A spectre is haunting Scottish Football

Posted on by

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.

 

 

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.

About Trisidium

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

4,164 thoughts on “A spectre is haunting Scottish Football”


  1. torrejohnbhoy 4:36 pm is correct. The Golden Boot award was suspended in 1991 and replaced in 1996 by The Golden Shoe Award in 1996 which introduced a weighting according to the nationality of the league in which the striker played. McCoist would have won in 1992 and 1993 under The Golden boot rules but I honestly don’t know if the weighting would have changed the outcome.


  2. neepheid says:
    December 18, 2014 at 9:40 am

    “That can only mean, surely, that where the evidence is not conclusive either way, but the demeanour or whatever of the defendant does not merit a “Not Guilty” verdict, then “Not Proven” would be the obvious result.”
    ——————————
    I’d go along with your train of thought in general but I wasn’t convinced by the above statement.

    In a criminal trial ‘not proven’ should really equate to ‘not guilty’ in my opinion. If you can’t agree a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt then the prosecution has failed to prove it’s case. I know the Scottish judiciary have a penchant for ‘not proven’ as it gives them another button to play with but it’s presence in Scottish jurisprudence appears to be anomalous and many find it unsatisfactory.

    In tribunals using a ‘balance of probability’ measure then the ‘not proven’ verdict appears utterly anomalous to me. You aren’t necessarily trying to prove anything in these fora you are merely balancing possibilities against each other. What this verdict says to me in these circumstances is that the arbiters think he done it but can’t prove it. To me that sounds like guilty on the balance of probability.

    I know the law and sporting rules can become involuntarily enmeshed and this is unfortunate though necessary on occasions. To voluntary entangle these two systems lacks wisdom.


  3. Bryce Curdy says:
    December 18, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    torrejohnbhoy 4:36 pm is correct. The Golden Boot award was suspended in 1991 and replaced in 1996 by The Golden Shoe Award in 1996 which introduced a weighting according to the nationality of the league in which the striker played. McCoist would have won in 1992 and 1993 under The Golden boot rules but I honestly don’t know if the weighting would have changed the outcome.
    ==============================================================
    Now I’ve read the weighting scheme I just don’t care anymore ….

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Golden_Shoe


  4. mcfc 4:42 pm

    See 4:49 above. I largely agree, although recent winners do not seem random or less than gold standard 😉 .

    The main point I was making however was that regardless of league, Stoichkov and Pancev were not undeserving winners of such an award, just because they played outwith The Premiership, Serie A or La Liga. Apologies if that is not what you intended to imply.


  5. He’s back. There’s never, ever a dull moment when Steff’s around.


  6. tcup 2012 says:
    December 18, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    D&P announced Live on national TV who won the bid as preferential bidder
    Sevco 5088
    ===================================================
    We simply read out an honest clerical error M’lud 😉


  7. Bryce – absolutely. But it is a serious point that just because people might disagree with him (and to be clear I am not saying that I am one of those people!) is not reason to delete posts.

    Just saying…

    Say as much as you like – as long you don’t play the man like the poster concerned did – or even jump to a conclusion based on a guess like you have.

    We don’t really care about opinions, but the manner in which they are introduced matters a lot to this blog.
    And any comment on moderation should be on the mod thread.
    TSFM


  8. blu says:
    December 18, 2014 at 11:07 am

    “– there are only two possible outcomes. The case referred by the Compliance Officer is either proven or not proven.”
    ————————————–
    😳


  9. tayred 5:05 pm – even if he does have some sort of case (and I’m not entirely disagreeing with that either), he comes across as somebody who is just looking for a fight. Mods were right to delete. Why they appear to have deleted my initial post about Ally’s ‘Super’ credentials is another matter mind you 😉 .

    Maybe you should look at the personal aspect of the post with regard to McCoist?
    TSFM


  10. Henry Clarson says:
    December 18, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    4 3 Rate This

    …I’ve taken The National every day since it first appeared. As far as I’m concerned, it’s “so far, so good.”
    ———

    Indeed it is. I have a digital subscription to The National and would say it’s a very welcome and much needed addition among the other daily newspapers. The fact that it also attempts to cater to at least 45% of Scots can only be a good thing, otherwise they have no voice in the mainstream whatsoever, on a daily basis at least.

    The sports coverage is varied and has not, as yet, become drunk on the Ibrox pantomime punch. Taking cheap shots at a new media initiative — that’s barely out of the incubator — from party political motivies, is beneath this blog. Difficult to monitor the media when it’s dismissed out of hand because it’s one of the very few in the country that’s swimming against the tidal surge of establishment-friendly opinion.


  11. Bryce Curdy says:
    December 18, 2014 at 4:55 pm
    Apologies if that is not what you intended to imply.
    =================================================
    No need for apologies. I’m sure Stoichkov and Pancev were excellent players – although not familiar with them myself. But how do you compare players in very different leagues without getting into coefficients and accountancy. Simple goal count really means nothing in itself. My rule of thumb is the greatest players bubble up to the greatest clubs and generally get paid the most – more so in recent years – less so in Iron Curtain days Without wanting throw petrol on the embers, McCoist’s Gold Shoe “awards” showed potential but did not bubble up into greatness on the European or World stage.


  12. neepheid says:
    December 18, 2014 at 3:37 pm
    http://www.therst.co.uk/news/agm-resolutions-8-and-9/
    The fans’ (well, one lot of them, anyway) position on AGM resolutions 8 and 9
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    If anybody is in the slightest doubt about the gullibility of TRFC fans they only need to read this comment on Resolutions 8 & 9 which are aimed directly at diluting the minorty shareholders which include several thousand Bears

    “It is hard to imagine new shareholders being any worse than those who currently call the shots at Ibrox so I intend voting for resolutions 8 and 9.”


  13. As predicted a perfectly legitimate post which had the temerity to criticise CFC (with no personal insults may I add) deleted.

    Not true – and you know that of course. I criticise Celtic more often than most on here, so you are hopelessly delusional on that score.
    TSFM

    Carry on discussing Sevco with your fingers in your ears to the rest of Scottish Football then.

    Thanks for that. For some reciprocal advice Steff, wherever our fingers are stuck, they won’t stink when we remove them. Troll on somewhere else
    TSFM


  14. I believe there is a reverse handicap system in place. A player in the Scottish League has to score around four goals for every three scored by players in the bigger leagues.
    TSFM
    ==========================================================
    Golden Confusion

    Looks like the giolden shoe/boot was awarded for total goals upto 90, then no official award 91-96 but with highest scorers (same criteria) listed as “winners”, then weighted system 97 onwards using UEFA league coeffs – full details here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Golden_Shoe

    So leseer known players in the earlier years – especially eastern bloc – then the more obvious ones in the later years.

    Ah well, that filled a couple of quiet hours, even if some of us were moded for going of piste – don’t want the mods nodding off there 🙂


  15. GoosyGoosy says:
    December 18, 2014 at 5:24 pm
    neepheid says:
    December 18, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    http://www.therst.co.uk/news/agm-resolutions-8-and-9/
    The fans’ (well, one lot of them, anyway) position on AGM resolutions 8 and 9
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    If anybody is in the slightest doubt about the gullibility of TRFC fans they only need to read this comment on Resolutions 8 & 9 which are aimed directly at diluting the minorty shareholders which include several thousand Bears

    “It is hard to imagine new shareholders being any worse than those who currently call the shots at Ibrox so I intend voting for resolutions 8 and 9.”
    ====================================================================
    The ignorance wrt share dealings is abysmal – I’m back to my ‘There is no hope’ position.

    I saw some kind of protest group demonstrating against sheep shearing on telly the other day.

    I think it’s time they extended their focus to include Bears who appear to have become addicted to being clipped. They must simply love the continual pain of it all.

    The support for the dissolution of pre-emption rights from a supporters group with an already tiny shareholding is simply scary.


  16. Castofthousands says:
    December 18, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    3

    0

    Rate This

    justshatered says:
    December 17, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    ________________________________________________
    “Will they revoke their membership to halt Ashley?”
    …

    If Mike’s tanks can win this battle then perhaps the whole regulatory landscape would be opened up for him.

    ___________________________________________________

    This could be his game.
    ‘Regulatory capture’ is what brought down the financial system and has been implicit in many vested interest scandals.

    Maybe Mike is taking a punt of a couple of million to get himself to a position where he becomes untouchable by the footballing regulators.
    At which point… he can rip his way through the whole game like a opened clam.

    I mean … how else can you interpret the scenario we are in:

    1. Mike Ashley agrees with the regulators not to do A
    2. Mike Ashley does A
    if:
    3. Regulator does F.A. for fear of armageddon
    then:
    4. Mike Ashley tells regulator he wants to do B
    5. Regulator says Mike Ashley can’t do B.
    6. Mike Ashley does B
    7. Regulator does F.A. for fear of armageddon
    8. Mike Ashley just does C, doesn’t even bother telling the regulator
    9. Regulator does F.A. for fear of armageddon
    10. Regulator asks Mike Ashley if he minds whether they do D?

    Whereas if the regulators do their job and pull his licence for being a flagrant chancer – as is proper- Sevco go under, Ibrox is shut. Mike loses some piddling small change.
    And the bears blame the SFA for the demise of the Frankenclub.

    “Heads I win, tails you lose” says Mike.


  18. GoosyGoosy says:
    December 18, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    “If anybody is in the slightest doubt about the gullibility of TRFC fans they only need to read this comment on Resolutions 8 & 9 which are aimed directly at diluting the minorty shareholders which include several thousand Bears”
    ——————————
    When I read the article neepheid drew attention to the naivety was shocking and the insight absent. I had mused to myself, given your regular postings on the matter and consistent outlook, what someone like yourself would have written up in response to these resolutions. You appropriately said very little, knowing you had said it all before.

    We do at times appear to be talking to ourselves. However we are also listening to each other.


  20. mcfc says:
    December 18, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    “Ah well, that filled a couple of quiet hours, even if some of us were moded for going of piste – don’t want the mods nodding off there”
    —————————–
    On safer territory and for further amusement, a few exemplars of Mr. Stoichkov’s output.

    http://youtu.be/iSMQsDSbm78


  21. Castofthousands says:
    December 18, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    On safer territory and for further amusement, a few exemplars of Mr. Stoichkov’s output.
    =============================================================
    thanks – impressive stuff


  22. Resin_lab_dog says:
    December 18, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    RLD,

    I suspect the regulatory bodies will have to take action to force Ashley to at least be seen to play the game.

    The SFA and SPL may well come to the conclusion that if the choices are

    1 An Insolvency event

    2 Effective and formal control by Ashley at Rangers

    3 Dave King & Consortium

    Then I doubt they would want to be blamed for 1 and would have a very difficult time justifying why a recently convicted criminal would be an appropriate owner after the events of the last 6 years.

    I do think though that they will be aware they could not possibly ignore Ashleys disregard for their existing understanding. They will therefore either fine him and the club, which won’t overly worry him, or deduct 5 points as in Livingston’s case. which I suspect would worry him even less.

    The other position could be that by calling him in , they are trying to scare him off, although I think that is less likely than it looked when the initial story broke.

    For what it’s worth I don’t have a huge issue with Ashley owning Rangers and Newcastle. He would bring stability and I would suspect would be a supporter of sensible FFP. There would have to be some restrictions around loan players and any ability of Newcastle to influence the outcome of Leagues in Scotland.

    On the plus side we shouldn’t have to listen to a grandstanding loudmouth braggard as Rangers Chairman ,as he sensibly seems publicity averse. That will make a welcome change after Murray & Green


  23. Another odd disciplinary decision today from the SFA. Although opponents stated that no spitting occurred, Paton at Dundee United is given a two match ban.


  26. Barcabhoy 6.29

    I could not give a toss who runs TRFC whether it’s Ashley or King or Bill MacMurdo.

    What I would like to see is an honest game honestly governed.

    What Rangers have done is irrevocably broken the trust on which all sport, not just football is based.

    They cheated -end of – and it does the game no favours to pretend it did not happen.

    That leaves us two options in respect of their future

    A. To stop them playing in our game.

    B. To allow them to play but change the rules to stop the kind of cheating they indulged in.

    That basically took the form of not providing the information they were supposed to provide under the rules to allow an honest game to exist.

    I can cite examples from 2000 to back up this point.

    So left with a club you cannot trust but whose income you want, what do you do but strengthen the policing of the rules so that proof is required that what they say is true actually is true. There has to be a deterrent to telling lies.

    That means putting in place a governance system that is up to that job.

    You can have A but stronger governance by SFA is essential if B is the choice taken.

    So far I see little recognition of the real problem hence no sign of required solution.

    What I and I suspect many more of the enlightened will not accept is more of the same.

    I think that message has to be got across to the SFA and those on The Professional Game Board


  27. Barcabhoy says:
    December 18, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    5

    2

    Rate This

    Resin_lab_dog says:
    December 18, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    RLD,

    I suspect the regulatory bodies will have to take action to force Ashley to at least be seen to play the game.

    ____________________________________________

    SFA: “What punishment would you prefer Mr Ashley? Fine or points deduction!”
    MA: “I think I could be persuaded to take a small fine, served with a vigorous gumming from your compliance officer, in exchange for keeping the lights on at the debt dome, but only if you let me increase my stake to whatever, get the SPFL off my back on the ÂŁ250K EBT fine, and fill out a few out the other items on this little shopping list.”
    SFA: “Excellent choice Sir. And which particluar referees will sir be requiring for the play offs?”
    MA: “Any of the usual ‘grade one’ suspects will be fine, you know that!”
    SFA: “Wonderful, Sir. Don’t do it again Oh and Heartfelt congratulations on your upcoming promotion to the Scottish Premier League.”

    … Regulatory capture, like I said.


  30. ratethisthenyabampots says:
    December 18, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    Apologies if already posted.

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/mccoist-doomed-to-be-rangers-manager-for-all-eternity-2014121893898

    ————–

    Also put me in mind – for some reason which I can’t quite put my finger on – the repeated quote from one of the Pirates of the Caribbean* movies: “The Dutchman must have a captain!”

    *any proximity to the British Virgin Islands is entirely coincidental


  31. Dundee United extremely unhappy with the tribunal decision to ban Paul Paton for two games.
    http://dufc.co/news/paton-sanction-appealed/

    PATON SANCTION TO BE APPEALED

    December 18, 2014

    Dundee United tonight confirmed that Paul Paton will be appealing the immediate two match ban handed to him by the Disciplinary Tribunal as a result of the outcome of a complaint of an alleged breach of disciplinary rule 200.

    A Club spokesperson said, “The player will certainly be appealing this decision and will be given our full backing in this matter.

    The decision today relating to Paul Paton is incredulous. We are stunned firstly that it was brought in front of the Judicial Panel by the new Compliance Officer and secondly that the Judicial Panel have found the player guilty of something that we do not believe to have taken place.

    It is truly mystifying that three people in a room at Hampden Park in Glasgow on a Thursday afternoon can see something that was not seen by the referee, 1st assistant, 2nd assistant, fourth official, SPFL delegate, the managers of either team, the players of either team including the alleged villain and victim not to mention the 11,168 supporters in the stadium.

    As part of our original defence submission we studied enlarged video footage to ensure our player was not guilty of such an offence.

    We were sound in our belief that no such action had taken place and we will continue to support the player in this matter through the Appeal process.”


  32. easyJambo says:
    December 18, 2014 at 9:06 pm

    1

    0

    Rate This

    Dundee United extremely unhappy with the tribunal decision to ban Paul Paton for two games.
    http://dufc.co/news/paton-sanction-appealed/

    ____________________________________________________

    Toothless compliance officer can put his dentures in when its not the club from Govan in the dock. False teeth to go with false governance, and altogether falsehood.

    SFA are a complete joke. They’re barely fit to sit in an Ibrox boardroom, never mind preside over the game. Utterly compromised.


  33. easyJambo @ 9:06pm
    ====================

    What on earth is going on with that one? Given the apparent lack of just about anything how did it land in front of the SFA to start with?


  35. I am more than mystified by the latest decision. We have the ‘victim’ stating he wasn’t spat on and the ‘attacker’ saying he didn’t spit.

    That certainly is a step on from another recent case but why isn’t it a Not Proven. Apparently no fan at the stadium saw it, no official saw it and no players either on the field or bench saw it.

    I assume that the compliance officer has been able to deduce this offence took place from viewing a video of the incident. Perhaps SpecSavers are the new League sponsor – we shall see but will the compliance officer?

    I can only assume that spit from the jersey has been run through a DNA analysis and this proves guilt.

    Nice to hear that the SFA have moved into the hi-tech era in crime detection.


  36. Video evidence.

    There are three interesting features here. Firstly it is clear that Paton ‘motions to spit’ but it isn’t clear if he actually does.

    Secondly, Hayes immediately reacts and since he was on the ground with his back to Paton it appears he was reacting to the spit. DUTD presumably say it wasn’t (I’m expecting their defence to be that the enlargement doesn’t show spittle). So why does Hayes react? Were words spat out instead?

    3/. In the aftermath of the Logan tonev case Hayes tweeted something to the effect of “what happens on the pitch stays on the pitch” or similar. There’s two problems with that, apparently noble though it was (although I doubt the afc lawyer would agree). Firstly it’s not really Hayes place to say in general terms. Secondly specifically for this case, it isn’t Hayes place to comment simply because he is the one that video evidence proves that he definitely didn’t see it.


  37. I hope the Dundee United spokesperson doesn’t get pilloried by Tom English for not accepting the decision and daring to claim their player is innocent.

    I mean after all he has been found guilty by the disciplinary panel so he should just accept the decision and move on and stop whingeing.

    I do hope that my humour doesn’t offend but there’s something off kilter going on at Hampden. Perhaps the fear that Ashley is sending the tanks in has got them putting on a show of bravado – it won’t work as he knows they’re headless gutless chickens.


  38. easyJambo says:
    December 18, 2014 at 9:06 pm

    I’ve deliberately stayed away from the Tonev debate but this latest from the SFA defies belief even to my incredibly sceptical eye!

    I may be wrong here but I think the Aberdeen player was tweeting yesterday that he would testify that there was no spitting involved.

    When it is one man’s word against another then that can cause various conclusions and accusations but when the actual victim is saying that there is no case and the defendant is still found guilty then there is clearly something far wrong.

    We seem to have moved from an independent panel to a kangaroo court where everyone is guilty………….. well almost everyone, remember Kris Boyd was found ‘Not Proven’.
    It must have been Blind Pugh and two of the three Blind Mice that were on that distinguished panel.

    This decision today is an absolute nonsense.

    The SFA seem hell bent in destroying any semblance of fair play.

    This latest system was put in place after the ‘anonymous’ independent members walked after being hung out to dry during March 2012. Police can complain and your own media partner apologises on air for offensive singing and nothing is done however now we have the new Compliance Officer bringing a charge against a player who has been exonerated by the supposed victim. This begs the question; Who made the complaint?

    Also a great statement by United today but it would also be interesting if Aberdeen made a statement in support of the player but it really does beg the question of “What did the panel see in this incident?”

    Knowing the powers that be as we do you can see United ending up with a disrepute charge as well.


  39. Mike may want to control The Rangers long term, but he won’t want to run it himself. I wonder if Derek is up for the job ? He looks around retirement age so probably has more sedate plans. For anyone younger, the job’s akin to being offered a commission on the Eastern Front at the start of Winter.


  40. OT yes.
    ‘Alleged’ corruption and abuse of power in the SFA is appalling. More appalling and endemic is corruption at all levels of government. I refer to the latest, alleged, horrific abuse of power reported in the national media.

    “Operation Fernbridge is examining claims a paedophile ring – with links to Parliament – abused boys at the Elm Guest House, near Barnes, in south-west London”

    Where do we go with this? Alleged, filthy corruption from the powers that be at all levels. And we wonder what has gone wrong in governance of football?!
    The message is ‘do what you want’.


  41. No. Sorry if this seems like I’m trying to head you off at the pass Eco but (on the massive proviso that dutd’s defence is as I said earlier) two things are pertinent.

    If Logan/tonev taught us anything it is that the tribunal can only call it as they see it (or hear it!). Paton appears to spit. Having been caught on camera it is no surprise to me that it was referred. Secondly, as I stated above, Hayes is seen by the camera with his back to Paton as he lay on the ground. Whilst his intentions appear noble as ” one player to another” that Paton did not spit on him I can again perfectly understand why the panel would over rule him.


  42. Smugas says:
    December 18, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    I’ve got to disagree.

    Football tops are now that thin you could probably feel a fly landing on you never mind a gob full.

    The real problem with this ruling is that the next time two players get involved in a face to face shouting match and a little bit of flem lands on one of them then the guy is going to get done for two matches.

    Meanwhile there are awful, dangerous challenges going in and guys are only getting a yellow card. The whole system is warped.


  43. Take your point JS, but Hayes clearly reacts to something to go from prostrate to vertical pdq. Coming almost instantly after the spitting motion, it is again understandable that the panel would interpret it as such.


  44. The action and reaction looks to me like most other dirty gobbing incidents caught on camera in the past.


  45. tcup 2012 says:
    December 18, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    ‘.D&P announced Live on national TV who won the bid as preferential bidder
    Sevco 5088,’
    ———
    Thank you , tcup2012, for confirming that.
    And I would again say how wonderful it is that so many posters on here have kept records of one kind or another and are are able to come in sharply to correct or amend factual errors or provide important reminders.(I’ve counted three or four such corrections/reminders today alone, on various points).
    That whole approach adds enormously to the credibility of the blog as being an honest and self-correcting forum on which its participants try to keep to variously find facts, report facts,and base their opinions on such facts as are verifiable.And make a sharp distinction between what they assert as facts and what they may be assuming to be facts.
    No one on this blog can expect( or would want to!) to get away with opinions based on flights of absolute fancy or on downright falsehoods.


  46. Smugas says:
    December 18, 2014 at 10:48 pm

    It is a term often quoted in books to describe dialogue as ‘he spat’ as in out the words.

    I’ve often seen politicians vehemently spit out words in the heat of battle.

    I personally think, although I do not know, that the two players have had an ongoing battle during the game. The tackle is certainly heavy, and the forearm high now if you bend down and say the words “You F@%king P&SSY” then that will clearly display a spitting motion. Now that is a phrase I’ve lost count of hearing on a football field.

    Sorry if the above offends but I think a spitting motion can easily be displayed when shouting at an opponent.


  48. upthehoops says:
    December 18, 2014 at 9:33 pm

    easyJambo @ 9:06pm
    ====================

    What on earth is going on with that one? Given the apparent lack of just about anything how did it land in front of the SFA to start with?
    ====================================================================
    I’m sure the complaint came from the Compliance Officer who must have been at the match or most likely spotted the very slight movement in Paton’s lower jaw.

    I’ve watched the clip a few times and I suppose it’s possible it could have been a spitting motion and perhaps the immediate reaction of Hayes getting up and running at Paton is proof that something happened.

    Of course maybe it was just because of the clash but there was a bit of a time gap after that before Hayes moved and the move did occur almost simultaneously with the jaw movement of Paton.

    I have to say it was nowhere near as pronounced as the other recent well known facial movement that was a Not Proven.

    But and this is a crucial point wrt credibility – could it be that Hayes wasn’t made aware of the spit by feeling any wetness on his shirt but by hearing the unmistable snort of gathering phlegm from your nostrils to spit at someone.

    But this raises another issue – is it an offence to spit on the pitch? I don’t think it is although personally I think it should be. So if Paton’s spit missed Hayes is that an offence? But wouldn’t you have to prove that Paton intended to hit the target.

    And then the real conundrum. If the Appeal Tribunal confirms the guilfy verdict what will Hayes be charged with? On the face of it as far as the panel members are concerned he would appear to have lied and I’m sure that they might think this was an intentional action to defeat the ends of justice.

    To me that merits a heavier sentence than spitting.

    Oh what a tangled mess we end-up in for what appear to be very obscure motives. Of course perhaps the Compliance Officer just wants to make his mark and hit the ground running – that will be away from Hampden I reckon 😆


  49. Players get sent off for reckless tackles that miss the opponent. Gobbing but missing is no different. Clear your throat on the pitch if you must but if directed at an opponent it is unsporting behaviour.

    Similar to the other day’s discussion as opposed to picking the bones of individual incidents and tribunial decisions why is there no wider concern about the general poor behaviour of professional footballers and indeed some managers and coaches.

    If they acted like grown ups a good deal of these issues would never occur in the first place.

    Name calling, spitting, elbowing, rolling around like you have been shot, crying like a baby to referees, handbags etc etc. Man up ffs.

    Rant over.


  50. There is it seems a developing question.

    Who do we get to judge on issues that occur in football games if we cant accept the view of an independent panel and a process which allows appeal to an equally independent panel?


  51. At risk of repeating myself (again 😆 ) Hayes is on the ground with his back to the apparent spitting motion so I’m happy to put Hayes view to one side. I should add that that is based on Hayes original tweet, I’ve no idea what he’s said since.

    FWIW i personally believe justshatered description is bang on, but you have to accept that that is not how it looks on film.


  52. Smugas says:
    December 18, 2014 at 10:39 pm

    No. Sorry if this seems like I’m trying to head you off at the pass Eco but (on the massive proviso that dutd’s defence is as I said earlier) two things are pertinent.

    If Logan/tonev taught us anything it is that the tribunal can only call it as they see it (or hear it!). Paton appears to spit. Having been caught on camera it is no surprise to me that it was referred. Secondly, as I stated above, Hayes is seen by the camera with his back to Paton as he lay on the ground. Whilst his intentions appear noble as ” one player to another” that Paton did not spit on him I can again perfectly understand why the panel would over rule him.
    ===============================================================
    As you’ll see I later dealt with it a bit more deeply than my original post.

    But tbh I think it could be a toss-up between Paton spitting and possibly saying something vile to Hayes who could be telling the truth when he says Paton didn’t spit on him.

    That could also be true if Paton spat and missed him either by accident or even design.

    Btw I’m trying hard not to harp back to the recent incident you refer to but the panel neither heard nor saw what allegedly took place between the pair. They may have heard evidence but had no first-hand knowledge whereas in the Paton case there is undeniably a facial movement.

    Although indicative of a glutinous gob being released was it intentionally aimed at Hayes and if not is it an offence.

    And as I mentioned if the original decision is upheld on appeal what happens to Hayes – has he not brought the game into disrepute.

    But as someone else mentioned just about in every maych we see a tackle made that has bone-crunching potential and often not even a yellow card is given. Does the Compliance Officer have the ability to uprate a yellow to red? I don’t think they have as the ref is deemed to have dealt with it.

    I’m not so sure what the rule is if the ref has awarded a free kick with no card – can the Compliance Officer retrospectively issue a card. I don’t remember seeing a case on that yet.


  53. ecobhoy says:
    December 18, 2014 at 11:03 pm
    ‘…But this raises another issue – is it an offence to spit on the pitch? I don’t think it is although personally I think it should be.’
    ——-
    You’re right,ecobhoy, in thinking that it is not an offence to spit on the pitch.
    Even as a young man playing college football I HAD to spit to clear the lungs.( No idea of the physiological reasons)
    But it SHOULD be an offence for TV broadcasts to show close-ups of players hawking and spitting and wiping snot on their jerseys! 🙂
    And, curiously, while there was great concern after the AIDS panic about blood spillage ,no one seems concerned about the veritable litres of spit there must be on the grass during a match!
    You might have a point.


  54. Eco,
    Specifcally on the game in disrepute charge, no I don’t think it’s relevant based purely on Hayes initial tweet about leaving the game on the park. I can perfectly understand his intention in saying this, he doesn’t want to spend his week reciting what I believe someone referred to this week as intellectual (was it) clap trap? He strikes me as the type that just wants to get the jerseys down and play fitba and I took his comments in that light.


  55. Martin says:
    December 18, 2014 at 11:20 pm
    ‘..Who do we get to judge on issues that occur in football games if we cant accept the view of an independent panel and a process which allows appeal to an equally independent panel?’
    ———
    The problem, Martin, lies in the fact that many of us believe that the SFA has destroyed any notion that THEY will always act impartially.While, for example, the LNS tribunal may well have been the essence of integrity, many of us believe that that Tribunal had important and relevant evidence deliberately withheld from it. And that the ‘prosecution’ deliberately invented a scenario which made nonsense of a critical part of its own case.
    Basically, in the opinion of many, the Football Authorities do not understand the notions of impartiality and integrity. No need to think of trying to rig a jury, or a panel: it’s much easier so to present your case as to ensure that you blow it.
    The answer would be to find a way to restore trust in the football authorities. And we know what must have to happen before that can become possible.


  56. Paulmac2

    The serious point being any player who is intending either spitting at/towards an opponent OR is thinking of standing over him after fouling him and screaming (whether with a forward jaw motion or otherwise) you %€$ÂĽ*^, then they will hopefully think twice about it, and that’s fine by me.


  58. I may have missed something but tv replays appear to show the player spitting and standing over the fallen player like the glorious victor.


  59. John Clark says:
    December 18, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    with respect, I don’t think any evidence has been withheld in any recent disciplinary cases.


  60. Smugas says:
    December 18, 2014 at 11:53 pm
    ========================

    I fully understand the point…however the basic fact is…the supposed victim confirmed the accused player was innocent…yet the panel still found him guilty of something based on a compliance officers opinion…

    Where does that stop….

    No matter which way you want to cut this…it is complete nuts!


  61. John Clark says:
    December 18, 2014 at 11:37 pm

    2

    1

    Rate This

    ecobhoy says:
    December 18, 2014 at 11:03 pm
    ‘…But this raises another issue – is it an offence to spit on the pitch? I don’t think it is although personally I think it should be.’
    ——-
    You’re right,ecobhoy, in thinking that it is not an offence to spit on the pitch.
    Even as a young man playing college football I HAD to spit to clear the lungs.( No idea of the physiological reasons)
    But it SHOULD be an offence for TV broadcasts to show close-ups of players hawking and spitting and wiping snot on their jerseys! 🙂
    And, curiously, while there was great concern after the AIDS panic about blood spillage ,no one seems concerned about the veritable litres of spit there must be on the grass during a match!
    You might have a point.

    _________________________________________________

    Ask a Scientist:
    Its not pleaseant, but such expectorations are an inevitable consequence of extreme physical exertion.
    Lactate build up and hyperventilation caused by oxygen depletion (High intensity impact) that can only be sustained for short periods creates physiological responses that are not normally experienced in states of usual exertion. In such circumstances, the body does what it needs to. Fluid collects in the upper respiratory tract faster than it can be cleared. Swallowing becomes difficult. Spitting becomes necessary. Drowning the alternative.
    Think of it in the same way as you would urination. When you really need to, you really need to, end of.
    You normally (but not always) have some control on the when and where you do. But not always.

    Any player (goalies excepted) who doesn’t spit at some point in a game is therefore exerting themselves at a level that is comfortably within their ability. If they are 4-0 up thats fine. Otherwise… not always so I feel.

    Nevertheless, aiming ones gob at an opponent is unnecessary and distasteful, and shoudl be punished.
    Whereas the spitting itself is an inevitability of maximal effort.

    Spitting by players is just as much a physiological consequence of such exertion by those players, as urination is a direct physiological consequence of fans drinking beer. This does not however make it acceptable to throw p**s on opposing fans from the upper deck of the terraces.
    Players can’t help that they spit sometimes, except insofar as not trying hard enough would be considered an acceptable spitting avoidance strategy.

    ergo… Deliberately aiming at your opponents is unacceptable.
    But spitting during a game is a necessisty and must be allowed.

    Therefore, unless someone complains of being deliberately spat at, no umbrage should be taken in my view, except by those of an unreasonable disposition.


  62. After the tribulations over the last 2+ years, most reasonable fans would agree that the SFA is a corrupt, devious, manipulative – and thoroughly discredited body.

    It is perhaps inevitable then that their decisions can be regarded with derision – rightly or wrongly.

    But there has to be some end point, IMO.

    Whether it is a Court of Session decision, or a clearout of key personnel, or a radical change in the roles & responsibilities of the SFA – something has to change.

    To the average punter it’s obvious: the SFA no longer has any moral authority.

    The SFA is a disgrace to Scottish football.

    Scottish football fans/paying customers deserve better.

    But that is stating the bleedin’ obvious… 🙄


  63. The share price of RIFC is being driven steadily lower in tiny increments. 17p on Wednesday may be a new low.

    Am I right in assuming that this suits the agenda of someone who might want to acquire the shareholding necessary to de-list? Can a more financially literate poster confirm?


  64. Morning all.
    A wonderful job is being done by all of you on here.
    I was previously James on RTC.

    A couple of things on my mind.

    Mather, Ashley and Withey have connections to Nottinghamshire, Withey possibly Newcastle too. Can anyone join the dots?

    It was I am sure mentioned on RTC, the shredder company would have to keep copies due to possible illegalities, can someone please confirm if that is so?

    The other thing is of a sensitive nature, and if I could pm tsfm that would be great.
    Thanks.


  65. Auldheid says:
    December 18, 2014 at 7:16 pm
    http://www.tsfm.scot/a-spectre-is-haunting-scottish-football/comment-page-55/#comment-38993

    The major problem with SFA rules, regardless of what they are, is that they almost always contain a get-out-of-jail-free clause along the lines of “any course of action which the SFA may choose to adopt as it sees fit” or “the SFA may, at its discretion, ignore all of the rules above and make up anything that suits it.”
    They riders may not be couched in those exact words but they’re the same thing in practice.

    It really doesn’t matter what the rules are when the governing body reserves to itself the right to ignore them, override them, amend them or completely rewrite them on the fly.

    The SFA rule book might as well be reduced to, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”


  66. John Clark says:
    December 18, 2014 at 10:54 pm
    25 1 Rate This

    tcup 2012 says:
    December 18, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    ‘.D&P announced Live on national TV who won the bid as preferential bidder
    Sevco 5088,’
    ———
    Thank you , tcup2012, for confirming that.
    And I would again say how wonderful it is that so many posters on here have kept records of one kind or another and are are able to come in sharply to correct or amend factual errors or provide important reminders.(I’ve counted three or four such corrections/reminders today alone, on various points).
    That whole approach adds enormously to the credibility of the blog as being an honest and self-correcting forum on which its participants try to keep to variously find facts, report facts,and base their opinions on such facts as are verifiable.And make a sharp distinction between what they assert as facts and what they may be assuming to be facts.
    No one on this blog can expect( or would want to!) to get away with opinions based on flights of absolute fancy or on downright falsehoods.
    ///////////////

    Sorry couldn’t find the video on you tube
    There are that many to do with D&P and trying to get ready for work

    But just for yourself here is a wee something from a well respected blogger
    And not a lower being like myself
    Maybe while you’re looking down on the rest of us from you’re Ivory Tower you should have a read http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/mr-whyte-mr-green-sevco-5088-sevco-scotland-and-prospectus-risk-factors/

    And in case you don’t have the time
    It does confirm that D&P gave Sevco 5088 preferred bidder status and not Sevco Scotland


  67. Auldheid says:
    December 18, 2014 at 7:16 pm
    ==================================

    The lack of media demands for rigorous FFP to be introduced is very unhelpful. On the one hand we have a newspaper devoting pages to demand an ending to the alcohol ban at football, but nothing about introducing a fully transparent system which ensures no Scottish club ever lives outwith its means again. I know what I believe most fans would prefer to be introduced. You can get a pint anywhere, however there is no other facility to see our game honestly governed other than for the authorities to do it, mean it, and rigorously enforce it. What do they have to fear?


  70. John Clark says:
    December 18, 2014 at 10:54 pm
    25 2 Rate This

    tcup 2012 says:
    December 18, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    ‘.D&P announced Live on national TV who won the bid as preferential bidder
    Sevco 5088
    ///////./..//

    A small quote from the link I shared earlier

    Mr Green’s representative on 27th June 2012 was quoted as saying:-

    “For the avoidance of doubt, Sevco 5088 Limited bought the assets of the Rangers Football Club and then transferred them to Sevco Scotland Limited so that all the assets would be in the Scottish registered company that is Rangers FC.”


  71. @Adeste, this bit about interviewing candidates seems slightly far-fetched:

    David Somers said “I am delighted that Derek has agreed to step up to the Chief Executive role. This is a successful outcome to the process, announced on 27 October 2014, which involved interviewing a number of high calibre candidates. Derek has impressed us with his grasp of the issues since joining the group and brings a wealth of experience, particularly from his time at Newcastle United, which we feel confident will be invaluable to Rangers.

    Translated into plain man’s English: ‘Mike said Derek was to be the CEO and we agreed, pronto.’


  73. Clyde 1’s Gerry McCulloch on Twitter

    SFA in a predicament. If they want Rangers to thrive for the sake of our game they need to give Ashley a clear path


  75. andygraham.66 says:
    December 19, 2014 at 8:06 am
    0 0 Rate This

    Clyde 1’s Gerry McCulloch on Twitter

    SFA in a predicament. If they want Rangers to thrive for the sake of our game they need to give Ashley a clear path

    Did the bold Gerry – not used to work at bid up TV?

    Now he is doing the bidding for SevcoRangers?

Comments are closed.