It’s now seven years since the festering sore on the skin of Scottish Football became fully septic, causing the liquidation of Rangers Football Club. Many of us at that time felt that the environment which had enabled the systematic, industrial scale cheating by that club, having now been exposed as unfit to fulfil its purpose, would be dismantled and replaced by something more accountable, more transparent, more honest.
Many more of us thought that other clubs who were the victims of the cheating that had gone on would be seeking a clear-out and a rewrite of the rule book, if for no other purpose than to ensure that a repeat was not possible.
We were all mistaken.
Let’s be honest about this. Football, whether it is played in Scotland or Argentina, at the Maracana Stadium or at Fleshers Haugh, is a rules-based endeavour. The rules of the game – both on the field and in its administration – are there to ensure as level a playing field as possible, to ensure that the constraints put on one club are the same for the rest.
Referees are in place to ensure the rules are complied with on the pitch, albeit with varying degrees of success. No matter what you might think of the guys in black, their craft is carried out in full public gaze, and consequently they are accountable to public opinion.
Off the field though, things are rather more opaque. Without the revelations of Charlotte Fakes for instance, we would never have known that a club had applied for a licence with false information, to a committee partly comprised of two folk who were employees of that club, and by extension part of the deception. Nor would we have known that the Chief Executive of the SFA had written to the club in question looking for approval on how the controversy surrounding the issue of the licence could be managed in the media.
The detail of the crimes of the people in charge of our game are the domain of those who have relentlessly pursued the truth of these matters. The devil is always in the detail, and the real devil is concealed in the fact that many of us are forced to switch off when confronted by the daunting prospect of having to follow that multi-threaded narrative.
In that regard, we owe much to the likes of Auldheid and EasyJambo (and many others) who unravel those threads for us and present the facts in a way most of us can follow. By doing so, they have allowed us to keep our eye on the ball.
Despairingly though, the upshot is that no matter what the facts tell us, Scottish football, at boardroom level, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, has no interest in seeking justice, or more importantly, clearing house.
The sins of the past will be the sins of the future, because the authorities have learned no lessons in the wake of Rangers’ liquidation, and in fact have now enshrined Doublespeak as the official language of the game.
No sporting advantage is a curious phrase used to describe sporting advantage
Imperfectly registered in lieu of not registered
Same for Different
I could go on, but the sins of one club, whilst fundamentally undermining the integrity of the sport in this country, are not the real problem. The authorities who set out to distort, bend, break, and tear up the rule-book are.
So too are the clubs who have refused to back their fans’ demand for proper oversight of the game, who have stood back and said nothing (except: “nothing to do with us guv!”) whilst their Patsies at Hampden do their dirty work, refusing to engage with or explain themselves to fans. These are the real culprits, they who have betrayed the trust of their own supporters. And if we are looking for a reason, look no further than their bank balances.
The recent scandal where the SPFL shared the outcome of its Unacceptable Behaviour report with the Scottish Government on the basis that it would not be made public shines a harsh spotlight on this.
The football authorities currently receive public funds from government, but in a “have your cake and eat it” scenario, they are accountable to no-one but themselves – and that’s how they want to keep it.
Publication of the SPFL report would put them at risk of having the accountability that they fear thrust on them. No-one in football wants the sectarian blight on our game to be cast under the glare of public focus. Especially if it becomes apparent that the game itself is the medium in which sectarianism thrives best.
And they know that it does exactly that. The trouble is that the societal divisions caused by sectarianism is a money maker. The old adage sectarianism sells has never been truer. The divide and rule model of empire applied to football. It is good box office.
But making football accountable could force measures to be put in place to cut out sectarian behaviour – and the clubs do not want that. It’s not the fear of being held responsible for their own fans’ behaviour under Strict Liability that worries the CFOs of our clubs – it’s the fear of losing the hatred which sees the money – bad money if you will – roll in.
Why did the cover up take place? Because losing Rangers was just not acceptable to football. Removing one of the vital protagonists in a money making cartel that thrives on hatred was a greater fear than any altruistic notion of sporting integrity (also now Doublespeak for “lack of integrity”).
Who could have foreseen that amidst the chaos surrounding Rangers demise, that they were only a symptom of the greed and couldn’t care less attitude of the money-men in football, and that our eyes would eventually be opened to the possibility that the football industry in Scotland is itself the enemy of public harmony?
Ironic perhaps, that the beautiful game, born out of the sense of community felt by the founding fathers of all our clubs, would emerge as a major malign influence in those communities.
There is no doubt that football is not prepared to cede any of its sovereignty to its customer base. They will go on – as long as we continue to bankroll them – in exactly the same way, like their bedfellows in the media a self-regulating industry with little or no regard for the public.
I am a supporter of Strict Liability, and we have already had discussions on the pros and cons of such an intervention. It is also clear that there is no SFM consensus on that. I want to leave that aside for the moment, because we do have a consensus surrounding our desire to see greater accountability in the game, and it is clear that fans’ voices, however temperately and eloquently articulated, are falling on deaf ears at Hampden.
The women’s game at the World Cup has recently provided us a window into the past, of the origins of the sport in Scotland. That which is a celebration of each others endeavour, skill, excellence and culture. The spirit of our game nowadays is a million miles away from that, because the market has taken over.
Taming the wild excesses of the market is the responsibility of government. It’s about time the Scottish Government did just that. It is certainly clear that the SFA or the SPFL have zero interest in reining themselves in.
We have suggestions if anyone is listening.
Interesting article in the DR;
"Jake Hastie the Rangers odd man out as winger suffers tracksuit mix-up
The 20-year-old has been fitting in well with his team-mates but was sporting a different look from his Ibrox pals on Tuesday.
By Record Sport Online
…
Their preparation has been perfect for their upcoming tie against the side from Gibraltar.
But Rangers ' kit provider Hummel appear to be still working their way towards match sharpness.
Jake Hastie appears to be fitting in with the rest of the squad, he was the the odd one out when it comes to his training gear.
The 20-year-old's jacket was the only one with the arrows pointing up on his left sleeve, rather than pointing downwards like the rest of his Rangers team-mates.
And it's not the first time this has happened to Rangers' players in recent times, last season Ryan Kent wore a different shirt to that of his team-mates.
Ryan Jack was another who suffered a fashion failure, after his strip was missing a badge last season in a Europa League game against UFA, with the Hummel logo also off the kit."
==========
A rather abrupt ending to the article there, and raises the question: "What was the point of the article?"
A clue could be in the fact that no DR 'journalist' is putting their name to the article, as it's by "Record Sport Online".
Which could mean it's a straightforward copy/paste instruction from Traynor.
There has been much online mockery of the dodgy looking kit, so maybe Traynor felt the need to 'jokingly' address these inconsistent tracksuit / jersey markings etc.
BUT
this article is clearly laying the blame squarely with Hummel, making them look unprofessional and incompetent.
Or, that Hummel – as a large sportswear manufacturer – has NO quality control whatsoever: it just punts out its products without even checking them, to make sure there are no defects, etc.
If I worked for Hummel on the TRFC account I would be fizzing, (even more). Hummel is already embroiled in all the legal drama around Ibrox and its 'difficult' sales channels.
Now, TRFC is accusing Hummel of being incompetent in the production of clothing.
I don't know where TRFC got its dodgy kit from.
But, I don't think it came from Hummel, (I could be wrong of course).
But regardless: surely Hummel will be demanding an apology – or a clarification – via the SMSM?
Complicity noun
the fact or condition of being involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong.
Good Luck Auldheid and all the requisitioners.
I especially hope the real heart of the club i.e. the fans with just a few shares step up and support the move.
I don't believe that all the SPFL club chairmen were involved in the decisions to back the new club and maintain the Scottish football duopoly just over seven years ago.
They were not all complicit to the same extent and some felt bullied into giving their support at short notice at the first meeting.
But I do believe some were very complicit indeed.
Certainly the ones that Regan, Doncaster and Petrie thought they needed to get their proposals through.
If I was one of that threesome I'd certainly have wanted Lawwell to be on the inside early doors, involved and therefore supportive and reassuring to the other chairmen.
His support and involvement in the plan would be much more valuable than the likes of Kenny Cameron of ICT or Roy MacGregor of Ross County or the other rabbits round the table, – those not in the inner sanctum.
I've said it before. This was all about how certain chairmen and the appointed football administrators saw and see the business that is Scottish football.
Commercially I'd actually say Lawwell and his boss probably called it right, a short term income hiatus for a medium and longer term gain and the maintenance of the divisive and unique Scottish football monopoly that in reality only helps two clubs.
But that very commercialism on this one is in my opinion totally contradictory to the very essence of the Celtic club.
Sadly I don't think there ever has been nor ever will be any appetite to support Res 12 from the powers that be at Celtic and while they may be "open" to seemingly help their bona fide stakeholders they will be doing everything they can to sideline this movement which can only ever be an embarrassment to those in control and also complicit then and now.
StevieBC 9th July 2019 at 12:48
Hummel is already embroiled in all the legal drama around Ibrox and its ‘difficult’ sales channels.
…………….
And yet no explanation is given as to how Hummel are now embroiled in this legal drama.
………….
BUT
this article is clearly laying the blame squarely with Hummel, making them look unprofessional and incompetent.
…………….
Deflection is a very useful tool to use.
……………….
There has been much online mockery of the dodgy looking kit, so maybe Traynor felt the need to ‘jokingly’ address these inconsistent tracksuit / jersey markings etc.
……………..
Blame someone else it stops someone asking Why?
………………
But Rangers ‘ kit provider Hummel appear to be still working their way towards match sharpness.
……………..
Maybe Hummel have already said to the ibrox club to do one. And this is the dig from ibrox back at them.
We could see in the next few weeks that Hummel are walking away.
This could be the ibrox way of saying That Hummel were not very good anyway.
…
Oh! for the days and the charles Green ADIDAS moonbeams.
Finloch 9th July 2019 at 13:02
"…Commercially I'd actually say Lawwell and his boss probably called it right, a short term income hiatus for a medium and longer term gain and the maintenance of the divisive and unique Scottish football monopoly that in reality only helps two clubs.'
___________
Translated into everyday speech, Finloch, Celtic plc ( and other clubs) appear to have been happy to accept losing their shareholders a few million quid at the expense of any kind of principle, to ensure the future receipt of the sectarian pound for the majority shareholder.
I object to that.
I want a full, independent investigation into how it came about that a UEFA licence was granted to a club that owed millions to the tax man and was not at the time entitled to such a licence.
If hands are clean, let us all see that they are clean.
And if there are dirty hands, let's get those dirty hands into handcuffs and tried for conspiracy to fraudulently slide millions of pounds to an unentitled club.
It would not be up to the board of Celtic plc or the SPFL to decide whether a crime had been committed.
Firstly that’s a great last paragraph John.
secondly, Lawells dilemma has been simple. How does he sell a Celtic home scudding for a Diddy en route to his chosen level (you can argue if that’s just above his nearest competitor in Scotland or on par with an equivalent side in Europe – my hat, and Celtics traditional model, was always the former).
He has decided that the answer is to make the 3 points and the goal difference crucial in every game. The scudding is taken as read (and I’ve a degree of sympathy if diddy chairmen don’t want to address it preferring to milk it instead). His job is to somehow make and keep the scudding relevant. To do that he needs a competitor, a pantomime villain (boo) if you will.
To be fair to Peter it’s up to others, authority, scuddees, experts (remember the boxing promoter lad) dare to suggest there may be another way.
Smugas@08.23
That boxing promoter lad would be Mr Barry Hearn. He spoke at the SFA’s inaugural convention a few years back. Was there another one?
I don’t think his advice was what the SFA wanted to hear though. From a Tom English article
“If there was any doubt about it then he disabused folk right from the get-go. "I'm not an expert on Scottish football," he told the assembled cast of chairmen, chief executives and committee men and women of all kinds. "Listening to your [financial] figures, doesn't seem like you are either."”
Another wasted journey (in so far as any wee trip to the High St can be said to be wasted) to Parliament Square: whatever the motion was, it was withdrawn without a hearing. And it must have been withdrawn yesterday or first thing this morning so that the legal chaps were saved a journey, because none of them was there.
Is it contempt of court to be contemptuous of their administration procedures?
I read this morning on one of the more entertaining Celtic facing websites that Rangers* may have fielded an ineligible player (Alan McGregor) in their EL qualifier yesterday evening. The honest mistake apparently is that although Mr McGregor is listed on the squad list he wasn’t a development player for his present club. I’m not concerned because I’m fully confident that the SFA will have the matter in hand.
My post of 11.04 today refers:
Today's 'Rolls of Court of Session' page went online , as usual after 4.00 pm. and include this entry:
"The following motions were granted, unopposed, on Tuesday 9th July
A97/18 Rangers International Football Club Plc v Charles Green Anderson Strathern LLP "
Really helpful, I don't think!
https://twitter.com/frpaulstone/status/1148985522376851456?s=21
There’s quite a bit of cash involved in this deal.
John Clark 10th July 2019 at 11:04
…………….
Thanks JC.
……………………
Ex Ludo 10th July 2019 at 12:23
25 0 Rate This
I read this morning on one of the more entertaining Celtic facing websites that Rangers* may have fielded an ineligible player (Alan McGregor) in their EL qualifier yesterday evening. The honest mistake apparently is that although Mr McGregor is listed on the squad list he wasn’t a development player for his present club. I’m not concerned because I’m fully confident that the SFA will have the matter in hand.
………………..
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1147754977487667200/photo/1
……………..
There may be some mileage in that.
Can't imagine TRFC is bothered about any potential admin / registration errors.
Bryson will be on the case to generate some original BS to baffle UEFA, if required.
And this 'potential' transfer for TRFC of a player supposedly rated at c.£4M to £4.5M is curious indeed.
From what the Internet Bampots know as fact – from the prior years' RIFC/TRFC accounts, the current Close loan, the lawsuits piling up etc. – TRFC doesn't have a 'proverbial pot'.
The SMSM copy/paste information in this case seems a bit more specific.
So, how is TRFC going to spin this?
Player was simply greedy in his personal terms?
IF TRFC actually buys a real player for c.£4M I will have to just give up trying to understand what the hell is really going on with the Ibrox finances.
Cluster One 10th July 2019 at 21:39
'..There may be some mileage in that.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Disappointingly, a wee read at the UEFA player eligibility rules suggests to me that while McGregor does not meet the 'locally-trained' criterion , his registration with the now liquidated Rangers meets the other eligibility criterion, that of being an 'association-trained player' ,having completed 3 full seasons between the ages of 15and 21, with a club affiliated then to the SFA.
I would so like to be wrong, because it would be condign punishment for people who I think were either involved in the cheating by SDM's club, or who applaud that cheating and are happy that to live on the back of a huge lie.
Stevie BC
I think what might be happening the latest wheeling and dealing at Sevco is that Morelos and Tavernier are for the off (at a profit) – to be replaced by players arguably not as good as them.
That's the best I can think of because, like you, I think "where is the money coming from"? (FFP my ****!)
But – who knows what DCK is thinking? Whatever he's doing, could blow up by Christmas.
Finally, if Celtic achieve 9 in a row, the 'gemme's a bogey' down Govan way.
Fancy a laugh in amongst all the fake news, lazy journalism etc? Then here's a belter from The Herald online:-
"Celtic captain Tommy Smith is on the verge of signing for Stoke".
Surely Guinness Book of Record stuff. Signs (without anybody reporting/knowing about it – apart from The Herald – is immediately promoted to captain, and then transferred on).
JC the thing about McGregor though is that you can't start adding Association Developed players to the squad until you have 4 Club developed players named.
Matchday squads consist of two lists. List A and List B. List B can contain as many players as you like as long a they are registered to the club and elligible to play at U21s or lower even if they are a first team regular. List A however is more complicated
1 – 17 Completely free choices from your playing pesonnel
18 – 21 Must have been developed by the club i.e. have been registered for 3 full seasons between the age of 15 and 21 with the club
22 – 25 Must have been developed by a club in the Association i.e. have been registered for 3 full seasons between the age of 15 and 21 with the club and/or other clubs in the association
If you can't completely fill 18 – 21 then you can't fill any of 22-25 and therefore have an A list squad of less than 21. If you can fill 18-21 but can't completely fill 22-25 then your A list is 21, 22 or 23 players.
My understanding is that MCGregor was included as one of 4 in 18-21 which allowed players to be picked 22-25. However a former head of UEFA club licensing has said McGregor was developed by a different club. TRFC could almost certainly have used a B list player to complete the 4 club developed A list players but didn't. McGregor should only have been included at the expense of 1 of the 17 free choices or, with 4 club developed players named, as an Association developed player
Oh and guess who is responsible for monitoring the eligibility of Club and Association developed players. Ex Ludo is correct the SFA will be all over it, NOT!
tykebhoy 11th July 2019 at 13:55
'..However a former head of UEFA club licensing has said McGregor was developed by a different club. '
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tykebhoy, I am very happy to defer
a) to your better grasp of the Regulations and
b) to your wider info about the case
and I'm hoping that there is an issue there and that TRFC really has f'.cked things up and will be penalised appropriately.(Anybody got St Joseph's number handy? Naw, it's OK:_I've just sent a wee email to Gib to let them know of my suspicions)
Headline from The Sun;
"12TH MAN? Rangers appear to have brought the number 12 shirt out of ‘retirement’
David Fowler 11 Jul 2019, 15:19
RANGERS appear to have brought the No12 jersey out of retirement. Gers announced in 2012 that they would dedicate the number to fans who supported the club through administration and liquidation…"
===================================
Number 12 jersey for Club 12 ?
UTH
Slump in newspapers
—‐‐‐———
SSB last night and now tonight the first 30 mins all about Ibrox club and all their positive signings includind new Sweden defender at a cost of 4 million. All positive moves for Stephen Gerrard how he is sending out a message to Scottish football . No mention of how Ibrox club can afford him. No mention of loans owed to Close Brothers and accounts ignored. Last night when Celtic were mentioned it was all on the negative side. I really really dread if the Ibrox club actually win a cup this season (not likely imo) concerning the reporting from our smsm.
Do not normally listen to ssb and above post confirms my absence.
bect67 11th July 2019 at 10:50
That’s the best I can think of because, like you, I think “where is the money coming from”? (FFP my ****!)
But – who knows what DCK is thinking? Whatever he’s doing, could blow up by Christmas.
………………………
We have been down this road before i believe.
If the player is valued at say £4mill
Pay the first installment, hope the player play’s well and the SMSM hype on top. Sell the player before the last installment of the transfer is due, get your fee for the player then pay off the last installment to the club that you got the player from. The player may have been transfered for say £4mill but £4mill may not be in the coffers at this time. It becomes a juggling act in the hope that the player plays good and you can sell at a quick profit, but if the player is not so good or gets injured there could be trouble ahead.It is the Headline £4mill player just to make them look relevant and on some kind of par with celtic. The trouble with this kind of scheme is it can blow up in your face (see pedro transfers)and you are stuck with players on a high wage that you just can’t sell and who will just sit on their contract. But all the time it is the wage bill that is draining.
If you have been following the ibrox saga you will know that kicking the can down the road is applied to everything.
They are a kick the can down the road type of club.
StevieBC 11th July 2019 at 17:05
RANGERS appear to have brought the No12 jersey out of retirement. Gers announced in 2012 that they would dedicate the number to fans who supported the club through administration and liquidation…”
………………….
That reminded me of this for some reason.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/scottish-premiership/alfredo-morelos-to-be-fined-by-rangers-with-money-going-to-fans/ar-BBVs7dh
……………….
Did they ever get that money i wonder.
Statement tonight from the Hibs fans group HSL following a meeting with Ron Gordon. It appears to me that HSL has been left in limbo, with no opportunity to buy more shares and uncertainty on how future donations will be used.
——————
As promised, I am writing today to provide an update following the recent acquisition of the majority shareholding in our Club by Bydand Sports LLC (Mr Ron Gordon).
Following on from our earlier note, Members of the Hibernian Supporters Board met Mr Gordon on Monday, which was our earliest opportunity to meet, to welcome his investment in the Club and to hear his plans for the future development of Hibernian. This meeting was very cordial and helpful to both Hibernian Supporters and the new principal shareholder and enabled both parties to understand the history of Hibernian Supporters Ltd, its aims and intentions. Mr Gordon was very positive about the contribution that we have made since our inception and saw that as the single biggest minority shareholding in the Club, we have a role going forward. He reiterated his intention to work positively with fellow shareholders and stakeholders.
Members, and continuing contributors to Hibernian Supporters, will be comforted to know that it purchased shares that were available to buy immediately prior to the transaction between H F C Holdings and Mr Gordon as per our subscription agreement, however, that following the transaction no more shares are available to purchase directly from the Club. Money that has been collected since this time is held within our bank account and has not been transferred to the Club.
The full Board of Hibernian Supporters will meet on Monday, 15th July 2019 to discuss the way ahead and we have agreed to continue our dialogue with Ron and the Club and we anticipate meeting again next week.
Hibernian Supporters has made an important contribution to Hibernian over the last 4 years and can continue to do so to ensure the Club continues its progress and competes at the highest level in football. It has endured negativity, however, it has been clear in its intent to support the Club despite this, and will intend to do so moving forward.
The Club has a new owner who has passion, ambition and a vision for Hibernian’s development in the future. He met with members of Hibernian Supporters Association on Wednesday evening and he talked about his 90 day and 6-month plans that are being developed currently.
Whilst the Board of Hibernian Supporters understand that supporters want clarity instantly, it is important that we carefully consider what we have been told in our meetings with the new owner, take account of what all our members views are and develop our plans properly. The first steps in this process have happened and will continue with our Board meeting on Monday and with the continued discussions with Ron.
It is understandable that change brings with it uncertainty but we should not allow rumour and speculation to fill the temporary void created. One of the things we believe as your Directors we have enjoyed over the past few years is your trust. We have worked hard to earn this and we will continue to progress in accordance with our objectives and our Articles. Can I please once again ask for your patience.
Can I leave you with some simple facts which we believe is positive news for Hibernian Supporters.
Since the announcement last week Hibernian Supporters have increased our Membership, increased our shareholding in the Club as a result of share donations and indeed only today received further pledges of over 250,000 shares in the Club from private shareholders. Can we also help some of our fellow Members and supporters who have been forensically examining shareholdings by confirming that we have received a number of share donations over the years and this will help to explain the very minor discrepancies in calculations that are drawn only from public information.
James Adie
Chairman
Cluster One 11th July 2019 at 19:03
StevieBC 11th July 2019 at 17:05 ……………….
Did they ever get that money i wonder.
————————————————————–
At a guess C1, I would say "Naw !"
(a), Because such generosity would be splattered across the SMSM.
(b). Because a few simple sums would reveal his true wages
(c). Sevco…..Fines?………It's just a word to them……..It's not really a thing.
Let's face it, Sevco fining anybody for improper behaviour is a bit rich.
Who can ever forget their "Stance", on the living wage…….While putting out the call for volunteer "stewards"?
And (d)……
They're fu' o' sh*t !
easyJambo 11th July 2019 at 20:39
'..the majority shareholding in our Club by Bydand Sports LLC (Mr Ron Gordon).'
+++++++++++++++
Just out of interest and to broaden my general knowledge (such as it is) of these ,I spent a few minutes trying to find info about Bydand Sports LLC.
Possibly most of you know that there isn't a USA-wide 'Companies House'. Each State seems to have its own sort of version, which provides only minimal information free:there are charges for getting some of the information that our Companies House provides free.
And possibly most of you may already know that
"The state of Delaware is the corporate home of over 1,000,000 corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnerships, not for profit corporations and other corporate entities, with hundreds of thousands more added each year. For a state with a small population, this is a lot of companies."
Being of the cast of mind that I am, thanks to the cynicism that the 'saga' engendered in my innocent heart ,I suspect that that means that Delaware offers some advantages that other States don't, along the lines perhaps of the advantages that Bermuda and the Channel Isles and the Virgin Isles etc seem to offer to, for example, ex-patriate Scotsmen resident in South Africa.
Looking up the State of Delaware's ' Division of Corporations' and searching 'Bydand Sports LLC' I come across this:
"File Number:7460293 Incorporation Date / Formation Date:6/10/2019(mm/dd/yyyy)
Entity Name: BYDAND SPORTS, LLC
Entity Kind: Limited Liability Company
Entity Type: General
Residency::DELAWARE
REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION
Name: CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY Address:251 LITTLE FALLS DRIVE City:WILMINGTON County:New Castle State:DE Postal Code:19808 Phone:302-636-5401 "
[I was thrown for a second when I saw the date of formation, before I remembered that those goddam yanks don't know how to write the date!!
]
I'm not , of course, suggesting or implying that there is anything untoward about Mr Gordon's use of a USA LLC as his share-purchase vehicle.
Just that it's more difficult, or costs something, to find out information about his company than it might be to find out about a UK company.
If I was really, really interested, I suppose I might spend the odd dollar or two.
And I would imagine that HSL Ltd will already have done so.
Tomorrow of course there is the Grier v Chief Constable business in the Court of Session -at 12 noon.
I had to look up my notes to remember this:
" Mr Duncan: Can I ask that we have a later start, my Lord: I shall be in London that morning and need some time to travel back.
Lord Bannatyne: Well, if we make it midday you won't have to catch the very first flight "
Mr Duncan QC, poor chap, must even now as I write, be phoning the desk to arrange an alarm call for when? a whole lot earlier than I have to set my alarm! [ God, when I think back to the old 'red eye' shuttle nonsense of the 70s and early 80s, I have great sympathy for Mr Duncan]
tykebhoy 11th July 2019 at 13:55
John Clark 11th July 2019 at 16:31
+++++++++++++++++
Nice detective work chaps! And the UEFA document confirms:
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/55/82/82/2558282_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Clause 42.01 – 43.04 specifically.
I guess it comes down to what list they put the goalkeeper on. I'm not sure if UEFA makes those documents publicly available.
Having a dig through that UEFA doc. this also caught my eye:
5.01 To ensure the integrity of the UEFA club competitions, the following criteria apply: a. No club participating in a UEFA club competition (i.e. UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League) may, either directly or indirectly: i. hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
I am not sure when this rule came into being but I am fairly certain the previous incarnation held shares in Arsenal until Craig Whyte sold them off.
A Catch-22 argument possibly in the making viz. Holding shares in another club in contravention of above rule; no that was a different club / Playing a keeper listed (potentially) in the incorrect list; no, its the same club!
Intersting, from the 2011-12 UEFA Regs.:
Article 3 Integrity of the competition 3.01 To ensure the integrity of the UEFA club competitions, the following criteria apply: a) no club participating in a UEFA club competition may, either directly or indirectly: i) hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition,
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/competitions/Regulations/01/63/02/44/1630244_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Now, when did the bold Craig sell those shares!?
Seems the rule was in place prior to 2011/12 season also so on that basis, old incarnation would seem to fall afoul of that rule as Arsenal were in CL alongside them in 2010-11 and 11-12 and would have been in contravention every other year the rule was in force and both played in UEFA competition.
Today's proceedings in Court-room 6, Parliament House.
Before Lord Bannatyne,
David Grier v Chief Constable
Mr Smith QC for the Pursuer, David Grier
Mr Duncan QC for the Defender (The Chief Constable )
Mr Smith QC : My Lord, at the previous hearing 5 points were identified for action.
These were: the need to identify the issues;the date for a hearing [Proof?];the question about Lord Mulholland; the report should be issued [?]; and the disclosure of documents. I shall deal with them in that order. I should add that another point is to be considered, the request that the Pursuer should specify the documents.
Lord Bannatyne: Has a joint statement been provided…?I think it would be helpful ..
Mr Smith : I agree.. I'm sure a draft joint statement of the issues could be prepared…I think that could be done very quickly.
Lord Bannatyne: Within a week..?
Mr Smith: Yes, m'Lord. I think my Junior has been ..[lost the rest]
Lord Bannatyne: Within a week? ….
Mr Smith : [mumble']………
Lord B: within hours?
Mr Smith: ………. [mumble] … to procedural..
Mr Duncan: I would ask that we keep a decree motion as a backstop, and I invite your Lordship to ordain ..
Lord B: Can I leave it to Parties to arrange a date?
Mr Smith:…..further specification of various matters, Scott Schedule questions…
Lord Bannatyne; It's worthwhile….on the issue of causation and what your approach is? Can I leave it to you to set out a factual and legal note, re witnesses.Are there statements already?
Mr Smith: I would prefer a detailed submission. If m'lord makes an order that I should answer…[missed the next bit] ..and it could end up that I am accused of not answering a point and therefore not being able to get summary decree..
There are untrue statements made by two principals, Robertson and [Neil?]
Lord B: I'm sure these points will arise very shortly…Can I speak to Mr Duncan…Mr Duncan, do you accept what Mr Smith says?
Mr Duncan: No. Issues 3 and 4 (that it was the police driving the prosecution ) and (2) the seriousness of the allegations of criminality on the part of the Police)
Lord B: How could this have got o a proof?
Mr Duncan: Exactly. Pursuer had not a single witness. In my earlier submission at para 10 my friend avers that the Crown Office relies on the police. I couldn't take those non-specific averments and would like to know the basis for these averments. If there is no evidence to support these averments, then we're back to how to proceed.
Lord B: I wonder if.. how would it be if I ordain Mr Smith to deal specifically with each of the questions at 9 and 10 of your Note. If I say he has to deal with those points, does that deal with the issues? Then summary decree is the best way?
Mr Duncan: As long as I have the opportunity to respond in writing m'Lord?
Lord B: Yes, yes of course. If Mr Smith sends a note, you reply, he can amend, and you might revise yours, so that I have a complete idea of what I need to consider.
Mr Duncan: That would be helpful. It would need more than one day.
Lord B: Yes
Mr Duncan: Yes.
Lord B: This seems the best way. It means I have a full idea. So, do you agree 2 days, Mr Smith. I know that both Parties have their diaries electronic. 20th and 21st of August fit in?
Mr Duncan: No.
Lord B: 21st and 22nd?…….And Mr Smith, could you lodge note quickly..
Mr Smith: As regards ordaining us to answer certain points, I wouldn't want that to mean that I couldn't later…
Lord B: I wouldn't treat it like that. Mr Duncan?
Mr Duncan: I broadly agree.
Mr Smith: On the point of the Scott Schedule, at para 13 (a) (b) (c) and (d), the search of 100 000 emails, we saw Robertson's search was answer to identity of a person named by Robertson and no answer to the identity of the wife of [ lost that! But I think it might have been a sheriff].
What's the [basis of?] …I'm advising the Court that in the Whitehouse case there is reference to something the Chief Constable knows. If your Lordship wants to know more the first thing is to require the Defender to answer the other matter about Lord Mulholland, and my observation at the previous hearing. It was said that Lord Mulholland personally directed the investigation, and that “we[the police] were 'just obeying orders'.”
But Lord Mulholland had given a precognition that he did NOT do so, and COULD NOT constitutionally do so.
This is not going away, the question of Lord Mulholland, m'Lord. All we get from the defender is 'we don't agree with anything that is not in the pleadings'
Mr Duncan ( jumping to is feet); My Lord that is simply incorrect!
Lord B: Can I let Mr Smith…?
Mr Smith: I was accused of behaving outrageously….
Mr Duncan: I cannot accept allegations against Lord Mulholland.
Lord B: Can you go outside, gentlemen, and see if you can agree, avoid an unedifying argument…?
Mr Duncan: I have no more to say. I cannot accept these averments.
Mr Smith [moving on] : M'Lord, on the issue of disclosure of documents, we will park the question of the 100 000 emails [I didn't catch the rest]
Lord B: Mr Duncan, can you come back to your para 9(b)-can you undertake to advise Mr Smith?
Mr Duncan: [ missed exactly what he said, but it was about which version of whatever}
Lord B: The iteration of the Scott Schedule as identified as the most up-to-date with the amendments to it made by Mr Smith today.
Ok.
So,
Summary decree motion on 21st and 2nd August,
detailed note within 7 days, 14 days for Mr Duncan to respond, 7 further days for amendment.
Would Parties put documents that are to be relied upon by them into a single paper, one singe bundle. And a list of case references, and a Note from Mr Smith on 10(8)(d)?
Mr Duncan: Could we make it 14,14 ,7 and 7, m'Lord? That would give me more time immediately I return from holiday.
Lord B: Very well. Is there anything else parties wish to raise? No?
Then thank you, gentlemen.
The Hearing began at 12 noon, and finished at about 12.50.
James Mulholland , journalist, was present [ no connection to Lord Mulholland!]; and two holiday makers from Australia were the only members of the public present other than me.
John Clark 12th July 2019 at 17:15
——————————–
Thanks for the update JC. I think I've just about followed what you heard / didn't hear.
The Summary Decree hearing should be much more interesting, as we will get to the gist of what the Lord Advocate and Police Scotland are alleged to have done or not done.
OttoKaiser 12th July 2019 at 10:57
'..Now, when did the bold Craig sell those shares!?'
+++++++++++
Round about 22/02/2012 according to
"Rangers owner Craig Whyte sells off 102 years of Ibrox history by dumping shares in Arsenal
James Traynor
So, without a legitimate licence (in my opinion) and in breach of other UEFA club competitions (like holding shares in another club) it's only right that Maribor denied them any more money from their cheating.
John Clark 12th July 2019 at 17:15
…………………
Thanks again JC.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1149742743633190913?p=v
…………..
A small question if i may.
……
But charles Green’s Sevco scotland ltd will be lucky to see £25,000 of that sum.
The ruling body’s financial year ends in May, although certain payments, like the UEFA solidarity money won’t arrive until August or early September.
………
Do all SPL clubs get a share of this UEFA solidarity money?
Did charles Green’s sevco scotland receive any of this UEFA solidarity money?
Or was maybe a share of this solidarity money also held back?
Ex Ludo 13th June 2019 at 17:12
An SFA tweet appeared this afternoon suggesting a new definition of a club viz “an entity that can command an audience “ The tweet has since been deleted. Anyone had sight of this?
================================
Going back to your question from the previous blog, the changes to the SFA's Articles have now been lodged with Companies House.
There are changes to the definition and rights of an "associate member", (tier 6 or below), but nothing about the definition of a club. It's an issue for the newly licensed clubs, who would appear to have only been granted "associate member" status although, ironically, Bonnyrigg will be deemed a full member with voting rights because they are now in the Lowland League (tier 5).
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC005453/filing-history
Check the resolutions document for the changes.
Rather than let a full day pass without a post, I'll put out the possibility of a "new club" participating in the Lowland, South of Scotland and U20 leagues this season.
The club will be known by an americanised title of "Caledonian Braves", not that they are American influenced. It is proposed to be the new name for teams that previously played under the banner of Edusport Academy, which predominately featured French students.
Apparently they have already asked the SFA to allow the name change some months ago.
However, I will be interested to see how the SFA handle this change. I say that because a new company was incorporated on 8 July 2019, called Caledonian Braves Ltd, according to Companies House.
A google search on "Caledonian Braves" offers an interesting insight.
https://ourfootballclub.com/members-area/forums/topic/caledonian-braves-fc-est-2019/
Is Edusport seeking to transfer its SFA membership to a new club/company? Will the SFA authorise the transfer of assets to the newco, and/or seek financial assurances from the newco? Going by the above link, is Caledonian Braves seeking to lose any history and links to Edusport?
easyJambo 13th July 2019 at 23:49
'..I'll put out the possibility of a "new club" participating in the Lowland, South of Scotland and U20 leagues this season…'
+++++++++++++++
By Jingo, eJ!
You must be the 'go-to' guy when it comes to the world of Scottish football!
Hands up anybody else who knew of Edusport!
Is it just me who's feckin ignorant of these things?
Edusport. I’m a co-owner having bought a share in 2018. We get to vote on various aspects including player selection (up to a very fine point!) but not the actual team management. The name change was voted by the members. I didn’t vote, happy to be a silent partner ( in a very small way) just to see how it goes. I like the academy approach, for what it’s worth it’s the only way I see Scotland ever competing at a high level country and club. But that’s another discussion! Edit to add, plan has always been SPFL by 2025.
easyJambo 13th July 2019 at 23:49
'..Is Edusport seeking to transfer its SFA membership to a new club/company?'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Naughty, naughty, eJ!.
I think it must simply be that while the Edusport Academy Ltd is an incorporated business it's spin-off football club was an unincorporated body, which I believe is permissible. Certainly, it's as 'Edusport Academy' that the club will be playing its fixtures in the coming season.
It presumably makes sense now to think about separating the football club from the Academy by becoming a distinct legal entity by incorporation ( as it did for many of our venerable clubs which played competitively for some lengthy periods of time before they wised-up to the desirability of becoming limited companies).
Since incorporation cannot be backdated, I imagine the club will seek incorporation as 'Edusport Academy' and simultaneously change its name. It would be the same club, and entitled to its full history and record of sporting achievements.
I wish it well, even if I don't much like the new name!
"Always being honest, that is the most important thing."- so says that diving, cheating Neymar, who no more would understand the concept of fair play in sport than our unprincipled SFA.
But at least he's only a player, not the Governance body of a sport.
Since it's quiet , blagged from the Guardian
Knowledge archive
“Is it really true that a Romanian side once built a moat filled with crocodiles to stop the crowd from invading the pitch?” wondered Ben Evans in 2006.
Incredibly, Ben, this snappy piece of hooligan deterrence actually was planned. Back in 2003, fourth-division Steaua Nicolae Balcescu found themselves in a quandary: Romanian leagues chiefs were threatening the club with expulsion following a series of pitch invasions and violent outbreaks. What was the club to do? Perimeter fencing? Increased stewarding? Not quite.
Chairman Alexandra Cringus came up with the “innovative” concept of creating a moat surrounding the pitch, packed with fully-grown crocodiles. “This is not a joke,” insisted Cringus. “We can get crocodiles easy enough and feed them on meat from the local abattoir. The ditch is planned to be wide enough that no one could manage to jump over it. Anyone who attempted to do so would have to deal with the crocs. I think that the problem of fans running on to the pitch will be solved once and for all.” You don’t say.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Try getting past this to invade the pitch. Photograph: Yusuke Fukuda
And what of players tumbling off the field? Cringus planned to create the moat far enough from the pitch to prevent said calamity, yet not forgetting about the crocs; electric pipes were to be installed to keep the water heated during cold weather. The last we heard was that local authorities were considering the proposal.
It was remiss of me to forget to keep an eye on the latest BDO Report to Ceditors for RFC 2012 plc (IL). The document was published just over a month ago, and covers the period up to the end of April 2019.
https://www.bdo.co.uk/getmedia/4d6c085d-c01f-4e05-a430-acdf44f4995c/Report-to-Creditors-10-June-2019.pdf.aspx
There isn't much new information to be had. BDO continue to rack up their own and their lawyers fees, although no further dividends have been paid to creditors.
However, there is an update on the litigation with HJL on behalf of Wavetower (TRFCG) which may be of interest to JC and others.
…. and
When the Rangers liquidation process has been completed…
will there be a huge, celebratory party at Ibrox – for screwing over its creditors including HMRC?
…or will there be radio silence at Ibrox and across the SMSM?
In which case, IMO, all other Scottish football fans should have a date marked in the calendar…
to celebrate the demise of the biggest cheating club in Scottish history.
Life is full of more or less remarkable coincidences.
looking at the High Court of Chancery rolls list for tomorrow I came across this entry:
"The Rolls Buildings,
Hearing Room 2
Before CHIEF MASTER MARSH
Tuesday 16 July 2019
At 12:00 PM
CMC
BL-2018-002250 DESMOND v Whyte and another "
Please someone tell me that these are not Dermot Desmond , majority shareholder and Board member of Celtic , and Craig Whyte last owner of the original Rangers Football Club of 1872?
That really would be a coincidence!
Clickbait headline in the DR;
"Rangers thumping Marseille while Celtic drew with Rennes has given Ibrox fans reason to believe – Hotline"
=========
Jeezo!
Yes, because meaningless, kickabout friendlies – where the objective is not to get injured – is a reliable indicator for the season ahead.
May as well avoid inconveniencing any of the other 41 senior clubs – and just handover the Treble to Ibrox now…
John Clark 15th July 2019 at 20:46
BL-2018-002250 DESMOND v Whyte and another "
Please someone tell me that these are not Dermot Desmond , majority shareholder and Board member of Celtic , and Craig Whyte last owner of the original Rangers Football Club of 1872?
That really would be a coincidence!
==========================
RES 12 finally sees some real action
If only.
StevieBC 15th July 2019 at 21:35
'..May as well avoid inconveniencing any of the other 41 senior clubs – and just handover the Treble to Ibrox now…'
+++++++++
Well, it would go very well with all the other titles and honours they have the brazen effrontery to claim as their own!
Why should they compete for anything at all, when they can claim falsely to be winners of competitions that took place a hundred and odd years before they existed?
Isn't it just an absolute nonsense, really? Any honest Sports Governance body would slap that such nonsense down, instead of creating it!
If you have a few moments, it's worth seeking out two articles in the on-line Daily Record, by-lined as by Keith Jackson & supposedly an interview with Andy Gray. (The interview is littered with quotes from Gray, using 'we' & 'us' when referring to TRFC, so you know it's a fine piece of neutral writing!)
According to Gray, TRFC are going to win the league. What's that based on, you ask?, Why, Steven Gerrard told him so.
Just to prove that Andy knows how leagues work, he's quoted as saying, 'When you think, had Rangers beaten the teams they should have beaten last season – and didn’t drop so many stupid points – then they probably would have won the title this year.' Yes Andy, fewer dropped points equals better league position. Insights like that must be why you're paid the big bucks…
Strict liability, anyone?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49015634
Jingo,
My particular favourite is “if they’re not going to play him (Morelos) they should just take the money on offer.”
i can see a teensy flaw in that logic there Andy.
Nawlite@11.34
Without condoning the offensive chanting it looks like the FA are cracking down on the small clubs. It must be a thing as the SFA have previous for the same type of behaviour.
https://johnjamessite.com/
Interesting article today by John James on the construct of Rangers European squad and their eligibility under homegrown player rules. If what he says is accurate it is surely worth a challenge by Rangers next opponents or even the ones they will eliminate on Thursday night. Also, if what he says is accurate then it is shameful by the SFA if they are knowingly allowing it.
Interesting article today by John James on the construct of Rangers European squad and their eligibility under homegrown player rules. If what he says is accurate it is surely worth a challenge by Rangers next opponents or even the ones they will eliminate on Thursday night. Also, if what he says is accurate then it is shameful by the SFA if they are knowingly allowing it.
===================
UTH – I’m conflicted by JJs output. The odd interesting piece scattered about invective and bile for other bloggers. Then the crusade type pieces against the McCanns. Alongside the password pieces, makes him a very difficult writer to like.
I struggle to see what seems such a simple problem being a real one for The Rangers
dom16 17th July 2019 at 15:02
UTH – I’m conflicted by JJs output. The odd interesting piece scattered about invective and bile for other bloggers. Then the crusade type pieces against the McCanns. Alongside the password pieces, makes him a very difficult writer to like.
I struggle to see what seems such a simple problem being a real one for The Rangers
===============================
I'm keeping an open mind on this one. In 2011 the SFA said it was fine for Rangers to be awarded a European licence. A mountain of evidence now in the public domain suggests that not only was it not fine, but the SFA, or at least some people within it, might have been well aware it was not fine.
Roll on to 2012 and we had the Bryson interpretation on player eligibility. One the SFA had never used before and have never used since.
Then once the supreme court ruled that Rangers were guilty of illegal tax evasion, the SFA said there was no point in raking over old coals.
So no matter what you think of JJ, he may well be spot on that the SFA are yet again allowing something in favour of Rangers that they shouldn't be. Maybe they're not, but history tells us it is a question well worth asking.
Ex Ludo, can't disagree with you on the 'Let's deal with the small clubs' aspect, but hey, they're hearing offensive chanting and doing something about it. That's more than our lot would ever do!
UTH@14.35
This “anomaly” was commented on here a short time ago with specific reference to Alan McGregor as he (as per Traverso) played for both iterations of Rangers. It was pointed out at that time that he qualified because it happened under SFA jurisdiction. JJ concurs with this too but is also pointing out that Rangers only have 4 homegrown players in their EL squad. I have not looked into it any further but there is now the potential for a complaint. If this is against the rules then the SFA have another question to answer re Rangers and European football.
upthehoops 17th July 2019 at 14:35
https://johnjamessite.com/
Interesting article today by John James on the construct of Rangers European squad and their eligibility under homegrown player rules. If what he says is accurate it is surely worth a challenge by Rangers next opponents or even the ones they will eliminate on Thursday night. Also, if what he says is accurate then it is shameful by the SFA if they are knowingly allowing it.
============================
The fact that Rangers squad is limited to 23 instead of the allowed 25 is an admission that they don't have sufficient club-trained players, although they do have a full quota of association trained players.
The final squad sizes are dependent on the numbers of club and association trained players as per Annex H of the attached document.
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/60/88/40/2608840_DOWNLOAD.pdf
A squad size of 23 suggests that they have claimed two club trained and four association trained players to make up their squad. The question is who are the two club trained players. I would guess that McGregor will be one, notwithstanding the old/new club argument. If JJ is correct about the dates and ages of players when they were with the old/new club, then they don't have a second club trained player, so their squad size should be limited to 22.
The sort of sanction the UEFA would place on the club would be a further restriction on squad size for a future game rather than expulsion.
Not wrote on here for a long long time (I was very much in the minority haha!) but since I researched this a fair bit last week as to why Candieas was not in the squad, I thought I would point out some of the not so straight forward rules and a few faults with the JJ article linked above.
Every team in European competitions can register up to 25 players the tournaments. The rules state that 8 of those 25 have to be home grown in the nation (JJs assessment of the criteria and age groups here is correct) of which 4 have had to be at the club for 3 years between the ages of 15 and 21.
If a club cannot fill the allocation of home grown or club grown players, they have to leave a space in the squad (in extreme examples a club could theoretically only be allowed to register 17 if they couldn’t fill the quota).
JJ has incorrectly stated we submitted 23 players when the actual players he listed totals 22 (count them if you don’t believe me). 17 players who grew up outside Scotland, 4 (Hastie, Docherty, Arfield and Jack) who were developed in Scotland and a 22nd who is Alan McGreggor who Rangers have put him in as a ‘home grown player at the club’. Because they didn’t have another three, there have been 3 spaces left in the squad.
The only point of contention is whether McGreggor should be classed under home grown at the club for those who believe it is a new club, or whether he should have had to be registered as one of the 4 home grown at a different club (depending where you fall on the OC/NC divide). JJs assertions of the likes of Halliday or Stewart are inaccurate purely as he has got his sums wrong (which the day after his attacks at other journalists is quite embarrassing for him i would guess).
The McGreggor one comes down to whether UEFA think he should be listed as a player from a different club, or whether a Phoenix/newco is a continuation. I’d imagine the amount it’s been discussed, and the cash riding on it, that this have been flagged up to the opposition by now and they have probably seemed guidance. A simple appeal to UEFA would clear it up one way or the other.
P.s the squad lifted from his website for clarity
Goalkeepers: Allan McGregor, Wes Foderingham, Jak Alnwick
Defenders: James Tavernier, George Edmundson, Connor Goldson, Nikola Katic, Matt Polster, Borna Barisic, Andy Halliday
Midfielders: Ryan Jack, Steven Davis, Glen Kamara, Greg Docherty, Joe Aribo, Scott Arfield, Sheyi Ojo
Forwards: Greg Stewart, Alfredo Morelos, Jermain Defoe, Jordan Jones, Jake Hastie
Good post DbD. Good to see you back.
Darkbeforedawn 17th July 2019 at 18:17
'..I’d imagine the amount it’s been discussed, and the cash riding on it, that this have been flagged up to the opposition by now and they have probably seemed guidance. A simple appeal to UEFA would clear it up one way or the other.'
++++++++++++
Yes,Dbd,: I emailed St Joseph's on 11th July just to let them know that there was some speculation on the point.
My general approach is that where it is possible to check facts, it's best to do so. And when really experienced clubs such as Legia Warsaw can foul up, wee inexperienced clubs like St Joseph's might not have thought it necessary to check that TRFC had complied with all the rules!
Being in light-hearted mood can I ask whether any of you would, like me, raise a quizzical eyebrow [perhaps even a suspicious eyebrow if you are Albanian and a supporter of KS Skënderbeu] at the way this judgment is recorded ( the words I have italicised)?
"On the basis of the evidence available, the CAS Panel found to its comfortable satisfaction that KS Skënderbeu was responsible for match-fixing activities and concluded that the sanctions imposed in the UEFA CEDB decision were proportionate and justified. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Challenged Decision." [Lausanne, 12 July 2019 – The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal filed by the Albanian football club Klubi Sportiv Skënderbeu ….]
One wonders how much 'comfortable satisfaction' our Football Governance people derived from the LNS view on 'sporting advantage', and the level of relief at the star part Bryson played as a Humpty Dumpty definer of the meaning of words like 'ineligible'. (The man deserves at least an OBE for that contribution to 'Sport'!)
But such comfort is cold comfort indeed, coming at the price of their ( the Football Governance people, not LNS himself) personal and official integrity.
The ridiculous 5-Way Agreement which allows a now seven year old club to be accepted ,in terms of sport and sporting achievements ,as the Rangers FC of 1872 was, is, an offence against the very canons of sporting competition, an offence committed knowingly and willingly and for base financial reasons, by folk who had no regard for their personal honour or their position of honour as governors of a sport.
As the ghost of Banquo haunted Macbeth's every waking and sleeping moment, so must their perfidy haunt the guilty men on the sixth floor. It's likely that they cannot look each other in the eye; and pretty certain that each cannot look himself in the eye in the early morning mirror.
And 'Dad/Grandad, were you involved in the creation of the Big Lie?' might be a question they might have to face.
poor sods!
Darkbeforedawn 17th July 2019 at 18:17
======================
DBD, thanks for that contribution. I'm in a hurry but all I will say is we would never have to question the SFA had they not given us so many reasons to do so. In short can we ever trust them to do the right thing?
The restriction imposed on the size of the Rangers EL squad highlights the lack of talent being conveyed by the Hummel Training Centre conveyor belt, not that anyone in the SMSM is going to provide any analysis of this. The SMSM are far too busy extolling the virtues of the next Virgil Van Dyke (per Robert Prytz) to ask relevant questions. Another indicator, perhaps, that money is too tight to mention.
Ex Ludo,
mibbees the TRFC academy conveyor belt is a bit like the stadium…
in desperate need of long overdue maintenance?
I'll get my hi vis jacket.
Re: Stooshie on TRFC Ltd UEFA Squad.
I think folk *may* be reading it wrong.
If the squad size is 22 then it has to made up of (according to UEFA) 17 Free Picks and 5 Locally Trained.
The 5 locally trained players can be EITHER/OR Club Trained or Association Trained and there is vairous guidleines on what qualifies therein.
So my guess is the 5 Locally trained on the list are:
Halliday (Livingston 2007-10), Jack (Aberdeen), Hastie (Motherwell), Arfield (Falkirk) and Docherty (Accies).
That would put McGregor into the free pick category.
In theory that's how it could work for compliance – you'd need to see who went into the 17 and who went into the 5.
Just been over to UEFA.com to have a look at TRFC's squad & see if there's any differentiation shown in method of listing for locally-trained players. There's not, but Alnwick the goalkeeper is listed by UEFA as 'not in current player list'. He's on John James' list of players. The third goalkeeper is actually Andrew Firth (for what it's worth).
https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2020/clubs/club=50121/squad/
OttoKaiser@15.58
Speaking of stooshies, JJ has composed and sent a missive to UEFA complaining about the Rangers EL squad apparent anomaly. I wonder where he got the idea John Clark? Come to think of it has anyone seen these two gentlemen in the same room at the same time?
Re Ottos comment: the rules state 8 home grown but four of those have to be by the club. There are already 17 “free” players without McGreggor
Re Jingso: yes the goal keeper was a late change from the original list. Doesn’t really affect it as both are “free players”
Ex Ludo 18th July 2019 at 08:34
24 1 Rate This
The restriction imposed on the size of the Rangers EL squad highlights the lack of talent being conveyed by the Hummel Training Centre conveyor belt, not that anyone in the SMSM is going to provide any analysis of this.
……………….
But, but…
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1151912203701891072?p=v
Ex Ludo 18th July 2019 at 16:25
===========================================
It would appear that he can, when prompted, count to 22.
Can someone tell me what "As your predecessor Andrea Travero, who will be copied on my remittance …" means.
Is he going to bribe someone.
Ex Ludo 18th July 2019 at 16:25
…………………
Don’t UEFA only correspond with member clubs and football associations? hence the reason the Res 12 guys had to get lawyers to speak to the club to speak to UEFA.
Or has his letter been sent to a different department or something.
Homunculus@19.34
I’m going out on a limb here but I think JJ is referring to an email. There are no spades in his garden shed, just instruments of excavation.
Spot on, Ex Ludo. Those were exactly my cogitations on JJ as well, lol.
Has this already been posted?
"ROLLS BUILDING
COURT 1
Before LIONEL PERSEY QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Friday 19 July 2019
At 02:00 PM
Judgment
CL-2018-000726 SDI Retail Services Limited v. The Rangers Football Club limited"
John Clark 18th July 2019 at 21:18
Has this already been posted?
"ROLLS BUILDING
COURT 1
Before LIONEL PERSEY QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Friday 19 July 2019
At 02:00 PM
Judgment
CL-2018-000726 SDI Retail Services Limited v. The Rangers Football Club limited"
=================================
Yes …. by your good self 20 minutes ago.
John Clark 18th July 2019 at 21:18
…………..
Will this let us know just how much the Damages will be?
Res12 refresher and update
https://thecelticstar.com/resolution-12-a-year-in-the-long-grass/