Where transparency exists accountability inevitably follows.
This is an extract from a post on SFM from 2015. The subject was Transparency and Slow Glass
The message then was that football governance has to catch up in realising that football has to become more transparent in its dealing with supporters and so more accountable to them.
That transparency is already here via social media because of the ability to share, but the light of truth is constrained by Slow Glass.
Slow Glass from a short story by Bob Shaw slows down the light passing through it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_of_Other_Days
In the story and others, you have Slow Glass of different thickness in terms of the time it takes for the light to emerge.
You have Glass a day thick/long to Glass ten years thick/long and more.
Resolution 12, if measured from the Celtic AGM in 2013 when it was tabled and adjourned, has taken 6 years for the light of truth to emerge, although it could have happened sooner had main stream media removed the dust of PR that slows the light, but light is inexorable and it is emerging at an archive of events since 2011 that can be read at
https://www.res12.uk/
It is in two parts.
Part One relates to events in 2011/12 including a very interesting link between UEFA Licence 2011 and the commissioning of Lord Nimmo Smith to investigate use of EBTs with side letters by Rangers FC where non-disclosure benefited Rangers FC in 2011 AND 2012.
Part Two concentrates SFA activity (or lack of it) from 2014 to date as result of the adjournment of Resolution 12 in November 2013 that provided shareholders with the authority to seek answers.
The archive has been constructed in chronological sequence to help readers understand better the detail and separate what took place in 2011/12 which is in the past, from the SFA handling of shareholders legitimate enquiries from 2014/15 to date, which remains current and is a mirror of SFA performance in respect of the national football team.
Many narratives will emerge as a result of the transparency, some Celtic related, but a system of governance, that is accountable in some way to supporters as stakeholders in the game, can only benefit the supporters of all clubs and they are encouraged to read through the archive.
As Phil Mac Giolla Bhain has written here in respect of Celtic and the SFA
accountability has to be the outcome of transparency to wipe the face and soul of Scottish football clean.
How that is achieved will be up to Scottish football supporters everywhere to take forward via their Associations and Trusts, in collaboration with the clubs they support, but it does seem to me, and I know others with more legal experience, that the SFA would find it difficult to resist a challenge to their refusal to engage with people (in this case minority shareholders of member clubs) who are affected by decisions that they make.
Corrupt official 16th June 2019 at 12:12
7 3 Rate This
If the £3m The Big Liar paid the Fat Friar to buy out the retail deal, was not really to buy out the retail deal, then what was it for then?.
………………..
To bring an end to the charles Green, sevco deal and negotiate a new retail deal that king agreed on but has reneged on ever since it was signed. Ashley has always had then by the shirt and curlies.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1140228099864518657?p=v
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/1180875/rangers-chairman-dave-king-insists-new-retail-deal-will-help-them-close-the-gap-on-old-firm-rivals-celtic/
………………….
ASH CLOUD LIFTED Rangers chairman Dave King insists new retail deal will help them close the gap on Old Firm rivals Celtic
The controversial seven-year deal has been torn up and replaced with a new one-year contract – which could generate up to £5million for Gers.
21 Jun 2017,
Bold and brave from Killie . You've got to hope he succeeds .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/48655464
sannoffymesssoitizz 13th June 2019 at 05:39
Maxwell announced record distribution of £11 million to be shared among member clubs,
“When you think of us as a business, we turn over £37m, £11m cash goes straight out of the door to the membership. We are one of the best in Europe in terms of the cash we distribute to our members and that is something we are very keen to continue.”
Those sums will become increasingly challenging if the SFA are unable to secure a replacement sponsor for the national team after Vauxhall ended their association last year.
……………………
When the deals to shoehorn a new club into the league become your cross to bear.
https://twitter.com/katiewhyatt/status/1139949141398827008?s=21
A bit more on the smaller goals for women discussion.
Women's football in Britain has been played at least since the 1880's , and nobody saw the need to adapt the pitch and goals to accomodate them . Why now ? Presentation ?
Cluster One 16th June 2019 at 13:45
Corrupt official 16th June 2019 at 12:12
If the £3m The Big Liar paid the Fat Friar to buy out the retail deal, was not really to buy out the retail deal, then what was it for then?
. ………………..
To bring an end to the charles Green, sevco deal and negotiate a new retail deal that king agreed on but has reneged on ever since it was signed. Ashley has always had then by the shirt and curlies. https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1140228099864518657?p=v
——————————————————————————–
Thanks C1
So £3m to buy out the CG contract…..I assume heavily discounted, due to the "Add-on" proviso that another contract is entered into simultaneously.
I suppose we can only guess at the total cost if it were to be entered into, minus the proviso.
Corrupt official 17th June 2019 at 07:31
………………
Seven year contract ripped up, both parties agreed new one year deal.
……………..
I like this part. The club will also obtain a priority divident on the winding up of rangers retail ltd.
…………………
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1140263985830404097?p=v
……………….
No divident then.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jduffin24/status/1140318249474809856/photo/1
paddy malarkey 16th June 2019 at 18:14
——————–
What interests me in the goal size debate is that the average height of males increased throughout the 20th. century and so what we are seeing now, with smaller female goalkeepers, is close to what was originally intended for the male game. This is what football was supposed to look like. If any changes are to be made it should be to increase the size of the goal frame for the male game.
Auldheid 16th June 2019 at 13:29
"….even if Petrie is not going to sit on the Board that will consider what to do about the case, who believes he will not influence it because he is at the heart of the biggest deception in Scottish football.."
++++++++++++
The SFA website page
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/organisation/strategy-structure/who-we-are/board-committees/
giving details of the Board members is out of date [can they do nothing right?], so there's no mention of the new guy who was appointed as an independent non-executive director a wee while ago, Mr Kpedekpo.
As new to the Board in early May 2019, this Director is the only serving director who has no previous connection with any previous dirty work at the crossroads.
In "The Companies Act 2006: Directors’ Duties Guidance'
https://corporate-responsibility.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/directors_guidance_final.pdf
we read "Many cases of corporate mismanagement have arisen because directors have allowed themselves to be side-lined by one or more dominant figures on a board. Such figures can be powerful personalities and may seek to prevent otherwise independent directors from making necessary enquiries into the company’s affairs. It is essential to the proper functioning of a board that all directors should be encouraged to make enquiry. In a large company the Chair of the board has a particular role to play in fostering the correct ethos."
Can it be that the new non-exec director has not made himself aware of the 'Res 12' issue and what it may imply?
Or is he aware, and has been told not to rock the boat?
Is he aware that while his directorial duties require him to look after the best interests of the Company, that duty does not and cannot extend to failure to examine allegations of potentially illegal and/or gravely unethical conduct by the Company for which there is prima facie evidence?
An investigation that is restricted to what CW did has to be construed as a de facto admission that there is something to hide, that causes fearful men to go to absurd lengths to try to keep hidden, while hypocritically professing honesty and good faith!
I find it incredible that our clubs can look on in silence while this festering rot is not cut out of the body of Scottish Football governance, and the rotten parts thrown into the furnace: for the good of us all.
Could someone kindly point me towards the recent legal case/document in which I believe Rangers MD Stewart Robertson was forced to concede in court that Rangers did not have the funds available should an award be made against them?
redlichtie 17th June 2019 at 12:57
…………..
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2019/1419.html
……………….
It may be in here
macfurgly 17th June 2019 at 12:00
Totally agree , but would go further .Pitch dimensions were regularised for amateurs , a lot of whom were working prior to playing . Nowadays , it's professional athletes gracing pitches of the same dimensions . Too late now to increase pitch sizes as stadia are basically built around existing ones , so I would look to reduce the number of players to make the workload more equivalent .
Or here.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2019/207.html
Thanks Cluster One. Unfortunately neither document appears at first glance to note the alleged statement.
redlichtie 17th June 2019 at 13:47
Thanks Cluster One. Unfortunately neither document appears at first glance to note the alleged statement.
==============================
There was reference to Rangers ability to pay damages in the case below, but not from Stewart Robertson.
QC for SDI questioned Rangers ability to pay. QC for Rangers said that Rangers finances were healthy and they would be able to pay – see paragraphs 56 & 57
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2018/2772.html
Thanks EJ.
easyJambo 17th June 2019 at 14:20
…………
Thanks for clarification.
………………….
Finally he submitted that damages would be an adequate remedy for Sports Direct. In that regard, he submitted that Sports Direct’s losses are purely pecuniary, that they would in fact not be difficult to assess, that they are unlikely to reach the contractual £1m cap, and that Rangers is in a healthy financial position and will be able to meet any award of damages.
……………….
This contractual £1m cap i believe has escalated to £10mill?
Does anyone know how that came to be?
And if £10mill is correct? will they be able to pay?
And if the memorial services are awarded damages. Will they be able to pay?
I suspect, as usual, a few folks on here will be hoping the latest court appearance will bring about the demise of the Ibrox club.
However as has been discussed above, since Charles Green ushered Ashley up the marble staircase he knows he is on a winner. He knows when people are desperate then will put their pen to anything.
He has Sevco dangling on a string and will continue to do so for as long as he can.
As such, the last thing Ashley wants is the club to go under and deny him his shilling.
When he finally believes they cannot provide him with the desired level of income he may then decide to crash the bus (out of spite) or just head back to scouring the country for another business opportunity elsewhere.
I can see him toying with King & Co for a while yet and, if there are monies to be paid from a successful court action, he will look for a long term payment plan that secures him regular income and/or a renegotiated deal in terms that are suitable to him.
Whether someone like the Memorial Walls people would be so accommodating is another matter. Therefore it is more likely another legal dispute or disgruntled creditor that may start looking for winding up orders and the like.
Either way the finances down Govan will still be the same, in that they are most likely spending more than is coming in so its a constant juggling act to stay afloat.
That means, like everyone bar Celtic, decent cup runs is the best they can hope for if they put on the reality goggles.
wottpi 17th June 2019 at 15:05 I can see him toying with King & Co for a while yet and, if there are monies to be paid from a successful court action, he will look for a long term payment plan that secures him regular income and/or a renegotiated deal in terms that are suitable to him. ………………. The boycott of fans buying strips was ended when king told fans he had negotiated a better deal for the club. https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1140263985830404097?p=v A deal that is more sutable to Ashley won't go down to well with the fans.Not after the bluster by king. …………………………. That means, like everyone bar Celtic, decent cup runs is the best they can hope for if they put on the reality goggles. ………….. If you believe that an ibrox fan base built on moonbeams will ever put on reality goggles you have not been paying attention.
Martin Williams running an 'exclusive' in the Herald about the Crown Office settling David Whitehouse's claim over a 'wrongful' restraint order. I posted a few moments ago, but it seems to have gone to the Spam Box.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17710013.crown-pays-over-80k-to-ex-rangers-administrator-david-whitehouse-over-wrongful-restraint-
wottpi 17th June 2019 at 15:05
Either way the finances down Govan will still be the same, in that they are most likely spending more than is coming in so its a constant juggling act to stay afloat.
………………
The last time they did a juggling act like that they needed champions league income. One season without it the house of cards came crashing in. Spending more than is coming in can only be sustained if you have a billionare backer who can afford such losses. Down govan way they don’t have any.
paddy malarkey 17th June 2019 at 13:25
3 0 Rate This macfurgly 17th June 2019 at 12:00
…
Too late now to increase pitch sizes as stadia are basically built around existing ones…
==========================
It could have been a good idea mibbees to hugely increase the length and width of the playing surface at Hampden…
to bring the action a good bit closer to the paying punters?
Jingso.Jimsie 17th June 2019 at 16:04
Martin Williams running an 'exclusive' in the Herald about the Crown Office settling David Whitehouse's claim over a 'wrongful' restraint order. I posted a few moments ago, but it seems to have gone to the Spam Box.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17710013.crown-pays-over-80k-to-ex-rangers-administrator-david-whitehouse-over-wrongful-restraint-
===========================
That's an interesting development and will save me a visit to the CoS tomorrow. It is only part of his claim against the authorities. Whitehouse, Clark and Grier still have actions outstanding against Police Scotland for wrongful arrest and detention.
I suspect that the Crown conceding on the "restraint order" makes it all the more likely that we could see similar out of court settlements in the other actions, if nothing else to prevent the public disclosure of what the authorities knew and did around the time of their arrest.
Cluster One 17th June 2019 at 16:14
Agree with all you say.
Unless a real sugar daddy comes on board it is a continual hand to mouth existence.
King and the rest on the board do not have the means to keep throwing good money after bad.
However if managed properly and prudently T'Rangers should, given the size of their fan base, be a regular 'second place' in Scottish Football.
It is however the lack of those reality goggles that will not let them consolidate and build a good foundation for the future and as such they are always going to be in a situation where there is the potential for financial collapse around the every corner.
StevieBC 17th June 201mate9 at 16:21
You obviously don't attend , mate . It's bad enough as it is !
Jingso.Jimsie 17th June 2019 at 16:04
………….
David Whitehouse, 52, of Duff and Phelps and his wife Lisa had been seeking to claim a total of £180,000 damages in the case against the Lord Advocate over the order in connection with the failed attempts to prosecute anyone in relation to alleged fraud over the purchase of the club in May, 2011.
……………..
One by one this alleged fraud over the purchase of the club in May, 2011 begin to vanish.who can the ibrox fan base look to for the sale and destruction of their club for answers? who will they point the finger of blame at?
wottpi 17th June 2019 at 16:28
However if managed properly and prudently T’Rangers should, given the size of their fan base, be a regular ‘second place’ in Scottish Football.
………………..
Are you keen to see Rangers live within their means in future?
‘Long-term they have to, but it’s not going to be possible short term.
‘The gap between Rangers and Celtic is too extreme at the moment.
‘The standard for Rangers has to be to compete with Celtic.
‘Even the first year, if Rangers are back in the Premiership, they would be competing with Celtic.
“Normally speaking, you would compete off the same cost base and salaries. But the difference is Celtic will still have European income.
‘So Rangers will have a period where we have to invest in the squad without the income of the other side. That is why it needs fan-based investment.
‘Once we bridge the gap with Celtic, both clubs should start operating within their means.
‘But we will have to invest to get to that point first.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2981954/Rangers-Q-Dave-King-reveals-money-come-new-chairman-turn-Ibrox-around.html
…………………
Unless a real sugar daddy comes on board it is a continual hand to mouth existence.
King and the rest on the board do not have the means to keep throwing good money after bad.
……………….
This ibrox fan base better have deep pockets with more money going out than coming in and maybe some crippling damage claims to pay. That gap will not bridge any time soon.And when that gap is not bridged this current board will get the blame. And so begins the ibrox circle.Find a billionare with wealth off the radar.
easyjambo/Cluster One
If, as suggested by paragraphs 56. & 57. of the "Teare" judgement, SDI's damages are capped at £1m in terms of clause 16.3 of the "Retail Agreement", then that means exactly what it says:—- i.e. that SDI cannot recover more than £1m in damages, and certainly not £10m or any other figure, unless there has been a subsequent agreement between the parties amending or deleting said clause 16.3.
This may explain why damages do not seem to have been sought by SDI under either the "Teare" or the "Persey" judgement, it being suggested by Counsel for SDI that damages would not be an adequate or appropriate remedy.
It may also explain the rather perverse and bizarre judgement of Persey of, firstly, simply interpreting the Retail Agreement and, secondly, sending the parties back to agree the appropriate amendments in accordance with the Persey judgement, on the basis, correctly , that it is not for the Court to re-write the parties' contract.
Bizarre and perverse —at least in a question with Scots law, with which I am familiar, and which clearly doesn't apply here— as the Retail Agreement will fall to be construed in accordance with English law.
Bizarre and perverse under Scots law, since an "agreement to agree" is unenforceable, since obviously the parties might never agree anything.
To my mind, Sevco are in a position all too easily to elide the Persey judgement—at least in the short term–(a) by simply delaying or failing to agree the relevant amendments with SDI, or (b) by appealing the Persey judgement.
Totally off topic , a good wee resource to wile away the hours until the new season . I've been gorging on the football for hours .
https://www.britishpathe.com/search/query/football+in+scotland
paddy malarkey 17th June 2019 at 20:04
"Totally off topic , a good wee resource.."
++++++++++
A great wee resource, and as far as I'm concerned, not at all OT: for it reminds us of the days when it would have been unthinkable for a Football Governance body to manufacture a sporting lie of the proportions of the 5-Way Agreement!
We really need to get the death of Rangers FC of 1872 as a sports entity properly acknowledged, and the nonsense of treating TRFC Ltd as anything other than CG's new creation shown to be what it is: insulting nonsense.
Not to mention the need to get to the far end of the Res 12 issue, so that those who may have dishonoured themselves and insulted and cheated the rest of us are brought to such account as may be required!
I can be dewy-eyed watching clips of goalies with bunnets taking three steps, bouncing the ball, taking another three steps, bouncing the ball…….
But that wave of nostalgia reinforces my anger at the cheating knight, and at those in football governance and football reporting who, bellies tickled, were blinded to the whole SDM nonsense, and consequently found themselves having to lie cheat and steal when the blowhard's hollowness and deceit came to light!
And who then try to pin everything on CW!
Honest to God! just what are they like?
The latest general meting of RIFC shareholders is due to be held tomorrow morning to consider the "whitewash resolution", in connection with issue of convertible loan notes to the remaining providers of soft loans. The loan notes can be converted to shares if the option is exercised before the next AGM. This conversion will effectively remove all but £45,000 of the existing soft loans.
This "ordinary" resolution (50% majority required) is designed to get round the TOP rules that the concert party must make a general offer to all other shareholders if/when they exceed 50% of the company's shares. They will hold 53.93% once all the loan notes are converted.
None of the concert party are allowed to vote, nor is Barry Scott who will also receive loan notes in respect of most of his soft loan.
The resolution should pass easily following the dilution of smaller shareholders holding in the last share issue in September 2018.
A number of shareholders have already committed to supporting the resolution, including Borita, New Trace, Club 1872 and John Bennett totaling 37.66m shares. Even if all those who voted against the last share issue do so again, they could only muster 18.9m shares between them.
The loan notes, once converted to shares, will see all other shareholders diluted, including those who vote for the resolution. Despite the dilution, the concert party plus those named as voting for the whitewash will end up holding more than 77% of the company, so will be in a position to push through any resolutions that they wish in the future.
Anyone else notice he did the last draw of the first group wrong? He was supposed to place the last two balls in the middle pot then draw one who would be the home team, but instead he opened the seeded team first without putting them in the middle bowl thereby making them the home team for the first leg. He got it right for the 2nd and 3rd pots. Not quite as bad as some of the SFA draws, but thought I'd have a moan since it's quiet.
easyJambo 17th June 2019 at 16:28
'..I suspect that the Crown conceding on the "restraint order" makes it all the more likely that we could see similar out of court settlements in the other actions, if nothing else to prevent the public disclosure of what the authorities knew and did around the time of their arrest.'
+++++++++++++++
If I remember correctly, the 'middle' defender (the Procurator Fiscal as represented by the Advocate-depute) dropped out of proceedings ( on the basis that, actually, the function is essentially that of representing the Lord Advocate)
The first defender, the Police, would seem to have conceded that they did indeed act outside their proper brief and , presumably after negotiation, arrived at a settlement figure (around 63% of the original claim , which I think was in the order of £150k?)
That leaves the big damages claim against the Lord Advocate. Since that functionary's defence is a simple assertion of immunity, I can see that it is arguable that none of the details of the reasons for the damages claim are relevant. That is, it doesn't matter what charge is raised against the Lord Advocate (other than against him personally for personally committed crimes etc) in the execution of his function, he is immune from prosecution.
In other words, whatever knowledge the Crown office, Whitehouse and the Police have of the total circumstances of the 'suspected' conspiracy and eventual charges is actually irrelevant: Whitehouse's case must simply rest on the assertion that the Lord Advocate's office is not absolutely immune from prosecution even where his reps in the crown office might have cocked things up.
And, personally, I cannot see the Court ever doing anything that might weaken the absolute independence of the Lord Advocate's office and make the holder have to think of his personal position when it might come to prosecution of the great and mighty.
John Clark 18th June 2019 at 14:06
==========================
I'm unsure that it was the Police that acted outwith their powers in this particular aspect of the case. I believe that it was more to do with the Fiscal's office and most likely the Advocate Depute (Keegan) who insisted that a restraint order on DW was appropriate.
My understanding is that the Police's actions re the search warrant, seizure of privileged documents, wrongful arrest, imprisonment and subsequent violation of human rights legislation remain to determined for the three D&P guys (cases A293/16, A295/16 and CA86/19).
I'm sure that the "establishment" or the "Crown" will seek to argue that the police (DCI Roberston) was acting as an agent of the Fiscal's office, which was in turn acting on behalf of the Lord Advocate thus would come under the immunity offered to the holder of that position.
However there is a loophole in that if the pursuer can show "malice or want of probable cause", then a damages claim can still be pursued. If you recall the "sealed envelope" discussion, then the implication was that the emails contained within the envelope demonstrated that the Crown knew that they didn't have an evidential basis (probable cause) for their arrest. It may have been the possibility of such information being disclosed, had this week's hearing gone ahead, that prompted the Lord Advocate to settle out of court.
It is possible that a similar threat will prompt Police Scotland to do likewise when the proof is scheduled in the DW and PC cases (September?). Alternatively we may see an argument about immunity on the basis of Hester v MacDonald (1961). If they go down the immunity route at a proof hearing, then the risk remains of their actions becoming public.
However, it is an extremely high bar for DW and PC to cross is they seek to challenge the 1961 judgement.
Alternatively the Crown Office may choose to throw Robertson under a bus.
Some bedtime reading for you.
https://www.copfs.gov.uk/images/Documents/Freedom_of_Information/Foi-Reply-Attachments/R015658%20-%20hestervmacdonald.pdf
Since we are in reading mode , a long , but fascinating CAS ruling on a subject that may one day affect women's football , imo .
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_-redacted-_Semenya_ASA_IAAF.pdf
easyJambo 18th June 2019 at 13:51
'..the concert party plus those named as voting for the whitewash will end up holding more than 77% of the company, so will be in a position to push through any resolutions that they wish in the future. '
+++++++++++++++
Interesting, though, that
".. individual members of the Concert Party will not be able to increase their percentage interest in shares through or between a Rule 9 threshold without Panel consent. " see top of page 9 at
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2019/05/Circular-FINAL21561323_1.pdf
As far as using their extra weight goes, the immediate concert party members have to work in unison as a group (unless they get the TOP's consent to do otherwise).
Theoretically, I suppose, they could each end up having different overall objectives, fall out with each other and not agree on a line of action, each watching his own personal situation jealously?
Chris McLaughlinVerified account @BBCchrismclaug
Scottish government has asked SPFL to release secret data on unacceptable conduct at football matches. Figures have been collated since 2017. The league have so far refused but will discuss again at next board meeting.
Now what could the SPFL have to hide?
Is there such a thing as a reverse FOI facility that the government can use?
easyJambo 18th June 2019 at 16:28
'..I'm unsure that it was the Police that acted outwith their powers in this particular aspect of the case. .'
++++++++++++++
And you are probably right, I suspect: but I was thinking principally of what DCI Robertson was alleged to have done in relation to the seizure of papers from a solicitor's office even when the solicitor explicitly declared them to be subject to legal privilege!
I think no warrant would ever authorise the seizure of papers that were known to carry that privilege, and the if the seizing officer was unsure, he would surely have to check with his seniors or at the east agree to having the papers sealed up and receipted for until the question was settled ( which is what I think was offered by the solicitor?)
John Clark 18th June 2019 at 18:23
=====================
One could be forgiven for thinking that a zealousness existed to somehow cleanse Rangers of the stench of liquidation by proving in a criminal court that the club had simply been victims of a major fraud. How ironic that one of Scotland's best legal minds proved the innocence of the accused while at the same time deeply hurting at the fate which befell the club.
Meanwhile a Knight of the Realm can operate an illegal tax evasion scheme for years to the benefit of Rangers, and seemingly no-one in the Police, Holyrood, Westminster, or the Scottish Media even cares.
EJ@17.54
That’s come out of the blue. Maybe not a reverse FOI but a court order to release the information, especially if it is in relation to disorder and potential criminality.
easyJambo 18th June 2019 at 17:54
Scottish government has asked SPFL to release secret data on unacceptable conduct at football matches. Figures have been collated since 2017. The league have so far refused but will discuss again at next board meeting.
………………..
Don’t the SFA have anything to say on this? after all they are all about transparence and respected to lead.
The Scottish FA is trusted to lead the country’s national sport with integrity and innovation, fostering a culture of performance, unity and trust.
'easyJambo 18th June 2019 at 17:54
Chris McLaughlinVerified account @BBCchrismclaug
Scottish government has asked SPFL to release secret data on unacceptable conduct at football matches. Figures have been collated since 2017. The league have so far refused but will discuss again at next board meeting.
Now what could the SPFL have to hide?
Is there such a thing as a reverse FOI facility that the government can use?
'
####################################
Just to clarify: the Scottish Government has the data in its possession, which has been supplied by the SPFL. The Scottish Government Minister, Humza Yousaf, claims that the information must remain confidential because the data 'belongs' to the SPFL & they (the SPFL) have not granted permission for its dissemination. Yousaf was on TV stating that he had again asked Doncaster today for permission to release the data & the CEO had refused.
This suggests a couple of things to me.
JJ, the theory over on the Bear's Den is that the collated figures must show Celtic fans to be more sectarian than anyone else and this has caught the (pro-Catholic/Celtic-supporting) Govt out so that is why they are now refusing to release the data, which of course, they had hoped to use to show TRFC supporting fans in a bad light!
Mad as a box of frogs over there.
nawlite 18th June 2019 at 20:34 Mad as a box of frogs over there.
Having been done out of 4 days of Court by the settlement of DW's 'wee damages' claim, I shall try to attend the half-hour preliminary hearing of
CA132/18 Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd
tomorrow at 9.00 a.m.
and, if I'm a good boy, I might on Friday get to
CA86/19 David Grier v the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland
between 10.30 and 11.00 a.m.
It seems that the Turnbull transfer from Motherwell to CFC is dead in the water.
IF this is correct then it doesn't reflect well on CFC and Scottish football in general, IMO.
CFC is arguably the best run / most professionally run club in Scotland.
Turnbull and his agent seemed to have 'excessive' demands.
And, on the face of it, it looks like they have simply given Lawwell and CFC the run around, to elicit better offers from elsewhere.
Just looks amateurish from the biggest club in Scotland, and doesn't bode well for the rest of the transfer window.
Again.
StevieBC 18th June 2019 at 21:37
Ronnie Charters @STVRonnie 8m8 minutes ago
DAVID TURNBULL UPDATE: Motherwell have accepted a £3.25 million deal for the midfielder from Premier League club Norwich City. This is after Celtic pulled the plug.
John Clark 18th June 2019 at 21:28
——————————————
It's early days in both those cases, although you might get a flavour about what they are about.
I've sent you an email.
easyJambo 18th June 2019 at 21:43
DAVID TURNBULL UPDATE: Motherwell have accepted a £3.25 million deal for the midfielder from Premier League club Norwich City.
………………….
Did motherwell not accept the offer from celtic also, before agents got involved.
Cluster One 18th June 2019 at 22:03
easyJambo 18th June 2019 at 21:43
DAVID TURNBULL UPDATE: Motherwell have accepted a £3.25 million deal for the midfielder from Premier League club Norwich City.
………………….
Did motherwell not accept the offer from celtic also, before agents got involved.
==============================
Maybe his agent has a key to Delia Smith's biscuit tin.
easyJambo 18th June 2019 at 22:08 …………….. Will give you that one.
easyJambo 18th June 2019 at 21:43
1
0
Rate This
StevieBC 18th June 2019 at 21:37
Ronnie Charters @STVRonnie 8m8 minutes ago
DAVID TURNBULL UPDATE: Motherwell have accepted a £3.25 million deal for the midfielder from Premier League club Norwich City. This is after Celtic pulled the plug.
================================================
I have not seen a mention of what the norwich bid was I think mr charters has got muddled as 3.25mill was the bid accepted from Celtic.
Bbc and stv only places a figure is released. Let’s see how long his agent waits before agitating for a Christie move.
And now, from Norwich. It's the Quiz of the week!
EJ
On the SPFL secrecy over unacceptable behaviour report, NBM think that the report may be a whitewash, and would not survive public scrutiny.
Big Pink 19th June 2019 at 07:42
'..NBM think that the report may be a whitewash, and would not survive public scrutiny.'
+++++++++++++
Whatever about the report, I note that 'The Scotsman' this morning-in an editorial, no less- has the gall to declare that the SPFL has a moral duty to make the material public!
From a newspaper with a wheen of craven 'Big Lie'-supporting football writers writing for it to speak of 'moral duty' in the field of Football governance is rich, indeed!
Where was, where is, their sense of moral duty when it came to the 5-Way Agreement nonsense, and before that, the whole dirty cheating mess created by SDM?
Honest to God, what are they like?
Off to Parliament Square now.
Regarding the Turnbull saga. I would suggest that none of us on here at age 19 would have been mature enough to make the kind of decision David Turnbull has had to make without the advice of others. On the face of it, a choice between half a million at Celtic or 1 million at Norwich seems straightforward but the reality is far more complicated. His agent has done a sterling job and will be handsomely rewarded for his efforts. The difference is that the agent has done his bit but for young Mr Turnbull it hasn’t even started yet. I hope he becomes the footballer he always wanted to be.
Ex Ludo 19th June 2019 at 08:42
A nice and rational summing up of the Turnbull situation.
We have seen many a young gifted midfielder warm the Parkhead bench or be placed on constant loan, but never to be seen in the Hoops again.
If not for injuries many folk thought the same fate awaited Ryan Christie but the lad he took his chance last season and managed to make a mark on the team with some great performances.
However, while Celtic as a club have a lot to offer in terms of the potential to win domestic trophies and the offer of European football, money talks.
Folk like Phil Mac are constantly reminding everyone and the Celtic fan base that they are in a very strong and stable position with money in the bank. Therefore why are people surprised that agents are wanting to exploit the situation get a decent slice of the cake for their clients?
It would appear that Norwich have simply been able to offer better personal terms and the lad has made his choice.
How wise that is we will only find out in years to come as his career pans out. However the reality is, that Phil Mac keeps saying, its almost as if having more money than others gives you a 'sporting advantage' – both in terms of what you can maybe do on the park and how much you can splash out on players.
As opposed to a gnashing of teeth from some Celtic fans, they should be happy their club has stuck to its guns re its wage structure and, like the rest of us, just accept that sometimes you are going to lose out on signing targets if you want to run a sustainable operation.
In football, like everywhere else in the capitalist world, a sale takes place when a commodity is worth more to the buyer than the seller. A football agent’s job is to stimulate the process.
The Turnbull situation is no different to tens of similar scenarios played out away from the public gaze.
Turnbull’s labour is probably worth more to others than to Celtic. Nothing unusual there except that the public acceptance of the bid puts pressure on either side.
The figures being talked about here are (from my information) way over the top – double in fact – but my own advice to any young guy in David Turnbull’s position would be to leave the influence of the the hushed-up sectarianism report, the 5WA, and the pound-shop corruption behind.
Go to a place where the game is as fair as it can be – and the very best of luck to him wherever he goes.
wottpi 19th June 2019 at 09:04
————————————-
Having money in the bank does not confer a sporting advantage. It is simply a measure of a profitable business spending less than it earns.
Indeed there is a valid argument that having money in the bank results in a self inflicted sporting disadvantage, when performance on the pitch is poorer than it might have been, had you spent some of that money in improving the quality of players in the squad.
I guess it's all to do with running a business with a prime purpose of keeping the shareholders happy rather than the customers.
Yes, mutually exclusive objectives: maximise profits or maximise playing squad quality.
And our old friend, Gordon "I know nothing about anything" Smith is using his experience as a previous SFA CEO
to make various, nonsense quotes in the media;
" The president should be speaking about things. “He has obviously made a decision that this is the way he wants to go forward rather than thinking, ‘I should be doing this or doing that.’…"
. The last thing he did, which was a disappointment, was after the Scottish Cup Final when he said Hibs fans had shown ‘exuberance’.
“He should have apologised for getting that wrong and come out and said he made a mistake by saying that. As if to say it was nothing, a bit of exuberance, when actually players were attacked.”
“If Steve Clarke can do with Scotland what he did at Kilmarnock, we could win the World Cup.”
=======
And apologies to Maxwell.
In hindsight, compared to Smudger, Maxwell must be a brilliant SFA CEO.
Quite enjoyed the wee session in Court this morning, as well as a wee stroll down the High Street on a glorious morning'
Here is my report. (Once again it's as near word for word as a non-shorthand writer can get it. I state that it is not in any way deliberately misleading in any material respect.)
+++++++++
Court of Session
Courtroom 6.
19th June 2019. 9.05 a.m.
Before Lord Bannatyne.
CA132/18 Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd
Mr Gavin MacColl QC for the Pursuer ( with four attending legals)
Mr Kenneth McBrearty for the Defender ( with one attending legal)
No wigs or gowns.
+++++++
Mr MacColl: Good morning, my Lord. This is a preliminary hearing in a breach of contract matter. I appear for the pursuer, and Mr McBrearty for the Defender.
Notes have already been submitted, and I would like to suggest that we aim at a structured period for adjustment,such as 2 weeks for the Pursuer, 2 weeks for the Defender, and 2 weeks for further adjustment.
My learned friend proposes 3weeks, 3 weeks and 2 weeks. I am quite content to accept his suggestion, and we can fix that up. .
I can also say that I am prepared to reduce the quantum sought from £6.4 million to £1 million, which I'm sure my learned friend will have no objection to.
Mr McBrearty: I am pleased to note the reduction, m'Lord., and happy to accept 3 weeks followed by three weeks and two.
There are two other matters I wish to raise;
First, the question of caution.[ pronounced kayshon, of course!] It has been proposed that rather than the Pursuer putting up caution, some indemnity be provided by a related company.. We are approaching the stage where expenditure will increase, and we haven't yet seen a draft indemnity. I think it is appropriate that a diet be fixed?
Lord Bannatyne: Will one week be sufficient?
Mr MacColl: I am happy to agree.
Lord Bannatyne: I'll continue the motion. If there can be agreement and my clerk is notified then we needn't have a hearing.
Mc Brearty QC: The second matter, m'Lord, concerns the question of the wider Rangers community being approached by the Pursuer.
One member of that community, John Greig, a 76 year old hero of the Ibrox disaster, has been approached by the Pursuer because he expressed an opinion about this litigation.
His solicitors have been written to by the Pursuer looking for a statement from Mr Greig as someone who knew about the contract and was party to it and who might therefore find himself personally liable for breach.
This letter was a complete misrepresentation of the facts. How can the Pursuer state a claim against Mr Greig in connection with inducement to breach of contract? There is nothing to say Greig knew about it. How can a 76 year-old man's expression of opinion [ed: no detail was given of what Greig said or when or where] be said to be inducing breach of contract?
In my view, this amounts to an attempt to intimidate a witness. There is no other purpose to it.
I have concerns about possible approaches to other witnesses. I appreciate that Your Lordship cannot do anything about it at present, but I just want my concern recorded for later.
Mr MacColl QC: M'Lord, there was, is, no intention to intimidate a witness. Mr McBrearty is wrong. We question some of the assertions made as fact. This is to suggest that someone didn't know about the contract.
Lord Bannatyne: Was he threatened with an action? I don't want to go into this just now. I have not been shown the letter. What was the letter's purpose?
Mr MacColl: It was a pre-action letter,that legal proceedings might be commenced.
Lord Bannatyne: This wasn't an invitation to give a precognition?
Mr MacColl: ( turns to hear what one of team tell him) It was just a pre-action letter, but disclosure of documents was requested.
Lord Bannatyne: The 'specification' documents? There was no objection to them?
Ms MacColl: I will discuss further and will give certain advice.
Lord Bannatyne: Documents requested from Mr Greig?
Mr MacColl: In part, m'Lord. I will provide advice that appropriate steps be taken. There is no question of intimidation or an attempt to apply inappropriate pressure.
I resist such suggestion.
Lord Bannatyne: Does Mr Greig know the 'specification 'of documents?
Mr MacColl: I am told a copy of the 'specification was sent and he now has had sight.
Lord Bannatyne: I'm not asked to do anything and don't intend to. I haven't seen the letter. I'll note it in the minutes of the proceedings, and Mr McBrearty's complaint.
Otherwise, I grant periods of adjustment 3weeks, 3 weeks and 2 weeks, .and fix a date some 8 weeks from now, and give one week for caution arrangements to be made.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Court rose at 9.40 ish.
I've had a quick skim read through the SFA'a annual accounts to 31 December 2018.
A few highlights (or perhaps they should be lowlights).
Turnover down 2.5%
Gross Profit down 6.7%
Reserves down 10.3%
Cash in hand down 15.8% (this may be due in part to the way that advance rights are received/spent)
It also appears that Regan received a pay off amounting to £350k following his departure (approx a year's salary).
One odd figure also appears in the pension numbers. While the value of the pension fund is in "surplus" of around £1.5m when compared to its obligations, I note that benefits paid over the last year amounted to £3.35m, up from £670k, and £348k in the previous two years, therefore appears excessively high. It makes me wonder if Regan took his pension pot with him when he left. If so, it still seems an excessive amount for Regan's term in office, so there may be other reasons, although none was given.
John Clark 19th June 2019 at 11:58
——————————————
Thanks for the court report as always.
It's interesting to note the personalisation towards John Grieg, although I recall that he was mentioned as one of those involved when the memorial plans were drawn up.
Good spot and summary there eJ.
Will be interesting to see how the SMSM manages to put lipstick on this particular pig of a set of accounts?!
…and these numbers won't include McLeish's payoff.
I'm quite sure he was – or is being – paid in full for the remaining 18 months or so?
easyJambo 19th June 2019 at 12:51
"….I recall that he was mentioned as one of those involved when the memorial plans were drawn up."
++++++++++++++
I'd be surprised , though, if Greig was in any way party to the contract as any kind of 'director' of the club with directorial responsibilities. I'd have thought that even if he had rubbished the plans and called for the contract to be ripped up, it would not have been as anything other than a fan or former player: certainly not as an officer of the Board.
I wonder what it was he is supposed to have said, and when?
.
Big Pink 19th June 2019 at 09:45
In football, like everywhere else in the capitalist world, a sale takes place when a commodity is worth more to the buyer than the seller. A football agent’s job is to stimulate the process.
The Turnbull situation is no different to tens of similar scenarios played out away from the public gaze.
Turnbull’s labour is probably worth more to others than to Celtic. Nothing unusual there except that the public acceptance of the bid puts pressure on either side.
The figures being talked about here are (from my information) way over the top – double in fact – but my own advice to any young guy in David Turnbull’s position would be to leave the influence of the the hushed-up sectarianism report, the 5WA, and the pound-shop corruption behind.
Go to a place where the game is as fair as it can be – and the very best of luck to him wherever he goes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hang on a minute. In the first part of your post you explain how the pricing method within a capitalist market works but further on you are surprisingly able to say "The figures being talked about……. are way over the top".
It is merely the price the market has set for the services of a largely unproven youngster with enormous potential. Norwich were prepared to pay £25k a week. Celtic could only afford £12k. Such is the way of the capitalist market when buying labour. It may be unaffordable for Celtic but its not "over the top" its simply the market rate that DT is able to realise for the sale of his labour.
I can understand why you are disappointed Celtic lost DT because as a Motherwell fan I'm also disappointed. That disappointment may be tempered slightly because it appears he may be on loan with us until Xmas before flying off to join the Canaries. That makes sense as it gives him time to get more games under his belt. My understanding is that Celtic weren't able to meet that requirement and it was a factor in DT's decsion.
Anyways good luck to the lad and I look forward to him being Scotlands best player for a generation.
The SFA has been busy though.
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-concludes-negotiations-to-purchase-hampden-from-queens-park-after-euro-2020/?rid=13929
The Scottish FA has concluded a legally binding agreement with Queen’s Park FC for the transfer of ownership of Scotland’s National Stadium, Hampden Park.
Heads of Terms were signed in September last year after a period of dialogue and after further discussion on structural and financial aspects of the agreement, a formal legal offer was issued on behalf of the Scottish FA on 7 June, 2019.
We have now received notification from Queen’s Park that they have accepted the final and binding deal.
Key stakeholders including Scottish Ministers, sportscotland, Big Lottery Fund and Glasgow City Council have been informed of this formal agreement and the transfer of ownership will take place on 1 August, 2020 – after Hampden Park hosts its UEFA EURO 2020 fixtures.
The board of the Scottish FA will now seek to ensure ownership of Hampden Park is a game-changer for the Association, its members and all its stakeholders.
Rod Petrie, Scottish FA President: “Given the hard work from everyone since the agreement of last September I am pleased we now have a legal contract with one of our member clubs for the good of Scottish football. The real work begins now to ensure Hampden Park can continue to serve the needs of the game and be an inspirational home for Scottish football in the future. We can build on the short-term work currently undertaken to make Hampden Park, Glasgow and Scotland a memorable Host City Venue for the forthcoming UEFA EURO 2020 finals.”
The SFA does have impeccable timing.
Release disappointing financials – which could be an indicator of worsening times ahead, without a main sponsor and low national team attendances…
whilst announcing the acquisition of a potential, financial albatross in the form of the awful, Hampden Athletics Stadium.
easyJambo 19th June 2019 at 12:38
It makes me wonder if Regan took his pension pot with him when he left. If so, it still seems an excessive amount for Regan’s term in office, so there may be other reasons, although none was given.
……………………
Hush money.
John Clark 19th June 2019 at 11:58
……………..
Thanks JC.
easyJambo 19th June 2019 at 12:51
It’s interesting to note the personalisation towards John Grieg, although I recall that he was mentioned as one of those involved when the memorial plans were drawn up.
………………………
John Greig
Played for club from 1961-1978. Went on to manage Rangers from 1978-83. Later became a director.
£40,000 ebt.
……………
Also backed Charles Green at the time.
John Clark 19th June 2019 at 13:31
I wonder what it was he is supposed to have said, and when?
…………………..
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-being-sued-11m-after-16229023
………
The club also thought it would be “inappropriate” to have a statue of former captain John Greig at street level – with an outstretched hand to let fans give him a “high five”.
…………………
Maybe he found it “inappropriate” to have an outstretched hand.
Easy Jambo
A favour if you can.
Due to hardware problems I cannot post Article 67 of UEFA FFP 2018.
Can you have a look with outcome of the court decision favouring Ashley in mind.
Might it explain a) why no media coverage and/or b) delay in a demand for payment by Ashley?
John Clark17th June 2019 at 12:15
Auldheid 16th June 2019 at 13:29.
Yes, one has to wonder at Celtic's dependence on a process that is clearly compromised.
Can you e mail me?