-up in the SFA (I couldn’t even guess who that might have been 🙄 ) to make it look respectable. The problem is that the SFA will seek to hide behind commercial confidentiality. Perhaps BDO have access to the true figure, as liquidators? Unless of course the relevant paperwork was shredded by a previous regime.
Cluster One says:
November 24, 2014 at 7:29 pm
…
Has this ever happened before, i mean has compensation been paid before to the SFA and has it shown or not shown in accounts ❓
========================
Good point CO: will have a look when I can.
Smugas says:
November 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm
…ask the auditor on record if they were made aware of, and thus duly accounted for a compensation package widely reported to be £400k..
=============================
Yes Smugas, I have asked for the proper contact at BDO to ask that question.
Not too hopeful though.
neepheid says:
November 24, 2014 at 7:31 pm
…My suspicion is probably the same as yours, that a much lower figure was actually agreed…
==============================
I think that is ‘probably’ the case, as whilst I could find SFA statements, and David Taylor being quoted – neither expressly mentioned a pound figure.
So how much was ‘lost’ to Scottish football, e.g. £400K would buy a lot of equipment at grass roots level…
[I also sent the email chain to ‘The National’ – which had quoted wrong email address.
It is letters@thenational.scot ]
So in one day the SPFL/SFA rule book has been shredded!
A suspended player plays and the match is ordered to be replayed AND the player who was suspended looks to be suspended for this one particular match regardless of when it takes place. So technically if the player picks up an injury then the game could be arranged for a time that he cannot actually play.
It begs the question why they backed Celtic in August over the Legia Warsaw case!!
In a separate move Livingstone are fined five points for being behind with tax payments. This from an authority who three years ago seemed to view tax payments as being optional. RFC were, as far as I know, never punished for not paying their taxes but only for going into Administration. It would be interesting to find out how the SPFL discovered Livingstone were behind in their taxes.
Still at least now we do seem to have a set of rules for clubs who fail to pay their dues to the tax man. I have been advocating that for some time however I have a feeling that this rule may become as flexible as the rest of them where one club is concerned shortly.
Is it any wonder we cannot attract a sponsor for our leagues.
There are ‘owls on the moor’ (qaint Danish expression):
PS Stevie, well done, and on spotting the email error. I just lifted the tweet. Have checked and you’re correct.
There is a degree of interest, bordering on indignation, regarding the compensation, of whatever amount payable by RFC(IL) to the SFA in respect of the lost services of Lord Cardigan. Whether this should be shown publicly, be it “in the public interest” or whether it be shown, in whatever manner, in the published accounts of the SFA, has drawn the attention of a few bloggers.
However, I must point out that BDO, acting as auditor to the SFA, have addressed their audit report correctly, and that is to “The MEMBERS of the Scottish Football Association”…and under Company Law and related case law, they have no duty to anyone other than the MEMBERS concerned, which in my interpretation, it is the CLUBS to whom the report is addressed.
Whilst I have commended StevieBC for his efforts to date and suggested that he continued “digging”, the real question(s) should be addressed to the Chairmen of the clubs. Only they as Chairman of the MEMBER club, are entitled to ask the question, at least. Whether they get an answer of course is another matter.
In my opinion. (to crib John Clark’s closing comment)
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
November 24, 2014 at 6:32 pm
—–
Thanks for confirming that Phil. I wonder if you were surprised by a pretty unequivocal endorsement of the principle of sporting integrity and the need to apply the rules by Peter Lawwell?
Long Time Lurker says:
November 24, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Smugas says:
November 24, 2014 at 2:39 pm
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 3:31 pm
A solid poster on the SoS Facebook page stated that a source he trusted announced in the Louden at half time on Saturday that the Ashley camp would be talking to the King camp this week.
Usually I would distrust 3rd hand information but it kinda makes sense in light of some of the other posts on here today.
If Llambias sees no way forward with the present set up then he needs a new set up. Some kind of carve up which sees Kingco gain the SPFL share, SFA membership, Ibrox and MP and Ashley retains Rangers Retail is all both of these sides want but how would they squeeze out the rest?
Plus is it significant that Ashley’s loan of £2m becomes £3m on Wednesday – does that guarantee 75% of the debt and is this figure important?
Anybody help out?
No lambiass needs the existing setup plus someone else’s cash. The only reason a third party like king would invest just is because, unlike Laxey, they’ve been told the alternative and don’t like it. Accepting cash just now has to involve relinquishing control in some way, and Ashley will only do that if there is a method to his apparent madness.
Some really interesting discussions on twitter tonight with @STVGrant @Auldheid @TheClumpany and others.
Must say STV’s Grant is yet again a pretty stand-up guy and engagimg in serious debate.
Bravo Auldheid for concise and twitter-brief expanations of the Euro licence issue. A few cages surely being rattled.
StevieBC says:
November 24, 2014 at 4:34 pm
————
Well done on getting a reply, Stevie. That reads to me like the auditing PR equivalent of the political non-denial denial.
If the £400k had been received, the SFA would have had no problem whatsoever in giving out the info or in seeing it spelled out in the accounts. It’s clear to me that no money, or else a much lower sum than was publicised, was received.
We are watching practised dissemblers at work.
Bryson’s Law:
RFC players were not ineligible to play because their improper registrations were not known to the SFA/SPL at the time they played and ineligibility cannot be applied retrospectively.
but…
The Peterhead player’s ban was known to the SFA/SPFL before he played and so he was ineligible.
Yup, it’s consistent.
As long as you don’t notify the SFA/SPFL in advance that you are about to play an ineligible player, you’re OK.
Someone tell me I’m wrong.
Options
1 Pre pack admin
Pluses. Reduce creditors. Quick and controlled . Low cost
Minuses. Tupe likely to apply , so probably no ability to reduce staff costs. Points deduction. Onerous contracts still in play.
2. Administration
Pluses. Ditch some creditors , administrator fires everyone who’s overpaid or poor value
Minuses. Can be expensive , uncontrolled ,
uncertain outcome. Points deduction. Onerous contracts still in play
3 liquidation.
Pluses. No creditors for Newco, no onerous contracts. No Tupe issues if genuine start from scratch
Minuses. Peter Lawell pledge rules out manipulation. New journey from tier 4 , fans battle fatigued . No bank facilities unless new owner provides substantial guarantees and maybe not even then
5 . New equity.
Pluses. If enough removes threat of short term insolvency.
Minuses. Existing shareholders not keen , therefore dependent on convicted criminal and associates( with no proof they have funds anyway) Onerous contracts still in play. No solution to main problem , which is big club costs with medium club income.
6 emergency loans
Pluses. If similar to previous Ashley loans , zero % interest.
Minuses. What security is required / available. How are loans repaid. Doubtful if Ashley commercial contracts generate enough profit to justify the £8 – £12 million required to get to end June.
7 RIFC Plc becomes a property investment company,leasing Ibrox & Auchenhowie to new club operators
Pluses. Short term fix.
Minuses. Increases football club costs. Onerous contracts still in play. No solution to big club costs with medium club income. No opportunity to remove disproportionate wage contracts.
Overall there doesn’t appear to be a solution that provides anything more than a short term sticking plaster at best.
macflurgy, macflurgy, macflurgy…..haven’t you twigged yet that rules are sometimes rules but sometimes not. You see there is consistency at the SFA etc as sometimes these rules also have set punishments and sometimes these same rules don’t. So there’s the consistency right there.
As for Ayr having to replay, well that’s just the SFA having an eye to innovation and moving the game forward as no other national FA would have the imagination to go against their own or otherwise accepted practice to ensure that the member clubs and supporter plebs are left in awe of the awesomeness of the current bestest adminstrators.
These guys know best, we just don’t know it yet and when Rangers 4 or 9 are top of the SPL we will never hear the end of it and the years of administartive somersaults will be hailed as having been vindicated.
Best just to go shoot yourself now and get it over with.
John Clark says:
November 24, 2014 at 1:39 am
Perhaps the really real enemies of Scottish football have been the partisan hacks, disgraces to their profession, whose distorted and perverted coverage of the disgrace that was SDM ,and whose support for the absolute fiction that TRFC/RIFCplc is the Rangers of their and our boyhood ,has stultified the reasoning power of thousands of honest punters, and encouraged them to be cannon fodder for crooks and swindlers and rip-off merchants.
It is exceedingly difficult to reach out to truth deniers.
——————-
Including the SPFL who maintain the history fiction on their website.
http://spfl.co.uk/clubs/rangers/
it’s forward planning really, ally is bound to need a replay at some point.
Barcabhoy says:
November 24, 2014 at 11:03 pm
‘..Options’
———-
A succinct summary, I think,Barcabhoy. But I would add at Option 3, in the minuses, the possibility that admission to Tier 4 might just be problematical for another ‘new club’, requiring ,as it would, another bit of jiggery pokery and the rolling over of other candidates for admission, or both.
Further jiggery-pokery would really be unthinkable, because the SFA would self-destruct as the general run of honest and properly run clubs would say: sod this for a game of sojers.
Even the Mob and Colombian drug cartels have rules, ffs.
bad capt madman says:
November 24, 2014 at 11:15 pm
————
Dear Capt. Madman,
Thank you for taking the time to explain. It all seems a lot clearer now, although your conclusion does seem a little extreme to me.
All my life they have said I am paranoid. For a long time now I have believed I was down a rabbit hole, where nothing is quite as it seems, but it now turns out I am rational.
Then again, you are mad…
From someone on twitter, using the name @darrylbroadfoot-
“@mccannleo @TheSFMonitor Yet more rubbish. Read P16 of 2008 accounts. ‘Income increased …. with departure of two previous nat coaches'”
This has to be a parody account trying to make the SFA look condescending, aloof and unprofessional. Why bother, though? The real SFA manages that just fine.
easyJambo says:
November 24, 2014 at 5:37 pm
“I thought the norm was a 3-0 defeat.”
———————————–
Here are some previous decisions helpfully posted by TSFM contributors. Without knowing the full details of the cases its difficult to see a precise pattern of infringement and tariff.
Ineligble player – under suspension : Scotland : Apology to UEFA
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=1625
Ineligble player – cup tied : Queen of the South : £20,000 fine for two appearances
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=2792
Two ineligible players – no reason given : Brechin City : Removal from Scottish Cup competition
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=3363
Ineligible player – rule 15b : Elgin City : Scottish Cup game to be replayed
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=4214
Ineligible player – Rule 39.1b : East Stirlingshire : Expelled from Scottish Cup
Ineligble player – cup tied : Livingston : SFA Youth Cup tie to be replayed
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=7114
Ineligible player – administrative error (?) : Hutchison Vale ladies : 3 – 0 result awarded against offending team
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=12672
Ineligible player – incorrectly registered : Spartans : Expulsion form Scottish Cup
http://www.spartansfc.com/2011/11/10/sfa-hearing-outcome/
My dear Macflurgy, glad to help.
It ill behoves others to judge the madness of others other than observation of their actions in consideration of their specific circumstances.
That said, who’s madder in this circumstance? Mad Jack McMad winner of madman of the year, or the blazers of Hampden, or an old captain who’s madness is actually of the angry variety rather than the irrational.
My thanks for your kind words.
Maybe if more folk were madder (angry variety) and shook a few proverbial trees this madness would end sooner.
macfurgly says:
November 24, 2014 at 11:23 pm
‘Including the SPFL who maintain the history fiction on their website.’
———
What further proof is required to condemn the SPFL as liars?
Liars, in calling the club ‘Rangers Football Club’ instead of ‘The Rangers Football Club’ or ‘RIFC plc’ ( each of which has a different Companies House number and separate legal existence from the old RFC)
Liars in saying that TRFC was founded in 1872 when it was in fact founded as Sevco 5088 in 2012.
Liars, in pretending an unbroken connection.
If this was still the 18th century I’d call the lying bast.rd who authorises what appears on the SPFL website out on Glasgow Green, and from a running twenty paces, kick his lying ar.e into the Clyde.
He is a liar, quite simply stating what he knows not to be true.A thoroughly bad ba..tard, pure and simple ( or, rather, impure and devious)
God, that we should have to put up with such wickedness!
Barcabhoy says:
November 24, 2014 at 11:03 pm
Options
Overall there doesn’t appear to be a solution that provides anything more than a short term sticking plaster at best.
……………………..
Sticking plaster …Never
How about
TRFC get a wooden stake in the chest
Pluses
Bears face up to reality
5m Scots get peace
Minuses
None
One of the advantages of Liquidation, again, would be that it would liquidate the 5 Way Agreement.
Armageddon has not happened, there are no football debts to other member clubs, the disgraceful blackmail of social unrest has lost it’s venom as bears have wearied and even the SFA must now be looking for a way to redeem themselves from the consequences of their panic into wickedness.
It would require some sophistry to finesse the distinction between last time and this time to the smsm, but I’m sure they could manage that, although it would mean telling the truth. Catharsis at last for the SFA and competitions we could trust, based on sporting integrity, not fear of financial failure.
SPFL come down hard on Livingston for:-
1. Director having an interest in more than one club
2. Irregular payments to players
3. Defaulting on tax obligations
Points penalty and a fine imposed.
Good too see all clubs being treated fairly and equally.
————————————————————————————–
SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster said: “The tax default and reporting rules are an integral part of maintaining a fair league competition.”