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.
Craig Whyte
. I obviously wish the guy no physical harm but there seems to be a disturbing trend here trying to paint him as a squeaky clean victim. Yes, Rangers were pretty screwed before he came along but he played his part and it’s worth remembering that. Personally I hope they throw the book at him.
Hopefully Mike Ashley will have seen those clips from the courthouse and is now questioning his future involvement in TRFC.
RyanGosling says:
November 28, 2014 at 9:48 pm
________________________________
Craig Whyte is not squeaky clean. None of us are. Why throw the book at him and not others?
RyanGosling says:
November 28, 2014 at 9:48 pm
And Lee Harvey Oswald was a nutter who was up to no good in the book depository with a rifle. But his silencing provided a convenient smokescreen for other elements who may have been involved in the crime. I don’t doubt Oswald was culpable, but I don’t believe for a second he was the only one. So too with White. He’s been a very naughty boy. But other, even naughtier boys have an interest in his silence. Lamb can be both succulent and sacrificial. I wish him physical safety.
RyanGosling says:
November 28, 2014 at 9:48 pm
________________________________
Craig Whyte is not squeaky clean. None of us are. Why throw the book at him and not others?
It would take a whole library to sort out your lot Ryan!
If that’s a genuine question Jean then I’m at a loss for words. Accused of swindling a company out of £27million and you are questioning why the book should be thrown at him (if found guilty)???! Perhaps also the great train robbers were simply misunderstood, the financial crisis was the result of simple mismanagement and Harold Shipman was a good doctor who just didn’t understand prescriptions? Craig Whyte is accused of a monumental crime and has an extremely chequered history. So yes, if found guilty, they should throw the book at him. And if not he should be free to go about his business with no stain on his character from the fraud charge, but will still be banned from being a director because of past misdemeanours. Rotten egg, no matter how much you like him.
Ryan,Ryan,Ryan,
I really think you’re missing the point here.
You really must be the only person here who thinks there is a trend to paint Whyte as a squeaky clean victim.
No one here is on his side but we are all, I think, on the side of fairness in our judicial processes in respect of anyone charged with criminal offences.
The circus we are witnessing thus far is not an edifying one and I hope that it does not go towards a claim of an inability to mount a fair trial.
Some people may have an interest in such an outcome but not here.
We want justice and a justice that is seen to be done fairly.
Let’s leave it there.
RyanGosling says:
November 28, 2014 at 9:48 pm
Ryan
Quite simply if (emphasis on the if) Craig Whyte has broken the law, I don’t think anyone on here would wish other than for justice to prevail.
The concern is the risk of intimidation and worse. I don’t know if you have seen the video posted on the SOS website. Foul threatening language. Beyond that we all know that there has been a history of a lunatic fringe. Bullets in the post, who are these people and where that led to, even a journalist who had the temerity to suggest that many considered a certain club to have died. Justice is justice, the rule of the mob is not.
Mungo thanks for your comment, and you do make a lot of valid points. However, I do sense a spirit of support for Mr Whyte here, he’s even affectionately referred to as Craigie Boy, Agent Whyte etc. For all the anger rightly meted out at David Murray here, Ally McCoist gets it a lot for saying things people aren’t happy with …….
[TSFM Edit]
Taysider for the record I’m not condoning the actions of the mob, I have seen the video and it’s pretty frightening. I just very much doubt the sympathies expressed here would be the same if it was David Murray in the dock with a mob screaming at him. Which doesn’t detract from the fact that I would like to see David Murray in the dock.
Ryan
Honestly I don’t think I’d wish anyone to be treated liked that, certainly neither Whyte nor were the event to arise, David Murray.
I would like to see the truth come out so that all of us, whatever team we support, know who is to blame for what. That should be something that decent fans of every club would wish for. It would be for the long term best for the game in Scotland IMHO.
RyanGosling says:
November 28, 2014 at 9:48 pm
‘…Craig Whyte is a deceitful man who bought at least one business with money he didn’t have and has bankrupted several other businesses….’
———–
I agree.
But I would add that the anger and hatred directed at Whyte is actually misdirected.
The primary culprit for all that happened to destroy the old RFC is SDM, and no other. He may, perhaps, not have been guilty of any offence against the law, civil or criminal, but it is beyond dispute that his megalomaniac-like attitude and his abuse(in my opinion) of the wholly exaggerated status he was accorded by ‘civic society’ and the lickspittles of the SMSM CAUSED the financial disaster that ended the history and existence of a football club.
A disaster that he had not the moral fibre to face up to. Instead, not listening to the wiser counsel of men more rooted in reality than he, he demeaned himself by selling-out, to save his own financial skin, to a man who he most probably knew was a scoundrel! And to add insult to the legions of RFC fans and supporters, sold out for a pound.
In the absolute, I have no sympathy for Whyte. But, like you,and probably every ordinary poster on this blog, I wish him no physical harm.I would hope that the police and other authorities do not expose him to risk of such harm, or deny him his full civil and legal rights.
Relatively, however, in the wider context,[ and I do have to come back to this] Whyte is as the driven snow compared to the FOOTBALL authorities.
Whyte may have been the proximate cause of the ruination and death of one club.
Our football authorities have almost killed the very notion of Sporting Integrity and any belief that our game is clean, threatening thereby to kill Scottish Football altogether as any kind of unrigged, honest sport.
And beneath all that, I believe, lies a convoluted and long history of too close a connection between the football authorities, the SMSM and the now dead club.
And I am not at all sure that even today, those connections might not still be influencing the whole approach to the present situation that the new club, fathered by deceit, now finds itself in.
As said before, the internal business of the new club would only be of the same kind of greater or lesser interest to most of as were,say, the affairs of other troubled clubs IF it were not that a deep dark suspicion lingers, that the Football Authorities will once again kick ‘Sporting Integrity’ into touch, to save it.
Whyte, for me, is a minor figure.
SDM and the Football Authorities? They’re the people against whom our ire should be expressed.
Again, in my opinion.
Don’tcha just love the BBC?
Quality coverage of Craigy-Boy’s appearance at the Sheriff Court – Man, he’s looking good with that Movember tash and goatee; a bit of slick-back Foo-Fighter barnet ….
What was the comment from the erstwhile Reevel? …… “Mr Whyte voluntarily returned from Mexico” …. as we say in the ‘deen: “Fit the F’…” …the only people who voluntarily return from Mexico are you and me on return from Cancun! For younger viewers, watch a movie called “Buster” starring a drummer chappie called Phil Collins to understand why non-holidaymakers go for on tap Tequila-Slammers..
Lookin’ Good Craigy-Boy … :slamb:
Ryan, the level of sympathy is probably proportionate to the media’s hands-off Murray spin. There really seems an attempt to exculpate Murray from any responsibility and paint Whyte as the lone assassin.
Murray was warned not to sell to Whyte. JI allegedly cleaned Whyte’s Google history, something Mr Murray was supposedly aware of. Brighter minds than mine have linked this to a lot financial jiggery pokery way beyond RFC.
That said, there is an element of comedy in the whole thng. And even though Whyte claims to have a huge asset in his pocket, it remains to be seen if he can make it stand up in court.
Meanwhile on Radio Scotland ……
It is understood negotiations are advanced with several investors wishing to plug the funding shortfall ……. Dateline 16th March, 2015 🙄
Now, who’s standing in the way of a top-flight return?
Hibernian
Queen of the South
St Mirren
Ross County
Super-Alistair, can you beat them?
Danish Pastry says:
November 28, 2014 at 11:01 pm
‘And even though Whyte claims to have a huge asset in his pocket, it remains to be seen if he can make it stand up in court’
——–
Ha ha.Good one, DP, if intentional. Even better if not!
John / Danish,
Both making good points in my opinion. John, while I understand what you are saying, I just hesitate to call
a minor figure, if found guilty. And remember that’s before the money he withheld from the taxman. I suspect between the three of us you two were commenting on the wider context and I am referring specifically to Mr Whyte, so I have deliberately not considered the wider context in my comments on the issue. If I did, we’d probably not have anything to talk about because we would agree.
On another note, I apologise if I have been rude to anyone in my comments so far this evening, but I smelt hypocrisy on the blog and I did not care for it.
Ryan
Not hypocrisy I think heavy cynicism of what’s being teed up. Way back in RTC early days I banged on about just what on earth did induce the two parties together for any reason. I had a gut feel for who was behind it and if this can go ahead in a reasoned climate I believe we may at last find out.
RyanGosling says:
November 28, 2014 at 9:48 pm
————————–
Ryan,
I cannot argue with a single word of your post here.
Ironic that my weekend DVD offering is “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”!
I actually tip my hat to you coming on this blog and saying your piece – respect!
I just wish the Rangers fans I know were as pragmatic as you … unfortunately they are not, and Rangers / Sevco chat is off the dinner table agenda thanks to my good lady and the threat of a stiletto on my foot … :slamb:
scapaflow at 4:52 pm (in response to EKBhoy)
Sorry Ekbhoy, but this “or in Celtics case to protect their employees and fans from physical harm.” is risible.
—
I must say I’m very surprised that this comment has had as little reaction, a few references only.
It’s a comment that needs to be challenged, in my opinion, because it invites us to forget exactly how bad things were for Neil Lennon, Paddy McCourt, Niall McGinn, Trish Godman and Paul McBride in the build up to the collapse of Rangers into administration and liquidation in 2011 and 2012.
[]
Thank you lagerbeer. And great name!
Allyjambo says:
November 28, 2014 at 9:02 pm
‘.With Daniel Stewart calling it a day as far as operating as NOMADs,..’
——-
Do we know whether they were pushed out by AIM because of their own financial difficulties? The earlier link provided by torrejohnbhoy at 3.39 pm seems to suggest that they were kicked out as opposed to choosing to go.
I t always seemed to me to be a bit strange that a company that couldn’t manage its own affairs should be thought to be in a position to advise other companies on anything!
I’m really pleased that all the SMSM who ignored the Big Tax Case appeal in Edinburgh were able to attend Glasgow Sheriff Court today; tv cameras and all.
Another sickening example of news presentation Scotland-style.
Thank heavens for John Clark of this parish.
lagerbeer says:
November 28, 2014 at 11:26 pm
‘..Sevco chat is off the dinner table agenda thanks to my good lady and the threat of a stiletto on my foot … ‘
————
It’s the overbright smile with the basilisk stare that I get.I think I’d prefer the stiletto heel!
It’s the threat that we could be shopping the morra’ that gets me every time!
Smugas says:
November 28, 2014 at 11:45 pm
0
0
Rate This
It’s the threat that we could be shopping the morra’ that gets me every time!
===========================================
Simple
Just point to the stushies in every Tesco crack a beer and let her get on with it.
Your only a phone call away these days after all.
Better still. Go to a game. You’ll never hear it ringing.
Ryan…I am with you on this…I have nothing but contempt for the man…put aside for a second the fact he single assisted in the destruction of a football club…he stole money from you and me via non payment of tax…his business background is littered with the misery and destruction of Companies and peoples lives through non payment of bills and acquiring of Companies in distress with the sole aim of taking as much money out of them as possible with no intention of actually turning them round…with no regard to the consequences to ordinary working people…so no…I could not care less what happens to him…he couldn’t care less about anyone else…
What will be interesting as I said yesterday…is what he will cough out to cover his own jacksie…
What will also be interesting based on the allegations is where it goes with regards to the asset sale by duff and phelps to big hauns…given his business relationship to Craig
I note the book value in the recent accounts now show 2 of those assets as 65 million…wonder what the council rates are on that rateable value…and who owns them?…would you rent them or sell?
RyanGosling says:
November 28, 2014 at 11:14 pm
——–
I expressed myself badly.
Anyone found guilty of stealing millions is clearly not a ‘minor’ figure in respect of the damage he may have done. But there are more serious, more far-reaching , damages that may be done by people in positions of trust.I think that’s the point I was trying to make.
Incidentally, I received a reply from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to my email enquiry about the list of witnesses that the DR seemed to have had sight of or been given. It has been passed to their Press Office for their attention.( I’ve only just accessed the email address for ‘blog’ business)
Seriously
What would the “Jaiket” have made of all this.
Internet chat
Secret tapes
Offshore investors/baddies
Onerous contracts
Wi fi jiggery
High and Sheriff courts
Loans various
I wonder did anyone actually ask the man what he thought about it all before he went?
Someone somewhere surely must have?
John Clark says:
November 29, 2014 at 12:33 am
Incidentally, I received a reply from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to my email enquiry about the list of witnesses that the DR seemed to have had sight of or been given. It has been passed to their Press Office for their attention.( I’ve only just accessed the email address for ‘blog’ business)
——————————————
JC
Kind of surprised they did not send it to the Polis to be honest (seems PR is alive and well in the Gov). Disappointing really.
Regards js performance on radio shortbread tonight he did say “that should rangers go into liquidation again”. !!!
On another point its amazing how the knighted ones reputation is still intact, interesting times ahead 🙂
ianagain says:
November 29, 2014 at 12:54 am
‘.Kind of surprised they did not send it to the Polis to be honest (seems PR is alive and well in the Gov)’
—————
Aw, hey, steady on.It was a perfectly innocent email I sent! 😀
Seriously, though,I had no idea that the names of witnesses were made public at all, except, obviously, when they were actually in the witness box!
The idea that witness names are released even before a trial date has been set seems utterly bizarre. More than that, it seems to me to be a dangerous practice, if it IS the practice. There you are, named as a witness, months before a trial date is set: set up to be got at it by God knows what kind of people- bribers? threateners? guys who want to make sure your your testimony is all square?
I’m hoping that it is NOT at all the practice, and that the DR will get its collar felt, and very heavily.Magari!
Carlyle says: November 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm
I agree with Essex. It is shocking that there had to be a S.506 to omit the name of the auditor.
============
Interestingly, the SFA Ltd. accounts for 2007 and 2008 were signed off in the name of ‘BDO Stoy Hayward LLP’.
Hence the problem I have encountered when trying to address my ‘Walter Smith’ compensation query to the relevant auditor…
“The idea that witness names are released even before a trial date has been set seems utterly bizarre”
In Scotland it is common practice to release witness lists before trial. When I covered my first Old Bailey trial and asked for for one they looked at me as if I had come from Mars.
I just watched the video of Craig White leaving court.
I have a friend who was involved in a case where there was possible police misconduct. She was staggered by the extent of police manipulation of the story and their collusion with the media.
Everything about that piece of film portrays exactly what the police want it to portray.
Cygnus X2 says:
November 29, 2014 at 5:06 am
£££££££
When was the last time you saw an innocent man doing the ‘perp walk’ from a sheriff court?
Like every other accused CW could have left by another, more discreet exit?
briggsbhoy says:
November 29, 2014 at 1:10 am
21 0 Rate This
————
You are correct @Briggsy. Though I was thinking more of his qualifying remark, ‘When Newco started, there was a chance for a clean slate.’
His mention of ‘liquidation again’ was at least use of the word. The current spin is only referencing admin and drawing parallels to Hearts, which is repeating a lie. I see any mention of liquidation as a positive — also for fair-minded supporters like Ryan. The truth will set you free, and all that.
PS Morning all. Chilly. Designer beard weather
Just on the grand theft conspiracy. Whilst I absolutely understand the point Ryan is making it is equally unfair to assume that CW is walking around with 27m blue pounds in his back pocket. For starters, burglars don’t tend to rob your house and then pay off the mortgage on the way out of the window!
Am I right in thinking that accounts for RFC(IL) for 11/12 never surfaced so we actually can’t quantify the knicked em quantum?
Just on the ‘Montford List’. I notice you left operating for 15 years at a loss run on someone else’s money off it. I’m guessing the big man would have been none too impressed at that either!
Be in absolutely no doubt. The Craig Whyte circus (the first act of which we saw on our TV screens yesterday) will fuel Sevco fans’ bizarre sense of victimhood, only matched by their odious sense of entitlement. As others have alluded, it will be a convenient distraction from the truth and the bigger picture.
posmill says:
November 28, 2014 at 10:14 pm
Spot on posmill. I particularly liked “lamb can be both succulent and sacrificial”. I hope the even naughtier boys you alluded to are beginning to get a touch nervous now. It’s high time that this dam they have built gave way.
On another note, is it not about time you penned another ditty that Mr Cosgrove could kindly read out on Off The Ball?
Coming back to Sevco fans and their sense of entitlement (9:15 am, too late to edit) one of the most absurd examples of this is the regularly repeated claim that the SPL withheld prize money for finishing 2nd in 2011-12. Factually correct but utterly fails to acknowledge that the only reason they were actually able to fulfil their fixtures was by deliberately not paying PAYE and NI. Cognitive dissonance at its finest!
Bryce Curdy says
November 29 2014 @ 9.28am
“Deliberately not paying PAYE and NI”
Add to that the VAT,most of which had actually been collected from said fans.
Ianagain @ 11.52pm
If you genuinely believe that that tactic is working then you’ve got a gravy boat of trouble heading your way!
but I smelt hypocrisy on the blog
whoever smelt it………
John Clark says:
November 28, 2014 at 11:32 pm
Allyjambo says:
November 28, 2014 at 9:02 pm
‘.With Daniel Stewart calling it a day as far as operating as NOMADs,..’
——-
Do we know whether they were pushed out by AIM because of their own financial difficulties? The earlier link provided by torrejohnbhoy at 3.39 pm seems to suggest that they were kicked out as opposed to choosing to go.
I t always seemed to me to be a bit strange that a company that couldn’t manage its own affairs should be thought to be in a position to advise other companies on anything!
__________________________________
I’m pretty certain they wouldn’t have been given much choice by the honourable gents running the AIM, but as is the norm, particularly amongst upper-class spivs, they would have been given the opportunity to move out without too much blackening of their name. Keeps the negative publicity for all concerned down.
The important thing now is, for TRFC, can they secure yet another NOMAD prepared to work for a company on the verge of insolvency, as per the latest accounts? Even if they do manage to get one, will they back a share issue under these circumstances?
It’s been said on here before that RFC and TRFC have both got out of jail free on so many occasions, there must come a point when all the eggs in their basket are bad and maybe that point has arrived!
Some of those bad eggs:-
Disaster of a balance sheet.
Can no longer claim to be ‘debt free’.
Promotion less certain than ever imagined.
Supporters wising up (well some are).
Even some of the media might be wising up (a long shot, that one).
Some of the main players to appear in court on fraud charges with others called to give evidence that could (one might hope) lead to their parts in the ‘Rangers Downfall’ (cheers Phil) being brought out into the open.
TRFC’s little helpers at Hampden might be getting a bit fatigued by it all and less able to help – especially as so much of the current mess is outside of football.
The board are fractured.
There are a number of ‘Rangers men’ causing no end of trouble for TRFC.
Onerous contracts etc. etc. etc…
When will our football authorities take their hands from their ears and eyes and demand assurances from those at Edmiston Drive that they will be able to fulfill their fixtures for the rest of the season? We should be telt!
Danish Pastry says:
November 29, 2014 at 9:01 am
‘..The current spin is only referencing admin and drawing parallels to Hearts, which is repeating a lie..’
—–
The sub-editor responsible for the paragraph quoted below has taken the art of deliberate journalistic deception to new Goebbelsian heights:
” Celtic and Rangers have not faced each other since Rangers fell out of the top flight in 2012, crippled by financial woes”.[today’s print edition,back page, inset panel alongside Stephen Halliday’s piece.Not that Halliday himself would have written the quoted para. At least I hope not.]
I am tempted to resort to plain, everyday, bar-room- speak, and just say that I think he’s a lying b..tard, whose ar.e I would like to kick very,very hard indeed, if I were not such a peaceful, non-violent type.
The thought that guys like that think we all have heids like tumshies is utterly insufferable.
And that such a lying s.d should enjoy ‘journalistic privileges’ is a further indication of how low have sunk our newspapers.
davythelotion says:
November 29, 2014 at 8:31 am
Cygnus X2 says:
November 29, 2014 at 5:06 am
Like every other accused CW could have left by another, more discreet exit?
——————————————————-
I am not commenting on the circumstances as they relate to CW but simply the situation of an accused person entering and leaving Glasgow Sheriff Court.
Virtually all do so through the front door and to have access to another entrance/exit requires the permission and assistance of the Court administration and staff. It is seldom used and then only in exceptional circumstances.
Whether an offer is made and accepted/declined by an accused is unlikely to be made public knowledge as that would defeat the purpose.
Turning to the more particular IMO the police have shamefully failed twice in recent days to keep order by controlling the precinct and perimeter of the court.
Indeed I have seen the families and friends of the victims of serious crime be given shorter shrift as they tried to express their anguish at what has happened to loved ones.
It wasn’t just the protesters who were out of order but the press corps helped fuel the flames and also seriously impeded police attempts to get CW away from the court, into his car and off the scene.
It bodes ill for the future of Scottish Justice and IMO it will take strong jurors to be able to dismiss the scenes which will no doubt be repeated at subsequent trials which might be held before a jury.
I would imagine that if I was the defence solicitor for an accused who aroused similar displays of mob rule I would be pointing to the police failings and be demanding a change of venue. Why do I get the feeling that that might suit the police and other authorities?
However I have to applaud one quick-thinking cop whose voice cuts in at the end of the protestor’s video obviously trying to defuse the situation and disperse a mob baying for blood by telling them: ‘He’ll be back on Monday’.
Of course Monday sees the court closed for the St Andrews Day holiday 😆 😆 😆
A medal for that man who obviously is well aware of the penchant for some angry Bears to march on empty buildings with no letterboxes to vent angst at their inability to stop the march of history.
James Doleman says:
November 29, 2014 at 3:12 am
‘…In Scotland it is common practice to release witness lists before trial. ‘
——–
Thank you, JamesD.
I suppose, thinking about it, it might be seen to be fair to an accused that the names of those who will or may be called to give testimony against him/her should be in the public arena as much as information about the charges preferred against him/her are.
But I was surprised to learn that it is the practice.
Great educational blog, this, in all manner of issues of civic awareness!
‘He’ll be back on Monday’.
Of course Monday sees the court closed for the St Andrews Day holiday
A medal for that man who obviously is well aware of the penchant for some angry Bears to march on empty buildings with no letterboxes to vent angst at their inability to stop the march of history.
Thanks, that has made my day and put a wee smile on my face 🙂
ecobhoy says:
November 29, 2014 at 11:04 am
‘.. trying to defuse the situation and disperse a mob baying for blood by telling them: ‘He’ll be back on Monday’.’
———-
Why does my mind conjure up an image of a lean-jawed sheriff of Drygulch reassuring the lynch mob that ‘ We’re gonna do everything right legal, boys.He’ll get a fair trial on Monday when the judge rides in, and then we’ll hang him!’
Maybe I watched too many ‘B’ Western movies in the old ‘Black Cat’ on Springfield Road. 🙂
Odious character that he is, Craig could soon become the bampots darling and the bears’ worst nightmare and the establishment’s nemesis.
If he chooses to squeal because he feels he has been stitched up (Murray, Green) or is being stitiched up (SMSM, Establishment, Fans) his archives (emails, letters, recordings) could lead to a trial lasting many months and leaving no-one faintly connected unexamined and unexposed. I see Craig as an isolated, lonely character who may think he has nothing much to lose. so screw the lot of them, I’ll have my year in court.
On that basis, I’d say there are a lot of influencial people who really should be pampering this goat rather than tethering it on the edge of the forest in the dead on night – if only in their own self interest.
Esteban says:
November 28, 2014 at 11:29 pm
Context, Esteban, context.
I have no trouble in accepting that the mayhem argument was a consideration in the reaction to the LNS decision, along with the certitude of a disrepute charge.
However, when the mayhem argument is applied to the shenanigans around the entry of Rangers MkII into the league, it is not only risible but offensive, because it is at complete variance with the actions of the personnel on the boards.
When you are on the board of an organisation that is making a decision with which you profoundly disagree, you have two choices:
1. You can resign, which two people did.
Or
2 You can accept the decision.
If you choose to accept the decision, then as surely as night follows day:
You choose to accept collective responsibility
You become culpable for the consequences of the decision
You become complicit.
Over the coming months, we are going to find that, in Scottish Football, as in much else, “There are no Gods, and precious few heroes”
Bryce Curdy says:
November 29, 2014 at 9:28 am
34 1 Rate This
Coming back to Sevco fans and their sense of entitlement (9:15 am, too late to edit) one of the most absurd examples of this is the regularly repeated claim that the SPL withheld prize money for finishing 2nd in 2011-12. Factually correct but utterly fails to acknowledge that the only reason they were actually able to fulfil their fixtures was by deliberately not paying PAYE and NI. Cognitive dissonance at its finest!
=====================================
“Aye, bit that wusnae us, it was Craig Whyte”
Allyjambo says:
November 29, 2014 at 11:00 am
Supporters wising up (well some are)
==============================================
I agree with the various points you made but the one above is interesting.
I note the Union Bears have declared that they are ending their boycott of Ibrox and decided it only strengthens the position of those destroying their club.
Bits of their statement summing-up their position:
Whether the UB boycott or don’t is for them to decide and whether they buy shares or not is equally their decision.
They are a small group but do provide a bit of colour and atmosphere in the stadium so I have to accept that on their return they might not be welcomed by open-arms from Board members.
However IMO if they think the boycott has failed then I see the purchasing of shares in Rangers being an even bigger damp squib when it comes to having any control over the Blue Room incumbents.
Another bit of the UB statement adds:
Their club – their choice! But as an old cynic I can’t help but feel if they get it wrong then their children and grandchildren will pay the price.
More on Craig as darling, nightmare and nemesis
A tactical leak of Craig’s witness list (provisional) might get a few sphincters twitching: Murray, D, Murray, P, Bain, McIntyre, Greig, McClellan, King, Smith, McCoist, Regan, Doncaster, Longmuir, Ogilvie, Ballantyne, Green, Salmond
There is an article in today’s DR with Chris Graham ridiculing Mike Ashley as a saviour. The article also highlighted something that I missed in my first look through the accounts.
In Note 3 the “cost of inventories recognised as an expense” was listed as £4.639M, up from £691K the previous year.
This does look like the cost to the club of the Retail setup.
It is also apparent that Rangers paid an extra £411K as part of a guaranteed purchase deal.
I don’t know what the split of profits is between TRFC and SDI (Chris Graham suggests 50/50) but the only thing you can be certain of is that the only profitable part of the whole business is the Retail arm and that the contracts mean that the Club does not get full value from the sales.
John Clark says:
November 29, 2014 at 12:33 am
Incidentally, I received a reply from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to my email enquiry about the list of witnesses that the DR seemed to have had sight of or been given.
====================================================
I very much doubt that the DR has been given a list of witnesses. Looks more to me that McCoist blew the whistle on his own communication from the prosecution which was most likely making arrangements for a precognitionto be taken.
The primary reasons for precognosing potential witnesses in Scotland is to discover whether they have anything useful to add to the Crown Case. If not they ain’t called as a witness. Similarly that’s why the Defence also precognoses potential witnesses as well.
As to the other names mentioned by the DR which I think included DM and WS then any journo with more than one brain cell once he knew about McCoist’s letter would know that the precognition process was underway.
It’s an easy jump to then deduce that the likes of DM and WS might also be subject to precognition. Or even easier – just phone McCoist and ask if he knew as he might have been on the phone to his old mates and the topic came up in the course of conversation. I would imagine it might be a hot topic in certain circles 😆
Also worth remembering that many names apear on witness lists but the individuals are never called to give evidence for a varioety of reasons.
ecobhoy says:
November 29, 2014 at 11:33 am
Even here they are showing signs of ‘wising up’ as they’ve decided to save their money until after Christmas before returning to Ibrox. Possibly the best Christmas many of their children will ever know 😉
The Shower Scene
No not Psycho, but Dallas. Am I the only once sensing that there are those who would like The Rangers, White, Green et al are being positioned like Bobby Ewing’s dream sequence, used to wiped out the inconvenient events of a whole season of Dallas – and bring back dead and dis-creditied major characters, alive, well, beaming with integrity and unaware of the erased events.
They couldn’t could they ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_%281978_TV_series%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_sequence
mcfc says:
November 29, 2014 at 11:23 am
Odious character that he is, Craig could soon become the bampots darling and the bears’ worst nightmare and the establishment’s nemesis.
If he chooses to squeal because he feels he has been stitched up (Murray, Green) or is being stitiched up (SMSM, Establishment, Fans) his archives (emails, letters, recordings) could lead to a trial lasting many months and leaving no-one faintly connected unexamined and unexposed. I see Craig as an isolated, lonely character who may think he has nothing much to lose. so screw the lot of them, I’ll have my year in court.
On that basis, I’d say there are a lot of influencial people who really should be pampering this goat rather than tethering it on the edge of the forest in the dead on night – if only in their own self interest.
=========================================================
Agree with the comments above. CW doesn’t have much left to lose now, already has published judgments to address.
The next few months will be a fair show to watch.
There are so many strands to this whole piece, there is 1 item which may need further thought, wrt the Lloyd’s TSB monies, publicly reported at £18m.
There are numerous regulations and also globally accepted codes of conduct wrt an approved organisation receiving monies, particularly which may appear as succulent substantial amounts.
Will be interesting to see how that subject is dealt with.
John Clark says:
November 29, 2014 at 11:14 am
James Doleman says:
November 29, 2014 at 3:12 am
‘…In Scotland it is common practice to release witness lists before trial. ‘
——–
Thank you, JamesD.
I suppose, thinking about it, it might be seen to be fair to an accused that the names of those who will or may be called to give testimony against him/her should be in the public arena as much as information about the charges preferred against him/her are.
But I was surprised to learn that it is the practice.
Great educational blog, this, in all manner of issues of civic awareness!
=================================================================
Well things have certainly changed since last I had any contact with criminal procedures.
I have never ever known of witness lists being made public in criminal proceedings. I think most people would understand why and the opportunities it provides to identify people whose evidence might put a dangerous away for the rest of their life.
What I have seen in certain courts is informal access to witness lists – usually prosecution – usually when a trial actually begins for journalists known to the court.
The accused’s case is not in any way harmed by witness lists not being made public and his defence will have been notified of the Crown List and have the opportunity to precognose these witnesses as to the evidence they will speak to.
So if witness lists are now made public before a criminal trial I regard that as a retrograde step in respect of Justice being served and another disincentive to witnesses coming forwars or admitting having seen anything.
It’s hard enough for a lot of witnesses to go into the box and finger dangerous people but a much more serious matter for them to know that their identity could be known to the accused and his associates before the trial even begins. Think of the worry and fear that entails especially if they have anonymous enquiries as to their health and that of their family.
I would also repeat that in my experience the level of information released wrt alleged allegations against CW is very unusual under Solemn Procedure.
Still concerned about the media reporting of legal matters surrounding Craig Whyte. Headlines that he is here ‘to face the music’ imply guilt that has yet to be established. He is so far guilty of being in charge of Rangers when tax was withheld but that was dealt with via insolvency law. The authorities need to get a grip, and soon. A thirst for vengeance from a large section of the angry public and media should not impact on the scales of justice. Getting a bit p*ssed off with it all.
The ‘whodunnit’ currently spinning out of the liquidating remains of rangers reminds me of an Agatha Christie plot.
Two dimensional characters are carefully lined up as the culprit, some are cleared early in the story, some are part of the gathering in the library. At the denoument, a character, who was not previously in the frame, is revealed as the guilty party.
James Forrest says:
November 28, 2014 at 6:13 pm
I’ve followed, with interest, the debate over whether Mike Ashley’s “dual ownership” issues will dog the Ibrox club when it comes to playing in Europe … a couple of hours research on this site and elsewhere would tend to suggest that are much bigger problems than that …
One for you Auldheid my man 🙂
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/not-playing-in-europe/
=============================
A fine article James involving the kind of research journos say they have no time to do. Lucky bloggers exist eh and good that you have set the issues out as a point of future reference for all.
At the time of the IPO I wondered at anyone buying into the TRFC CL dream route to success. It disrespected competing clubs in Scotland, particularly Celtic with money and an extensive infrastructures in place, and was maybe even constructed with an underlying belief that these things could be balanced by “other factors” as in the past.
I thought it a nonsense, insane even because it depended on a return to a model that had clearly failed (and still needs fixed by more equitable sharing of CL money or changed league boundaries.) Anyone buying shares on that CL basis knew nothing about football (but perhaps much about milking it)
Here is an interesting snippet on the provision of future financial forecasts. That depends on a club failing one or more of a number of indicators. Failing to pay overdue tax fails Indicator 4.
In September 2011 UEFA told the SFA that the Art 66 submission re overdues payable at 30 June 2011 was ok and that as a result no future financial forecasts were required, (although UEFA wanted a statement with regard to the recent significant event [which was probably Sherriff Officers calling in August]which was duly supplied.)
In a similar Art 66 case the following year involving Malaga who had declared overdue tax but said they were talking to Spanish tax authorities, UEFA put a marker on Malaga’s application and called for future financial forecasts in the same July to Sept timeframe.
One does wonder at the absence of similar action in July/Aug/Sept of 2011 but lets leave that to the Res12 wheels’ fine grinding.
However the other significance of summer 2011 is that had UEFA called for future financial forecasts, it would have been clear to them that RFC were a busted flush at least 5 months before HMRC pulled the plug in Feb 2012. Imagine that!
So as you say all in all there are a number of UEFA FFP “mines” littering TRFC’s voyage if it survives long enough to try to cross the channel.
One point re getting into Europe early via a Scottish Cup win although it does not effect your conclusions (in fact they reinforce my view based on Article 12 of FFP it could not be allowed) is that a club reaching qualifying point on sporting merit can apply to the SFA under Article 15 of FFP to be considered. They can put forward a case and recommend but UEFA ultimately take the final decision. I’ll post the relevant rules next for info.
This regulation was to cover clubs from divisions not covered by UEFA FFP standard licensing and so not having a UEFA licence, to gain admission. It was not envisaged as a quick route back for delinquent clubs, especially new ones as far as UEFA are concerned who lack 3 years uninterrupted membership of their national association.
Finally I too was pleased to hear PL speak of domestic FFP. I reckon Celtic have long wanted it since 2011 at least, but to introduce it too quickly would have killed off so many clubs there would have been no one left to play. I think that with clubs becoming more financially healthy (if not wealthy) the opportunity to stop unsustainable business models will be taken.
Re my previous on early entry to CL via sporting merit the following provides the rules and my assessment of TRFC’s chances made around March time when the SC looked a possibility.
Anyway here are the rules.
” In an earlier post you raised the possibility of the SFA bricking it if RIFC were to win the SC or be runners up to Scottish title winners.
They would indeed as would UEFA, as it would require UEFA to make a decision on whether Article 12 should be put aside and on the SFA to ask UEFA, because of the process that Article 15 sets in train, to make that decision.
Art 12 in simplistic terms requires a club to have been members of a national association for three years before it can be granted a licence to play in a UEFA competition. It is the failure to meet this requirement that stops RIFCs being able to qualify on sporting merit grounds until 3 years after 3 August 2012 (or thereabouts). It is there to stop a club shedding its debt and carrying on as before and to protect the integrity of UEFA competition.
However Article 15 opens the door to the unwanted dilemma. Should sporting merit take precedence over sporting integrity?
The Art 15 rule is obviously designed to allow a club not in the top tier and so not subject to UEFA licensing standards, who have won a national trophy, to be granted a UEFA licence for that year.
It does not envisage the sort of situation that Scottish football has risked creating where a club is removed from the top tier because it was liquidated, but allowed to return at a lower tier as if it were not.
Art 15
1 If a club qualifies for a UEFA club competition on sporting merit but has not undergone any licensing process at all or has undergone a licensing process which is lesser/not equivalent to the one applicable for top division clubs, because it belongs to a division other than the top division, the UEFA member association of the club concerned may – on behalf of such a club – request an extraordinary application of the club licensing system in accordance with Annex IV.
2 Based on such an extraordinary application, UEFA may grant special permission to the club to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition subject to the relevant UEFA club competition regulations. Such an extraordinary application applies only to the specific club and for the season in question.
Annex IV says
ANNEX IV: Extraordinary application of the club licensing system
1. The UEFA administration defines the necessary deadlines and the minimum criteria for the extraordinary application of the club licensing system as specified in Article 15(1) and communicates them to the UEFA member associations at the latest by 31 August of the year preceding the licence season.
2. UEFA member associations must notify the UEFA administration of such extraordinary application requests in writing and stating the name of the club concerned by the deadline communicated by the UEFA administration.
3. The UEFA member associations are responsible for submitting the criteria to the club concerned for the assessment for the extraordinary procedure at national level. They must also take immediate action with the club concerned to prepare for the extraordinary procedure.
4. The club concerned must provide the necessary documentary proof to the licensor that will assess the club against the fixed minimum standards and forward the following documentation in one of the UEFA official languages to the UEFA administration by the deadline communicated by the latter:
a) a written request to apply for special permission to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition;
b) a recommendation by the licensor based on its assessment (including the dates and names of the persons having assessed the club);
c) all documentary evidence provided by the club and the licensor as requested by the UEFA administration; (like who actually owns you?)
d) any other documents requested by the UEFA administration during the extraordinary procedure. (Ra DEEDS?)
5. The UEFA administration bases its decision on the documentation received and grants special permission to enter the UEFA club competitions if all the set criteria are fulfilled and if the club ultimately qualifies on sporting merit. The decision will be communicated to the UEFA member association, which has to forward it to the club concerned.
6. If such a club is eliminated on sporting merit during this extraordinary procedure, the UEFA member association concerned has to notify the UEFA administration immediately, and this procedure is immediately terminated, without further decision. Such a terminated procedure cannot be restarted at a later stage.
7. Appeals can be lodged against decisions made by the UEFA administration in writing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in accordance with the relevant provisions laid down in the UEFA Statutes.
*the circumstances of course being Albion Rovers tank The Rangers and win the SC. (and Naw I’m no sure if they would get in as runners up to the winners, I do have a life you know )
Thanks for the detailed reply, Auldyin. I take it that the membership for less than three years will prohibit Sevco this year and over-rule any SFA support then.
Well if UEFA think Article 12 important enough to create with regard to integrity of UEFA competitions, they are unlikely to agree to another Article (15) meant for clubs who do not fall foul of Article 12, to circumvent Art 12.
Then there is the Derry precedent so it is highly unlikely, but such is the dark power of the darkside ya never can be 100% sure.
A wee bit added info on when the 3 years exile is up.
NewRangers obtained SFA membership at start of August 2012 (3rd?)
The UEFA licensing cycle in 2015, if the date used this years applies, will need to be completed in terms of the SFA submitting a list of applicant, by 31st May 2015
NewRangers will not have been members of the SFA as UEFA see it by 31st May 2015, they are 2 months and a few days short of consideration.
UEFA set the final submission date although the SFA set when they start the process.
Now whilst the suspicion will be that the date will be delayed to favour NewRangers it will not be the SFA who set the final submission date and UEFA will already have scheduled in the start date of qualifying rounds in Jun 2015, so room to wriggle is too tight.
So it looks like season 2016/17 at the earliest for a return to Europe for fans assuming NewRangers have qualified, and by Europe I mean the Europa League not the CL, God knows when they will get a sniff at that as matters stand.
Did the guys investing on the basis of UEFA money do their homework in terms of when to expect any return?
Union of Fans: Put the money you used to spend on Rangers merchandise and funding Ashley’s empire of zero hour contracts into something worthwhile.
Mike Ashley: You know what I’m going to throw however many millions at this until we are in the Champions league group stages every year
Union of Fans: Come on bears, we need to spend all our cash in Sports Direct.
ecobhoy says:
November 29, 2014 at 11:33 am
From UB statement
Although we return to Ibrox on a permanent basis we won’t be doing so as supporters of the regime. Yes our money will be going towards their bonuses and onerous contracts in the short term, but the Union Bears will throw our weight behind another path towards long term change and that is fan ownership, and more specifically Rangers First.
——————————————————————————–
Known that your money is not going to your club and no real other plan at the moment is a worrying prospect not only for the UB who attend games at Ibrox. The people behind the club at the top level do not care a toss about the team and their fans they just want to see the seats occupied in the stadium, this is a sad reality of where this club is at the moment and even sadder our SFA know this and are doing nothing as far as I know. IMO if the Govan stands where empty then one of the money making mechanism has been removed and money is the key word at Ibrox as the recent accounts have shown. The more people who pay in just gives them more money and keeps this fiasco alive.
easyJambo says:
November 29, 2014 at 11:55 am
=======================================
Yea the accounts definitely throw-up some interesting insights into the retailing operation. Especially the one about Rangers having to pay more for merchandise than its retail price if I understand it correctly. Although if I do my mind still boggles at that.
But what I simply don’t get is when is the share of profit accruing to Rangers Retail Ltd ever going to be released to TRFCL? And what’s stopping it?
Rangers Retail is meant to be a company where TRFCL was the majority shareholder but we all know that was a sham that Green used to keep the Bears onside and indeed to all intents and purposes it is completely under the control of SportsDirect on any financial matters through the different classes of shares issued which guarantee SportsDirect control.
Surely it must be a dereliction of duty on the part of a previous Rangers Board to not have some kind of clause that allowed them to remove accrued profits from the joint venture company.
At a time of desperate lack of cash flow for Rangers the money is just sitting there seemingly untouchable. I have often wondered whether it is actually guaranteeing loans which may have already been advanced or that will be in future?
All very strange but then nothing unusual there given how Rangers usually goes about its business.
If,as we are consistently being told, that Rangers emerged debt free from administration and then liquidation then surely the man responsible for this is Craig Whyte. Surely he is in fact the ‘Saviour’ and should be heralded as such. All the other issues that have blighted the club/company have happened since he departed.
upthehoops says:
November 29, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Still concerned about the media reporting of legal matters surrounding Craig Whyte. Headlines that he is here ‘to face the music’ imply guilt that has yet to be established. He is so far guilty of being in charge of Rangers when tax was withheld but that was dealt with via insolvency law. The authorities need to get a grip, and soon. A thirst for vengeance from a large section of the angry public and media should not impact on the scales of justice. Getting a bit p*ssed off with it all.
===============================================
I accept your comments and without being negative toward, it should be bourne in mind, any previous circumstances have not yet been fully dealt with.
Hence, the Liquidators involvement.
Folks, I am a bit concerned about two things in the aftermath of the circus yesterday at the Sheriff Court.
1. There are some theories/suspicions concerning alleged behaviour, criminal and otherwise, of Craig Whyte (and others) being presented matter of factly as truth. Please be careful and responsible before posting comments.
2. The history (truthful or otherwise) of any individuals charged with criminal offences is not appropriate for discussion here in the run up to any court proceedings. That might seem a bit restrictive, but I don’t think there is any real problem with it considering the wide range of discussion even within the RFC/TRFC topic.
I should also add that concern for the rights of the accused should be the least we expect from posters, and should not in any way be inferred as us condoning events that have taken place over the last few years.
Failure to observe this advice will not only endanger the blog, but will also assist the orchestrated “Murray is a victim!” campaign in the MSM.
It is firmly our belief that Murray is very definitely Patient Zero – and we certainly don’t want to be assisting those who are in denial over that.
Carfin’s,
Craig Whyte saved Rangers FC by not paying the PAYE and NI contributions, for a few months anyway. If the dues were paid, the club would have folded mid season. Maybe if this had happened, even the Sevconians would not have been able to buy into the clumpany myth?
He is the guy who saved the brand, he should be lauded as such. The guy that destroyed the club………. I think I know, you decide for yourself.