Daft and Dafter

By

Collusion or stitch up or incompetence The LNS verdict did not …

Comment on Daft and Dafter by Barcabhoy.

Collusion or stitch up or incompetence

The LNS verdict did not come as a surprise to some of the clubs in the SPL. Some of them were expecting exactly such a verdict.

That is not the same as saying there was not real anger when the decision was announced. There was real anger in at least one SPL boardroom

That is not the same as saying they colluded in the SPL’s case being “designed” to reach a compromise verdict. The process of charge and case construction did not involve any of the clubs.

It is often commented that the CEO of the SPL has no authority. That is only true, when it comes to changing the rules and constitution of the SPL. As long as the CEO operates within the rules and constitution, he has executive authority. There was no specific rule which stated that the CEO needed to consult with member clubs on a disciplinary matter concerning another member club..

Therefore Doncaster was free to use his “best judgement” in instructing the SPL’s solicitors on the targeted outcome of the LNS enquiry.

This was the single most important matter , involving the SPL’s legal team, in Doncaster’s time as CEO.

Ask yourself this simple question. If the legal team had dropped the ball and failed to achieve the desired result, do you think they would still be the legal advisors .

Next question. Are they still the legal advisors.

Next question. Will they be the legal advisors to the SPFL.

And the answers to those questions should point you in the direction of whether the LNS case was a stich up, an act of collusion to reach a soft landing for Rangers, or incompetence by the legal team.

Recent Comments by Barcabhoy

On Grounds for Judicial Review
Fisiani,

Celtic aren’t employing a QC . The fans are. 

Celtic have direct access , as a member of both the SFA and the SPFL. They have already succeeded in a committment from the SPFL to a wide ranging enquiry . We await the terms of reference of that enquiry. However it will not include the potential to set aside the LNS enquiry, according to Rod McKenzie

Hence the need for the fans to ask a court to do so.The basis is LNS was not provided with relevent evidence of use of unlawful or irregular tax schemes . LNS , by his own words , said he proceeded on the basis that these schemes were lawful. He also stated that the SPL had rules to prevent breaches of Sporting Integrity and he found Rangers guilty of that , but not in a manner that provided Sporting Advantage.

Based on what was hidden from LNS plus what has been ruled on by the Supreme Court , that conclusion by LNS looks fundamentally flawed

The SFA have failed completely in their role as protector of the game. I have no doubt whatsever that Celtic want fundamental change there. However at this stage the fans don’t have a specific decision that the SFA have made , in regards to the Sporting Advantage , that was the subject of an independent panel, and therefore open to a JR request 
I agree that the non decisions described above by BRTH should be the subject and included in an SFA commisioned fully independent review . However as yet they have decided a 3 monkeys approach is all we are getting . Lets see if Celtic get enough support from other clubs on this one 


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
1 The SPFL has guaranteed TV revenue for 3 years
2 Many clubs have record season book sales
3 Debt has been removed in most clubs
So ??
Why have SPFL clubs been silent so far , with the exception of Celtic , on the implications of the Supreme Court verdict
The argument is made that many are working hard just to make ends meet.
Fair enough , but when was that ever not the case in Scottish football.

 Are we to believe that there will never be an environment where clubs have an appetite to get Four-square behind the notion of Sporting Integrity ?

 
That can’t possibly be the case , otherwise why bother having a rule book .
Some clubs though are in relative robust financial health, their supporters have dug deep to help finance recent achievements.

 Don’t they deserve the respect , from club directors , of ensuring their club is treated exactly the same way as every club. Not every club bar 1

 
I’m looking particularly at Hearts , Aberdeen, Hibernian and St Johnstone. You have no excuses for silence , certainly not personal ambition for positions at the SFA or SPFL.
Do you really want your legacies to read :

 
I was scared to do the right thing in case we jeopardised some ticket revenue.
So I turned a blind eye to the actions of the authorities and 13 years of rule breaches by a member club “

 

That’s what you want to tell your grandchildren ?

If Clubs can’t speak out when they have guaranteed revenue, record fan support , are debt free and succesful , when CAN they be trusted to put Integrity at the top of their list of priorities…….or even on it .


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
LNS Though did comment on the Tax Case. He explicitly stated that as far as his enquiry was concerned the EBT’s were lawful and as such were not a breach of league rules
That is an important point. If the use of EBT’s in relation to their legality/lawfulness/regularity was a matter of no consequence , then LNS had no need to address them. The fact that he found it necessary  to comment on their legality is telling.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a breach of rules to use tax schemes which are irregular , unlawful , illegal or any of those categories 

Yet there has not been a single enquiry into these tax schemes. Is this because guilt had already been admitted by Rangers ? Is it because it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion that sporting advantage was gained ?


Time to Make Things Happen
Chill Ultra

How do you reconcile your statement that Res 12 was a board controlled project with the fact it’s only in the public domain because of the efforts of the requisitioners ? 


THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
Here’s the challenge when it comes to sanctioning clubs for fan behaviour.

1 Minor Incidents can be hugely exagerrated through social media and press coverage.
Take the recent statement by Club 1872 blaming celebrating Celtic fans for Celtic players being attacked, racially abused and having dangerous objects thrown at them. Now even allowing for the fact that the statement was made by the Moron’s moron Craig Houston, it received disproportionate coverage in the msm, virtually none of it ridiculing the shameful nature of the statement.

In the same statement Houston claimed damage to Ibrox stadium in a pathetic attempt to equate half a dozen broken seats with the £80k of wanton vandalism deliberatley carried out by Rangers supporters at Celtic Park
Now anyone with a more than a single brain cell can see through Houston’s lies and bitterness, however his claims were published in the MSM and as far as i’m aware have not been ridiculed by journalists in the papers that published them. They therefore become unchallenged outside of social media, and down the line gain a currency of “fact” amongst those who don’t know better

2  Serious incidents can be downplayed by press coverage

Graham Spiers aside not many in the MSM are prepared to report on the large scale singing and chanting which breaks the law in this country. As another example take the Scottish Cup Final of last season. If you only got your news from the MSM , then you would believe all 11 Rangers players were attacked on the pitch . We know that’s a lie, and at most it appears a single player was the victim of a single attempted assault.
However the media have largely ignored the actions of a large number of Rangers fans who went onto the pitch intent on committing violence. Those who didn’t ignore it, enthusiastically bought in to Jim Traynor’s fabrication of a valiant band who were only intent in defending their players.  

There may be other incidents involving fans of other clubs which could be used to illustrate the points above. The issue though is we can’t allow the MSM to determine what is and isn’t a serious incident. Most journalists , i think, wouldn’t deliberately  mislead, but there are  clearly enough who would based on their track record


About the author