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.
Had always been aware of the Busby Babes and the Munich airplane disaster – but never knew about this Italian tragedy.
And the other teams in Serie A 'donated' one player each to enable Torino to field a team the following season.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46788983?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world&link_location=live-reporting-story
ernie 4th May 2019 at 09:01
5 12 Rate This
Angus1983 3rd May 2019 at 12:02
the same one you’re getting on SFM: “Suck it up and haud yer wheest”.
………………….
I fail to see that message on SFM.
Extraordinarily quiet on SFM tonight!
I've been forced to go retrospective, and re-read the Gary Allan QC report of the Judicial Panel's judgment in the case against CW , when the utter ineffectiveness ( or , as some would suggest, the self-serving cowardice of RFC board members under SDM ) allowed the feckin eejits to accept the sale of the club to Whyte.
It is a fascinating story, of how guys who believed that there was something not quite right chickened out, and did nothing in the face of what they plainly saw as being utterly, utterly suspicious.
And among those guys was our Dave! He had his suspicions all right.
And, perhaps, had his own hopes of how to profit from the calamitous series of events that resulted in the death of a then 140-something year old club.
JC@23,46 yesterday
Yes indeed. The part SDM played in the downfall of RFC has been carefully whitewashed (or blue rinsed if you will) He (SDM) has maintained a relatively low profile since selling RFC and is quietly building up a new set of businesses. Another character from those turbulent times keeping a relatively low profile is the BBC’s Mark Daly who brought us “The Men Who Sold The Jerseys”. It might be time for the BBC to commission a “where are they now “ documentary for old time’s sake. Perhaps it’s too much to expect as the dark forces referred to by Jim Spence in a tweet a few days ago might not want that to happen and will quietly ensure no old coals are raked over.
John Clark 4th May 2019 at 23:46
And among those guys was our Dave! He had his suspicions all right.
And, perhaps, had his own hopes of how to profit from the calamitous series of events that resulted in the death of a then 140-something year old club.
………………………
Less than two weeks after Administration he was sniffing about.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1124954469593243648?p=v
Ex Ludo 5th May 2019 at 09:21
It might be time for the BBC to commission a “where are they now “ documentary for old time’s sake.
………………….
There is enough boycott’s of the BBC from the ibrox club without adding anymore
Cluster One 5th May 2019 at 09:34
John Clark 4th May 2019 at 23:46
And among those guys was our Dave!
………………………
Less than two weeks after Administration he was sniffing about. https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1124954469593243648?p=v
================
Immediately, the phrase / proverb pops into my head;
"As a dog returns to its vomit."
Continuing on my little trip down memory lane, I have reminded myself of the little oddity that caught my eye the first time I read the judgment in the appeal of CG against Lord Doherty's opinion that he was not entitled to have his legal costs paid by TRFC Ltd.
Have a look at this extract from the judgment and see if you can spot what I'm referring to as an oddity.
[4] The Rangers Football Club plc (“Oldco”) was placed in administration on 14 February 2012. In May 2012 Sevco 5088 Limited, a company of which the reclaimer was the only director, paid the joint administrators £200,000 for an “exclusivity” option to purchase the assets. A proposed sale agreement was concluded subject to approval of a creditors voluntary arrangement (“CVA”), which was not forthcoming.
[5] On 14 June 2012 the administrators sold the business and assets of the company to Sevco Scotland Limited, incorporated on 29 May 2012 (“Newco”). On 31 July 2012 Newco changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited. Oldco went into liquidation. It changed its name to RFC 2012 plc.
The full judgment can be found at
https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2017/%5B2017%5DCSIH37.html
https://twitter.com/clydebankceltic/status/1124990329357242368?s=21
The Master has spoken. ⚠️ wee sweary in the text.
https://twitter.com/jimspencesport/status/1125021218623696896?s=21
Jim is on a roll.
John Clark 5th May 2019 at 13:00
31 July 2012 Newco changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited. Oldco went into liquidation. It changed its name to RFC 2012 plc.
……………………………………….
On the 31 july 2012 sevco scotland ltd changed it’s name to The Rangers Football club limited.
Cluster One 5th May 2019 at 15:03
'…On the 31 july 2012 sevco scotland ltd ..'
***********
It did indeed, but that's not quite the oddity I had in mind .Have another go
John Clark 5th May 2019 at 13:00
Sevco/Sevco Scotland.
John Clark 5th May 2019 at 13:00
………………..
Sorry for late response.
……………….
paid the joint administrators £200,000 for an “exclusivity” option to purchase the assets.
………….
On 14 June 2012 the administrators sold the business and assets
…………..
The word Business was added. There was no “Business” left to be sold after the (“CVA”), was not forthcoming.
In May 2012 Sevco 5088 Limited, a company of which the reclaimer was the only director,
…………………..
In May Craig whyte was also a director of sevco 5088 ltd.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1125116514024271872?p=v
Cluster One 5th May 2019 at 20:14
'..In May Craig whyte was also a director of sevco 5088 ltd.'
*******************
Cluster One, that's brilliant!
I wish I had had that in mind.
Honesty compels me to tell the truth, though.
I had merely thought it was odd that their Lordships/Ladyship hadn't made more of a point that it was not Sevco5088 that bought the assets, given that ownership was disputed and the story was that Sevco 5088's name was on the sale and purchase agreement , but that a quick deed of novation transferred ownership to SevcoScotland!
I can't remember where that novation idea came from?
John Clark 5th May 2019 at 21:02
I can’t remember where that novation idea came from?
……………….
Around about the time my first recollection of the word Novation was heard from a caller on the radio.And if i am correct? one who has sadly passed away was well informed on the concept of Novation.
I have just checked on https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-notices/contempt-of-court-orders
and satisfied myself that only the under-listed cases touching on the 'saga' are not to be reported upon.
Orders and Directions made under Section 4(2) and or Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
The Rangers FC Group Ltd re Adjudication of Claim, Court of Session, Edinburgh, 15 March 2016
Charles Green v Rangers International Football Club Plc, Court of Session, Edinburgh, 12 November 2015
HMA v Craig Thomas Whyte, Gary Martyn Withey, David Henry Grier, David John Whitehouse, Paul John Clark , Charles Alexander Green and Sheik Imran Ahmad known as Imran Ahmad, High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, 16 October 2015
HMA for restraint order re Craig Whyte, Court of Session, Edinburgh, 11 September 2015
—
I am therefore free to put on the blog my (barely intelligible ,even to me) notes of some hearings I attended, which were at the time not permitted to be reported.[ I found yesterday a memory stick I had misplaced, and discovered that I had these notes at the time, but couldn't use them, and sort of forgot about them]
First:
Court of Session 11th May 2016
Before Lord Menzies
Court of Session Thursday 23rd June 2016
P1140/15 Note HMA for order re failure to comply re Craig Whyte
( I went to attend this, but it appeared that it was postponed?)
Tuesday 5th July 2016 and 3 ensuing days Lord Glennie
P1140/15 Note HMA for Order re failure to comply re Craig Whyte
For Petitioner(HMA) For Respondent, Mr Dewar QC
Mr Mure QC, M/s Hughes
Mr Dan Byrne (Mr Kavanagh, solicitor)
(Crown Agent instructing)
Court sat at 10.30 a.m.
Mr Mure: There are a couple of points re the Bundle of productions:
Series of documents in (Marsh?March?), para 68 of Whyte's affidavit “…. Marsh conflict in this case” Is Ticketus decision suspect or not?
Email from Martin,
Marsh April 2013 “ I was partner of Collyer Bristow..”
Part 5 Press article 15/4/13 “ reports about Marsh being a Collyer Bristow partner bearing on this case “..This document doesn't exist
This document from Mr Marsh confirms that that statement is inaccurate…
It's fair to say Mr Whyte raised the matter with the Court of Appeal in a letter to Mr Justice Floyd of the Court of Appeal. In the penultimate para he raises the point of conflict.
[And that was all that I could scribble. The rest was too indistinct, or just too referential to papers and documents that I had no knowledge of, so stopped trying to make sense of things]
Second:
At the last hearing, Counsel were asked to go away and talk to each other and get as much agreement as they could, and submit any further Note of position.
They did so on last Friday and again on Tuesday, according to Mr Mure. And matters not agreed had been encapsulated.
He referred to the '£5 000 or more' limit mentioned in the Order..(I missed the point he made about it) and the Judge asked whether there had been agreement ( on whatever the point was). Yes, there had.
The Judge asked about " to or for the benefit of the respondent"- didn't this possibly present ambiguities? The respondent's father? ( he went on to talk about PayPal bills being paid by respondent's partner as an example of possible ambiguity arising ) The Judge said that if this wording had been agreed he was not going to argue, he just wanted to be sure .
Findlay then observed 'we are where we are. What my Lord sees is a substantial body of agreement.
[He then addressed what I took to be the amended texts of argument]In relation to (1) he said he had no difficulty with 'salary' being 'income'- but to a layman, would 'an interest free loan' be considered as 'income'?
And the period does trouble me, he said. It's too long. A period of 12 months or so would in his submission be sufficient, say 6/4/13 to 30/11/14, eighteen months. But that's for My lord to decide.
As far as (3) and (4) are concerned [the original (9) and (10) ] .. £5 000 across the board was a misreading ..
(This was agreed by the Judge)
Tracing back £250 ? who in business could track down that small sum.
And I would accept an amendment to ' the sole benefit of respondent'
The Judge asked , coming back to the definition of income, would you accept 'benefit in loans or in kind'?
Findlay : benefits in kind are different.. Rent of flat
Judge: 'income or receipts of any kind whatsoever'—- would that cover it?Para 1 of today's Note?
Findlay then went on about minutiae such as , say, £20 borrowed for the taxi fare home, and such like.
The judge asked " Would loans be covered by revised version of Para 3?
Findlay said Yes, but benefits in kind are different
The Judge addressed Mr Mure: Para 1 of note– the view I take is that other forms of income would not include loans, but covered by Para 3
Mure: Yes.
Judge: So no problem on (1)…… I take it that the reference to 'today's date' means the date of the original order?
Mure: Yes.
Judge: and no problem with Para (2)?
Mure: No, that was just evidence.
Judge : As regards the period, I will order that that be 2011-2014
I will not change to 'sole'
and leave the value at£5000.
In respect of Para 2 , the Crown already have some information. You will explain what you have, to preclude the need for the respondent to provide the same information.
I will vary the order at para 3, adding para 3(a).
I will require compliance by 21st September.
Can we come back shortly after that date
Thursday 6th October, 9.00 a.m
( And Findlay referred to the criminal hearing recommencing on 3rd October, and asked that nothing from this court be made public. Judge agreed.
Court of Session 9.00 a m 6th October 2016
Court 10
P1140/15 Note: HMA for Order re failure to comply re Craig Whyte
Before Lord Glennie
Mr Mure QC for the Petitioner Mr D Findlay QC for the Respondent
Crown Office staff (4) Mr Dan Byrne
Mr Kavanagh (solicitor)
Also present in the body of the court: One police officer, Mr Whyte, one journalist, one slip of a girl solicitor (on the pubic benches) and me.
Mr Mure: Good morning, my Lord. Your Lordship will have my note….
Lord Glennie: I have your Note, but not the Affidavit it refers to….
Mr Mure: (pauses)… I have my own copy here…it's heavily annotated ,I'm afraid….but there's a summary page..My learned Junior is going to fetch a copy of the affidavit..
Lord G: Your Note makes certain criticisms….doesn't yet confirm..
Mr M: ..the affidavit bears fruit……
Lord G: What are you suggesting..?
Mr M: ..that the Court should issue its opinion in final form..
Lord G: are you looking for the information in the affidavit to be approved..?
Mr M:…( missed a bit of garbled speech)… matters may be continued.
Lord G: …an important matter in connection with penalties will be the extent of further compliance..You've still got some way to go with enquiries. We would need to see them finalised before we could consider fixing a period of custody. But you have gone down the route of more time, you don't think you have yet got the full picture.
Mr M: I accept that, my Lord. The respondent has had ample time.( more garble).. perhaps another 3 weeks..?
Lord G: A line has to be drawn somewhere….
Mr M: ….or .perhaps in 4 weeks time….?
Judge G: we would then be in position to deal with the question of penalties at that time?
Mr M: Yes. Maybe 7 days before that time for comments ..?
Judge G: Yes.
[the learned Junior returns with a copy of the affidavit, which is handed to the Judge]
We should hear from Mr Findlay.
Mr Findlay: I would first like to make it clear, my Lord, that prior to recent events the Respondent had apologised sincerely over his non-compliance with the original Order.I make no comment on how matters were handled before, but I have tried to right the ship as best I can.
The material supplied to date is the best that could have been gathered.
Judge G: ..We are where we are. You had three weeks from the date of the last Hearing.I get the impression that there are a number of leads unresolved?
Mr F:.. I've looked with great care: there is some nitpicking, some substance.. If more details can be obtained or explanations given as to why they can't be obtained…..
Judge G: As I understand it certain accounts can't be obtained , there's a hint that there is reluctance on the part of banks..
Mr F: If Banks can't communicate I'll try to satisfy the Petitioner.
Judge G: You want the opportunity of completing the information, chasing the contacts that you have had no response from?
Mr F: ..Can I just park that question for the moment, my Lord. As your Lordship knows, the original Indictment (in the criminal case) was reduced to 2 charges- the £1 fraud charge, and the proceeds of crime charge. My position is that one irrelevant indictment has been replaced by another irrelevant indictment. I invite the Court to abandon the 'proceeds of crime' procedures.That being so, I will nevertheless do my best to get the information.
Judge G: What time do you think before your final position?
Mr F: 6 weeks might make sense. Lord Bannatyne might dismiss the whole case.
Judge G: But it might have an impact on the proceeds of crime..
Mr F: I will ask the Crown to abandon proceeds of crime.If they won't, then 6 weeks.
Judge G: If at 6 weeks it is still uncertain if the proceeds of crime continues…I need to be informed of parallel matters on the procedures of crime matter.
Mr F: It is inevitable that in 6 weeks down the road…… we can accept or not.
Judge G: First 4 weeks to get any further compliance with the order of 1st September, then 2 weeks after that notes in and other things…By Order ?
Mr M: That's all right by me.
Judge G: Maybe at that time I will be dealing with penalty, while matters are up in the air.
I shall make an order 1) appointing respondent within 4 weeks and by 3rd November to lodge any further affidavit in response to the order made on 1st September, -para
2) Noter to intimate by 10th November any note in response
3)Hearing to continue on 17th November at 9.00 a.m, when it may be that I will deal with penalties in contempt.
Mr M: But if my Learned friend submits a 'recall' motion…………
Lord G: “Rules of court” will deal with that.
Court rose at about 9.40 a.m.
Craig Whyte was sitting immediately in front of me. At one point, he was faintly but discernibly trembling, and swallowing hard.
From what I can make of things, Findlay is going to try to get the second criminal charge ( the proceeds -of- crime -related charge) thrown out. And of course, if that happens, then there would be no continuing grounds on which the Crown could make an order for disclosure of resources , or forbid Whyte from moving money etc. So the 'failure to comply' order would be ( retrospectively) invalid, and so the contempt charge would fall.
But, as I have frequently said, what do I know?
JC , 6th October 2016
Make of that what you will, folks!
And I do encourage you ( who have not ever been in Court in any capacity) to take a wander in for an hour or two one day, just to get a sense of what is happening and how utterly important it is not just to the people involved, but to the rest of us.
John Clark 6th May 2019 at 00:42
…………….
Great work JC
John C
Excellent reportage. Reporting restrictions have often given MSM an excuse to remain silent in Rangers saga. Subsequent removal of restriction also removes that excuse.
Morning all.
wrt the Whyte/Green switcheroo,I have always believed that Greens very public admission that he stiffed White was not a mistake but a deliberate action to place in the public domain,evidence that would support any future claim by Whyte or anyone representing either him or future owners of the fixed charge claim.
They were(maybe still are) partners,after all.
As the BBC calls it, "McGregor's kung fu kick" ;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/48172663
===================
Looks pretty much clear cut: a straight red all day long.
The question is: will a blatant, violent act from a player be supported by a blatant act of bad faith by his club?
Will TRFC appeal the red card – simply to allow McGregor to play against CFC on Sunday?
torrejohnbhoy 6th May 2019 at 10:27
'…Greens very public admission that he stiffed White was not a mistake but a deliberate action to place in the public domain,evidence that would support any future claim by Whyte or anyone representing either him or future owners of the fixed charge claim…'
******************
And the fact that BDO were thinking of reaching an agreement with Henderson &Jones surely would indicate that the latter have some evidence to support their claim, which BDO had already spent money trying to resist.
torrejohnbhoy6th May 2019 at 10:27
My take on this is that the switcheroo was necessary for the benefit of the SFA because it had been brought to their attention that Whyte was behind Sevco 5088 Ltd.
Bogs Dollox 6th May 2019 at 16:05
torrejohnbhoy6th May 2019 at 10:27
My take on this is that the switcheroo was necessary for the benefit of the SFA because it had been brought to their attention that Whyte was behind Sevco 5088 Ltd.
===========================
I think you'll find that the SFA put their collective fingers in their ears, closed their eyes, while singing la la la la la, as a club known as Rangers was resurrected.
The SFA's eyebrows were only raised to the possibility of Whyte still being involved maybe 9 months after the switcheroo.
That led to the SFA allowing TRFC to seek an independent inquiry into themselves. The inquiry was conducted by Pinsent Mason during April/May 2013. That report has never seen the light of day, other than an extract that was published by TRFC to the effect that there was no connection between Whyte and TRFC (Sevco Scotland), which was self evident from day one. That was enough for the SFA to say "Aye, OK that's good enough for us. Keep calm and carry on"
Who knows what other information about Sevco 5088 and the switcheroo was uncovered in the investigation that remains confidential.
https://twitter.com/boxertoye/status/1125288027910283264?s=21
The above link has a link to a BBC article from 2012 which is remarkably honest about a certain new club.
Ex Ludo 6th May 2019 at 20:51
That'll never do ! There's mention there of –
The SFL have already agreed to place Rangers in Division Three after the club's attempts to replace the old club in the SPL and First Division were unsuccessful.
and
Several players contracted to the old Rangers refused to join the new club but others allowed their registration to be transferred and SFA membership would likely give manager Ally McCoist the green light to make new signings.
Any reason why James Forrest is getting it tight for not attending the SPFA awards – is being away with his club not an acceptable excuse ? He wouldn't have been my choice anyway , but I vaguely recall a photograph of the empty seats at an awards ceremony that were meant to be filled by TRFC players, and there was barely a mention .
easyJambo 6th May 2019 at 18:43
That led to the SFA allowing TRFC to seek an independent inquiry into themselves. The inquiry was conducted by Pinsent Mason during April/May 2013. That report has never seen the light of day, other than an extract that was published by TRFC to the effect that there was no connection between Whyte and TRFC (Sevco Scotland),
…………….
A couple of reminders.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1125504415719464961?p=v
………………
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1125504539233267714?p=v
Forgot to post this one.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1125504626474868737?p=v
SFA probe Green links to whyte April 11, 2013
9 days later Green had walked away only to walk back in August 3rd as a consultant,then walk away again on Aug 8th
Ex Ludo 6th May 2019 at 20:51
'…a BBC article from 2012 which is remarkably honest ..'
'Agreement between five parties – old Rangers, new Rangers, the SFA, SPL and Scottish Football League – is required for the relaunched club to inherit old Rangers' SFA membership, '
*****************
Well, I think McLaughlin was under an editorial hammer to make sure he did not use terms like 'the new club'!
McLaughlin's piece , like many another piece at the time, uses words like 'inherited' , 'relaunched', new 'company', to try to bolster the myth that the new Rangers are one and the same as the old Rangers.
And as for 'Rangers insistence that they are not punished' McLaughlin should have exposed that for the legal nonsense that it was: there was no way the SFA could legally or equitably punish a brand new club that had not been guilty of any breach of Football rules!
Green was at the madam, and so were the SFA , each being desperate to lie about the true status of the new club and the death of RFC and its 140-odd years of football achievements.
And McLaughlin failed as a journalist , by not walking away from the BBC rather than be compliant with their editorial policy, which was and is, to adopt the propagation of the Big Lie and spread and foster it and bar any discussion of it on air.
( I take it, incidentally, that , since yesterday's game at Ibrox was commentated on from Ibrox stadium ,BBC Scotland have kissed and made up with the Ibrox board? The price of which being what? Removing the possibility that McLaughlin will ever be sent to Ibrox? Did I miss some big announcement of the reconciliation?)
Cluster One 6th May 2019 at 21:59
'….https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1125504539233267714?p=v'
*******************
That is a good link to the newspaper report.
I enjoyed in particular this bit:
" ….Rangers earlier issued a statement to the London Stock Exchange…….It added that Green was a director of Sevco 5088, which was used to buy the assets and business of the Liquidation-bound club….The assets were transferred to another new company , SevcoScotland, days after the £5.5 million purchase…"
(And I'm reinforced in my view that it was odd that their Lordships/Ladyship did not make some kind of mention of that 'fact' , having mentioned Sevco 5088 at all! ( my post of 5th May at 13.00 refers))
Comparing football fans (un)forgiving nature but maybe slightly off message ? Whoops
Matthew Lindsay in The herald…
"Yet, the rebels were, it was subsequently shown, perfectly entitled legally to take such a course of action. Their misgivings about the new club hierarchy, “
see the full article
https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/17620160.matthew-lindsay-rangers-contract-rebels-return-shows-brendan-rodgers-can-make-a-celtic-comeback/
On the Pinsent Mason 'investigation', there is this
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/403676/Rangers-No-Whyte-investment
I love this wee bit " The Investigation Committee is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent limitations of a private inquiry."
I have referred on this blog ( geez, a bloody age ago!) to the staff appraisal report, in which the Reporting Officer writes" Mr X has performed all his duties entirely to his own satisfaction".
'Thoroughness' and 'inherent limitations' are not quite comfortable bedfellows, wouldn't you say?
Honest to God.
easyJambo 6th May 2019 at 18:43
Bogs Dollox 6th May 2019 at 16:05
torrejohnbhoy6th May 2019 at 10:27
My take on this is that the switcheroo was necessary for the benefit of the SFA because it had been brought to their attention that Whyte was behind Sevco 5088 Ltd.
===========================
I think you'll find that the SFA put their collective fingers in their ears, closed their eyes, while singing la la la la la, as a club known as Rangers was resurrected.
The SFA's eyebrows were only raised to the possibility of Whyte still being involved maybe 9 months after the switcheroo.
That led to the SFA allowing TRFC to seek an independent inquiry into themselves. The inquiry was conducted by Pinsent Mason during April/May 2013. That report has never seen the light of day, other than an extract that was published by TRFC to the effect that there was no connection between Whyte and TRFC (Sevco Scotland), which was self evident from day one. That was enough for the SFA to say "Aye, OK that's good enough for us. Keep calm and carry on"
Who knows what other information about Sevco 5088 and the switcheroo was uncovered in the investigation that remains confidential.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The SFA did the opposite of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting Lalafukinla. They facilitated the process of letting a club back into the league that under any laws of the game in any other country they would have been Sine die. Such was the scale of their cheating.
Not convinced the SFA didn't know Whyte was Sevco 5088 at the time. Why the switcheroo – followed by a public confession that Green had shafted Whyte?
If Whyte was involved 9 months after the switcheroo when the SFA raised an eyebrow then he was in on the switcheroo. No?
What made them raise an eyebrow? (look at the money being invested in Sevco 5088 Ltd – it was all switched to Sevco Scotland Ltd. Whose money was it? Why did they allow it to be switched?). Was he about to be declared personna non grata in Scottish football. A timeline would be useful here.
I spoke to a PM partner at the time. His opinion was that their report was a whitewash and even though they were paid handsomely he wishes they had never been appointed.
Lawyers Eh? Always seeking justice?
John Clark 6th May 2019 at 23:10
On the Pinsent Mason 'investigation', there is this
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/403676/Rangers-No-Whyte-investment
I love this wee bit " The Investigation Committee is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent limitations of a private inquiry."
I have referred on this blog ( geez, a bloody age ago!) to the staff appraisal report, in which the Reporting Officer writes" Mr X has performed all his duties entirely to his own satisfaction".
'Thoroughness' and 'inherent limitations' are not quite comfortable bedfellows, wouldn't you say?
Honest to God.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The point being of course that Sevco were allowed to "whitewash" themselves by appointing a firm to report to them first and not to the SFA direct. Why? (I know we know the answer but our clubs don't appear to care).
Like I said above I spoke to a PM partner at the time who was less than impressed by his firms output. But pay the piper call the tune.
Bogs Dollox 6th May 2019 at 23:12
'..They facilitated the process of letting a club back into the league that..'
Steady, Bogs Dollox! They admitted a new club into Scottish Football.
The fact that some of the same rotten spivs who had been connected with the club that was put into liquidation were now connected with the new club does not change the fact that it was/is a new club.
RFC of 1872 ceased to exist. A club of yesteryear.
They were not 'let back in'. Some rotten sods of spivs in cahoots with another rotten lot of 'governance' people created a lie, a myth.
The club in liquidation should, of course, have been stripped of all honours and titles won when teams fielded over many years had ineligible players playing
And the record books should have been corrected. And the new club should have been prohibited from trading on the name that was once 'honourable' and from falsely claiming to be that once honourable club.
Those were the correct actions that should have been taken by the SFA.
That they were not taken is an affront to truth and to Sport.
Simples.
John Clark 6th May 2019 at 23:39
Bogs Dollox 6th May 2019 at 23:12
'..They facilitated the process of letting a club back into the league that..'
Steady, Bogs Dollox! They admitted a new club into Scottish Football.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Correct.
“Several players contracted to the old Rangers refused to join the new club but others allowed their registration to be transferred and SFA membership would likely give manager Ally McCoist the green light to make new signings.”
This is the second last paragraph from the 2012 BBC article (the italics are mine)
Is the SFA still in hibernation?
Have they managed to press gang another unemployable, unfortunate into the Scotland manager's job?
Mibbees they have… and just not bothered to tell the fans yet?
Or perhaps they're having a marathon dominoes session down in the bunker, and just forgotten about the appointment? Easily done.
Ex Ludo 7th May 2019 at 08:54
..'refused to join the new club'….'
*********
Acknowledged, Ex Ludo. The sub-editor who missed that probably got his jotters!
Maybe I was a bit too harsh on McLaughlin, though,who is by no means the worst of the scribes.
But the pernicious lie has got to be contradicted at every turn and those who propagate it are to be refuted until truth prevails.
Rejected several times by lower league clubs, the SPFL leadership now tries to divide and conquer: no relegation from the Championship guaranteed for a season, while League One clubs get two slots instead of one for promotion, again for a season.
Meantime, two 'mystery' colt sides get dumped into League Two.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48179898
I wonder who the two colt sides could be?
The BBC report by Brian McLaughlin has been replicated in several papers. Articles claim talks have been going on for prolonged periods.
It's a one sided discussion: the lower league clubs have rejected the colt idea many times: why does the SPFL keep on bringing it up every few weeks? I'd have thought they had more pressing matters to attend to.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/no-plans-to-change-the-format-spfl-dismisses-championship-expansion-claims-1-4922309
'The Scottish Professional Football League say they have ‘no plans’ to extend the Ladbrokes Championship to 12 teams amid fresh reports of Celtic and Rangers’ under-20 sides joining a revamped senior league set-up.
The SPFL responded to claims the Scottish second tier could be expanded for the 2020/21 campaign by having no relegation from it next season, and granting automatic promotion to the top two clubs from Ladbrokes League One.
That would mean a 44-game league season in Scotland’s second tier. Changes to League One and League Two could see automatic promotion to the bottom tier for both the Highland League and Lowland League champions, while two “colt”, or under-20 teams from Premiership clubs could be included.
But while talks over any potential alterations to the current SPFL set-up are ongoing within the organisation’s competitions working group, they insist a 12-team Championship is not on the agenda.
“Whilst we regularly review our competition formats, there are currently no plans to change the format of the Ladbrokes Championship,” said an SPFL spokesperson.
“We always want to ensure fans enjoy competitions that are dramatic, exciting and compelling – just as this season’s Ladbrokes Championship has been.”
Celtic and Rangers have been actively seeking inclusion for their under-20 sides in the SPFL for some time now.
In January 2018, the Old Firm clubs made a joint proposal for a two-year pilot scheme which would see their “colts” play in League 2.
They suggested their teams would play all of their fixtures away from home and offered to guarantee the purchase of 250 tickets per match at £10 per head to the other 10 clubs.
The move was rejected by several clubs, including Annan Athletic and Stenhousemuir, after consultation with their supporters.
Several European countries – including Spain, Germany, Portugal and Norway – allow reserve or youth teams from major clubs to participate in the lower divisions of their senior leagues with restrictions on how far they can be promoted and which cup competitions they can enter.
Under-20 sides from the Scottish Premiership clubs have taken part in the Irn-Bru Scottish Challenge Cup in the past three seasons.'
They could ask West of Scotland Juniors to admit the colt teams into their set up . Players were sent to Junior clubs in the past as part of their mental and physical development , and their are some good teams there that would be more than capable of giving them a game . And the guaranteed ticket sales would be a boost for the clubs .
https://twitter.com/celtic__tigress/status/1125304597583749121?s=21
Precursor to walking away?
You may recall me voicing my concerns about how the SFA was conducting the licensing round for new applicants who played in the East of Scotland League this season. Well, the SFA have surpassed their usual incompetence with this one.
The EoS season concluded on Saturday after an emotional roller coaster of a game at Broxburn (I was there), with Bonnyrigg Rose winning the conference play-offs and with it a promotion to the Lowland League …….. well maybe not.
Clubs have to have at least an "entry level" licence to participate in the LL. Many prospective clubs paid the fee, carried out ground improvements etc., to obtain a licence in good faith, only for the SFA to change the licence criteria after the application process started. The key change was that floodlights were now required.
Clubs have just been advised today of the outcome. Those with floodlights appear to have been accepted, while those without them have been rejected, including Bonnyrigg.
Now I know that Bonnyrigg have acquired lights and their erection is going through the planning process with the work due to be carried out during the close season. The SFA, at this point, appear not to have granted any derogation for Bonnyrigg or anyone else.
The likeliest promotion/relegation scenario (which also depends on the outcome of the Cove v Berwick SPFL L2 playoff), is that Whitehill Welfare will not be relegated as they can only be replaced by the "EoS Champion Club", i.e. Bonnyrigg.
Fair enough if they don't meet the licensing criteria you may say ……… well changing the rules part way through the application process isn't ideal, but two "licensed" clubs in the LL (Vale of Leithen and ….. wait for it …….. Whitehill Welfare) don't have lights. Are they going to be thrown out the league?
Who knows? It's the SFA that we are talking about.
I think this story has some way to run, but the initial take on it is that the SFA have again shown themselves once again to be not fit for purpose.
Here's a statement from Tranent who were also rejected for the lack of floodlights:
Apart from not wanting the yob elements of their support, what are the objections of the clubs to these teams joining their league.
Assuming of course that promotion is not a factor.
Other countries, e.g., Spain, seem able to accommodate such an arrangement.
Here's Bonnyrigg's reaction to their Licensing rejection.
Update on club licensing.
I can confirm that earlier this afternoon I received an email from the Chief Executive of the SFA that following consideration by the Board, our application for membership of the Scottish Football Association has been rejected on the grounds that we are not complaint with current Entry Level criteria – specifically provision of floodlighting and therefore our application for derogation (which would allow us a period of twelve months to remedy this) has also been rejected.
Everyone at the club is extremely disappointed with the outcome of this decision, as we believe we provided a compelling case for derogation which would allow us time to install floodlights at New Dundas Park as planned during the summer in time for the start of the new season.
As a reminder, we applied for SFA membership on October 26th based on the criteria published in 2018 and the application fee was paid on the same date. November 22nd I received notice from SFA licensing that they would audit the club on December 12th at 10 a.m. At 6 p.m. on December 11th I received notification from SFA licensing of revisions to the SFA criteria for 2019 which now included a provision for the existence of floodlights. On the day of the audit it was confirmed by the licensing officers that despite applying for a license in 2018 (which would have been several months earlier has there not been an embargo in place allowing us to) we would be audited on the 2019 criteria. This gave us approximately 16 hours to ensure floodlights were in place which wasn’t achievable.
Since the time of the audit we submitted a planning application for floodlights & pending a decision from the council we will have them in place for this summer.
To go from the highs of the last seven days where we had close to 2,000 people watch us successfully navigate the Conference playoffs and win a place in the Lowland League based on sporting merit, to the news that reached us today which means at this moment in time we aren’t eligible for promotion is a massive low.
To the players, management and supporters, the only solace I can give is that we are currently reviewing every option of recourse available. We have already been in conversation with our league who will back our case and we will write to the SFA asking for a further review. We are also exploring whether there is a benefit of bringing in outside assistance to review the whole process we have been through. There are no options at this stage which we have discounted.
Finally, we would like to pass on our warm congratulations to the clubs that were successful in their license application today, which is a testament to their hard work over the course of several years.
Haddington Athletic, who also had their licence application rejected, have highlighted the unprofessional nature of the SFA by reproducing an extract of Ian Maxwell's correspondence.
Easyjambo@19.27
Bonnyrigg have been treated disgraceful ly in that situation. I hope their statement goes viral.
https://twitter.com/southwales1csc/status/1125860058544447488?s=21
Really?
It's disturbing reading easyJambo's recent posts, the details of which I'm only fleetingly aware.
As a fan of lower league football, it would be quite easy for me to simply think the SFA don't really give a 'F' about the clubs playing in these levels, but the truth is probably closer to the people representing the organisation being totally and utterly out of their depths.
From the Haddington Athletic statements as an example (Customer service & professionalism seem of little interest to the SFA) there seems to be little faith in the clubs who have taken a leap of faith to become involved with the SFA.
Yet an argument against any complaints raised is often that the SFA is composed of the clubs.
Is it that those who attain positions at the SFA from the clubs only do so if they keep quiet and accept any amount of dysfunction in order to get a free lunch?
Did the SFA CEO not get an 'O' level in English?!
I think we should be told…
StevieBC@23.22
We should be tellt.
ThomTheThim 7th May 2019 at 18:59
Apart from not wanting the yob elements of their support, what are the objections of the clubs to these teams joining their league?
———————————————————————–
As usual only two teams really matter.
Its all about Celtic and Rangers
ThomTheThim 7th May 2019 at 18:59
"Apart from not wanting the yob elements of their support, what are the objections of the clubs to these teams joining their league.
Assuming of course that promotion is not a factor.
Other countries, e.g., Spain, seem able to accommodate such an arrangement."
_____________________________________
TTT, no club wants to see ‘yob elements’ visiting, at any level, I’d hope, but I don’t think that is a major concern for the lower league supporters. It’s doubtful that, if implemented, colt sides would carry much of a support, as evidenced by their inclusion in the Irn Bru Cup, and also one of the initial carrots to League 2 clubs of 250 tickets at £10 being purchased by visiting colt sides. A bribe, in any other terms.
The Dutch example is held up by those in favour of colt sides in Scotland: the Young Ajax away support last season averaged five fans in the Dutch Championship. In the Netherlands, supporters generally shun matches involving colt/’Jong’ sides (PSV, Utrecht, Ajax and AZ away supports all numbered lower than 10 last season). FC Twente carried an average away support of 485, as a comparison.
You state ‘assuming that promotion is not a factor’: unfortunately, there are no guarantees of this. In leagues held up by advocates of Scottish colts, promotion is permitted to level two in almost all cases. Thus there is a distrust that entry into the league system would be the thin edge of a wedge, as there is a suspicion that, should two clubs in particular move into another league system elsewhere, these colt sides would morph into fully blown Scottish replicas (although that has happened already down in Govan).
In any case, the SFA has been at pains to introduce a pyramid system, where success is rewarded but a penalty exists for struggling clubs, with the likes of East Stirlingshire and potentially Berwick paying a hefty price. Montrose almost went through the trapdoor a few years back. Yet here are the authorities attempting to by-pass their own system, for the sake, in the eyes of lower league fans, of the two giants of that set up.
There are many other arguments against allowing colt sides easy access to the levels mooted, but presently I’ll leave it there, and ask, what would be the positives for lower league clubs, with evidence where possible?
I've no real problem with colt sides but would Hearts,Hibs Aberdeen etc not be included or interested?
Bill1903 8th May 2019 at 10:12
I've no real problem with colt sides but would Hearts,Hibs Aberdeen etc not be included or interested?
_______________________________
Exactly. I wonder if any of the 28 (at present) thumb-downers could enlighten us as to why they took objection to your post at 7.47?
24
9
Rate This
Apart from not wanting the yob elements of their support, what are the objections of the clubs to these teams joining their league.
Assuming of course that promotion is not a factor.
Other countries, e.g., Spain, seem able to accommodate such an arrangement
borussiabeefburg 8th May 2019 at 09:59
********
I have just noticed your response, which I will now go back and read,
Thank you.
Bill1903 8th May 2019 at 07:47
***
Ditto as per above
Borussia…., Bill1903,
Thanks again.
If visiting fans is not a consideration, then the main concern appears to be the threat of promotion or relegation, should the new guys be eligible for promotion. Fair enough.
I can understand other top league clubs wanting a competitive league for their colts also.
It makes the decision to scrap the reserve leagues strange.
It also raises the question as to why top clubs have youth development programmes at all.
They could invest in feeder clubs, where young players can be developed and the sponsor club have first option on the player.
Effectively, that is what all Scottish clubs are nowadays, with the voracious monster across the border.
ulyanova 8th May 2019 at 10:27
Exactly. I wonder if any of the 28 (at present) thumb-downers could enlighten us as to why they took objection to your post at 7.47?
___________________________________________________
Rule 1
Thou shall never be critical of Celtic or lump them in with the other lot
Schoolboy error on my part
Allowing colts sides as quasi-senior clubs into any league will only strengthen the parent clubs at the expense of their competitors and I just don't buy into the concept of any benefit to smaller clubs of vast travelling supports and turnstiles spinning overtime.
I really don't care if Colts teams exist in bigger leagues elsewhere like Spain or the Netherlands or who is doing it or why.
I personally am totally in favour of a genuine open and fair pyramid system (Not the one we currently seem to have), although it is better than what existed in the past and I wish Cove Rangers well against Berwick as I wish Berwick well against Cove).
In time I would rather see and indeed expect to see bona-fide community-based clubs from real parts and towns of Scotland like Linlithgow, Bonnyrigg, East Kilbride, Dunbar, Galashiels etc in our leagues in a proper pyramid system and the concurrent development of strategic community based initiatives through the football clubs.
This is preferable to any colts team from any particular existing member, especially our two dominant teams whose business models sadly rely on recruiting fans from these very same places and not just their own cities.
A real pyramid structure with a properly integrated national, yet also regional leagues will be good for all as long as those who fall out have a genuine chance to come back.
Right now I don't think we are even close and I smell another SFA stitch up to protect and strengthen its two vip members.
The current SFA treatment of the aspirant junior clubs into the Lowland League is also a disgrace.
This is the league where several clubs already play as lodgers on grounds of existing SPFL clubs to "qualify" for their current licences.
The self same Lowland league where currently BSC Glasgow play at Alloa's ground, East Stirling play at Falkirk's, EduSport play at Gala's and Stirling with all their wonderful sports facilities on campus have just moved back home to play At Stirling Albion's home Forthbank (and who knows one day might amalgamate with the Binos).
Finally after the demise of the hapless Selkirk and the running of the league for a year with one club less the plan taken last Autumn to relegate the bottom team seems premature and harsh on Whitehill who would have been second bottom and safe.
Is this suggested 'colt teams' idea being driven by clubs…
or is it being driven by paying customers' demands?
I know: a stoopid, rhetorical question.
Point being – even with a new CEO and a new President elect the SFA is simply continuing to do what it has always done:
ignoring the fans.
With such an attitude towards customer focus, or customer engagement…
Armageddon could indeed make an appearance in due course – at the offices of the Hampden athletics stadium!
Just had a revelation…
Whilst the future of Hampden is still up in the air, the SFA should consider another option they might have overlooked.
It's another stadium based in Glasgow, so no major upheaval for the blazers.
A stadium which is ultra modern, so no need for expensive remedial works to improve the customer experience.
AND this stadium is fully covered, so no weather related issues affecting games.
The SFA could relocate from their athletics stadium…
to the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome!
I'll get on my bike now.
Bolton Wanderers given 14 days by High Court to appoint administrator
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48199290
Bolton Wanderers are set to go into administration after the club appeared in the High Court over a £1.2m unpaid tax bill.
The case on Wednesday was adjourned until 22 May to allow the club enough time to appoint an administrator.
Administration would result in Wanderers having a 12-point penalty imposed on them next season.
The club will play in League One next season after they were relegated from the Championship this term.
Former Watford owner Laurence Bassini had made a takeover bid, but Wanderers said on Thursday that the deal was off. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48140125
Bassini, who had been given 48 hours to prove to the English Football League he had the funds to take over, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48146128 later claimed he had control of the club, but it was reported on Monday that his bid was on the brink of collapse. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48186060
Prospect of administration a 'massive disappointment'
In a statement published while the club were awaiting their case to be heard in the High Court on Wednesday, owner Ken Anderson said administration was the only possible outcome following the collapse of Bassini's takeover bid.
"This has been a massive disappointment to me as I understand the serious implications administration will bring to the businesses," he said.
On Bassini's bid, Anderson added: "Regrettably his continued time wasting and empty promises have caused a great deal of heartache and frustration for the staff and supporters alike and now leave the Eddie Davies Trust and I with little or no choice other than for one of us to place the businesses into administration, as any likelihood of finding any resolution in the High Court hearing is not possible."
It was the sixth time in the past 18 months that Bolton have faced a winding-up petition. Their latest case, originally brought by HM Revenue & Customs in February, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47306565 has now been adjourned by the High Court on three occasions, with Wednesday's decision the latest in a string of off-field issues at the club this season.
Players are still owed wages for March and April, while the club could face further sanctions from the English Football League after their final home match of the season against Brentford on 27 April was postponed when the playing staff went on strike. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48151016
Meanwhile, Bolton Whites Hotel, which adjoins the University of Bolton Stadium and is owned by the club, also appeared in the High Court over a separate winding-up petition and was also given an adjournment until 22 May.
Analysis
BBC Radio Manchester's Jack Ranson at the High Court, London
Judge Clive Jones said it was "rather strange" that Bolton did not have a representative in the High Court.
Nonetheless, the major creditors were petitioning for a short adjournment, in the hope that an administrator could be appointed in that time.
Former owner Eddie Davies' trust fund, Fildraw, has served a notice with that intention and the club has been given until 22 May to see that it is done.
Only once an administrator has been appointed will we be able to start thinking about who could be in the frame to rescue the club.
Thanks to all who responded and shed some light into a situation where light was required, on my part.
If the SFA are involved, then it must be questionable.
ThomTheThim 8th May 2019 at 11:13
“Thanks again.
If visiting fans is not a consideration, then the main concern appears to be the threat of promotion or relegation, should the new guys be eligible for promotion. Fair enough.”
________________________
TTT: thank you for your responses.
The new teams would already have had several promotions without merit or even playing a game, given the plans to parachute them in at the fourth level. I think that is a major concern for all fans, not only in the recognised League system of four divisions, but throughout the Highland and Lowland Leagues, into the South of Scotland and EoS levels.
Couple of points on what's recently been posted. The colts thing is just about making TRFC more relevant – whether it happens or not – and people who give thumbs down without justifying them with posts arguing their displeasure are just cowards.
Please give me loadsa thumbs down and then hide!
https://twitter.com/bbcsport/status/1126174926535385088?s=21
Mark Warburton blazing a trail for Stevie G.
Ex Ludo 8th May 2019 at 18:31 Former Rangers manager Mark Warburton has been named as QPR’s new boss.
……………….
Not the England job the SMSM would have us believe he was destined for then.
Allyjambo 8th May 2019 at 17:27
Couple of points on what's recently been posted. The colts thing is just about making TRFC more relevant – whether it happens or not – and people who give thumbs down without justifying them with posts arguing their displeasure are just cowards.
========================================
I don't care if Colts teams are allowed or not, other than to agree that if it is genuinely viewed as a benefit to bringing on younger players, then it should definitely not be restricted to only two clubs. Any club that can afford it should be allowed a chance.
In terms of Rangers and relevance it was a joy to hear the pundits on Radio Clyde tonight trying to justify how vital Sunday's Od Frm game is to Celtic. A lady caller offered the view the game meant nothing to Celtic but they were not having it. In my view it means very little to Celtic OR Rangers and anyone who tries to use it as a barometer for anything is clutching at straws. I am also waiting for the Press Conferences before the game to hear some in the media somehow trying to associate Liverpool's incredible result last night with Rangers, just because of Gerrard. I guarantee there will be some sort of slavering nonsense spoken.
ClusterOne@18.54
It seems MW is fixated with any kind of Rangers. I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up in Texas. I’ll get my stetson.
I'd rather see East Kilbride and Cove Rangers (other teams that have worked their way up the system are available) in the SPFL than some reserve team personally. At the moment the bigger teams hoover up all the talent anyway, giving them SPFL status for their excess squads is just a way to consolidate no one else getting a look in.