.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers

By

ALLYJAMBO JUNE 9, 2016 at 16:20   What we believe might be the case …

Comment on .. and they wonder why nobody buys papers by goosygoosy.

ALLYJAMBO
JUNE 9, 2016 at 16:20
 
What we believe might be the case surrounding the issue of the Rangers’ European Licence surely cannot result in this level of cover-up! Has there been something going on that, should just one improper act be exposed, could bring down someone, or something, of major influence in Scotland or even the UK? 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Well
Dare I say it ???
Maybe UEFA cannot start an investigation into UEFA/SFA/RFC corruption in 2011 without also looking into UEFA/SFA/CFC corruption in 2011?
For fans with short memories
Rangers played in the CL qualifiers in 2011 and lost to Malmo. They subsequently lost to Maribor in the EL qualifier and exited European football Celtic won through to the EL playoff stage and lost to Swiss side Sion
However
According to the press report Celtic protested the result on the grounds that Sion had fielded 5 ineligible players. Their protest was upheld and they progressed to the group stages of the EL
see
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/sep/02/celtic-europa-league-fc-sion
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Question
Has there been on-going corruption between UEFA and both the Scottish SFA and the English FA for years?
Indeed
Was it common knowledge that Sion had fielded 5 ineligible players thus making it easy for Celtic to protest the result?

 
Or
Was the SFA tipped off by UEFA that Sion had broken the rules and that any protest by Celtic would be supported by UEFA ?
And if so
Was this a quid pro quo for Celtic dropping a request for UEFA to investigate the corrupt behaviour of the SFA and UEFA in permitting Rangers to play in the CL despite owing HMRC £2.8m?

goosygoosy Also Commented

.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
ALLYJAMBOJULY 3, 2016 at 18:59 wottpiJuly 3, 2016 at 17:36
Clearly, they don’t fit the profile that TRFC, and so their supporters organisations, look for, as witnessed by their marquee signing, Joey Barton.
In truth, they all read as being well suited for their roles in RF, but one has to wonder at the length of time it’s taken them to realise something was amiss, or to act once they realised all was not as it should be if they were carrying out their roles dilligently.
………………..
Spot on

When 3 Directors deliberately resign  it smacks strongly of a failed attempt to change some recent action they deem illegal
i.e. “a step too far”
The accompanying comment to their resignation statement …..
“Rangers First do not have a register of members, approved minutes, a constitution, chairman or office bearers.”
is a deliberate attempt to imply that these 3 individuals have been driven by their “integrity” since they were appointed to get the organisation to comply with basic corporate governance.
And
Although they have failed in this task they are leaving with “clean hands” 
Interestingly
The Level 5 admission that 3 individuals acted inappropriately and have now left
Is a statement from a party on the back foot
It smacks of a damage limitation attempt to keep the matter in house
However
If they want to keep the matter in house
What Level 5 really want
……….is to keep it from the ordinary members of Rangers First
<<<<<<<
Why?
IMO
Serious lawbreaking has occurred with the active support of the in house Spiv
The nature of the offence  can be easily exposed
The departure  of the  3 Directors is a precursor to calls for independent investigation
The support of the MSM suggest a media campaign is about to be launched on behalf of “the fans”
If so it will explode in the next week or so


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
EASYJAMBOJUNE 20, 2016 at 15:12 
The end of Resolution 12?
No action being taken on the basis that Rangers has incurred a 3 year ban as a newco.
It sort of misses the point completely.
http://stv.tv/sport/football/1358026-uefa-won-t-investigate-resolution-12-rangers-euro-licence-claims/
…………………………
If this is indeed the end 
The blame can be laid at the door of the Celtic Board who  treated their fans with contempt throughout and cynically
encouraged hope in the last 2 months  for money reasons

Boy 
Am I glad I never renewed my 3 STs


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
HOMUNCULUS JUNE 15, 2016 at 22:42  I was never a fan of the term “Old Firm”, it supported the nonsense that there was some sort of link between Celtic and Rangers. Given that the Rangers referred to in the term “Old Firm” no longer exists it is even more meaningless now than it used to be
Celtic and previous Rangers seemed quite keen on the idea though
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmownerid/search?domain=1&id=218706&app=1&name=the+rangers&postcode=
  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Had a look at the UK and EU trademark websites
The terms “Old Firm” and “The Old Firm” were jointly registered by Celtic  and Rangers as a UK trademark on 20 March 2001
The UK trademark lasts 10 yrs
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-register-a-trade-mark/after-you-apply
However this period appears to have been superceded by EU law which records the expiry date as 20 March 2021
Extract from EU Register
OLD FIRM  (210)/(260)Application numberUK00002264673(270)Application languageen(220)Application date2001-03-20Application reference31/G0240GBt1/002Trade mark officeUnited Kingdom – UKIPO(190)Registration officeGB(111)Registration numberUK00002264673(151)Registration date2002-03-01(141)Expiry date2021-03-20Series of2(550)Trade mark typeWord(551)Kind of markIndividual(511)Nice classification39Current trade mark statusRegisteredOpposition period start date2001-11-14Opposition period end date2002-02-27Applicant identifier218706NameCeltic F.C.Limited and The Rangers Football Club plc Applicant incorporation country codeGBAddress countryGBAddressCeltic Park, Glasgow, G40 3RE, and, Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD, Scotland
(511)Nice class number 39List of goods and services Transportation services; travel agency services; arranging of tours; booking agency services for travel; arranging of travel, travel courier and guide services; consultancy, information and advisory services relating to all of the aforesaid services.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Which poses an interesting question
 
If a trademark is jointly registered and one of the joint owners is liquidated does the other party inherit ownership after the legal liquidation date or does the trademark lapse?
Because
If ownership reverts to the other party then Celtic FC own the trademarks for “Old Firm” and “The Old Firm”
And
Celtic can prevent any other party from using that trademark in the areas trademarked without their permission
Likewise
If the trademark lapses on the date when RFC plc is legally liquidated then it cannot be transferred or recreated as a jointly owned trademark without the agreement of both parties
Meaning
Celtic have the power to decide if the trademark  terms “Old Firm” and “The Old Firm” should die on the date when RFC plc is legally liquidated
And if they choose not to continue using this trademark
They will be making a statement on the OC/NC issue


Recent Comments by goosygoosy

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
BIG PINK
JULY 28, 2017 at 11:42
 
I really think that the SFSA could – and should – grasp an opportunity like the SPFL statement to assume a moral leadership of fans of Scottish football. I’m not sure what it is they hope to provide in terms of moral authority if they are not fearless enough to address directly the biggest and still evolving scandal the game has seen. I am hoping that like Celtic, they are taking time to respond. The question is, how can they ignore it?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
BP
IMO
Its not all that difficult
.At their next  Board meeting the current SFSA Board should vote on whether they are prepared to make upholding sporting integrity the prime goal of their Mission Statement. All other goals will be subservient to this aim. Key Performance Indicators should then be developed to measure whether the governing bodies are upholding integrity going forward. Regular reports should be emailed to members when, as we expect corruption continues to be manifest in mismanagement of current rules and the law of the land. However The SFSA should avoid public involvement  on any topic until they have a fully functioning  democratically elected Board comprised of Fan Directors.
The focus on integrity should   automatically make resolving corruption the number one goal for the immediate term. It would enable an umbrella coalition to be established  between the SFSA and  other groups solely responsible for pursuing the Judicial Review route. The idea would be that the SFSA address an d measure progress on long term implications of removing the elephant while the rest of the coalition get on with shoving it out the window
Steps should be taken immediately to introduce democracy to SFSA using as a voter roll the names of all those for whom they have email addresses. Groups claiming to represent many unnamed members should be charged with adding them to the email voters roll by a target cut off date. The election of Fan Shadow Directors to overlap with the current Board should proceed on a democratic basis shortly after the cut off date. Whether this is  by direct election or through some temporary representative body should be thought through and voted on by email.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The views of the Celtic Board are no longer relevant
They had the opportunity to stand up and be counted .Instead they cooperated by their silence in a disgraceful, unethical and shameless strategy. Their focus now should be removing Bro Walfrids Statue from Celtic Park before it falls over in shame


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
AULDHEIDJULY 27, 2017 at 22:11
Goosey GooseyWhen there is 0% chance of opening the door, 20% is worth backing.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Like I said
I`ve yet to meet the person with 80% integrity
Or put another way
I don`t trust people who have proven untrustworthy on an integrity issue on even one occasion 
Sometimes I have no choice but to put my fate in their hands 
Some worked out. Some didn`t work out
But because I had no choice I went along with it unwillingly
However
That wasn`t trust. It was Hobsons choice
When I have the choice not to trust them because there are other options 
I don`t trust them and go for an alternative
Having said that
Its a free country (apart from what we both agree on)
So
People may put their trust in SFAS using whatever criteria they deem most important 
For me when dealing with corruption there is zero room for compromise.
Its  an issue of integrity, right or wrong ,good or evil, black or white
I won`t  trust SFAS
So as I said before
I`m out


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
AULDHEIDJULY 27, 2017 at 21:32 goosygoosyJuly 27, 2017 at 20:38 (Edit)
Read my post about capacity building. Have you anything better to suggest be done in their place? Are you going to do the work those volunteers do or are you happy just to snoop and snipe?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Auldheid
i have great respect for you and your track record in opposing corruption
I am too long in the tooth now to believe platitudes without checking the facts. I  am happy to contribute to a crowd funding initiative seeking a JR of the corruption associated with the recent past
I`m not snowed either by face to face meetings with people who have proven they lack integrity.
Thats a virtue you either have or you don`t have

I`ve yet to meet the person with 80% integrity
So as far as SFAS are concerned
I`m out


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
Oh Dear as PMG might say
I fear I may have tripped over a can of worms in my previous post at 14.56
Thinking back to the sterling work done by the combined efforts of talented posters on the RTC Blog
I thought it might be fun to have a look at SFSA in a bit more detail
Current Office address 4 Woodside Pl, Glasgow G3 7QL
Interestingly
 If you Google Earth this address and postcode there`s a man walking along the pavement who looks awfully like a member of the SPFL. Can`t be sure of course  as faces are blurred with Google Earth but the odd way of walking seems familiar.
It was enough to pique my curiosity so I had a look elsewhere on the web
Lo and behold
Up comes the following
SFSA
Official Launch early April 2015
BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32229672
“The SFSA, which says it has reached 40,000 pledges of support from Scottish fans’ groups at club level, will include a national advisory group.
It will contain experts on football and governance matters, including former First Minister Henry McLeish and Maureen McGonigle, founder of Scottish Women in Sport, and from academia and the business world.
They will work with a football advisory group that so far includes fans from Aberdeen, Ayr United, Celtic, Dumbarton, Hearts and Rangers”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Question
Does 40,000 pledges of support from a Club Group mean every member of that Club has registered an email address with SFSA?
Or does it mean one person from each supporters group registered on behalf of their members with or without their consent? Does this explain why the SFSA had 40000  members before it was launched ?
Question
“Whereabouts on the current website can you find the names of the fans on the Advisory Group from Aberdeen, Ayr United, Celtic, Dumbarton, Hearts and Rangers”
And
Why are members of the Advisory Group selected by the unelected CEO and Chairman of the SFSA Board and not elected by the members?
 
The Fans’ Manifesto
Fans want change
Scottish football needs and deserves a future. As a movement of some 50,000 fans (and growing) the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) believes that it really is possible to renew, reform and reclaim the game. But the engine of that transformation has to be those who love and follow the game. That is what this Fans’ Manifesto is all about.
 In 2015 we asked football supporters across Scotland what they wanted to see for the future. We got an amazing 10,000 responses.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 Among the mass of ideas and comments there were aspirations large and small. In this document we have distilled some of the biggest ones, and combined them with ideas that have now been in circulation – buttressed by a number of other surveys – for some time. This Manifesto contains nine key pointers towards the future of football game in Scotland. It is intended not as an end, but as the beginning of a renewed national conversation that needs to reach out well beyond the established boundaries if it is going to bring credible action
RENEW THE GAME
 01 Bring back the fans through competitive pricing and family facilities at every club
02 Make football in Scotland media-friendly and innovative at every level
03 Re-market the Scottish game, pressing for financial fair shares and transparency REFORM THE GAME
04 Rebuild the game with larger divisions, more variety and improved competition
05 Equip every club to be a ‘community hub’ for wellbeing and entertainment
 06 Re-invest in youth through fresh plans for training and education
 RECLAIM THE GAME
07 A ‘diversity drive’: 25% fan representation on all governing bodies in five years, 50% women, a permanent place for the national fans’ body
08 Regular, independent auditing and review of the performance of governing bodies and clubs
 09 Extend community and collaborative ownership, create a fans’ right to bid or buy when clubs are for sale, create a fans’ bank or fund
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Question
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention that there might be a problem with corruption at the SFA and SPFL?
If so
Were they so few in number that their concerns were excluded from the Fans Manifesto?
Question
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention sectarian singing, intimidation of officials, letter bomb training, assaults in the street as potential issues being ignored by the governing bodies?
Or in a nutshell
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention dissatisfaction at the manner in which the SFA and SPFL were handling the Rangers situation?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Or to summarise the above
Did the SFSA sanitise the 10000 responses of their own volition or did they do so at the request of a 3rd party?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
There are stacks of angles  to the above which could be addressed by many of the fine posters who inhabit this blog
Whats clear so far is that SFSA are not a democratic organisation despite being in existence for well over a year 
Its also clear that despite their “plan” to eventually become democratic they are unfit in the immediate term to represent Fans concerned about the way the Rangers saga has been corruptly managed by the governing bodies 
Indeed their own manifesto specifically ignores the biggest scandal in Scottish football in living memory


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
Early Warning
This post might be unpopular
But
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong 
IMO
If there is one thing suspicious  in all of this corrupt saga it`s the  convenient emergence on the public stage  of the SFSA in the last fortnight
 This self-appointed  body with apparently no funds is stuffed with self-appointed  politicians One of them at least  has been found guilty of having dirty hands. It has created a community company appointed its own Board and defined its own remit before its public launch. It doesn`t once use the words morality or integrity or fairness or corruption to justify its existence. It doesn`t even mention  a goal of being transparent to its members  It has  invited German football academics to tell their unelected Board what sort of questions Scottish fans  should be asked  about. It has went on to unilaterally approve  a bland  survey questionnaire that will consume a few months help dissipate the  anger of some  fans and tell us nothing we don`t know already.

The official SFSA top down remit will take years to completion. It smacks strongly of how the English Child Abuse Enquiry was set up years ago by politicians determined to protect politicians and their establishment allies. Its Terms of Reference were deliberately set so wide that many of the accused and their victims passed away before their case got considered. And that`s exactly what could happen here.
Or put more simply
It’s not an organisation claiming the simple  raison d`etre of upholding sporting integrity
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Survey Document
The survey document smacks of long term civil service thinking. It starts from the premise that things might actually be hunky dory, so let’s take the next few months to quantify  the “general level of disquiet”. This top down approach is a recipe for time wasting and switching off the members. It is frankly smacks of the sort of approach you would expect from Soviet era Trade Unions. The festering sore that is the Rangers tax case doesn`t qualify for a mention. SFA and Police management of  sectarian behaviour is ignored, Nothing is asked about how our corrupt governing bodies are paralysed about physical intimidation in football.how keeping the peace outranks morality. This is despite letter bomb training, street assaults and threats to torch a football ground. Most of all is the complete absence of an SFSA declaration of transparency.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Corrupt SPFL Statement

Its early days for the SFSA
So far they have not commented on the SFA and SPFL Statement. Does their Board have no opinion?
Or
Is it because the leadership of the SFSA is well aware it is not a “Fan Elected Body”?
Meaning
It has no mandate to speak for its members. So they are obliged to keep quiet.
However, having no mandate also means they should not respond to any  appeals from our corrupt authorities to engage in private  discussions
It is clear that the governing bodies wish to avoid discussing the corruption crisis in terms of sporting integrity. Their strategy is moving the goal posts from integrity to legal mumbo jumbo. Their aim is to confuse the peasants. Their premise is that  limited knowledge of the judicial system will force the peasants into disgruntled forelock tugging compliance
Meaning
Move along peasant
If its legal and immoral then its ok 
If it’s against integrity  but within the rules its ok
Sometimes rules have to be bent if we think it’s necessary
Trust Us. That`s what happens in business
They forget that we peasants have simple minds. We see issues in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. We expect integrity to be the backbone of organisations who claim to be trustworthy.
Whats more worrying 
I would not be a bit surprised if the SFSA are  the first to be invited by the corrupt SPFL and corrupt SFA to come and talk to them in private about their forthcoming “Independent” meaning corrupt Review. Indeed they might even end up as “Representing the Fans ” on this stitch up.
That would be outrageous
 Unelected politicians one with dirty hands representing you on integrity issues with that lot
Summary
I don`t see the SFSA fulfilling the role of speaking for fans in the specific one off battle against  the corruption witnessed over the past few years.
In particular
The current un-elected SFSA Board may attempt to act in this role by cooperating with the so called SPFL Independent Review or try to subvert the timetable of the  Judicial Review that is currently gathering momentum
If this happens
it will be a sign that they see themselves as budding members of the establishment. People who are in cahoots with the corruption we are trying to root out.
And as for representing fans  to the governing bodies on any other issues.
The acid test  will be whether they replace the SFSA Board with elected fan representatives  BEFORE they have their first formal  meeting with the SG or football governing bodies.


About the author