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.
StevieBC 28th July 2019 at 22:24
'..A 65K crowd for a friendly?..'
++++++++++++++++
But who the heck are they?
Can they all be Liverpool/Napoli supporters?
I know that Hampden has a never-to-be-beaten record attendance for a match between teams from foreign countries ( one of which, as I remember, thrashed the now deceased RFC of 1872 by an aggregate score of 12-4)
But that was serious stuff, and at a time (my time!) when TV coverage was still in its relative infancy and we did not see the European superstars as often as we now can.
A friendly= exhibition game? between teams that at best are likely to be only the second or third teams of choice of Scottish club supporters( unless their first teams are Liverpool or Napoli)?
What's to see, if one is not a fan of either club? A charade, a facsimile of a football contest?
Someone please explain!
John Clark 29th July 2019 at 00:16
A friendly= exhibition game? between teams that at best are likely to be only the second or third teams of choice of Scottish club supporters( unless their first teams are Liverpool or Napoli)?
What's to see, if one is not a fan of either club? A charade, a facsimile of a football contest?
Someone please explain!
============================
I spoke to a number of people in my local bowling club tonight who were at Murrayfield. Almost all of them thought the game was crap, but that they were happy enough that they had been there.
I stopped going to such friendlies after Hearts played Barcelona at Murrayfield a few years ago. While the Barcelona side contained players such as Ronaldinho, Henry, Xavi, Iniesta, Thuram and Deco, it was a poor spectacle and not one I would like to repeat.
I think such games are just a step in the progression towards an elite group of maybe 20 franchised super clubs who will be able to command the lions share of football's TV revenue, to the detriment of national leagues.
There is already plenty evidence to show that the younger generation has already been captured by that concept, if you look at the football shirts worn by kids at holiday destinations and increasingly locally.
If there are 20 elite teams each with a squad of 25, then you are talking about a group of 500 "world class" players, with all the national leagues subservient to the elite clubs. Players in the elite league will want to stay there because of the rewards on offer, whilst the next level down will aspire to it.
Meanwhile, I believe that there will remain a healthy interest in local clubs who provide a modestly priced alternative, with many fans supporting both a local and an elite club.
Chase the day. That’s the mission. I’ve watched, read and listened. With the exception of SG and Neil Lennon, the MSSM have been pretty damn quiet otherwise. Steve Clarke’s ascension has been totally disregarded in the quietness of the closed season.
Digressing…
Hoover once promised free flights to ‘customers’ purchasing more than £100 pounds worth of products. Round tickets to select destinations in Europe and the US. If you spent £100.
In short, people bought into it; but it became undeliverable. Despite a 7 day week in Cambuslang.
The extra sales exceeded the estimated costs.
It became known as ‘the Hoover flights fiasco’.
As a result, the ‘british royal Family withdrew its royal warrant’ from Hoover.
Everyday people lost out. Despite precedent of such, ‘people’ continue to invest.
But such investiture will ‘Dysoon’.
Gawd, I’ve better patter than this!
(Please subscribe a quid)
My view is that the Liverpool-Napoli game (and attendance) at Murrayfield was simply part of the 'event' culture that now seems to dominate entertainment. (I use the word 'entertainment' because it was never going to be a competitive football match!)
As for Pattullo's contention that had Jim Farry still been in charge at the SFA, the likelihood of the game taking place would have been 'slim or nane' consider this: Farry left his post under a (McCann/Cadete) cloud 20 years ago.
Unlike the journalist & his employer (the Scotsman) the world, including multi-continental football marketing, has moved on since them days.
John Clark 29th July 2019 at 00:16
I was at the game yesterday and noted there were plenty English / Liverpool voices around the place.
Some folks from down south had clearly come up and made a wee weekend of it while following their team. Edinburgh, as always, has a lot to offer for a weekend break and the football was maybe a nice little excuse/add-on.
While we all follow the Hearts I went because my son's pal and his Dad have a soft spot for Liverpool and this was the first chance for the lad to see them live.
Its not always easy to get a ticket for EPL games involving the top clubs so many folks, either Liverpool fans or not, would have taken the opportunity to see the Champions of Europe.
A family with two wee boys were in front of us. One lad had on a Liverpool strip the other had a Newcastle top one and was very happy when Napoli scored. So there four tickets on a family day out as opposed to just one parent and one kid going. (It was the only crowd trouble I saw as the Magpies fan taunted his brother!!)
Saw plenty of similar families so easy to see how the stadium got filled.
From a coaching point of view for the young team I help out with I was interested in how the teams warmed up etc along with seeing the standard of play/player, even though it is essentially a friendly.
Other than the league cup semi last season the last time I went to watch football at Murrayfield was Celtic v Legia Warsaw.
I went to that game with my Dad as it was a chance for him to see a Champions League game albeit a qualifier and Celtic were more or less out and struggling to recover from the 4-1 away defeat. We just went for the football.
I note Celtic/SFA/UEFA etc were quite happy using the SRU facility for that night in what was a similarly guff performance as supplied by Liverpool yesterday.
Of course Hearts did similar in between 2004 & 2006, so can't see what the outcry is when the SRU have taken the initiative to make a few bucks.
Can't see what is wrong with folks who have Liverpool as their 'second team' or neutrals going along to watch a game of football on a summer's day between two quality teams.
Despite the game fizzling out the longer it went on I saw more skill on show in Napoli's 4 v 4 warm up than I have at Tynecastle from Hearts or visitors for many a season. 🙂
I think something that journalists and commentators should remember before they criticise (however mildly) the SRU for staging football matches in competition with the SFA/Hampden is that the SRU made a very good case to provide a home for Scottish football and were rebuffed. We know they need the revenue that that deal would have provided so no one should be surprised if they use their far superior facilities to prise showcase matches away from the SFA/Hampden (as if that would be hard). I'd also imagine that had Murrayfield become the home of Scottish football it would have included in the deal/lease an arrangement to share any revenue from such football matches played there (though the SFA would most likely have blown the chance of bringing the game there, as, I suspect, it would have been their job to negotiate it).
I imagine the board of the SRU took great delight in getting one over on the SFA, though they'd never be so crass as to let it show, and will seek to do so many times in the future. Yesterday's game can't have harmed their hopes of bringing a European final to Murrayfield, one little bit, and it's probably ahead of Hampden in the pecking order anyway.
https://twitter.com/Club1872rfc/status/1155776127027306498?s=09
Club 1872 continues to provide unconditional support to the club.
Jingso.Jimsie 29th July 2019 at 09:29
'..Farry left his post under a (McCann/Cadete) cloud 20 years ago.'
++++++++++++
Indeed he did.
And I hope and expect that one or two other persons who held/are holding governance posts in Scottish Football may also have their sins found out and will be similarly punished and disgraced , once the Res 12 issue has been fully investigated.
And it simply has to be investigated because the resistance to full and independent investigation very, very strongly suggests that investigation is being blocked because there is fear at what may emerge, and not just in football terms, but possibly a case for criminal investigation.
Let us all see what the Licensing Committee sent to UEFA as showing that RFC of 1872 had fully met the condition of NOT actually owing any social taxes. Open up the correspondence , if there is nothing to hide, and also explain why RFC were allowed to tell the SFA CEO to bin his proposed letter because it would land them in trouble!
wottpi 29th July 2019 at 11:07
".I note Celtic/SFA/UEFA etc were quite happy using the SRU facility..'
++++++++++++++++++++
There is a whole world of difference between an arrangement negotiated with the SRU at the instance of the SFA and particular League clubs to meet particular sets of circumstances, and the unprincipled poaching by the SRU of an unauthorised match set up by an even more unprincipled, rule-breaking English league club.
Remember it is not the SFA as such that has been/is the 'enemy': only those officers and Board members whom we believe to have been guilty of making liars of themselves ( and patsies of the rest of us) over the Res 12 issue and the 'saga'.
We need to get the SFA cleaned up, not destroyed!
Because we must keep Scottish Football in Scottish but honest hands ,and be damned to English clubs thinking that they can ride roughshod over another national Association.
ps I’m very glad that you enjoyed the day, and I’m sure that I would also have enjoyed it as a day out
accompanied by friends looking for a pleasant day out. And I go along with the general points of benefit you mention, of course.
John Clark 29th July 2019 at 12:37
………… and the unprincipled poaching by the SRU of an unauthorised match set up by an even more unprincipled, rule-breaking English league club.
==========================
How would you describe Celtic's hosting of Rugby's Pro 14 final in May? Unprincipled? Poaching? Unauthorised?
Yes, well played the rugger chaps.
And if there is anything the SFA blazers 'might' wish to learn is this;
Whoever the SRU CEO is, they are smart, and will probably have a much wider view of the world and on the potential opportunities for both Murrayfield and Scottish rugby.
Whereas at Hampden we have a 'time served' but inexperienced, unqualified SFA CEO – who will NEVER rock the boat.
easyJambo 29th July 2019 at 12:45
You mean the Pro 14 Final held by a 'member club' on the same day as the SFA run Scottish Cup final 🙂
Of course I get John Clark's argument but Celtic are amongst those clubs who aim to replicate Liverpool's and other EPL clubs world wide marketing strategy. Otherwise why would they be planning building a hotel next to their stadium if they didn't think they can attract people from far and wide.
Like the team from south of the river they are more than happy to attract fans away from smaller Scottish clubs. They are happy to take up invites to glamour friendlies / tournaments played around the world. The have even been willing to muck up the domestic league season to take up such offers.
Perhaps John is right, the SFA need to get on top of 'outsiders' like Liverpool and their actions but maybe they should sort out their own clubs too!!!
BTW I'm looking forward to going to the opening concert of the Edinburgh Festival at Tynecastle later this week.
easyJambo 29th July 2019 at 12:45
"..How would you describe Celtic's hosting of Rugby's Pro 14 final in May?"
++++++++++++++++
I just assume that ,no objection having made at the time by the SRU/World Rugby, either those bodies do not have their own rules about when and where such tournaments may be played or that they gave any necessary permission and , perhaps, were cut in on the profits?
The important thing is that national football associations do have rules governing inter-Association relationships.
And the SFA have complained in this case.
stifflersmom 29th July 2019 at 01:06
Digressing…
Hoover once promised free flights to ‘customers’ purchasing more than £100 pounds worth of products. Round tickets to select destinations in Europe and the US. If you spent £100.
In short, people bought into it; but it became undeliverable. Despite a 7 day week in Cambuslang.
The extra sales exceeded the estimated costs.
It became known as ‘the Hoover flights fiasco’.
As you say, an uneconomic promotion that I believe they also failed to insure. We were amongst those who managed to get take advantage of this promotion and enjoy a very cheap holiday in the USA as a consequence. Hard work but worth it….
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
redlichtie, have you been hoovering up other promotions ever since?
Apologies.
I'll get my Shake'nVac…
Where various “friendly” football matches get played is of little interest to me.
However this should be viewed as a competitor trying to capture market share and be dealt with accordingly.
The SRU aren’t doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They need money as desperately as the SFA. The SRU commercial set up is superior To the SFAs no question.
That the SFA “allowed” this match to proceed is the more curious issue
I have to admit I'm more than a little chuffed that PMGB appears to see TRFC's continued sale of kit along similar lines to one of my wee thoughts from the other day
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2019/07/29/statement-o-clock-is-not-on-the-money-about-the-battle-with-big-mike/#more-13951
I said this in part of my post:
Allyjambo 27th July 2019 at 09:36
"…Here's another wee thought. Once the dust has settled on the TRFC v SDI litigation it will be apparent that, rather than getting into bed with new merchandise providers, while determined not to deal with SDI, it would have been better to have had no merchandising deal, whatsoever, as it's going to cost the club more than it could possibly have made from any form of merchandising. But even after it became obvious that Big Mike had them by the short and curlies they continued to try and make money from kit sales. So, just how desperate must they have been for 'instant' income to turn a blind eye to what must inevitably happen, and what must it do to them now that that income is going to be swamped by the eventual cost of their battle with SDI? Especially when we remember that all income they made has already been spent while continuing to make increased losses during the period of that income!"
Now, unlike PMGB, I have no contacts in football, anywhere, but it does seem so very obvious to me that for any business to expose itself so readily to litigation for the sake of instant cash, it must be in very dire financial straits, indeed.
Yet another of my wee thoughts.
I wonder what chance they would have had of circumventing UEFA's FFP regulations without that rather dodgy merchandising income!
I have to think that, without a very healthy input of capital from some unobvious source, it's ever more likely that their rather tawdry chickens will be coming home to roost before this season is out.
'dom16 29th July 2019 at 14:38
…However this should be viewed as a competitor trying to capture market share and be dealt with accordingly…'
################################
Playing the game at Murrayfield was indubitably a commercial decision. The SFA should be asking themselves why Hampden (the National Stadium!) couldn't compete commercially with Murrayfield.
Does Hampden's location, capacity, amenities, atmosphere & transport links make it less attractive for a prestige friendly attracting a multi-national crowd?
A last point on the subject from me: had Celtic Park or Ibrox been available & utilised, would that also have been unfair (commercially) on the SFA?
dom16 29th July 2019 at 14:38 Where various “friendly” football matches get played is of little interest to me. However this should be viewed as a competitor trying to capture market share and be dealt with accordingly. The SRU aren’t doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They need money as desperately as the SFA. The SRU commercial set up is superior To the SFAs no question. That the SFA “allowed” this match to proceed is the more curious issue
_______________-
Could it be, Dom, that the SFA feel they need all the friends/support they can get in upcoming problems with UEFA and don't want to upset a neighbouring, friendly, FA or a leading member of that FA? I say that in view of the possibility (still?) of the SFA having to justify its actions to UEFA of an 8 year old case that may be heard by the CAS. Or could it just be that in world/European football the SFA is become ever more an irrelevance and they feel it best to avoid proving it by taking on one of Europe's leading clubs?
I refer to my post of 26 July at 19.53.( my draft reminder to the FCA)
No communication from Mr Bailey of the FCA having appeared in my letterbox by 2.00 pm today I changed the date on my draft letter to today's date, printed off the letter and went down to the post office and posted it 'recorded delivery'
Jingso.Jimsie 29th July 2019 at 16:57
'..had Celtic Park or Ibrox been available & utilised, '
++++++++++++++
I think it's likely that if either club (even the Ibrox club) had been approached , it would have sought the SFA's permission.
That is the central point: the SFA were not approached either by Napoli or Liverpool. If they had been I don't think there would have much in the way of problem: permission would probably have been granted, with or without some 'fee' attached.
Re Murrayfield and Hampden
In years gone by the summer season these grounds would generate income from Rock concerts. As half the bands today could not fill a concert hall never mind a stadium. The SRU and the SFA have to seek other avenues for income. I believe the SRU were ahead of the curve on this one, put it down as another failure for the SFA.
Allyjambo 29th July 2019 at 16:46
Yet another of my wee thoughts.
I wonder what chance they would have had of circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations without that rather dodgy merchandising income!
………………..
Would such a contract with Elite and Hummel gain the ibrox club/company a cash injection upfront hence scuppering circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations ?
Cluster One 29th July 2019 at 19:47 Allyjambo 29th July 2019 at 16:46 Yet another of my wee thoughts. I wonder what chance they would have had of circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations without that rather dodgy merchandising income! ……………….. Would such a contract with Elite and Hummel gain the ibrox club/company a cash injection upfront hence scuppering circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations ?
_____________________
Wasn't meaning that having a merchandising contract might have helped circumvent UEFA's FFP regulations, rather that the income from the dodgy (dodgy as in they really shouldn't have made it) deal might have reduced the overall debt to a level that didn't make it impossible for the SFA to grant the UEFA license. There must be some point at which even the SFA won't go past for their most favoured, and troublesome, club.
Cluster One 29th July 2019 at 19:47
Allyjambo 29th July 2019 at 16:46
Yet another of my wee thoughts.
I wonder what chance they would have had of circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations without that rather dodgy merchandising income!
………………..
Would such a contract with Elite and Hummel gain the ibrox club/company a cash injection upfront hence scuppering circumventing UEFA’s FFP regulations ?
===============================
I don't believe that there was any up front payment as part of the contract. The days of JB Sports £18m cash up front and £3m a year for 10 years are long gone.
Some limited information on the Elite contract was disclosed in one of court judgements:
20% seems a decent return for doing very little. There was also a commitment by Elite to put £500k towards the refurbishment of the Ibrox Megastore.
Not to harp on – too much – about my favourite hobby horse, but…
rather than buy Hampden, the SFA should have taken the recent opportunity to drop the obsolete, unfit for purpose Athletics Stadium.
(I don't know the current status of the purchase, but I believe it has hit snags?)
If the purchase has not gone through yet, would Maxwell even consider taking a timeout to revisit the business case for acquiring Hampden?
[Rhetorical question.]
AND
Whilst the Internet Bampots rightfully deride the inept, blazered, diddies – the real scandal is that Petrie & co. are 'just passing through'.
They probably won't be in office – or maybe not even be alive – when the true cost of all the accumulated years of SFA mismanagement has impacted the Scottish game: from top to bottom.
easyJambo 29th July 2019 at 21:52
don’t believe that there was any up front payment as part of the contract. The days of JB Sports £18m cash up front and £3m a year for 10 years are long gone.
…………….
Thanks for that. I had just wondered that if there was any issues with UEFA’s FFP regulations, That the desperation to try and cut out Ashley and the need for cash in a hurry (and maybe some upfront) was the reason for getting into bed with Elite and Hummel and worry later about the consequences of that, as the need for a cash injection was imminent.
………….
Sorry Allyjambo 29th July 2019 at 20:39 if my point got lost and hope this post clarifies it a little better.
Allyjambo 29th July 2019 at 20:39
Wasn't meaning that having a merchandising contract might have helped circumvent UEFA's FFP regulations, rather that the income from the dodgy (dodgy as in they really shouldn't have made it) deal might have reduced the overall debt to a level that didn't make it impossible for the SFA to grant the UEFA license. There must be some point at which even the SFA won't go past for their most favoured, and troublesome, club.
===========================
I think we saw that point in 2012 when Administration kicked in with an admission tax was owed. Unless that happens again I couldn't see the SFA ever refusing them a European licence under any circumstances. A scribbled set of accounts written on the back of a discarded fag packet will do fine.
As stated in the lead article the SFA simply couldn't envisage a future without Rangers. That clearly means rules which apply to other clubs will not be applied to Rangers. There is already a mountain of evidence that is the case.
Would the league and their sponsors in any other country have held an official season launch without the Champions represented? That is exactly what happened in Scotland yesterday as eleven Premiership Captains launched the new season minus Scott Brown. Celtic of course are playing away in Europe, so why not have the event when every club could have their Captain there? Pathetic stuff, and a quick glance around the media today shows they treated it as little other than a positive PR campaign for the views of the Rangers Captain, although I note the Aberdeen Captain spoke on Reporting Scotland last night.
It's going to be a long season.
This is from @brianrussell73 on Twitter about that game played at the rugby park.
“I sold my football soul today at Murrayfield. Sold it to the corporate machine of the EPL. I feel sullied. Never again.
Liverpool ARE my English team (whatever that means), but to sit amongst 65k others with no atmosphere at all, was like a sham.
Give me 5000 at Fir Park any day.”
UTH@07.56
Dare I say “anyone but Celtic” ?
Ex Ludo 30th July 2019 at 08:02
UTH@07.56
Dare I say “anyone but Celtic” ?
====================
I just think it was completely bizarre to hold such an event without the Champions represented. Here is where my paranoia kicks in – given the penchant for statements coming from Rangers, Club 1872 etc, and an ever growing list of 'haters' would they have dared to have the event without the Rangers Captain? I very much doubt it.
I have to say I am struggling to see the controversy in the Liverpool v Napoli game being held at Murrayfield. Hearts have used the stadium, as have Celtic, as have the SPFL to host a semi-final. On the flip side Celtic Park hosted the prestigious Pro-14 Rugby final in May. Business is business after all.
If the controversy is that the SFA were denied money then count me out on that one. The less money that organisation gets the better. They are as unfit for purpose as Hampden is.
upthehoops 30th July 2019 at 08:53
.'.If the controversy is that the SFA were denied money then count me out on that one. The less money that organisation gets the better. They are as unfit for purpose as Hampden is. '
++++++++++++++++
I think it's important to make a distinction between the SFA and its officers and Board at any given time!
Scottish Football needs a national governance body( unless we would be happy if our clubs and entire football structure became members of the English FA!)
What we don't need is a governance body which historically has had some very bad eggs in it who displayed bias and bigotry in ways damaging to clubs, and which in recent times has made a dishonest, incompetent arse of itself over
the farce of the LNS enquiry,
the absence of condemnation of SDM,
its readiness to obey instructions from CW as to what they should say on the UEFA tlicence issue,
the kid-glove obsequious treatment of CG and the resultant ludicrous nonsense of the 5-Way Agreement,
allowing the present Ibrox board to live a lie on the back of the genuine honours and entitlements of dead football club
Let's get the people immediately responsible for all of that OUT, and with them the current Board or officers of the Board who refuse to face up to the truth and undo the wrong that has been done and which turned the Sixth Floor into a foul dung-heap of lies and deception.
Squirrel alert !
http://club1872.co.uk/news/update-on-bbc-scotland-dispute/
paddy malarkey 30th July 2019 at 13:02
Squirrel alert !
http://club1872.co.uk/news/update-on-bbc-scotland-dispute/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If they spent more time on football and financial matters they might not have to devote so much resource to issuing daily statements and maybe then they would have less to moan about.
To paraphrase the great Alan Partridge: " Who, who, WHO……. do you think youse are?"
upthehoops 30th July 2019 at 07:56
Didn't see the launch but as you will be aware the SPFL league season starts on Friday with Dunfermline v Dundee. The Premiership games start on Saturday.
Standard PR is not to have 'launches' too far away or too close to the event.
Therefore last week would have been pointless.
Presumably Scott Brown was ready to board/or on a plane at the time of the photo-shoot.
He wouldn't have been available last week as he was modelling that godawful 3rd Kit 🙂
By the time he comes back, Aberdeen and T'Rangers will be otherwise occupied in their Euro preparations and not available until later on Friday to have all Captains present but of course by then teams will be all over the country preparing for the weekend fixtures and unable to come together for a photo-shoot
No conspiracy, no anti-Celtic nonsense, just a consequence of timings and events.
I cant see any photos of such a launch on the web, so were Celtic represented by a player in the photo-shoot?
If yes – whats the problem?
wottpi 30th July 2019 at 13:37
============================
No Celtic player in the photo-shoot – fact. No-one from Celtic at the launch – fact. The problem? Having a season launch without the Champions represented – absolutely ridiculous, and I do not believe it would have happened in any other country.
upthehoops 30th July 2019 at 13:57
So is Celtic not being represented the fault of the SPFL or did Celtic not think the promotion of the domestic competition worthy of sending someone along to kit up? Was an injured or younger player from the reserves not available?
What would you have preferred? Delay Scott Brown's preparations for your Euro tie in favour of the photo-shoot or decline the invite to ensure there was no interruptions to seeking access to the millions on the table for CL football?
You may not be aware of what happens with the rest of Scottish football but the non- Euro qualifying Premiership teams all had two League Cup games last week so why should all the other captains/teams have to drop what they were doing to accommodate the issues caused by Celtic's success at home and in Europe?
But as usual its all about the rest if us being expected to fawn over the treble treble champions because winning everything in sight, having the biggest fan base and money to spare is just not enough for some.
As I say just an unfortunate consequence of events and your own teams success.
Many would love to have such problems!!
It's all Scott Brown's fault – again !!
'wottpi 30th July 2019 at 14:42
So is Celtic not being represented the fault of the SPFL or did Celtic not think the promotion of the domestic competition worthy of sending someone along to kit up? Was an injured or younger player from the reserves not available?'
##################################
The media event yesterday was a 'Captains' Call' for the Ladbrokes & the SPFL. That is, an occasion to get the 12 club captains together, in their 2019/20 season strips, with the Premiership trophy to promote the coming season.
Working around the congestion caused by fixtures in the BetFred Cup, CL Qualifying & EL Qualifying to find a suitable date for the sponsors appears to have been beyond the SPFL & Ladbrokes, yet match-days for these competitions are set well in advance.
I suppose that, if the SPFL is asked why the event went ahead without the champions represented, they'll blame the co-efficient for CFC's absence!
Jingso.Jimsie 30th July 2019 at 15:47
As discussed earlier these type of PR events have to be timed close to the event themselves to make them worthwhile.
How long before the start of the league season do you expect the 'Captains Call' to occur?
Saturday 20th July Hibs, Hamilton, St Mirren had games
Sunday 21st St Johnstone and Ross County had a game v each other
Monday 22nd No games but teams will be training/ prepping , see Tuesday
Tuesday 23rd Hibs, Motherwell, Livingston & St Mirren had games
Wednesday 24th Hearts, Ross County and St Johnstone had games. Celtic were in CL action
Thursday 25th No League cup games but Aberdeen and T'Rangers in EL action
Friday 26th Hibs league cup game
Sat 27th Hearts, St Johnstone, Motherwell, Hamilton , Livingston had games
Sun 28th No games involving top clubs
Monday 29th No games involving top clubs but Celtic trained at Celtic park in the morning before flying our to Estonia in the afternoon.
Tuesday & Wednesdays no games involving top teams but Celtic already away and Aberdeen and T'Rangers prepping.
Very hard to work around such a tight schedule and get all 12 Captains together.
IMHO, The PR angle would have been to totally drop the Captains Call theme or for SPFL/Celtic to make light of Brown being unavailable due to CL duty but put up a reserve or academy captain to represent the club.
Why not even put up a full kit wanker fan for a laugh.
A humorous angle would certainly get more media attention that the official launch whether Brown was present or not.
As intimated I'd much rather see Berra playing CL football in maroon than complain about missing a poxy SPFL photo-shoot.
wottpi 30th July 2019 at 14:42
So is Celtic not being represented the fault of the SPFL or did Celtic not think the promotion of the domestic competition worthy of sending someone along to kit up? Was an injured or younger player from the reserves not available?
=====================
How do you know the SPFL were willing to have someone else? You point out the logistics of getting everyone together. We will never know what efforts were made but given it turned out mostly to be yet another huge free PR exercise for Rangers, I think it is safe to say it was not going to be on any date their Captain was unavailable. Where I will agree with you it is better to have success on the pitch, rather than bragging about what you are going to do on the pitch which a certain Mr Tavernier did yet again at the event.
'wottpi 30th July 2019 at 17:38
Jingso.Jimsie 30th July 2019 at 15:47
As discussed earlier these type of PR events have to be timed close to the event themselves to make them worthwhile.
How long before the start of the league season do you expect the 'Captains Call' to occur?'
###############################
Frankly, it doesn't matter when it occurs if all twelve captains are available. It's supposed to be an inclusive event (all 12 teams) & it wasn't.
It's common practice for press releases to be embargoed to a specific time & date. The content we saw in the media last night & today could have been generated almost any time since the Cup Final in May.
Still, it's a nice wee day out for the journos & smudgers, sausage rolls & soup at Hampden included.
I have seen something purporting to be an extract from a court order instructing that Rangers are to pay SDIR's costs and that it will be subject to a detailed assessment if not agreed.
It goes on to say that Rangers should pay £444,846.60 on account to SDIR by 4pm on 16th August 2019.
Has anyone else seen this, can they comment on it's accuracy.
A little light reading
https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/articles/item/football-kit-supplier-deals-lessons-for-clubs-on-matching-rights-from-the-sports-direct-v-rangers-fc-case?tmpl=component&print=1
I liked this bit
“The People”, as Rangers fans are affectionately known, had spoken and the club had to quell the unrest.
New podcast: David Low on foreign ownership and Rangers woes.
upthehoops 30th July 2019 at 19:26
The point is you automatically assumed it was the SPFLs fault when there is equally no evidence available that it wasn't Celtic who didn't play ball.
Jingso.Jimsie 30th July 2019 at 19:43
Oh yes that right, the captains of each team were all known and definite at that time and of course all new season kits were ready after the cup final.
Once again another assumption made with no evidence. If the images were released yesterday then it is a fair bet they were taken Monday. If fact that appears to be the case. As discussed this would be the day that all Captains would be free from footballing commitments other than Brown.
However Celtic trained at Celtic on Monday morning before flying out to Estonia and Brown was there. https://thecelticstar.com/tuned-into-the-radio-listening-to-nomme-kalju-v-celtic/
If the photo-shoot was in the morning then given the home lead Broonie could have skipped training and nipped over to Hampden for his mug shots with no harm done.
Maybe it was all too tight and Celtic felt it was to much of an effort. So be it, but as I repeat no conspiracy just a consequence of events and a tight schedule.
For no further purpose than deliberately fanning flames. How many times in the last say 20 years has the preseason photo shoot been outside Glasgow?
wottpi 30th July 2019 at 21:02
The point is you automatically assumed it was the SPFLs fault when there is equally no evidence available that it wasn't Celtic who didn't play ball.
============================
I spoke to someone from the SPFL today who would know. He told me Celtic could not send their Captain as the team were playing away in Europe. He would not discuss whether any other dates were possible or had been considered. So now I AM assuming that it suited them fine to go ahead without Celtic, and it subsequently became a huge free PR event for Rangers, where a Captain who has won the square root of nothing was given an unchallenged platform to state how great Rangers will be this season. Job done for someone, that's for sure!
Homunculus 30th July 2019 at 20:06
I have seen something purporting to be an extract from a court order instructing that Rangers are to pay SDIR's costs and that it will be subject to a detailed assessment if not agreed.
It goes on to say that Rangers should pay £444,846.60 on account to SDIR by 4pm on 16th August 2019.
Has anyone else seen this, can they comment on it's accuracy.
===================================
It was posted by "Sons of Struth" (Craig Houston) on facebook. Looks genuine enough.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/SonsOfStruth/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1468853570012433&ref=page_internal
How about this for a piece of bloody nonsense:
"Lausanne, 30 July 2019 – The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has issued its decision in the arbitration procedure between the Turkish football club Trabzonspor Kulübü Dernegi (Trabzonspor), the Turkish Football Federation (TFF), the Turkish football club Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü (Fenerbahçe) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).
Fenerbahçe won the 2010/2011 season of the Turkish Süper Lig while Trabzonspor was the runner-up. Widespread manipulation of matches in the 2010/2011 Turkish Süper Lig was subsequently exposed and officials from several clubs, including the President and other senior officials of , were implicated in criminal activity linked to match-fixing.
In May 2012, the TFF Disciplinary Committee issued a decision sanctioning three senior officials of Fenerbahçe for having attempted match-fixing during the 2010/2011 Turkish Süper Lig season. The TFF did not sanction the club itself because the activities were held to be attributable to the individuals and not to the club. ."
[ Trabzonspor have been asking FIFA to strip Fenerbahçe of that league title for 2010/2011, and award it to Trabzonspor. The matter ultimately went to CAS who years later have now arrived at judgment:
".In conclusion, the Panel found that Trabzonspor’s appeal against the letter of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (FIFA DC) of 17 April 2018 and the letter of the FIFA Appeal Committee (FIFA AC) dated 27 April 2018 must be dismissed." ]
full 'judgment at https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_5746.pdf
There is something vaguely familiar in the Turkish FA's reasoning: Do I hear echoes of the "it wasn't the club that cheated, it was the company" argument, and perhaps a hint of the kind of 'reasoning' adopted by the SFA in the matter of 'ineligibility/"
Honest to God!
Lunatics running the asylum isn't in it!
Re Scott Brown in this day and age could they not have used photoshop just for the sake of having a picture with all captains? Jesus! i could have done it in 5 min for them. They could even have put out a light hearted statementie. For the case of a complete captain line up we photoshopped Scott Brown in with celtic’s consent as the celtic captain was unavailable because of european commitments
Ha ha i just found this.
https://twitter.com/Ydna1888/status/1156115547366576128/photo/1
Homunculus 30th July 2019 at 20:06
'..Rangers should pay £444,846.60 on account..'
+++++++++++++
I like the '60 pence' bit.
Does anyone know what fraction is usually requested 'on account' pending calculation of the full amount due?
Cluster One 30th July 2019 at 21:59
Nice one and far better than moaning about the whole affair.
John Clark 30th July 2019 at 22:06
—————-
I took it that £444,846.60 was the sum total of SDIR's costs. What I'm not clear on is how SDIR recoup the lost monies from the Elite / Hummel deal over last season and this. That money has gone to Elite / Hummel so will they have to sue them to recover it, and thereby trigger the indemnity given to Elite at least by TRFC, requiring Elite to then recover the funds from TRFC?
Also, TRFC seem to have come out of this unscathed, apart from the costs, surely they should be facing some punitive damages for having knowingly breached the original agreement.
macfurgly 30th July 2019 at 23:07
Also, TRFC seem to have come out of this unscathed, apart from the costs, surely they should be facing some punitive damages for having knowingly breached the original agreement
===========================
The club is facing damages for SDI's loss of earnings for seasons 2018/19 and 2019/20.
macfurgly 30th July 2019 at 23:07
John Clark 30th July 2019 at 22:06
—————-
I took it that £444,846.60 was the sum total of SDIR's costs. What I'm not clear on is how SDIR recoup the lost monies from the Elite / Hummel deal over last season and this. That money has gone to Elite / Hummel so will they have to sue them to recover it, and thereby trigger the indemnity given to Elite at least by TRFC, requiring Elite to then recover the funds from TRFC?
Also, TRFC seem to have come out of this unscathed, apart from the costs, surely they should be facing some punitive damages for having knowingly breached the original agreement.
_____________________
By my understanding, the case was between SDI and TRFC only. SDI won their case in its entirety and so TRFC must make good and put SDI in the position it would have been had TRFC stuck to the contract they'd made with SDI, or come to some other agreement with them. If no agreement is reached, the court will issue an injunction against the club for the full amount. No other companies were included in SDI's claim and no ruling has been made against Elite or Hummel.
The judge has stated that the settlement is not affected by the £1m limit on damages as damages are separate from putting SDI into the position they would have been if TRFC had not broken their contract, so I suspect it is possible that over and above the income SDI would have made and must now be paid by the club, they are due up to £1m in damages.
If TRFC feel (and, no doubt, King will consider pursuing this in the belief he and his club are ever the wronged party) that Elite and Hummel share the blame then it will be up to TRFC to take them to court and prove it, claiming they were partly to blame (good luck on that one, ha).
This invoice that has come to light (and I wonder how they got hold of that? Leaked by one of the board to raise the bears' anger level, perhaps, or to prepare them for the much bigger hit coming down the road?) only shows us how much it has cost SDI in legal costs and that, whatever arrangement might be reached between the two parties, the club has to stump up over £440,000 plus their own legal costs which will probably bring the figure to in excess of £600,000.
TRFC have, of course, illegally/improperly entered into contracts with Elite and Hummel who may well decide to take the club to court to recoup any loss of earnings due to their now worthless contracts. They are, I believe, covered by indemnities to this effect.
In short, the SDI legal bill is just the beginning of an ever growing total cost to TRFC of a very stupid move, and clearly the legal teams, of both sides, are not hanging about waiting for the dust to settle before they get their dues.
Yet another one of my wee thoughts, this time on that perplexing question of – why on earth did King/TRFC get themselves into this very expensive mess?
I think it's quite simple. They thought that the maximum it would cost them to break the contract with SDI was the £1m limit to any damages claim and considered that its inclusion was SDI/Ashley actually saying, 'to end this new contract you must bump up another £1m'.
So, assuming they envisaged making something like £5m pa from merchandising, the first year's profit would have been marked down to £4m and the problem was over. They might even have been able to include the £1m in the accounts as start up costs or some such, to avoid letting the bears know the true quantum of freeing themselves from Big Mike.
They possibly even had the million set aside ready for when SDI came calling and would have passed it on with the minimum of fuss, and no publicity, with only administrative level legal costs.
It probably got King very excited to think he'd got one over on Ashley (at a cost of £1m), until…
Nice podcast BP.
If only football entities listened to David Lows mantra – be the best we can be within our means.
Allyjambo 31st July 2019 at 07:22
" ..In short, the SDI legal bill is just the beginning of an ever growing total cost to TRFC of a very stupid move, and clearly the legal teams, of both sides, are not hanging about waiting for the dust to settle before they get their dues."
+++++++++++++++++++
Ha, ha, Aj!
If my by now fairly extensive experience of watching litigation in action is anything to go by, the uppermost question and almost the first matter discussed in Court by Counsel is the matter of their fees. So much so that 'caution' is sought if there is the slightest doubt in any QC's mind that the other party won't be able to stump up if they lose!
Absolutely no flies on those guys.
Allyjambo 31st July 2019 at 07:54
'..I think it's quite simple. They thought that the maximum it would cost them to break the contract with SDI was the £1m limit to any damages claim..'
+++++++++++++++++
Is J D Blair any kind of lawyer? No wonder he stooped to misleading the Court.
I would think his usefulness to Mr King has probably come to an end.
I mean, it's bad enough for King as a 'businessman' to have been described as a GASL, without his present company secretary being slated by a High Court judge for being untruthful.
John Clark 31st July 2019 at 08:38 Allyjambo 31st July 2019 at 07:54 '..I think it's quite simple. They thought that the maximum it would cost them to break the contract with SDI was the £1m limit to any damages claim..' +++++++++++++++++ Is J D Blair any kind of lawyer? No wonder he stooped to misleading the Court. I would think his usefulness to Mr King has probably come to an end. I mean, it's bad enough for King as a 'businessman' to have been described as a GASL, without his present company secretary being slated by a High Court judge for being untruthful.
_________________
Like all lawyers, John, Bair's expertise will be limited to one or two areas, but his pompousness and self belief will be off the scale. This will be enhanced by his Rangersness and encouraged by a club chairman who not only wants to hear what he wants to hear but is also full of the same over-developed pompous self-belief. I suspect, also, that the fresh contract was drawn up by the SDI lawyers and in TRFC's delight at what they saw as a 'cheap' way out led to a quick decision, and they signed an agreement they hadn't read often and thoroughly enough, and got on with searching for a new merchandising partner. And Ashley, while, I'm sure, taking his legal team's advice to the full, just let them get on with it. This time, their tanks parked in the Albion Car Park were all but invisible.
I hadn't seen that Reach plc ( owners of one of Britain's biggest newspaper groups, publishing 240 regional papers in addition to the national Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, The Sunday People, Daily Express, ..) was on 19th July in a race to buy jpi media (i.e. Johnston Press,owners of 'the Scotsman). ( Don't know latest position)
I read today a puff piece ,in todays' issue of the 'Scotsman' ,about David Murray's 'Murray Capital Group' and the prospective sale of an office block in Edinburgh.
The piece, of course, mentions that " Murray, one of Scotland's best-known entrepreneurs, sits as chairman of the group. He launched his first enterprise, Murray International Metals, in 1974 as steel trading business. The venture grew to boast a turnover of £200 million a year before it was sold in 2005 for £115m.
He famously also served as Chairman and owner of Glasgow Rangers Football Club for more than two decades"
Not a word about the infamous , pathetic " I was duped" grovelling cheat's boastful folly that cheated Scottish Football and tried to cheat Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and whose cheating in the end destroyed Glasgow Rangers Football Club for ever.
May Reach plc succeed in buying jpi media, and may Hannah Burley , who wrote ( or unquestioningly cut-and-pasted that puff piece), be one of the first employees to be dispensed with.
Honest to God! What are some of these 'journalists' like? Putty in the hands of chancers who make sure that their failed business ventures do not affect their own personal wealth, whatever damage they may do to others.
Meanwhile back at the ranch some thoughts from Roger Mitchell.
https://twitter.com/rpmcomo/status/1156474800593940480?s=21
I have listened to the latest Podcast with David Low and, not surprisingly, was interested in his assertion "I see Hearts getting sold, I really do, not to the fans, to another third party".
I think David is wrong, or is unaware of the existing undertakings within the legally binding agreements between Ann Budge (Bidco 1874 Ltd), FOH and the Club.
I've obviously taken a close interest in the detail of these agreements and sought clarity by raising a number of queries with the Club and FOH in the past. There are a number of protections in the various agreements and governance of FOH which would make such a sale highly unlikely, if not impossible.
I will summarise these as follows:
The funding agreement between Bidco, FOH and the Club has an undertaking that Bidco's shares cannot be sold without the agreement of FOH.
FOH has already acquired three quarters of the original Bidco loan that secured the CVA in 2014. Repayment of the Bidco loan will be complete in six months time in January 2020, assuming that FOH pledges are maintained at current levels, with the transfer of the majority shareholding (75.1%) to FOH due to occur the following month.
Under the terms of the repayment agreement with Bidco, FOH has already acquired voting rights over 35% of the club's shares, so has an effective "blocking" capability against any special resolution put forward by the Club's majority shareholder.
FOH's own governance has put in place a "super majority"voting requirement in place for certain events, including the sale of shares in the club, the sale of Tynecastle, changing the team's name or colours. The super majority will require a 90% vote from FOH members, rather than the norm of 75% for a special resolution. In setting such a high threshold, I believe that it will make it highly unlikely that the FOH members would ever vote for such events, except in the most extreme circumstances.
As Mark Hateley might once have put it: 'a cost of £444,846 is like a new signing' …
EJ @ 10.50 31 July
Re : Hearts
Interesting post EJ re the FOH's position – I wish them/you all the best for the future of Hearts FC .
What did you make of David's assertion re ownership of a football club ie. his preference to a single owner over fan ownership from the financial perspective of taking the club forward .
Do you think FOH could ultimately borrow money to assist expansion of the club in the future i.e finance new players etc ?
I listened with interest to the podcast with David Low, it's always interesting to get the views of someone close to the money side of Scottish football, and would like to raise one point he made as I am not quite sure, if I understood what he was saying, that he is correct.
He seemed to be suggesting that TRFC are in a better situation than RFC were prior to their insolvency events because someone could buy TRFC for, say, £100m and all would be well. Well that is exactly the same as the situation was before Rangers went into administration, only the quantum required was different. It makes no difference whether or not there is a holding company involved, a buyer for the club would solve the club's problems, presuming, of course, it was not a Craig Whyte kind of billionaire who bought it!
If RIFC/TRFC is/are heading for the rocks, only a buyer able to clear, or take on board, all debts of both companies, could save the club from it's fate, which was exactly the same scenario that we saw at Rangers.
naegreetin 31st July 2019 at 11:51
EJ @ 10.50 31 July
Re : Hearts
Interesting post EJ re the FOH's position – I wish them/you all the best for the future of Hearts FC .
What did you make of David's assertion re ownership of a football club ie. his preference to a single owner over fan ownership from the financial perspective of taking the club forward .
Do you think FOH could ultimately borrow money to assist expansion of the club in the future i.e finance new players etc ?
=========================
I perfectly understand his preference about having a single private owner who can probably raise more finance if required. I share that view to some extent. Once FOH takes majority ownership of Hearts it intends to maintain an arms length relationship with the club and let the club board do the day to day operations without interference.
If the club board wishes to raise funds by way of a loan they can do so. FOH will have representatives on the club board to will be able to oversee and express their own views on such borrowing. I think at least in the short to medium term, that it would be unlikely that FOH would want to issue new shares to an investor (thus diluting their own holding), although in the longer term they might allow themselves to drop to 51%, or even 25% should some rich investor seek to make a large investment in the club. I don't see them dropping below a "blocking" stake of 25% at any point in the foreseeable future.
FOH will continue to invest funds in the club which can either be used for day to day operations of for infrastructure spending. That money will come from ongoing pledges (currently running at £1.44m a year). I'd expect a bit of a fall off in pledges once ownership is transferred, but that there are many who are committed to "pledge for life".
naegreetin 31st July 2019 at 11:51
Interesting post EJ re the FOH's position – I wish them/you all the best for the future of Hearts FC .
What did you make of David's assertion re ownership of a football club ie. his preference to a single owner over fan ownership from the financial perspective of taking the club forward .
Do you think FOH could ultimately borrow money to assist expansion of the club in the future i.e finance new players etc ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That would be my question too. Whilst Hearts have been saved and fan ownership progresses, as time goes on there has to be a concern about the on field performance and lack of sucess for a club that size amongst the fans. Future sucess would need to be funded by the increased stadium capacity, better commercial deals, sponsorship, player development and sales etc. I would have thought getting into debt would be a difficult choice.
My own Club Motherwell is a bit different because we probably don't have the expectations of the Hearts fans and as I see it we punch well above our weight most seasons anyway. We have made a decision to live within our means and make the best of what we have in our players and management. Its early doors but I'm happy with the way things are progressing.
Interesting that David Low is in the same boat as everyone else re the fight with Ashley – by all accounts, DL is a sound businessman with good football insight/experience yet even he cannot see the logic of TRFC's approach. With that view widely held by everyone other than TRFC fans, I'm coming round to thinking that it can only be that DK and the TRFC board are simply continuing it so that they can continue to portray MA as the Bete Noir thereby deflecting the fans' anywhere other than toward them.
There appears to be no business reason not to make peace, so there must be another reason and despite what the TRFC fans are fed (and believe) about MA now simply being vindictive, DL is right when he says that no one – least of all an avaricious businessman like MA – wants to lose money. If peace meant he could earn more money, MA would be all over it. It has to be the TRFC board who are promoting the spat and I can only think it is to deflect the angry fans from them.
That said, I can still agree with the argument that the Elite move was down to a need for immediate cash. Knowing that they could spin it to the Bears that it's all MA's fault deflects them from asking the board why they needed cash so urgently.
On first reading I thought £444,846.60 was the total cost of litigation but since then P.McG and JJames have stated this is not the whole bill on rereading the court statement it does seem that this is just an initial tranche . In his protected piece JJames indicates the full amount will be circa £4.5m which seems a ridiculously high figure and this is just for the legal costs and not the damages . It also states how the Directors of TRFC may be held in contempt of court if the bill isn't paid. The current Directors on the hook here are https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/officers James Blair ,Andrew Dickson and Stewart Robertson . As you know Dave Cunningplan King isn't fit and proper enough to be involved . King has gone from personal liability for this whole nonsense to being bailed out by RIFC to the tune of 3m and handing Ashley the jerseys for eternity for a song , not only that he has now put the personal liability onto the shoulders of the 3 aforementioned individuals but fans can console themselves that he is a real Rangers* man and not Mike Ashley. I shouldn't remind them that he voted against a CVA in 2012 . There are 2 options ,pay up or scuttle the ship along with the debts and the SDI contract , start a new club* that is ushered into the SPL , buy 2 sets of history and blame that bad man Ashley . What a mess.
Phil has the full text of the order and some comments on the possible implications : https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2019/07/31/why-sevco-might-finally-be-a-dead-duck/#more-13956
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.