Good Evening,
Whilst it is understandable that the continuing events at Ibrox remain a hot topic among all Scottish Football Fans — especially given the views of some sections of the press on such events– the never ending rush down the marble staircase is certainly not the only show in town.
The other morning we were treated to the “scoop” that Alistair Johnstone is afraid that Craig Whyte– the once proclaimed Multi Billionaire from Motherwell- may well still be pulling all the strings at Ibrox! This is a fear which is shared by those who walk the corridors of Hampden Park as they, too, are terrified of the prospect of Whyte returning in some shape or form and coming back to haunt them, especially as he has been deemed unfit and proper, banned sine die, and generally ridiculed for his past actions.
However, the Hampden jackets know fine well that their realm only stretches so far and that if by means of the proper application of company law, contract or some other piece of paper Whyte controls the shareholding of the self proclaimed “parent company” to the football club then they are in a fix. In fact, I will wager that they just would not know how to deal with such a situation as after all RIFC PLC neither holds a licence to play football nor is a member of the SFA and so, on the face of it, who owns it has nothing to do with them.
At this juncture, no one in authority knows who Blue Pitch Holdings are and, strangely, no one in authority knows who Margarita Holdings are either! Yet these two “holdings” whoever they may be, may well hold all the power down Govan way…… with the SFA completely powerless to find out who they are let alone get into any dialogue with them. All the SFA can do is talk to the appointed Directors and officers of The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
This, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Meanwhile, they will have no difficulty in finding out who the new shareholders of Dunfermline Athletic are. Those shareholders will come from the fanbase and will be clearly registered at Companies House, with the result that ultimately those fans/shareholders will appoint Directors who will then attend meetings and speak and opine on their behalf and in essence be the ” Voice of Dunfermline” at Hampden.
Perhaps, similar will follow from Heart of Midlothian?
However, those at Hampden — if they have any sense at all– will be most wary of events happening in the east end of Glasgow come November.
In the middle of the month, Celtic PLC will hold its AGM and amidst the items on the agenda is the fan driven notion that the Club— through its Directors—- should go further in holding the SFA to account and enquire into the granting of club licences, and in particular how it granted Rangers a club licence that allowed entry to the Champions League in 2011 when the small tax case was outstanding.
The Celtic board have deemed this motion as “Unnecessary” and in support of that contention have released documentation showing that they raised this very issue with the SFA on behalf of the shareholders and fans. Further– and here is the rub— The Directors reveal that they were not satisfied with the SFA response and have disclosed that they took the matter further and wrote to UEFA.
Ultimately, UEFA also provided a reply, which backed the SFA approach and which Celtic had little option but to accept in the absence of admissible contradicting evidence..
It is on this basis, that Peter Lawell and Co say the AGM motion is not necessary. Note that saying that the motion is not necessary, is not at all the same thing as saying that what the motion seeks to achieve is not necessary or does not have the support of the board!
There will be those at Hampden who severely hope that the Celtic Board are successful in voting this measure down as obviously they deem their original reply sufficient and would like to end the discussion there.
However, my own view, is that whether the motion is successful or not, there are those within the SFA who will recognise there is trouble staring them in the face here. Real Trouble!
Let’s recap for a moment and draw some threads together.
Celtic’s past Chairman, Dr John Reid, said only a couple of years ago that the SFA was clearly not fit for purpose. He did so in the context of events surrounding Neil Lennon and other matters, but was unshakably robust in his condemnation of an institutionalised uselessness which he saw pervaded the Hampden ranks.
Prior to that, Henry McLeish produced a report which stated that he too had concerns about the Governance of Scottish Football and called for openness and transparency.
In the intervening period, we have seen Mr David Longmuir, former Chief Executive of the Scottish Football League, find himelf without a position following reconstruction– and this partly as a result of club chairmen being apparently kept in the dark about his payment, bonuses and expenes. I understand that there was considerable anger from some at the way in which they had been treated by Mr Longmuir.
Then there is Mr Campbell Ogilvie, El Presidente, who himself benefited from a Rangers EBT and who held sway at Ibrox during a period of time when Rangers– by their own admission— made unlawful and illegal payments to three high profile players in breach of tax laws and SFA/SPL rules. It is these breaches and the consequent Wee Tax Bill which has caused all the angst among Celtic fans and has lead to the highly regulated legal step of tabling a motion at the club’s AGM.
Basically, the position seems to be, that as at the due date when the appropriate documents and declarations were made for a Euro Licence by Rangers for 2011, the wee tax bill was outstanding and due. If it was overdue, then the SFA could not and should not have granted them a licence……. and potentially Celtic should then have been put forward as Scotland’s representatives in the Champion’s League.
However, that did not happen, and Ranger’s were granted a licence– something that the Celtic Directors clearly felt was not correct.
They may have disagreed with the awarding of the licence because there were those at Rangers at the time who declared that a payment to account had been made to the tax office– allegedly £500,000– and that they had entered into an agreement to make payment of the balance by instalments. Had that been so, then all would have been hunky dory and no more would have been said.
Alas, however, no such payment appears to have been made at all, and no such agreement was entered into and so, on that basis, the tax bill was overdue and outstanding as at 30th June in terms of Article 66 and as such no Euro Licence should have been granted.
However, the argument does not end there.
Auldheid, has posted frequently on these pages about the ins and outs of the licensing provisions and the mechanism and so I will leave that detail to him as he is far more expert in these areas than me.
Now, one of the SFA functions is to have an auditor– someone who can check books, contracts, paper work and so on, and it is part of the SFA licensing function to be satisfied that all the paperwork is of course correct and in proper fashion before they issue any licence.
In this case, it is alleged that the SFA did not perform their function properly.
In relation to the wee tax case, it is said that either they did not make sufficient enquiry of Rangers re the payment to account or the agreement which they were told was in place. At the time it was mooted in the press that no such agreement was in place as at the relevant date ( June 30th ) and a simple check with the revenue would have shown the truth of the matter.
Yet, for whatever reason, no such check appears to have been made, and if you recall a Radio Scotland interview with Alistair Johnstone, Rangers submitted the forms, the SFA replied with one or two enquiries about the BIG tax case which were answered, and thereafter the Licence appears to have simply dropped through the letter box without further ado.
You will also recall that the existence of the wee tax case became known BEFORE Craig Whyte bought David Murray’s shareholding in May 2011. In fact it was the subject of News Paper headlines weeks before the deal was completed, and so the fact that there was a wee tax bill was well and truly in the public domain.
When it came to filling in the appropriate forms,either, the SFA were mislead by those then at Rangers with regard to that tax bill, OR, they simply failed to do the requisite checks and make reasonable enquiries before they issued the licence.
However, the uncomfortable fact also remains, that one of the chaps who must have been in the know re the admittedly unlawful and offending side letters, contracts and payments to the three players concerned was Campbell Ogilivie who was on the Rangers Board at the relevant time when the contracts and irregular payments were made under the Discount Options Scheme from 1999 to 2002/3. Indeed he may even have initiated the first payment to Craig Moore in 1999. I reiterate that no one has ever contested that this was an unlawful scheme, and the irregular payments and paperwork are not denied in relation to that scheme.
There are Celtic shareholders who believe, rightly or wrongly, that when it came to the granting of the Euro Licence, the SFA did not play them fair on this occasion and that the wheels within Hampden were oiled in such a way that Rangers were favoured and Celtic were disadvantaged. It is a point that looks to have already been considered by the Celtic Directors in 2011, with the result that they concluded that they should formally write to the SFA and seek clarification.
However, we now have the prospect of those same directors having to go back to Hampden and say ” Sorry, but I am forced to bring this up by my shareholders. I have a legal duty to them to enquire further”. Even if the motion is refused, the point has been made– there are shareholders who are demanding answers– just as shareholders of other clubs demand answers about the ever so secret 5 way agreement and other matters which have hitherto been not for public consumption.
The SFA have nothing to fear of course as they can simply repeat their previous answers,demonstrate that all was above board, and rest easy in their beds.
Except that answer did not satisfy the Celtic Directors on a previous occasion as they decided to take the matter to UEFA, and it would appear that some Celtic shareholders remain dissatisfied with the known stance of the SFA and so they want the Directors of the club to delve further. Without wishing to point out the obvious, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted rigorously or that those at Hampden were in any way economical with the truth or omitted certain details from the previous explanation, or covered up a failure in procedures—- well such omissions have a habit of becoming public these days whether that be through the internet or otherwise.
The point here is that the actions of Hampden officials are coming under organised, legal and planned corporate scrutiny over which they have no control. The Blazer and club mentality that was once so widespread within the governing bodies is under increasing attack and is being rendered a thing of the past.
In short, the move by Celtic shareholders, is making it plain that they will demand proper corporate governance from their club in ensuring that any alleged failure in corporate governance by the SFA or SPFL is properly investigated and reported on.
Of course, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted properly for whatever reason, then it could be argued that Celtic were disadvantaged in monetary terms along with other clubs who may have been awarded Europa League licences, then the consequences could be cataclysmic. Hence a tendency to circle the wagons rather than admit to failures in the process that need addressing.
It is this reluctance to come out and accept that the licensing process appears to have failed, say at what point the process failed and what needs to be done to address those failures that in many ways has driven the resolution. It is clear to all that something is amiss but the SFA will not admit it, probably from fear of the consequences of doing so? Perhaps some form of indemnity, a lessons learned enquiry with no prejudice might help?
It would come as no surprise to me at all if there were those at Hampden who live in dreaded fear of admitting that their processes were flawed and that a grave mistake was made. Under these circumstances, there may well be those at Hampden who simply wish that Celtic and their fans would just go away!
Whatsthescore says: http://t.co/eGPxqRVgPv ,there’s yer dinner.
Resin_lab_dog says: (258)
November 20, 2013 at 7:04 pm
HMRC loath the Football Creditor rule, and have tried to get it struck down, and lost, which shows that the courts in England can be just as bizarre as their Scottish counter parts….
I have no real problem with Rangers keeping the history, as long as they don’t cherry pick. They want the history, fine they take all of it, that includes the £250k SPL fine, the face painter , The Scottish Ambulance Service, HMRC etc etc etc
Many people have given their opinion that the new Rangers are the same club.
They bought the history.
The SFA say so.
UEFA say so.
The ASA say so.
The SMSM say so.
The ECA say so.
These are all opinions.
Prove that they are the same club, show us facts.
Matteo Galy says: (28)
November 20, 2013 at 7:12 pm
15 0 Rate This
This whatsthescore character bears ( pardon the pun ) all the hallmarks of a MH plant, or maybe even the organ grinder himself, who has been known to trawl ( or should that be troll ) various message boards trying to influence opinions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m not convinced. wts seems more like a young mixed up Ibrox fan, not sure of which club he/she supports and who has latched on to something that he/she believes offers him/her hope that he/she can actively follow the old club now and in the future. Of course, in doing so, he/she conviently ignores all of the pertinent facts that document the demise of that club.
If the reported email from ASA is true then football has finally lost the plot.
Borrow, borrow, borrow, and borrow some more and then when people come looking for their money back just fold, go into liquidation, stiff all your creditors except football ones who you haggle down, sell the assets to yourself through an untraceable offshore company, claim to be the same club, retain all of your history (the good bits obviously) and sail off majestically into the sunset, making friends along the way.
Who knows you might even have a corrupt administrator, or twenty, who will allow you to keep all of the trophies you won, with other peoples money, while blatantly lying about how much you were paying your employees.
Where do we all sign up for this business model?
It is a cheats, rogues charter that will corrode our sport from within.
Where does this leave the Financial Fair Play rule?
Is this rule only for clubs participating in Europe?
What is the point of such a rule if, when a club uses this policy and is found out, there is no penalty.
Already the replacement club has embarked upon a similar business strategy and ultimately money will run out again, so where does that leave us all?
The SFA moving heaven and earth to continually transfer membership from one club to another while money gets smaller. The price of keeping a support this size happy will destroy our sport. Investors will not be conned indefinitely by one club, or clubs claiming to be the same club, and our sport cannot afford to constantly be at war with itself.
A club who cannot balance its books over three to five year period is on the slippery slope in Scotland.
‘The Rangers’ board, their fans, and the SFA seem intent on collapsing the whole sport just because they WILL NOT PAY THEIR WAY. That is a fact that is now dawning on every supporter across the land.
Why should clubs cut costs, sell players at reduced fees, and attempt to make ends meet if the exact opposite business strategy has no penalties.
From Charlotte the other day.Maybe this is where BBC got the story of RFC £250k EBT enquiry fine.
http://imgur.com/bb2myNV
justshatered says: (256)
November 20, 2013 at 7:49 pm
‘…The price of keeping a support this size happy will destroy our sport…’
——–
Appeasement is never the answer- ask any kid who’s once handed over his dinner money to the class-room thug.
Honesty and integrity and courage in the face of threat would have brought its problems ( and NOT football finance problems-no Armageddon!), but they could have been dealt with.
The contrary vices may very well destroy the game more fundamentally than we can presently imagine, because they threaten the very idea of Fair Play being any kind of meaningful concept to the people in charge of our game..
Joethebookie says: (30)
November 20, 2013 at 7:36 pm
These are all opinions.
Prove that they are the same club, show us facts.
——
Sadly, these appear to be the opinions of the people that count. Unless someone goes to the effort of raising some manner of court action on the back of Rory Bremner FC trading as Tony Blair FC (hello, Hector?) then I fear these opinions have to be accepted meantime.
Certainly it’s ludicrous. Ye cannae fight the System, though.
Many fans will continue to perceive TRFC as a new club (myself included). No-one can change their opinions.
I said around a year ago I wouldn’t be back to Pittodrie, and I haven’t been. A bit sad, because Aberdeen are finally doing quite well. But I refuse to be part of this gigantic scam, in which all those mentioned in your post appear to be involved.
I have mentioned Budapest Honved before, fearing that the situation seen with “their” history and status would repeat with the team playing out of Ibrox. And so it came to pass.
Alternatively … can this ASA correspondence be proved as genuine? I suspect it may be a part of the scam myself. Another nail in the consciousness of the fitba fan in the street, another wee nudge in the direction of public perception of then, now, forever.
Just wondering who SFA are chasing for this £250K?
TRFC or RIFC? or the club?
Wouldn’t it be fun if the fines of oldco pushed newco into administration.
Lord Wobbly says: (973)
November 20, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Well, according to his first post, before this ASA ‘ruling’ ,he believed that Sevco weren’t the same club!
Some change in someone because of one so-called ‘ruling’ that few people have actually seen and which can be rubbished very easily.
Nah not having it!
Resin_lab_dog says:
======================
When you talk about a “bond” HMRC can demand a security payment, which is either cash paid to them and held on deposit, or a guarantee form a recognised legitimate institution.
However they would not normally do that as this is a new club and company with new owners and does not have the same revenue history. It would be unfair of them to penalise the new club just because it has a similar name as one who stole millions of pounds of tax from them.
justshatered says:
November 20, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Where does this leave the Financial Fair Play rule?
Is this rule only for clubs participating in Europe?
————————————————————————
My understanding is yes clubs operating in Europe although some national associations are adopting versions, including i think the English League (not sure about the Premiership though?)
Moreover it looks as though those playing in Europe are already finding some nice wee loopholes…who’d have thought it 🙄
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/uefa-ffp-loop-holes
..We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football “club” varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner.
I’m not sure about these things so I’m sure someone will know but when the SFA say “sometimes” then there must be instances where this is the case. Are there any ?
It’s interesting that today’s flawed ASA argument took up so much time and effort today.
A day when someone / group appears to have disposed of 5% of the issued Rangers’ stock and received approximately £1.3m for it.
It will be interesting to see who it is and how much they originally paid for it. It certainly looks like someone “cashing in”.
Almost equally interesting would be to see who actually bought this shareholding. Someone, or possibly some group has just increased their shareholding reasonably substantially. Maybe enough to have a real influence at AGM time.
Matteo Galy says: (29)
November 20, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Please do share where I do an about turn? I have quoted several sources, I don’t believe I have endorsed any position. As I said in an earlier post some posters choose to read what they want.
Christyboy says:
============================
“Sometimes”, whilst interesting is really quite irrelevant.
For the purposes of this discussion what is important is how they actually treated Rangers. That was as a new club.
Hypothetical, nebulous, if’s buts and maybes are really just a distraction.
I have a longer post setting out my position but it’s in Moderation 😕
sickofitall says: (202)
November 20, 2013 at 9:43 am
50 1 Rate This
Had a bet with tic6709 last week that p lawell would say sorry for his comments about sevco You win mate 5pound sent to tsfm .Oh and you can keep ibrox.
How can you possibly get a t d for this comment unbelieveable
@ whatsthescore
‘Can I just say that I was one of those fans that were outraged when it looked like SPL?SFA?SFL were about to do a deal re new RFC and what league they were put in’
From your post at 2.29 pm today. Looks like an about-turn to me. ‘New RFC’!
Resin_lab_dog says:
November 20, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Just wondering who SFA are chasing for this £250K?
TRFC or RIFC? or the club?
——–
It’s TRFC, since it was they who (as Sevco) were signatories to the Five-Way Agreement.
And it’s the SPFL, not the SFA, who are chasing – or more accurately, considering chasing.
See link from paulonotini at 7:59 pm .
Tif Finn says: (876)
November 20, 2013 at 8:21 pm
0 0 Rate This
It’s interesting that today’s flawed ASA argument took up so much time and effort today.
=======================
The BBC story from Al Lamont (huge :slamb: muncher) arrived at about the same time!
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/someone-sold-3-328-million-shares-in-rangers-today-is-the-seller-a-glass-half-empty-person
This is the unashamed mentality of those that support the ibrox club.
N€D @Ned_Stevens 12m
@ForresDee @Hector_1888 @Pmacgiollabhain We Are The People – We Are The Authorities 😉
The sooner they are shut down the better.
The ASA ruling is already being scrutinised on twitter , the information supplied by Sevco is flawed and maybe even intentionally misleading,with regard to the “registration number”, a twitterer contacted the SFA and to his surprise was told that there is no registration number,so the ASA have been fed a crock of sh#t.
It shouldn’t be hard to find out who is behind this dastardly deed.
Tif Finn, thanks for that. I’m just frustrated that we as yet, are unable to get these guys to explain themselves, their utterances, their sheer audacity. It’s like they really don’t give a shit that they’re talking crap. They widdnae get a red face at a bonfire!!!!!
Re the alleged ASA ruling on Rangers and the SFA contribution. Surely the most nauseating aspect of this is that:
1. The SFA appear to have agreed to a scam that lets them claim their history, despite stiffing the public purse and other for millions.
2. Despite the immorality of point 1, they were willing to compound it even further by allowing them into the top league, or one league down at worst.
No wonder people get angry.
Matteo Galy says: (30)
November 20, 2013 at 8:31 pm
about turn from what?
Come on give me some or even 1 example???????????????????????????????????????
Christyboy says:
=========================
Thanks for taking that the way it was intended, I was worried that I had worded it badly.
The bottom line is that bodies like the SFA saying that sometimes we do this and sometimes we do that… blah blah blah is really just clear obfuscation (oxymorons are great).
All that is important in a specific circumstance is what they actually did, not what they could have done. In The Rangers’ case they were treated as a new club by the Scottish football authorities, it really is as simple as that.
To my knowledge the SFA has pointedly refused to make any comment which would reverse that, and in reality there would be little point now.
Odd day on the blog. What’s the score got us all not just hunting squirrels but shooting dead ones. Still Sevco shorter of breath and one day closer to death. A penny shareholder cashing in before the end of days. And the blog wastes hours on an overturned and bogus ASA verdict which even SEVCO chose not to pursue when it was exposed as the BS it patently was. And this was all dealt with months ago.
Not long now. Squirrel season is upon us as the Rats make their last escape.
sickofitall says: (204)
November 20, 2013 at 8:30 pm
sickofitall says: (202)
November 20, 2013 at 9:43 am
50 1 Rate This
Had a bet with tic6709 last week that p lawell would say sorry for his comments about sevco You win mate 5pound sent to tsfm .Oh and you can keep ibrox.
How can you possibly get a t d for this comment unbelieveable
====================
That’s me just managed to complete transaction,( thanks boss).
As for the TD,maybe they think Ibrox is worth more than a couple of quid. (I don’t )
Anyway, nice one.
A wee question.
The assumption was that the RIFC shareholders should have received their AGM notification today.Does anyone know if they did and if they don’t receive them tomorrow,then what happens next?.
Long time lurker here (riveting blog with so many great contributors) and first time poster, so please be gentle.. 🙂
Would I be correct in thinking that Blue Pitch are the only ones who picked up shares for a penny (averaging at 50p for 4m, according to certain leaks) out of the four known selling candidates?
Artemis, Hargreave and Laxey all investing heavily during/post IPO (although Laxey started with 1m @ £1), so they’d be taking more of a hit on their investment. If today was Blue Pitch and they were Green/Zeus affiliates, would alarm bells start ringing if Richard Hughes followed suit promptly after…?
Tif Finn 🙂 a case of too many nuts, too many squirrels……
Guys, yet again a new troll has appeared. Please resist the temptation to get sucked in. NOBODY is paying any attention, but whilst we spend time arguing with the troll, some significant things are on-going.
DO NOT FEED!!
@whatsthescore
Don’t let the TDers get you down. I for one am loving your material. 🙂
I sometimes find myself in discussion with some from the “new club” camp, but find difficulty in finding a form of words to dissuade them of their arguments.
For example, @Chancer67 at 7.23, posted an excerpt from a Duff and Phelps statement where they are arguing with the SPL over when Rangers FC ( that’s RFC 2012(IL) for clarity) ceased to be. D&P said 14/06/2012, whilst the SPL plumped for 03/08/2012.
Can you advise as to my strategy in countering the argument that at least one of them is correct? 😥
In anticipation.
Silent Partner
Peter Lawwell makes a jibe…followed by media attention…and now this spurious ASA detail is thrown in…coincidence?
Silent Partner says: (8)
November 20, 2013 at 9:43 pm
………………………………..
The point being…they ceased to exist…the date is a minor issue!
whatsthescore says: (27)
November 20, 2013 at 8:26 pm
I have a longer post setting out my position but it’s in Moderation 😕
=====================================
Perhaps you forgot you were not writing for your newspaper!
TSFM
Could I have first stab at the “significant things.” This is based on nothing but my cynical mind.
I said at the time of the LNS outcome that the fine, relative to the charge being just below match fixing etc etc (despite Brysons best efforts) was relatively small. I said at the time that if I was CG I would pay that to claim the continuation. I also said at the time that since it was charged to the oldco anyway why not make it 25m as a deterrent for instance.
I said at the time of the membership transfer (or lack of) I was amazed that sevco signed up to the 5WA accepting all football debts and charges. I mean, what if LNS charged 25m for goodness sake? Its not as if LNS would charge something ridiculous like the cost of one of Flo’s boots as a charge!!!
And then I read today that SPFL may pursue newco for the charge. How much do you think that would help the old club illusion (that’s not to ignore neepheid and others views that sevco currently don’t have £2.50 never mind 250,000 btw)
And finally, as if my cynical inference that further grist to the old club mill isn’t happening right in front of us I am reminded that rent for two scottish cup semis will be on an agenda somewhere. £250,000 anyone?
john clarke says: (1375)
November 20, 2013 at 8:03 pm
You are quite right, appeasement is never the answer, but, that is exactly what the board members of both the SFA and the SPL did. All of them, ( I except the chap who resigned from this stricture), even the one who makes jokes about Rory Bremner, and just like dear old Neville Chamberlain, it has come back to bite them on the ass. No sympathy.
Smugas says: (531)
November 20, 2013 at 9:57 pm
The most obvious reason for Charles Green to agree was that it was his only option if he was to see Sevco kick a ball in anger that season.
Boring or not, clarification that this is a new club is crucial to any sort of justice being had for the rest of Scottish football.
But it won’t be admitted readily because the powers that be consider that a “strong” and “successful” “Rangers” provide a safety valve and a focal point through which the anger and prejudices of a significant portion of Scottish society can be channeled in a controlled environment, and without that safety valve they are genuinely fearful how that hatred and anger would manifest itself.
And so we the footballing “victims” of the great lie, for now will have to go on banging our heads off a brick wall with increasing levels of frustration. The interesting question is how the old club v new club question will addressed after the UTT hearing.
Barcelona = “more than a club”
Rangers = “more than one club”
How detrimental – financially and morally – is the SFA to Scottish football ?
==========================================================
As we all know, the last time Scotland qualified for a major tournament was way back in 1998. In the absence of subsequent, additional sponsorship/TV monies, you would expect that the SFA would now be managed in the most cost efficient manner.
In 2004 the SFA delivered a pre-tax profit of c.GBP0.7M on a turnover of GBP20.4M – or about 3.4%. [Couldn’t access 1998/9 figures on Duedil].
In 2012, the SFA delivered a pre-tax profit of c.GBP0.7M on a turnover of GBP33.2M – or about 2.1%.
Agreed, there are many ways to skin a cat etc, but on the face of it, the SFA is generating an additional c.GBP13M compared to 8 years ago, but the pre-tax profit is flat at GBP0.7M, [or actually less in real terms if you factor in inflation].
So, an observation could be that whilst the SFA is successful in developing increased / new revenue streams, it is not managing its costbase in an efficient manner.
Point 1: Lost opportunities.
An inefficient, costly SFA results in less available cash to invest in opportunities to support and develop the future well-being of the Scottish game at all levels – from children through to professionals.
——————————–
The current President and CEO of the SFA are personally generating significant, negative goodwill just by remaining in post, [with the caveat that member clubs are also responsible for keeping them there].
I for one have simply refused to buy any Scotland merchandise – e.g. shirts for myself and kids – whilst the SFA appears to be mismanaged.
How many other football fans have also been disillusioned by Ogilvie / Regan in particular, to the point of missing national games at Hampden, and/or not buying SFA merchandise ?
Point 2: Lost revenue and customers.
I can’t quantify this ‘lost’ revenue, but the the SFA’s behaviour is costing Scottish football – when it simply cannot afford to lose any revenue or customers.
——————————–
For differing reasons, based on the last 2 years in particular, it can be reasonably claimed that the average Scottish football fan now views the SFA as being a corrupt and/or incompetent organisation.
What sort of example is that for youngsters ?
And whilst they may be too young to take an active interest in the SFA themselves, if a parent is a football fan too then it can be reasonably assumed that a youngster may have already formed a negative view of the SFA.
Point 3: Lost credibility for the long-term.
IMO, the SFA is costing Scottish football by setting such a bad example that fans are/could become disillusioned and drift away from the game at national and/or at club level.
Again, I can’t quantify the impact of the SFA’s mishandling of all things Sevco, but their loss of credibility as an organisation could have a significant, long-term impact on the Scottish game.
—————————–
Point 4: Solutions.
So, what are the answers ?
I don’t know, but… 🙄
IMO, neither Ogilvie nor Regan have the self-awareness / motivation / courage to step aside. But their remit, I believe, is heavily influenced by the requirements of the member clubs.
For the SFA to stop the rot, and to start having a more positive image amongst all Scottish football fans, the clubs themselves must realise that they have to take responsibility to make changes at the SFA.
And by changes, I don’t just mean changing personnel, but also instigating proper, meaningful engagement with fans, [like responding to emails for a start !], and having real transparency. The SFA could also actively move towards becoming a ‘professional services’ type organisation to finally dispel the image of an old boys club stuffed with blazers and buffoons.
…oh, and rename / rebrand to ensure they lose ‘the history’… 😉
That’s my tuppence worth, and to state the obvious: major change at the SFA is long, long overdue !
Below fm CF is the original ASA decision back in June which said it was talking no action against RFC/TRFC over their use of “most successful club” claim in its advertising.
What followed was some complainants took it further & the case was independently reviewed by Sir Hayden Phillips who asked ASA to carry out a full review as he had some concerns about the original decision.
The latest as reported by Phil this week is that after review ASA don’t plan to change their mind on the matter.
http://imgur.com/JLKM21B
http://imgur.com/AOy36Ai
Hope links work as it’s first time I’ve used imgur
ASA & RFC re advertising
Here’s Phil’s on this from yesterday:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/asa-to-recommend-no-further-action-over-rangers-complaints-after-re-investigation/#more-4196
And this appears the letter received this week from ASA @ appeared on CQN today FM winning ways at 1.50pm.
ASA Asssessment for you to consider:
Whilst the ASA acknowledged that Newco had not taken on all the debts and liabilities of Oldco when it purchased its assets and business and that that would normally preclude a business from trading on the reputation of a liquidated predecessor company, we noted having read its report in full that both an Independent Commission appointed by the SPL and the ECA had reached the conclusion that the football club RFC was a recognisable entity in its own right, and that it had continued in existence despite being transferred to another owner and operator. We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football “club” varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC’s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the SFA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the SFA. We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to FRC’s history, which was separate to that of Newco.
This in an in-depth post I did in Sept on TSFM summarising the whole Advertising Standards Agency(ASA) & RFC/TRFC case
paulonotini says: (34)
September 18, 2013 at 9:57 pm
51 1 Rate This
Advertising Standards Authority & Ongoing Debate on Status of RFC
Thought I would do a summation of ASA’s decision to re-open the case against RFC’s “most successful club” claim which was reported on The Drum website on 6 August 2013:
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/08/06/independent-reviewer-reopening-case-against-rangers-fc-most-successful-football-club
The original ruling saw ASA allow the statement that Rangers is ‘Scotland’s most successful club’ in an advertising campaign,however that original ruling has now been removed from the ASA website.
As well as RFC making false claims that the London stock Exchange(LSE) endorsed “the most successful” claim,the Independent reviewer Sir Hayden Phillips summarised that
-”it was a procedural flaw for the ASA to have relied on an extract only of a report sent to it by the advertiser”,&
-”there was also the risk of a substantial flaw of adjudication in the distinction that had been made between ‘club’ and ‘company’”,
-and “especially in light of previous ASA decisions about companies that change hands and the circumstances in which the new company could or could not trade off the reputation of the old company”
After a bit of searching on the ASA training website(cap.org,uk) to see if there was
any info on previous ASA decisions regarding liquidated companies I saw this topic:
Type of Claims,”Established since……..”
http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Types-of-claims-Established-since.aspx
There was a very interesting point made here:
“Marketers claiming that their business has been established for a specific number of years or implying that their business has been established for a long time should hold documentary evidence (Rules 3.1 and 3.7)”.
This is a point which could affect RFC’s claim to be Scotlands most successful club,140 years in existence & 54 League titles,despite only being in existence for just over a year.
Other potentially pertinent points to RFC are:
1-”The ASA adjudicated that,because it was unable to show it had taken on the debts and liabilities of the previous company, the advertiser was unfairly trading on the reputation and trading history of
an earlier incarnation of the same company (Minster Windows Ltd, 16 January 2008)”.
2-”The ASA has ruled against an advertiser that could not demonstrate an
uninterrupted and stable trading history (Barry Allsuch and Co LLP, 21 May 2008)”.
Rules 3.1 & 3.7 can be found here :
http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/Section-3-Misleading-advertising.aspx
3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation.The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
The questions ASA must now ask based on previous precedents are:
1-Can TRFCL demonstrate it had taken on the debts & liabilities of the previous company?
I think we can all agree that is no.
2-Can RFC/now TRFCL demonstrate an uninterrupted & stable trading history?
Due to liquidation I would say no again.
However,how will ASA treat RFC club,will they treat it as a special case & assert club/co separate therefore they are entitled to say “most successful club”.
Or will they accept Sir Hayden Phillips points “there was also the risk of a substantial flaw of adjudication in the distinction that had been made between ‘club’ and ‘company’”,& also to consider the precedents set by previous ASA decisions.
I guess we’ll just have to wait & see.
My final points however are on more recent developments & in particular the Upper Tax Tribunal document by Judge Colin Bishopp released last week.With regard to the status of RFC point 27 is very interesting where Judge Bishopp asserts a modern pro football club is a “commercial enterprise” & “has no special status”.Part of point 27 is shown below:
27.”Before coming to the detail of the case it is worth making a preliminary observation.
I have referred above to the strong feelings of many football supporters.
Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having
a special status.In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless
not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a“club”,in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common
purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its
shareholders. From that perspective it has no special status, and there is no reason why
its tax affairs should not be as open to scrutiny as those of any other profit-making
organisation”.
And Judge Bishops’ full document is linked below
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2013/B6.pdf
Finally the stand-off between BBc Scotland & BBC Trust re status of RFC is also very interesting with BBC Scotlands legal view that club/co are indistinguishable whereas BBC Trust say BBC Scotland failed to achieve due accuracy for referring to old & new club.
There are some interesting times ahead as many of these situations play out.
Will we get confirmation that legally RFC is a new club or will we get the continued fudged arguments RFC club continue regardless of the company position.
StevieBC says: (891) November 20, 2013 at 10:40 pm
————————–
I don’t think you can make any judgements about the SFA’s management of their cost base without reviewing the accounts.
The fact that the SFA generated £13M more than it did 8 years ago, and that the “profit” figure was unchanged, could actually indicate that the SFA is managing its income and expenditure efficiently.
I certainly don’t want to see the SFA accumulating cash, so I’d rather see them invest all income back into the game. That may already be happening, e.g. up to £13M extra funding to grass roots, youth development, training of coaches etc. It won’t be as much as that with increased wages and other costs but the principle is sound.
I agree with your take on the image and integrity issues though.
justshatered says: (256)
November 20, 2013 at 7:49 pm
51 0 Rate This
If the reported email from ASA is true then football has finally lost the plot.
====================
Finally lost the plot?
How often could this have been said with regards to the SFA over the last two years?
And last time I checked, untouchable Campbell is still sitting in his nice office on the 6th floor!
For me Scottish football lost the plot when they allowed this individual to remain president UNOPPOSED, or am I missing something?
Like Angus, as things stand, I can’t spend any money supporting our national game, which is particularly frustrating as the Dons are playing their best fitba since the early 90’s. Sadly the actions of the idiots on the 6th floor will,in my mind, leave the professional game forever tarnished.
Who is FRC?
easyJambo says: (568)
November 20, 2013 at 11:02 pm
EJ well said. for all my contempt for the people at the top of the SFA, we should never forget that the SFA also do a lot of good work, with people at the grass roots level, who ensure that our kids and young people can play football week in, week out, with very little thanks from the w&nkers at the top.
This nonsense, has reminded me of one thing, it is entirely possible to be brilliant in one role, say CEO of a Football Club, and a complete w&nker in another, say board member of the organisation responsible for the management of football as a whole.
It is, indeed, a funny old world!
Although the oldco/newco debate is tiresome to some, the fact it continues unabated, ready to surface at the merest jibe suggest it has an importance way beyond what makes it tiresome.
If I can suggest what that might be.
There is a school of thought held by most non RIFC fans that Rangers cheated the rest of Scottish football when they embarked on the ebt route by which they broke the trust on which rules and sporting integrity depend and that the punishment for such a crime should be that their history ended when they were put into liquidation.
The insistence that it did not is seen by the rest of the game as a denial of the seriousness not only of what was done in the past but more important their ongoing attempts to avoid admission of and consequences of their cheating ever since the ebt story became public.
The difficulty this causes the rest is why should a club/organisation/entity that broke trust and cheated yet acts as if it had not, be allowed to compete against other clubs who have acted in a trustworthy manner?
There may have been apologies but the general narrative encouraged by the faulty LNS judgement is that all Rangers did was make clerical errors in registering players. This is bullshit. They embarked on a remuneration policy from Sept 1999, with the full knowledge of the existing SFA President Campbell Ogilvie, that was illegal in the way that it was followed. What made it illegal was using side letters, and they knew so or would not have hidden their existence and have admitted them when HMRC asked for sight of them in 2005.
This admission of guilt at cheating and breaking of trust is the huge hurdle that the Rangers camp are refusing to face and the desire/insistence to cling to their sporting history is indicative of their reluctance.
We already know that DOS EBTs were operated in such an incorrect manner as to make their use illegal and had the FTT found for HMRC in the loan ebts, cheating would have been the inevitable conclusion on them. If the UTT reverse the FTT, the conclusion that Rangers cheated and broke trust is one that no one can avoid and the way should be being prepared now for such an eventuality and what will be to them, an unpalatable truth.
Surely this is wise rather than to keep pretending the game is dealing with a minor misdemeanour which is how LNS portrayed it.
The other factor that keeps the debate alive is that if they retain their history and identity then there is no deterrent value in the existing rules, which makes the rules disreputable, not those who jibe at them.
UEFA Article 12 is UEFA’s attempt at a deterrent to a club dodging debt via liquidation and the SFA must introduce a deterrent element into their own Articles. Whether the UTT decision or a fuller understanding of what went on with DOS forces the issue, it is clear that the SFA Articles must include a provision similar to UEFA’s Art 12 in order to protect the integrity of our game.
If you read Article 12 you will see that its purpose is to protect the integrity of UEFA competition. If it is good enough for UEFA it should be good enough for the SFA.
What I would suggest is that any senior professional club who are liquidated may be allowed back into the professional game but cannot return to the tier at which they exited until three years have elapsed. That three years gives the club an opportunity to prove to the rest of the game that it has learned the lesson from its behaviour and is ready to join the rest of the footballing community as a partner untainted by its past behaviour if it is granted a licence in each of the three years.
The retention of sporting history would not be a given but dependent on behaviour in the three year period, Call it a probation period.
I believe it is the lack of admission of wrong doing and no correction policy that will keep this harmful debate going, and when I say harmful I mean to everyone.
However we cannot get such an honest approach whilst the SFA act as if trust was not broken when they, more than any other party, know that it was.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications.aspx?SearchTerms=rangers#2. Internet Sales Promotion
http://imgur.com/JLKM21B. Radio & Regional press
Due to the description of the advertising it would indeed appear these refer to different complaints.
Guys, just reading back about the latest ASA correspondence and how many think it was a squirrel. I am one of the 3 Secondary complainers and believe I was the first to get my letter yesterday. I let a few posters know privately and posted here last night, then quickly edited it out with the ‘test’ quote. So apologies if I distracted the blog. However the ASA stance still needs to go in front of an independent panel and the have also asked for any reaction to be written, and be by them by Monday which if relevant they will again reconsider before finalising their case.
If anyone fancies helping me with a response can you mail me through TSFM.
Quite like paulonotini’s post at 1102pm
whatsthescore says: (28)
November 20, 2013 at 2:49 pm
“Posted on CQN by Winning Captains…”
—————————
Thanks for the info whatsthescore.
I think we need to step back here a wee bit rather than tripping over our own bootlaces. If the ASA had ruled Newco could not advertise Ranger’s history as being associated with theirs then this would have been seen as a victory by many bampots. Sometimes you lose and sometimes you win, otherwise its not a contest.
I don’t have a huge problem with Newco claiming this history. It was inevitable. Unfortunately it is a poison chalice I believe. There are a chunk of tainted titles wrapped up in that parcel of history. If Rangers and their cronies had been smart they would have accepted a proportionate punishment for ‘misregistration’ and the furore would have been quelled to some extent. All Scottish football fans would have come to accept this in time. However the misguided effort to maintain unblemished continuity has provided a stick that Rangers fans will be beaten with for evermore. This will just create increased animosity all round.
I take Aulheid’s perspective that liquidation might become a vehicle by which debt is shed by clubs in future if the sanctions are not proportionate. Its an element of the game that is in many ways unprecedented so the nature of the proportionality is difficult to assess right now. However, if as seems the case, rules were applied, not without fear or favour, as would be appropriate in a sporting context but with at least one eye on wider imperatives, there will be any number of unwholesome precedents that have been set that will come back to haunt the authorities.
Football should be a simple game. When you confuse the situation with all sorts of spurious interpretations of rules it is bound to spawn all sorts of troubles further down the line.
scapaflow says: (1118)
November 20, 2013 at 11:12 pm
‘…we should never forget that the SFA also do a lot of good work, with people at the grass roots level, who ensure that our kids and young people can play football week in, week out, with very little thanks from the w&nkers at the top..’
——-
I endorse what you say.
You’ve accurately touched the heart of the problem.
The people who ruined thousands and inflicted incalculable damage on the western world by bringing the banking system to its knees , were the people at the top, not the local bank staff – our sons, daughters, neighbours, friends etc.
A fish rots from the head.
The fear is that the rot at SFA board level , like the rot on the ( former) boards of RBS, Northern Rock, Lehman Brothers etc will inevitably begin to corrode, and eat its way into, the lower levels of football organisation- whether professional, amateur, junior,school or women’s.
Bad men at heart cannot , ultimately, be good administrators, because they don’t know what principle and integrity mean.
And that gets found out.
Who among us has any respect for a law-breaking law-enforcer? Who is going to bust a gut for a dissembling , lying cheat of a boss? Or work for long as a volunteer for an essentially untrustworthy organisation?
This is the great damage that the SFA board has done to itself: for a base reason, it chose to depart from integrity .
There is no honourable way back, other than resignation or dismissal.
As Fred the Shred et alii found out.
The futures bleak, let’s talk about history. About the meaningless stars and questionable titles. Treated like a bonus extra bit in the admin deal, like a geezer selling towels doon the barras, the bit that’s been traded for a quid more than once. I’m not sure they shouldn’t have it, there’s lots of ugly bits in it I like reminding them of, and besides, it’s just a stationary target for Celtic.
Galling fiver says: (21)
November 21, 2013 at 12:16 am
‘……there’s lots of ugly bits in it I like reminding them of, and besides, it’s just a stationary target for Celtic..’
———
With the utmost respect,Gf, we must not fall into the same kind of muddled, contradictory , partisan thinking that we are trying to wrestle with.
There is no longer any ‘old firm’ rivalry to ‘enjoy’.
The club whose supporters you used to enjoy winding up has itself been wound up. It does not exist. And anything it ever achieved is frozen forever in time.
Those who were supporters of that club still exist, of course.
But they have had to attach their affections to a different club, an imitation, perhaps a replica. A club that actually has no legitimacy.And certainly a club that Celtic has not yet played.
A club that is only in its second season of life after being illegitimately sired by the SFA in a disgustingly incestuous act of corruption.
A football club that has no history earlier than 2012. Has no cups, no European games, one league championship.
You ought not wish upon them the foul, cheating history of a club that died at the hands of its majority shareholder.
And you should fervently wish not to have to sully yourselves by any readiness to regard the new club as being the same club, just because its supporters were supporters of the dead club.
Auldheid says: (1024)
November 20, 2013 at 11:22 pm
37
1
Rate This
______________________________________
Auldheid you have summed this up beautifully.
As a non glasgow fan with no axe to grind, I feel I have been ‘cheated’ by the ref blatantly and repeatedly with video evidence and no redress to the extent that the ref has donned the shirt of the guy who brought me down in the box, while others in the field of play have cheated repeatedly with impunity.
I have no axe to grind with the decent bears (that means you Ryan)… I just want someone to blow the whislte on their clubs (plural) more flagrant breaches every now and again. Otherwise what is the point? What was a great sport has decended into a comical farce, because of the wilful failure of governance in the face of repeated and flagrant breaches of rules and sportsmanship from – as it turn out – a single entity – apparently : (except when it comes to trifles like paying for what you owe or have consumed!)
Who can blame Ryan and his compadres?
If the guy is clear on goal and you bring him down with a clear 2 footed challenge that is nowhere near the ball in clear view of the ref and he waves play on, your fans will cheer. And next time the cheat will be even less circumspect when chopping down honest endeavour with foul play.
And about then the sporting contest ends.
It was OK while it lasted.
But the sport of football in Scotland is now over.
My money would be on the guy in the tights in the mask, but it loses its attraction even as a betting circus. There is no point becaue – sooner or later – it’s all rigged.
So Ryan, you got your wish. Your club, it seems, was saved after all. I wish you the pleasure of it.
Because the cost was our whole sport and the pleasure it brought through honest endeavour to generations.
Quality father & son time is important, especially in this day and age.
So I will take my son down the snooker hall this Saturday.
Tell me Ryan … was it worth it?
(… it wasn’t your fault, though – I wouldn’t make a decentguy like you shoulder that burden)
But… Cheats then. Cheats now. Cheats forever.
I see on Graham Spiers Twitter timeline he is urging the SPFL to give up on the pursuit of £250K from Sevco, citing it as ‘daft’. He is probably right in in it being daft, but only because clubs from Ibrox clearly don’t need to pay anything they don’t want to, including social taxes. I’m sure Spiers meant something different when he said daft though. It really is quite sad that people who work for the media can be so dismissive of wrongdoing on such a grand scale.
The SPFL attempting to recover the £250,000 fine, even though it proves unrecoverable, does place renewed spotlight on the fine and punishment.
It was the old SPL that also appeared to push the previous ‘there a case to answer’ on the illegal payments.
I’ve been reading a lot of pessimism, but much of it is SFA-related, and it is amazing that the governing body is a soft touch compared to the league body. You’d think it would be the other way around.
Whatever, I congratulate the SPFL for at least chasing the fine from the phoenixed Rangers. Since it claims the history of the previous club, I agree with those who believe that the subject of tainted titles will haunt the newco.
upthehoops says: (665)
November 21, 2013 at 7:23 am
I see on Graham Spiers Twitter timeline he is urging the SPFL to give up on the pursuit of £250K from Sevco, citing it as ‘daft’.
#########
Jack has told Graham to say it’s daft.
8am news on the Radio
The new CEO at the Replica Club has asked for the fans backing ,thats the first indication for them to hold back on the weans xmas spending, more indirect begging statements to follow follow..
FIFA
Well the heating bills at the chateau might be a bit steep this year 😉
Since TRFC and RIFC have made a fortune for themselves by trading under the name, reputation and goodwill of the liquidated club, does that not give creditors some hope of recovery? Especially with yet another share offer using the brand name in the works?
The SFA are now looking entirely complicit in a project which has seen the phoenixed club and business continue, “as you were”, and continue to rake in huge sums of money.
In the event of BDO just being another shower of fee chasers, could creditors bring a civil case against either D&P, RIFC & TRFC or even the SFA? Absolutely no one in any official capacity has reclaimed anything for them.
All I hear is: “We are the same club, nothing has changed.” There’s surely ample evidence in these bold assertions for creditors to base a claim on? Ticketless TicketUs must surely want their lolly back too?
When is fraud not fraud?
Paulmac2 says: (793)
November 20, 2013 at 11:11 pm
Who is FRC?
——
Try searching for “FRC Screaming Jets” on Youtube. A fave song of mine by a splendid Aussie band, it describes some of the TRFC participants quite well.
FIFA says: (406)
November 21, 2013 at 8:11 am
7 0 i Rate This
8am news on the Radio
The new CEO at the Replica Club has asked for the fans backing ,thats the first indication for them to hold back on the weans xmas spending, more indirect begging statements to follow follow..
======================
This means: Give us your money,all of it or else the club you think is still the same as the club you once supported will go down the derain. This will be a monthly call from the powers within Sevco Towers.
Have any of the bampots managed to find out if Sevco actually complained to the SFA about Peter Lawwell?
If Sevco have complained
What was the wording of the complaint ?
/b In the event of BDO just being another shower of fee chasers, could creditors bring a civil case against either D&P, RIFC & TRFC or even the SFA? Absolutely no one in any official capacity has reclaimed anything for them. /b
Following on fro DP’s post, one thing that hasn’t been considered is that debt is a tradable asset. In the financial markets you get funds that buy up such debts and then try to enforce repayment.
What would stop, say, such a fund buying the debt from the face painter for pennies in the pound and then as creditors pursuing the “same club” for repayment?
This would soon flush out the same club nonsense.
Perhaps an idea for the TSFM funds?
Spiers on Sport: can Celtic afford the principle of a living wage?
Spiers on Sport
Graham Spiers
Tuesday 19 November 2013
Had it not been for his infamous headline-making “jibe” at Rangers last Friday, Peter Lawwell and Celtic might still be simmering in a controversy of a different sort.
Imagine football embracing the concept of the “living wage”, eh? When this topic arose at last week’s Celtic AGM it confirmed again that the green and white hoops of Glasgow are a sporting institution steeped in history, social values and, dare I say it, a degree of myth as well.
=======================================================
How does this cretin make a living from the sheidt he writes?
For example
. . .”Imagine football embracing the concept of the “living wage”. . .
+++++
Should he not be writing something like this
. . .
Imagine football embracing the concept of ”paying their debt” – every last penny of it,
instead of using Tax payers money as a funding kitty ?
Jim
Whattaboutery doesn’t invalidate the sentiment. There is an unpleasant irony attached to this given the origins of the club. It’s fine to call out the MSM when they print nonsense and blatant untruths, but I can’t think of any ordinary football fan in my circle who would be criticising GS for that.
It is for me a very interesting topic – although it is strictly speaking a Celtic matter.
I don’t think coordinated news just happens because news breaks out.
Well not very often and certainly not when the replacement blue club are at the epicentre.
And I don’t think leopards change their spots, or rivers run uphill or that 5 way signatories suddenly become honest and principled when it comes to the business that is Scottish Football.
So my belief is the well briefed and fully integrated multi-media story about the SPFL now taking a tough stance on the replacement blue club (over a comparatively small fine – hardly enough to even pay Longmuir’s departing bonus) is a classic example of an old Max Clifford technique where what is really happening is the opposite.
The population is being led to believe that the SPFL are getting remarkably and forcefully tough on the new club.
Why are we all being manipulated?
Why now?
The quotes below are from the media Editor at The Telegraph. They highlight a problem that newspapers have in pursuing stories which have merit. I doubt this is what Leveson intended, but it is a consequence of the actions of Murdochs stormtroopers. It also opens the door for PR firms to package a story for journalists under pressure and under resourced.
What it also illustrates , is that good forums and blogs should be the friend of the journalist. There is an unpaid resource , often with professional and technical expertise, which can deliver understanding and insight and on occasion can be the source of a news story. Equally that is why good forums and blogs are the enemy of the PR firm, as they don’t accept their paid for and client prejudiced view of how they want news/propaganda accepted as fact.
RTC lead the way in contributory expertise, this blog has continued in that vein, although it seems to me that trolling and deflection are much more common on here , than it was on RTC. I guess the PR firms , and those who don’t like the message from the blog, have learned from the damage RTC did to their clients, and have devised a strategy to disrupt.
Anyway , here’s what the Telegraph editor had to say
“Leveson’s recommendations play firmly into the hands of PR professionals and lawyers. The cost of legal action is already so disproportionate to the revenues of many publications that those trying to keep their names out of the press are able to use the spectre of mounting legal costs to silence legitimate stories.
Never mind whether a report is right or wrong; there are many publishers, large and small, that simply cannot justify the expense of the battle to defend their position.”
“While this might present a few quick wins to PRs in the short term, it is bad for everyone in the long term. Newspapers and magazines that do not have the confidence to publish cage-rattling stories will stop bothering to spend money on researching them in the first place.
Investment in proper investigative journalism – already under threat or a thing of the past at many publishers – will diminish further and reporters will fall out of the practice of chasing a difficult story down.”
“The only place that leads to is a culture of spoon-fed tales regurgitated from press releases – and if journalism heads down this track, PR will shortly follow. There is no lack of junior staff to crank out press releases, but those PR professionals that can manage a damaging or explosive story are like gold dust: sought after, hard to find and genuinely valuable. If journalists are not breaking challenging stories and exposing uncomfortable truths, on the one hand, why would anyone that is the subject of those reports require someone skilled to defend them on the other? ”
Final thought, the PR firms aren’t the only ones with a strategy. There are good journalists who want to put the truth out there. It is very easy , in the intemperate climate of Scottish football , to label everyone as a succulent lamb taker. That is far from the truth. The forum has to be the correct one and the recent move by the EBay founder to set up an investigative news venture could be a game-changer, and a benchmark for specific interest projects.
Watch this space.
Meanwhile, in an office deep within the bowels of Hampden, Sandy Bryson (the SFA’s go to man for perverse rulings and interpretations) cuts a lonely figure as he burns the candle at both ends trying to find a solution to the latest RFC problem.
“I thought my response to the ASA was pretty clever but this fine business is a lot harder to dismiss” he confides to his boss. “I’ve told the ASA that they are the same business so in reality they should be responsible for paying this penalty. Maybe we could say that as Rangers had no knowledge of the fine before LNS awarded it then they cannot be held responsible for it. Worked with us in the registrations case”
“Worth a try” says Campbell “now how do we get the media onside with this. Get me Spiers on the phone”
A few posts removed this morning for rather childish name calling and insulting language. A wee request to keep it in the spirit of the blog. if you feel you can’t adhere to that, please do not post at all.
>>Paulmac2 says: (793)
>>November 20, 2013 at 11:11 pm
>>Who is FRC?
FRC would be these characters – http://i2.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article1585970.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/gates%20at%20the%20entrance%20to%20Glasgow%20Rangers%20football%20club's%20ground%20Ibrox-1585970.jpg since we normally read from left to right in english)