Daft and Dafter

Avatar ByTrisidium

Daft and Dafter

It gets dafter and dafter. It is just over a year since the ridiculous and embarrassing – but failed – attempts by those in charge of Scottish Football to blackmail the SFL clubs and force them to parachute the shiny new Rangers into the SFL First Division.

A year where the new era of “transparency” heralded by a huge drum roll, gave way to secret agreements (which were never adhered to); panic-stricken measures to rush through change in the structure of the game without ANY delay or meaningful consultation – despite a hitherto intransigent approach to any kind of change; non-denial denials of the charge that Rangers were given a  football licence without due process.

By the way, the SFA sent an official to an SPL Tribunal with a new convoluted interpretation of a rule which had been used to penalise clubs in the past, and ignored compelling evidence that one club had been economical with the truth on matters regarding banned directors when submitting their application for membership.

I could go on of course, but the incredulity bar is lowered with each ridiculous, contorted and corrupt episode, so that by the time we get to the claims made by several sources that Charles Green was in league with Craig Whyte when he bought some of the old club’s assets, we hardly blink an eye that the SFA appear content to accept the outcome of an internal inquiry ordered by the organisation most likely to be disadvantaged if the claims were true.

Whatever RTC was about, and it was about avarice, corporate malfeasance, theft of public money and the destruction of the integrity of competition in the game, we have moved on from there.

Even if the powers in charge of our game are forced to dispense proper justice in the case of both old Rangers and the new club, there appears to be little prospect that they will have done so because of a Damascene conversion in the ways of sporting integrity, fairness and Corinthianism. They will still be corrupt – just corrupt and bad at it. I am convinced that people have left the game in some numbers this season because of their disgust at the handling of the Rangers fiasco. I see no evidence at all that those people who voted with their feet last year will see a reason to change their tune this time around.

Whatever Rangers were guilty of, there is a general understanding of why they did what they did. They wanted to win – to be the best, and they pushed the envelope as far as they could before tearing the thing up altogether. What they did was 100% in their own self interest. It stinks, but at least it is logical.

What the authorities have done on the other hand is far more gobsmackingly illogical and unintuitive. They have acted in the interest of one club to the continued disadvantage of eleven others (in the case of the SPL, UEFA licences and player registration). They acted against the interests of new aspirants to senior football, and in concert with the interest of just one when they shoehorned Sevco (that’s what they were called then) into the SFL Third Division. I am sure they did that in the belief that a full season of no football at Ibrox would probably kill forever the cash cow that Green and his cohorts were fattening up for slaughter.

Despite the punishment that was accepted by Sevco (the transfer embargo), the SFA have stood by whilst the spirit of that sanction (although admittedly not the letter) was ripped up in their (still silent and impassive) faces as the MSM spun a market day frenzy of transfer activity by a club who were ostensibly proscribed from participating in that market.

Of course there are those who do not want to believe that their club, one of the forty-one good guys, is complicit in this nonsense – and yet ALL of our clubs ARE the SFA or the SPFL. Despite this catalogue of shameful inaction, sabotage and double-dealing, not one voice of dissent emanating from any of our clubs has been heard in print or broadcast media. Instead, huge pay increases and votes of thanks to the bureaucrats who acted out the farce authored by their masters, the clubs.

Is this because they (the clubs) are in agreement with what has transpired? I find it impossible to come to any other conclusion.

There are those who argue compellingly that if clubs, especially those who have a history of rivalry with Rangers tinged with some rancour, were to speak out, the press would have a field day; that allegations of bigotry and Rangers-hating would ensue from the MSM which would wind up the otherwise reasonable chaps who support Rangers.

In my view, if the situation is thus, then we are saying that we all have to keep our thoughts to ourselves, know our place and just take what scraps we get. If fear of violent retribution is the trump card here, then the trick for success in Scottish Football is not to have the most feared football team, but the group of fans which fills others with most dread. That is the death of the game – period.

What crystallises itself for me here is this fear factor. Anonymity has been carefully protected by most of us on this blog for exactly the reasons outlined above. Our desire to remain anonymous has been strengthened by the failure of authority, jointly AND severally, to itself stand up for the sport. The key from day one has been fear. Fear and corruption, which is merely a microcosm of the life in our country.

Whether it’s the media ignoring the wrongdoings of a football club, or a corrupt political system where for £40m donation you can get yourself £400m in tax breaks, we see those with resources pissing all over us from a very prodigious height. And when we do find out about it, we are cautioned to be very afraid of taking any action. Afraid of terrorism, afraid of unemployment, afraid of the mob.

I find myself resigned to the realisation that no matter WHAT evidence is uncovered, it will make absolutely no difference to anyone unless Joe Public keeps his hands in his pockets. People in boardrooms all over the country are betting that football fans are too emotionally invested in their clubs to do so.

The cheats, the spivs and the blazers will in the short and medium term get their own way, many of them aware of the fact that they are not quite as equal as others – and yet happy to go along with that.

We all have to decide whether or not we are as content as they are.

Suspecting as I do that most of us will find that unacceptable, I think there is still a war to be won, even if the battles seem to be going against us time and again. As long as we continue to feel that sense of outrage, that sense of betrayal by the custodians of our sport, we will still be shouting from these pages.

Thanks to the generosity and commitment of our readers, the shouting is about to get louder. We have reached our funding target and we hope to start organising our Podcasts within the next few weeks. The fight goes on, but hopefully it will also have greater reach.

TSFM

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

727 Comments so far

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on3:05 pm - Jul 22, 2013


http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax-and-chancery-upper-tribunal-/hearings-register.pdf

FTC/19/2013 – The former Rangers Football Club Plc (now RFC 2012 – in liquidation)
FTC/18/2013 – GM Mining Ltd
FTC/17/2013 – Premier Property Group Ktd[sic]
FTC/16/2013 – Murray Group Management Ltd
FTC/15/2013 – Murray Group Holdings Ltd

Probably worth reminding everyone that – although the proceedings are grouped together, HMRC have appealed the FTT(T) decision separately for each company involved.

This is a significant departure from the FTT(T) which was started as a single case when all were Murray Group companies. The Murray Group no longer has an interest in the outcome as it affects RFC.

If the HMRC UTT(T) appeal finds against RFC, I find it difficult to believe that BDO would choose to take RFC to the next appeal stage. There is simply no financial upside and – even if the legal costs were externally funded – the appeals process would take the date of dissolution out of their hands.

Remember BDO were appointed as liquidators by HMRC.

View Comment

Avatar

Angus1983Posted on3:18 pm - Jul 22, 2013


neepheid says:
July 22, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Angus1983 says:
The captions would indicate that they weren’t intended to be related to the bus depot fire.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
I’m not sure that is correct (re captions). Since the page has now been edited/taken down, I’m relying entirely on memory but I’m pretty sure that when I viewed the page yesterday, the pictures were uncaptioned. …
——
I didn’t see the original, but was going by the angelahaggerty blog screenshots of the “offending” piece. The captions look like placeholders (i.e. temporary until some sub writes a proper one), none of which were related to fires or busses and looked to me like they were attached to the wrong story.

Far be it from me to suggest mitigation for any wrongdoing, but I do think this was just a genuine error – which is probably why the pics were taken down when they were pointed out.

The simplest explanation usually turns out to be the correct one. For me, the simplest explanation is that someone made a mistake, which was then rectified.

View Comment

Avatar

Angus1983Posted on3:29 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Finloch says:
July 22, 2013 at 1:05 pm

We need to gear up a little and get our message out.
That is what we should concentrate on – single-mindedly.
——

Finloch – this is a grand idea, but I can’t see it working in quite the form you describe..

Firstly, the people who “need to know” already know damn well what’s gone on and is still going on. For various reasons, they chose to either keep their mouths shut or actively collude with the perceived wrongdoings.

Secondly, if anything, the TRFC debacle needs to be distilled into bare facts, some of which may provide prima facie evidence of illegality. Any whiff of emotive language and it’ll be ignored.

Only when such distillation – absent of lengthy wordsmithery, righteous indignity and “no-fair” whingeing – is placed under the noses of someone who is not already compromised will there be any chance of anything getting done about it.

View Comment

Avatar

tomtomPosted on3:33 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Angus1983 says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm
1 7 Rate This

neepheid says:
July 22, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Angus1983 says:
The captions would indicate that they weren’t intended to be related to the bus depot fire.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
I’m not sure that is correct (re captions). Since the page has now been edited/taken down, I’m relying entirely on memory but I’m pretty sure that when I viewed the page yesterday, the pictures were uncaptioned. …
——
I didn’t see the original, but was going by the angelahaggerty blog screenshots of the “offending” piece. The captions look like placeholders (i.e. temporary until some sub writes a proper one), none of which were related to fires or busses and looked to me like they were attached to the wrong story.

Far be it from me to suggest mitigation for any wrongdoing, but I do think this was just a genuine error – which is probably why the pics were taken down when they were pointed out.

The simplest explanation usually turns out to be the correct one. For me, the simplest explanation is that someone made a mistake, which was then rectified.
===================================

The simplest explanation is that someone was mischief-making at the very least. One photo could be considered a mistake but not a raft of them.

View Comment

Avatar

nickmcguinnessPosted on3:52 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Angus, have you actually taken time to look at the original screen grabs of The Scottish Sun’s website coverage of this story?
Knowing a bit about how website pages are put together, it is simply impossible for that to have been an accident. You have to physically select each photo, place it on the page, then add a caption.
You can’t muck that up THREE times by mistake.
This was a mixture of malicious intent and seriously errant editorialising. I am very surprised that an official apology has not been forthcoming as yet from The Scottish Sun.
Mind you, it has to be remembered that this paper not only gives the writing of stories of this type to the son of a PR man identified by Jack Irvine as best placed to feed “negative” stories about other SPL clubs (and one in particular) but it also employs the son of Jack’s favourite MP.
Do you reckon Auld Rupert is proud of the fact his Glasgow outpost is so firmly in the pocket of a PR firm?

View Comment

TallBoy Poppy

TallBoy PoppyPosted on3:53 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Angus1983 says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm

neepheid says:
July 22, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Angus1983 says:
The captions would indicate that they weren’t intended to be related to the bus depot fire.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
I’m not sure that is correct (re captions). Since the page has now been edited/taken down, I’m relying entirely on memory but I’m pretty sure that when I viewed the page yesterday, the pictures were uncaptioned.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
Incorrect. The pictures were captioned:
“Hoop-la … Stewards move to shield Lennon from fans”
“Water’s up … stadium bosses turn on sprinklers”
“Flare-up … Hoops fans dance on pitch and let off green smoke bombs”

The captions would have been inserted by whoever made the page up (usually the sub-editor, or whoever was assigned to edit the online content overnight. In these days of multi-tasking it could be one and the same person). The pictures would have originally been captioned (badly) by the lensman who wired them and subsequently re-written by a journo. I’m pretty sure that even now, Record reporters are not yet required to insert their own copy and do their own lay-outs)

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on3:55 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Ecobhoy
If LNS was only ruling on the basis of regular payments then his ruling could not apply to the De Boer situation where the payment was irregular.
The side letter non registration aspect of LNS was based on the FTT decision on EBTs as regular. That is what diminished the crime to not reporting something proper as opposed to hiding something improper.
LNS cannot then ignore another FTT decision on DOS but that is what the LNS process has covered up. Perhaps not intentionally, but De Boer got paid by an irregular method and side letters are only evidence of intent to mislead and not the basis of the separate case HMRC pursued against Aberdeen Assets.
LNS was not asked to look at the nature of the payment as I undertsand it but to work on the basis of the EBT FTT outcome.
The DoS FTT outcome was that payment by DOS was irregular and that has gone under the radar , but it is still a fact, the consequences of which no one wants to consider and which will not matter if HMRC get the same decision from the UTT as they got from the FTT looking at DOS payments.
With regard to the impact on Rangers if the UTT favour HMRC, does that not give BDO, working for HMRC the right to pursue Rangers Directors and perhaps EBT recipients to recover what HMRC are owed? I would think there is great deterrent power in taking that route.
Aberdeen Asset Management never used side letters to my knowledge but Judge still ruled against them, their use in the Rangers case just made it impossible for Rangers to carry on appealing.
Now had it been Aberdeen Assets in the dock throughout the DOS to EBT jourmey perhaps there would have been more consistency between both the FTT outcomes.

Check

View Comment

Avatar

EeramacaroonbarPosted on3:56 pm - Jul 22, 2013


tomtom says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm

9

0

Rate This

Angus1983 says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm
1 7 Rate This

neepheid says:
July 22, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Angus1983 says:
The captions would indicate that they weren’t intended to be related to the bus depot fire.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
I’m not sure that is correct (re captions). Since the page has now been edited/taken down, I’m relying entirely on memory but I’m pretty sure that when I viewed the page yesterday, the pictures were uncaptioned. …
——
I didn’t see the original, but was going by the angelahaggerty blog screenshots of the “offending” piece. The captions look like placeholders (i.e. temporary until some sub writes a proper one), none of which were related to fires or busses and looked to me like they were attached to the wrong story.

Far be it from me to suggest mitigation for any wrongdoing, but I do think this was just a genuine error – which is probably why the pics were taken down when they were pointed out.

The simplest explanation usually turns out to be the correct one. For me, the simplest explanation is that someone made a mistake, which was then rectified.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

This kind of thing has been happening for years and on quite a semi-regular basis. Have you been following Charlotte Fakes ? They have pretty much layed out the inner workings of the institutional bias that exists in the Scottish Media. The only pertinent question that should be asked now on this, is how much of it is down to commercial reasons and how much is just blatant bias.

A club has cheated, been found guilty,but not punished? – liquidated but the same club? – allowed to investigate itself by our governing body ? Yeah – there are very simple explanations for all of these abominations 😉

View Comment

Avatar

EeramacaroonbarPosted on3:56 pm - Jul 22, 2013


tomtom says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm

9

0

Rate This

Angus1983 says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm
1 7 Rate This

neepheid says:
July 22, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Angus1983 says:
The captions would indicate that they weren’t intended to be related to the bus depot fire.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
I’m not sure that is correct (re captions). Since the page has now been edited/taken down, I’m relying entirely on memory but I’m pretty sure that when I viewed the page yesterday, the pictures were uncaptioned. …
——
I didn’t see the original, but was going by the angelahaggerty blog screenshots of the “offending” piece. The captions look like placeholders (i.e. temporary until some sub writes a proper one), none of which were related to fires or busses and looked to me like they were attached to the wrong story.

Far be it from me to suggest mitigation for any wrongdoing, but I do think this was just a genuine error – which is probably why the pics were taken down when they were pointed out.

The simplest explanation usually turns out to be the correct one. For me, the simplest explanation is that someone made a mistake, which was then rectified. For others, the simplest explanation often involves an element of paranoia. 😉

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

I still absolutely marvel at folk like you. This kind of thing has been happening for years and on quite a semi-regular basis. Have you even been following Charlotte Fakes ? They have pretty much layed out the inner workings of the institutional bias that exists in the Scottish Media. The only pertinent question that should be asked now on this, is how much of it is down to commercial reasons and how much is just blatant bias.

A club has cheated, been found guilty,but not punished? – liquidated but the same club? – allowed to investigate itself by our governing body ? Yeah – there are very simple explanations for all of these abominations 😉

View Comment

TallBoy Poppy

TallBoy PoppyPosted on4:07 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Auldheid says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:55 pm
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Just in case you were not aware of it, Auldheid, three of Murray’s men at Murray Capital were ex AAM. I doubt it’s material per se, but just some background info to add to your extensive database.

View Comment

Avatar

tic6709Posted on4:09 pm - Jul 22, 2013


v
TallBoy Poppy says:

July 22, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Angus1983 says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm

neepheid says:
July 22, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Angus1983 says:
The captions would indicate that they weren’t intended to be related to the bus depot fire.
===========================
Actually Tall boy as I remember there were No captions on the article first thing yesterday morning,then they were added then the pics were removed.So it seems to me that it was deliberate.
Just because i’m paranoid does’nt mean i’m wrong.

View Comment

Avatar

neepheidPosted on4:27 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Tic 6709 says:
July 22, 2013 at 4:09 pm
5 0 Rate This

v
TallBoy Poppy says:

July 22, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Angus1983 says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm

neepheid says:
July 22, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Angus1983 says:
The captions would indicate that they weren’t intended to be related to the bus depot fire.
===========================
Actually Tall boy as I remember there were No captions on the article first thing yesterday morning,then they were added then the pics were removed.So it seems to me that it was deliberate.
Just because i’m paranoid does’nt mean i’m wrong.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m glad it’s not just me! Of course the only way we’ll know for sure is if someone has a screenshot taken just after the page went up, but I do remember wondering what the photos related to, and getting no help from any text. I wasn’t aware of the Brentford game at that point.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofThousandsPosted on4:28 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Bawsman says:
July 22, 2013 at 1:59 pm

“Couple of hefty share dumps today…”
—————————-
I noticed one was for a value of £21k. Previous recent information on share transactions (HirsutePursuit ?), had a number of recurring values and £21K and £42K were prominent. Is someone slowly chiselling away at a large share block and offloading whilst not wishing to scare the horses?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on4:29 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Sunincapricorn 12.16

I see where you are coming from and want what you want, the truth and what we can learn from it to avoid repeats.

All clubs have suffered from poor governance of an industry that tied its financial future to that of a club pursuing an unsustainable business model that the governors themselves participated in both as SFA members and Rangers officials or ex Rangers men.

With regard to what is true I heard direct from a well respected UK journalist that CF had obtained CWs e mail domain and had access to what is now being leaked. The fact the material is going out without the various owner’s permission means msm cannot refer to it as the owners privacy has been breached. Pre Levenson this might have been ignored with impunity but not now.

The above message was strongly reinforced by two well know Celtic bloggers who share my frustration that the truth is not getting out. I believe it will in time and when it does you and I will be at the back of the Mount Florida and Edmiston Drive car parks when folk see the level of duplicity and conivance engaged in.

Public statements will be shown to be lies intended to cover up and mislead. The steps taken to deal with the consequences of what happened will be seen as highly questionable if not part of the whole deception and Scottish football might never recover. It is that serious in my view and time for honesty is running out.

View Comment

Avatar

EKBhoyPosted on4:31 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Put the following words into 2 groups and assign them to the big 2 Glasgow clubs as per the SMSM, here goes –

Swoop – Bogged down (as in transfer targets)
Superstar – Championship Unknown
Stonewall penalty – questionable award
Snarling – smiling
Private Jet – Biscuit tin

and on and on it goes from the start of recorded time to now and beyond. So anyway thinking the photos in the Sun were a mistake then naivety is the kindest slant that could be put on it.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on4:37 pm - Jul 22, 2013


EKBhoy says:
July 22, 2013 at 4:31 pm
0 0 Rate This

Put the following words into 2 groups and assign them to the big 2 Glasgow clubs as per the SMSM, here goes –

Swoop – Bogged down (as in transfer targets)
Superstar – Championship Unknown
Stonewall penalty – questionable award
Snarling – smiling
Private Jet – Biscuit tin

and on and on it goes from the start of recorded time to now and beyond. So anyway thinking the photos in the Sun were a mistake then naivety is the kindest slant that could be put on it.
===============================================================
Rangers Directors ‘Jet’ in to the country while Celtic Directors merely ‘fly’ in. Rangers Directors wth a title .e.g ‘Sir’ will always have that title applied in the media. Celtic Directors with titles such as ‘Dr’, ‘Lord’ or ‘Baron’ will never have that title applied in the media. Rangers Directors who are fairly well off with small or medium sized businesses will always be described in the media as a ‘Tycoon’. Celtic Directors who are proven billionaires or the Chief Executive of British Telecom will never be described in the media as a Tycoon.

View Comment

Avatar

EKBhoyPosted on4:43 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Upthehoops
updated list
Swoop – Bogged down (as in transfer targets)
Superstar – Championship Unknown
Stonewall penalty – questionable award
Snarling – smiling
Private Jet – Biscuit tin
Fly – Jet
Tycoon – Businessman
First name only – always surname

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on4:45 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Apologies for reposting and the length of this insertion. These posts are from several months ago; but I see that the UTT(T) has sparked some comment re the LNS Commission decision. I still think that the important point has been missed.

http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/everything-has-changed/comment-page-45/#comment-37960
“Is the registration of a player the only factor in determining a player’s eligibility to take part in a competition?

D1.1 Subject to these Rules, to be eligible to Play for a Club a Player must first be Registered either as a Professional Player or as an Amateur Player.

Does this rule or any other rule or article, suggest that registration as a player automatically confers eligibility?

No! Player Registration is simply a first step towards eligibility to participate in any competition that the club enters. There are, of course, other competition-specific factors: he could be suspended, cup-tied or be subject to any number of matters that could affect eligibility to participate in a given match.

Let’s be absolutely clear about this. The status of a player’s registration is an utterly bogus issue here. The question is only about the eligibility of players to play for a club in specific SPL matches.

Whilst it is true that a void registration would make players ineligible that is not the point here.

D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.

This rule cover registration AND eligibility. Even if the registration (though later found to be defective) cannot be revoked retrospectively, the eligibility of players to play in official matches is a separate matter.

The rules clearly envisage a situation were the non-eligibility of a player to play in an SPL match comes to light after a game is played:

D1.11 Any Club Playing an ineligible Player in an Official Match and the Player concerned shall be in breach of the Rules.

The rules DO NOT say that: an incomplete contract renders the players registration void and therefore – as a consequence of the non-registration – the player becomes ineligible to play official matches.
The rules DO say:
An incomplete contract means the player is not properly registered AND is ineligible to play in official matches.

The commission was certainly entitled to consider the issue of registration and (perhaps) – on the evidence provided – come to the conclusion it did. But the commission also had a duty to consider the issue of player eligibility as a stand-alone matter. That appears, in fact, to have been their remit.

Why it chose to fuse registration with eligibility I simply cannot fathom from the published decision.”

http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/735/comment-page-4/#comment-39584
“On the subject of Rangers gaining a sporting advantage or not…

Rangers were charged with fielding a number of ineligible players after 23rd May 2005 – however, this charge was dropped by the SPL and its “prosecutor” Mr McKenzie.

Rangers were never charged with gaining a sporting advantage by failing to fully disclose players’ contracts. The early SPL rules did not state that failure to disclose would result in the relevant players being deemed ineligible. That rule did not apply until 2005.

The guilty verdict they delivered was simply for failing to disclose all details of players contracts. The sanction – a fine – was deemed to be appropriate because the commission did not see anything in the rules or in the particular circumstances, that suggested a sporting sanction would be appropriate for a non-sporting offence. No evidence was provided by the SPL “prosecutor” to suggest that non-disclosure of parts of a player’s contract gave rise to any sporting advantage.

As it stands, the payments that were not disclosed are perfectly legal; therefore, if the affected players were not ineligible, it seems obvious that no sporting advantage was gained.

In the absence of a guilty verdict in the BTC, the SPL commission was certainly within its rights to apply a non-sporting sanction for non-disclosure prior to 2005. In fact, it is difficult to see how a sporting sanction could be applied.

The idea that LNS came to a perverse decision in relation to the £250k fine is simply sucking the lifeblood from this blog. I think the question over whether or not Rangers gained a sporting advantage is totally missing the point.

Let me explain.

In considering a potential Conflict of Interest, Lord Hodge has decided to await the result of the Insolvency Practitioners Association’s report on the conduct of Duff & Phelps in their administration of Rangers Football Club plc. I believe this is right and proper. Until he knows the outcome of the IPA’s investigation, Lord Hodge does not necessarily know all of the relevant facts, so cannot safely deliver a verdict and (if necessary) an appropriate sanction.

BDO, in turn, are unlikely to make any financial demands on the new Rangers, until Lord Hodge has made his ruling. For BDO the potential, to claim that rangers’ assets were sold under value is much greater if the administrators are found to have had a conflict of interest.

If the SPL had been considering “sporting advantage” as part of charges of which they were found guilty- or even as an aggravating factor – the commission could not have begun before the UTT had completed its work and published its findings. Since the SPL decided to push ahead with the commission and have accepted the result of the FTT(T) (without the possibility that it could be overturned) we have to believe that the SPL did not – and never intended to – prove that Rangers gained a sporting advantage by failing to fully disclose its players’ contracts.

Pressing ahead with the LNS commission before the UTT has completely settled the legitimacy of Rangers’ EBT scheme, effectively ensured Rangers sporting achievements prior to 2005 would not be adjusted by this commission.

The point we need to focus on is not the correctness (or otherwise) of a £250k fine for non-disclosure. This sanction is demonstrably fair as far as I am concerned. There is no legitimate argument that I am aware of suggesting that the SPL rules – as they were written prior to May 2005 – demanded a sporting punishment for a non-sporting offence.

Non-disclosure only BECAME a sporting offence when contract disclosure became a condition of player eligibility in 2005. Therefore, I believe the only sporting sanctions the commission could ever have applied were in relation to the specific charge of fielding ineligible players after 23rd May of that year.

The commission (wrongly in my view) took this rule to take registration & eligibility to mean the same thing. They (wrongly in my view) took the view that improper player registration would not affect eligibility retrospectively.

If this site is to seek focus in relation to the commission, in my view we need to focus on:

1. Why the artificial fusion of registration and eligibility was left to go unchallenged.
2. Why the SPL – despite ostensibly laying the charges – did not provide sufficient effort to prove to the commission, that players whose contracts were not fully disclosed, were ineligible in accordance with the rules as they have existed from May 2005.”

http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/fair-play-at-fifa/comment-page-25/#comment-41506

[86] Evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, who described the registration process. During the course of his evidence he explained that, once a player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration was revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures, such as a breach of SFA Article 12.3, the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid from the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked.
[87] Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean that if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play in terms of SPL Rule D1.11. He accepted however that there was scope for a different construction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was a condition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with the consequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play. He accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a finding that Issue 3(c), together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b), had been proved.
[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties concerned – clubs, players and footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked. There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.
[89] For these reasons we are not satisfied that any breach of the Rules has been established in terms of Issue 3(c), taken in conjunction with the concluding words of Issue 3(b) quoted above. This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player.

I don’t know that what Mr Bryson is reported to have said is incorrect in any way.

Mr Bryson said that the SFA treat an incorrect registration as standing until or unless it is subsequently revoked. Mr Bryson, as far as I am aware, made no statement on whether being registered (correctly or incorrectly) automatically conferred eligibility.

It was Mr McKenzie who seemed happy to link registration with eligibility.He (Mr McKenzie) then “accepted” an interpretation of Rules D1.11 and D1.13 that meant registration (correct or not) conferred automatic eligibility until the registration was revoked. He accepted that the SFA had no power to retrospectively revoke a registration; thereby accepting that players could not been deemed ineligible retrospectively.

The problem is that the commission were tasked with making a decision of the eligibility of players – not about the validity of their registrations. Registration,of course,is a necessary condition for eligibility; but it is not the only condition.

SPL Rule D1.13, in effect from and including 23 May 2005 provides:

“A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary [of the SPL], within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.”

The LNS commission dealt with the registration aspect of Rule D1.13 – but they did not make any decision on the direct effect of this rule on the players’ eligibility. They chose instead, with the compliance of Mr McKenzie, to wrongly conflate registration procedures with eligibility.

It was up to Mr McKenzie to make the case that Rule D1.13 applied to both the registration process and separately on a player’s eligibility to play in official matches. That being registered (correctly or incorrectly) did not automatically over-ride the eligibility aspect of D1.13.

Mr McKenzie could have, and should have, given copious examples of players who had been deemed ineligible retrospectively.

Mr Bryson is simply the wrong target IMO.”

http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/fair-play-at-fifa/comment-page-25/#comment-41520
“A witness is called to give evidence by answering the questions that are put to him/her. The opportunity to provide information beyond the scope of the questioning is generally very limited.

Mr Bryson was not called to construct an argument for the “prosecution” – he was there simply to provide the information that was being requested.

It is right & proper that LNS should have looked at the registration status of the players in question. After all, if they were deemed to have not been registered, they would automatically have been ineligible. Mr Bryson seems to have given his answers in that context.

Mr Bryson says that, as far as the SFA are concerned, a processed registration is treated as valid until it is revoked. There are, he says, no SFA rules that allow a registration to be revoked retrospectively. His statements, relating only to the status of a player’s registration, seems fine to me.

It is not right and proper that having decided that the players’ registrations were valid that the commission did not consider the other conditions of eligibility

Mr Bryson, as far as we know, was not asked and did not offer a view on the eligibility of a player whose registration was found to be flawed. He was not asked, as far as we know, if registration automatically conferred eligibility to play SPL matches. It would not have been appropriate to ask these questions because those eligibility criteria are described, not by the SFA; but in the SPL rules and articles.

Unless you believe that a valid registration automatically confers eligibility, there is nothing in Mr Bryson’s testimony that diminished the SPL’s case against Rangers. The problem was simply that the SPL’s QC failed to construct a logical & persuasive argument and present the case to the greatest effect.

My assumption is that Mr McKenzie would have been acting under instruction from Neil Doncaster when considering what arguments to put forward. I just think we should be asking why the case construction was so inept – rather than focusing on a witness whose testimony (on what we know) I find hard to fault.”

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on4:49 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Angus1983 says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:29 pm

Finloch says:
July 22, 2013 at 1:05 pm

We need to gear up a little and get our message out.
——
Finloch – this is a grand idea, but I can’t see it working in quite the form you describe..

Firstly, the people who “need to know” already know damn well what’s gone on and is still going on. For various reasons, they chose to either keep their mouths shut or actively collude with the perceived wrongdoings.

Secondly, if anything, the TRFC debacle needs to be distilled into bare facts, some of which may provide prima facie evidence of illegality. Any whiff of emotive language and it’ll be ignored.

Only when such distillation – absent of lengthy wordsmithery, righteous indignity and “no-fair” whingeing – is placed under the noses of someone who is not already compromised will there be any chance of anything getting done about it.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Angus
Sadly you might be right
I’ve said before this is a long fight

We should spell out and update our knowledge every week and give them nowhere to hide, no excuses they didn’t know what was going on.
The whole lot of them.

And we should ask them more questions too.
That could be the next phase.

We should become a little more proactive and replace the MSM
That was one of our core raison d’etres

View Comment

TallBoy Poppy

TallBoy PoppyPosted on5:01 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Tic 6709 says:
July 22, 2013 at 4:09 pm
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
If that sequence is correct and the snaps survived several updates then surely it’s further compelling evidence that the juxtaposition of that story and those pictures were were deliberate – and not an accident.

My observations of both pics and captions were taken from a web archive of the page captured at 10.15am – if it helps to firm up the timeline.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on5:19 pm - Jul 22, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:

July 22, 2013 at 4:45 pm

I take all that you say.

My original thinking once EBTS became known was that any consequences had to wait until after the FTT process was complete, but the incorrect registration aspect was seized upon as it was independent of the FTT decision (which was not known when the incorrect registration route was taken). It looked a slam dunk when embarked upon but no one expected the FTT to say EBTS were OK and it is this that enabled the crime to be reduced in severity to administrative error rather than cover up of an irregular method of payment not open to other clubs, which is the interpretation that must follow a UTT decision in favour of HMRC if Poon’s argument is accepted..

However the De boer payment by DOS was ruled irregular by an FTT and the distinction between that and the other EBTS does not seem to have been brought out in the LNS commissioning, but then again the only folk who knew the basis of the De Boer case were Rangers and the taxman and neither were not going to point out the distinction..

I have just done that as a result of reading what the SPL may or may not have had sight of. It may be inadmissable evidence but it exists and should be treated on its singular merits once it becomes admissable regardless of the UTT but it will be ignored or overtaken by a UTT decision in favour of HMRC..

View Comment

Bill1903

Bill1903Posted on5:22 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Welcome back Angus1983 😀

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on5:34 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Finloch says:

July 22, 2013 at 4:49 pm

There is the possibility of a draft resolution for the Celtic AGM raised and being discussed on CQN and KDS. The original has gone through a number of redrafts to point the anger at the SFA and not Celtic and remove any idea it is an attack on Rangers, but it contains some interesting angles not pursued before using provisions in UEFA Club Financial Control Body procedures.

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/85/85/25/1858525_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Whilst aimed at Celtic shareholders I wonder if something on similar lines using the same route could not be adopted by other club trusts?

Here it is but look at it more from the angle of is it an avenue other club’s shareholders could use as opposed to the actuall wording which will develop on CQN.

Resolution (with supporting statement) to be proposed at the Celtic Plc AGM of Celtic under the terms of the Companies Act.

This AGM requests the Board exercise our option contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10, to bring to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body. Request they undertake a review and investigation into the implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements with regard to qualification, administration and issuance of license to compete by the SFA, since the implementation of the 2008 Club Licensing Regulations.

Supporting Statement
We the undersigned feel we are left little choice but to request this course of action from our legal representatives on the board. We consider the SFA governance has displayed a disregard for the rules and contradicted previous mission statements, in contravention to the ethos of the spirit and rules of fair play expected and outlined in both UEFA & SFA Rules. A number of recent examples of this including but not limited to the following;

1. Secret cross governance agreements, contrary to the ethos of their published mission statement (Scotland United A 20/20 Vision) regarding trust and respect as part of the future governance of the sport.
Further this agreement was in direct contravention of the FIFA Standard Cooperation Agreement of 2004 Article 2.1 Basic Principals, The basic principals governing the organization, administration and financing of football are as follows: football statutes and regulations, democratic election of governing bodies, legality, competence, dignity, probity, mutual respect, responsibility, trust, communication transparency, fair play, solidarity, protection of sportsmen and sportswomen’s health and promotion of friendly relations.

2. Unprecedented transfer of membership to an unqualified new entity, facilitating queue jumping into the lower professional set-up, detrimental to qualifying clubs.

3. Participation of a new entity in domestic competition without proper registration compliance.

4. The participation of the SFA at an inquiry they refused to undertake, on the grounds that the SFA was required to be neutral as they maintained they are the appellate authority.

These in our opinion are just some of the more blatant contradictions to the ethos and spirit of fair play, however, far more serious and the main thrust of this resolution is the issuance by the SFA of a license to participate in European Competition, to a club who did not qualify on a number of grounds not least the non-payment of social taxes, a decision that had a direct financial impact on our clubs financial well being.
Our concern is directed at the governance of the game, the SFA and its apparent partiality; we wish to eliminate the opportunity for possible future indiscretions and believe this problem requires immediate action. We have no confidence in its governance within the current framework to satisfy our concerns and therefore request the Board supports this resolution.

If the Board fail to back this resolution, we request a written explanation within 1 month of the date of the AGM, justifying their reticence and explaining any counter claim to any financial impact our club suffered through license issuance irregularities.

We ask you to support this resolution and the written statement above circulated to shareholders in advance of the meeting, in the interests of a stronger Celtic.

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on7:14 pm - Jul 22, 2013


dougthedon says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:47 am
————
As you predicted,dtd, the reply I received (this afternoon) to my FOI request to SportScotland was to the effect that my request was not a valid query under the Act, since it was in effect seeking an opinion on a hypothetical question about grants to the SFA.

I shall re-draft along the lines of your very sensible suggested approach.

View Comment

Avatar

onthebawPosted on7:15 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Seems an awful lot of money for CEO of a Scottish 2nd Div team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23412447

View Comment

Avatar

neepheidPosted on7:25 pm - Jul 22, 2013


onthebaw says:
July 22, 2013 at 7:15 pm
1 0 Rate This

Seems an awful lot of money for CEO of a Scottish 2nd Div team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23412447
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the article-

One source told BBC Scotland: “Given where the club is at the moment, the salary is just bizarre.
“It appears to be a premiership salary for a Scottish Second Division chief executive.
“It comes at a time when the club continues to cut costs and just sends out the wrong message.”

Can somebody help me out here- what costs are being cut?

View Comment

Avatar

dougthedonPosted on7:34 pm - Jul 22, 2013


john clarke says:
July 22, 2013 at 7:14 pm

Good lad John. This is the link to the Scottish Information Commissioner’s “Tips for requesters”. It looks quite helpful:

http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/YourRights/Tipsforrequesters.aspx

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on7:36 pm - Jul 22, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
July 22, 2013 at 4:45 pm
==========================================

Have had a quick read of your piece and LNS which is interestingf and I would agree with most of what you say. There are a few points though I want to think about a bit before responding though.

I am just about to respond to Auldheid on the related topic we have been discussing so I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring or dismissing your post which is very persuasive.

The big problem of course is we don’t have a written transcript or access to written submissions or even sight of the Counsel closing arguments – this means we could fall into a traps such as the ‘eligibility’ v. registration issue. Perhaps it was discussed but we just don’t know so I feel it’s dangerous to assume it wasn’t. But there are many such issues which makes LNS interpretation so annoying.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:49 pm - Jul 22, 2013


onthebaw says:
July 22, 2013 at 7:15 pm
3 0 Rate This

Seems an awful lot of money for CEO of a Scottish 2nd Div team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23412447
————–

I’d say Christmas has come early for Craig, but to quote the old Marx Brothers’ gag: ‘There ain’t no Sanity Clause!’

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on8:14 pm - Jul 22, 2013


£500k (£150k pa more than Green)

so the 150k increase is circa 550 season tickets OR
The cost of maybe five or so staff in the ticket office or elswhere behind the scenes at Ibrox.

Cost cutting my backside

The philosophy of any business is set by those at the top.
Looks like its spend spend spend (and head in the sand) again down Govan way.

Never mind Sanity Clause – It used to be out of ‘Europe by Christmas’ maybe it will be out of business by Christmas this year.

View Comment

Avatar

briggsbhoyPosted on8:20 pm - Jul 22, 2013


As DP says for a second division team a £500k annual salary is insane. The reality is even for a team in the Premiership this salary would be exceptional would it not ! Is this how he gets his investment back indirectly ?

View Comment

Avatar

iamacantPosted on8:36 pm - Jul 22, 2013


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-executive-assures-fans-2060064

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23412447

Does anyone think SENIOR FOOTBALL REPORTER Chris McLaughlin asked the following question?

Mr Mather, If you are living within your means, why are your wages £150k higher than when Charles Green occupied the same position recently?

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on8:59 pm - Jul 22, 2013


A £500k salary for a £1m input is a fantastic ROI.

On another tack, I wonder if the Easdales will come to the rescue with one of their coaches? What a happy coincidence that would be

View Comment

Avatar

smartie1947Posted on9:21 pm - Jul 22, 2013


scottc says:

July 22, 2013 at 8:59 pm

6

0

Rate This

Quantcast

A £500k salary for a £1m input is a fantastic ROI.

On another tack, I wonder if the Easdales will come to the rescue with one of their coaches? What a happy coincidence that would be

Even FC Barcelona couldn’t come to the rescue of this lot with all their coaches.

« Older Comments

View Comment

Avatar

ianjsPosted on9:28 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Castofthousands

reply PM

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on9:28 pm - Jul 22, 2013


smartie1947 says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:21 pm
On another tack, I wonder if the Easdales will come to the rescue with one of their coaches? What a happy coincidence that would be
======================================
That would be the least surprising next move.

On another note for as long as I could remember both Celtic and Rangers used Parks of Hamilton for their team buses – Celtic still do. Are Parks a creditor of the previous Ibrox club per chance?

View Comment

Avatar

tomtomPosted on9:46 pm - Jul 22, 2013


scottc says:

July 22, 2013 at 8:59 pm

10

0

Rate This

Quantcast

A £500k salary for a £1m input is a fantastic ROI.

On another tack, I wonder if the Easdales will come to the rescue with one of their coaches? What a happy coincidence that would be
============================

What if a certain coach operator was so desperate to ingratiate themselves they went out on a limb and bought a hugely expensive, top of the range, luxury coach only to be told that their services were no longer required (not in an official letter or anything, more a quiet word in their ears). Now you can see what a predicament this would leave them in. Now imagine if the whisperer of words was to offer a solution.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:58 pm - Jul 22, 2013


On the darkside while some are also outraged by Mathers alleged salary others still don’t get the basics of running a company. Or should that be ‘club’?

“Bluepeter9, on 22 July 2013 – 08:07 PM, said:
Now that last bit bugs me ( not just from the BBC but amongst our own as well) – we are not a normal 2nd division club – we are a club that fills a stadium (almost) every two weeks – with a £30m – £40m turnover and as such our CEO should be one of the higest paid in Scottish football – we are not a small club – we are Rangers”.

They can turnover one gazillion pounds if they like but if they have outgoings of one and a half gazillion then without a solid line of credit they are for the toilet pan.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:05 pm - Jul 22, 2013


upthehoops says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:28 pm

smartie1947 says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:21 pm
On another tack, I wonder if the Easdales will come to the rescue with one of their coaches? What a happy coincidence that would be
======================================
That would be the least surprising next move.

On another note for as long as I could remember both Celtic and Rangers used Parks of Hamilton for their team buses – Celtic still do. Are Parks a creditor of the previous Ibrox club per chance?
——————————————————–
They most certainly are.
Funny thing was,Douglas Park was linked with the Blue knights or whatever,He was also,IIRC a director.They bombed him out and Parks became a creditor for a stupidly wee sum,I think in the region of just over £7k.

View Comment

Avatar

joe millers shortsPosted on10:13 pm - Jul 22, 2013


How to get the message out there…

I think that the idea of a press release is an excellent one, but that the way to do this is staring us in the face. TSFM needs to make daily use of the opening article to high-light particular issues. Allowing several thousand replies to build up means any useful information is missed by all but the most avid followers of TSFM.
RTC posted regularly and revelations were avidly read by many. A daily summary of CF would gather similar interest.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:19 pm - Jul 22, 2013


wottpi says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:58 pm
———————————————————-
This is their problem.
They’re not even the biggest club in Scotland but they live in a world where they think they’re a world record club.
I’ll bet they didn’t turn over £15m last year never mind £30-40m.Where do they get these figures from?.
They’ll be lucky to see the end of next season without an insolvency event(this’ll be their 1st,their previous entity had one also),but still they live in this dreamworld.
good to see Mr Mather,Greens sidekick making sure the spivs drain the resources even further.
There’s really no hope.
Well there is.
RIFC should dump the loss making subsidiary and be a property company.That way the fans who thought they were investing in their club(even though they advised differently but didn’t listen) may get a return for their cash.
AS for TRFC though,unless a sugar daddy turns up with a minimum of £60m.they’re deid.

View Comment

Avatar

joe millers shortsPosted on10:20 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Scandalous piece of “whataboutery” revealed tonight by Charlotte Fakes (Jack Irvine planting negative stories about Dermot Desmond in order to muddy the waters around fit and proper persons) . Hopefully this will have DD banging the table and demanding action from his board.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/155371964/Jack-Irvine-The-Plant

View Comment

Avatar

kitalbaPosted on10:23 pm - Jul 22, 2013


I’m sure this has been aired before, but a wee reminder now and again doesn’t do any harm.

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Hillary Clinton’s great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the Gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription: “Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times, caught by Pinkerton Detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.

Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary’s staff of Professional Image adjusters sent back the following biographical sketch:

“Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honour when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.”

And THAT is how it’s done, folks!

View Comment

Avatar

neepheidPosted on10:25 pm - Jul 22, 2013


wottpi says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:58 pm

I find Bluepeter’s post a bit touching, really, It sums up the psychological state of many, many bears. It has clearly now gone beyond simple denial, and into the realms of the severely delusional. And I don’t just mean the £30m+ turnover. This guy is no doubt expecting Ally to roll out his £10m warchest come January. Mind you, with a £500k CEO and a £600k manager 🙄 I suppose it’s kind of understandable that the fans assume the money supply is inexhaustible.

View Comment

Avatar

iamacantPosted on10:40 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Jack has had a 15 year on/off relationship with Craig? Now thats in the Steve Davis realm – interesting!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/155371977/Jack-Irvine-Snake

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:56 pm - Jul 22, 2013


Auldheid says:
July 22, 2013 at 3:55 pm
==========================================================

The Murray Group EBT Trust was formed on 20 April 2001 but there was a previous trust prior to that which is mentioned by LNS.

I believe it is the one you mentioned whereby Moore, De Boer and Flo received payments under a Discounted Options Scheme (DOS) which existed at Rangers prior to the EBT scheme being formed on 21/04/2001.

You then state that wrt De Boer his payment under the DOS was ‘irregular’. The problem I have with that is LNS has listed Moore, De Boer and Flo as being ‘EBT’ recipients in Period 1 – 23 November 2000 to 21 May 2002. De Boer and Flo are similarly also listed for Period 2 – 22 May 2002 to 22 May 2005.

I have seen media references to De Boer and Flo getting tax-free payments which led to the ‘Wee Tax Case’ for unpaid tax which wasn’t paid by Rangers. But the important thing is that the debt and liability was accepted at least by CW and possibly previously. So I have difficulty in accepting the ‘irregular’ payment because it only became technically irregular after the legislation changed to close the tax loophole in 2003. Indeed to be really technical it only became ‘irregular’ after the UTT AAM decision in January 2012 which was a test case – and AAM may have appealed it to the Supreme Court 😯

When you say a FTTT has ruled the De Boer DOS payment as ‘irregular’ I wonder if you are referring to the Aberdeen Asset Management (AAM) FTTT ruling. I haven’t read the Decision but I find it hard to believe De Boer or any other Rangers player would be mentioned in it. If they aren’t then you would be relying on precedent from the ruling but before the ruling was made CW had already accepted liability for the unpaid tax – he didn’t pay it but that’s a separate issue.

In the AAM case they appealed against the HMRC claim they were using a tax avoidance scheme to pay bonuses to directors and staff. The FTTT ruled in favour of HMRC and a subsequent appeal by AAM to the UTT was rejected. The AAM DOS was created by accountants HLB Kidsons but of course the Rangers EBT scheme was created by Baxendale and was different from the DOS scheme that AAM had signed up to.

It appears Discounted Option Schemes kicked-off in 2000 but by 2003 a change in tax legislation saw their demise. Similarly the Rangers EBT scheme was kicked into touch by new legislation in 2011 although it appears that no new contributions were paid-in after 2008.

You say that LNS cannot ignore the AAM FTTT case and that the LNS process has essentially covered-up the ‘irregular’ payment to De Boer. Firstly, the FTTT Rangers Decision doesn’t identify any Rangers staff being paid under a DOS although I might have missed it or it might have been discussed and not noted.

I posted yesterday: LNS at [35] states: ‘By deed dated 20 April 2001 MGM set up the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (the MGMRT). (We note that the MGMRT was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust’.

LNS didn’t cover-up any payments for Rangers employees paid under the previous trust as they are listed in the tribunal decision and it really is a bit of a stretch IMO to class the DOS payments as irregular.

A few days after Counsel for the both sides in the Rangers EBT case made their closing submissions in January 2012 the opinion of Warren J in Aberdeen Asset Management plc v HMRC in the Upper Tribunal was issued.

Both counsel in the Rangers FTTT submitted written submissions on the decision – however the Rangers FTTT rejected the UTT finding on AAM as not relevant for the purposes of the Rangers FTTT. Anoraks will find details at 197, 198, and 224 of: http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j6851/TC02372.pdf

The FTTT Decision issued in Nov 2012 briefly mentions the AAM case but there is no mention of Rangers and as it was rejected as irrelevant I doubt if the tribunal members would give it much, if any, attention.

From my layman’s reading of things there is little, if any, crossover from the AAM FTTT to the Rangers FTTT and indeed the one bit that might be significant was rejected by the Rangers FTTT so I think we have an apple and orange comparison which tbh sounds promising initially but isn’t really relevant so doesn’t work well as a precedent.

I do wonder of course why the SPL preparation for LNS failed to identify the difference between the Rangers DOS and EBT Trusts or did they and decide against mentioning it. There is then the question as to whether the SPL legal team realised the possible connection between AAM and Rangers being involved in Discounted Option Schemes. Conspiracy? Probably just more shoddy preparation.

However Auldheid you may well disagree with my line of argument and you may well be right but if there was any opportunity to use ‘irregular’ DOS payments to Rangers players I think that has gone and it may well be by design but I doubt if we will ever know. Although on the bright side it can be used for the Article 5.1 argument 😆

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:58 pm - Jul 22, 2013


neepheid says:
July 22, 2013 at 10:25 pm

wottpi says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:58 pm

I find Bluepeter’s post a bit touching, really, It sums up the psychological state of many, many bears. It has clearly now gone beyond simple denial, and into the realms of the severely delusional. And I don’t just mean the £30m+ turnover. This guy is no doubt expecting Ally to roll out his £10m warchest come January. Mind you, with a £500k CEO and a £600k manager 🙄 I suppose it’s kind of understandable that the fans assume the money supply is inexhaustible.
=================================
Have to disagree.My source,a Mr H Keevins says they’re loaded.That’s good enough for me. 😈

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on11:01 pm - Jul 22, 2013


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
July 22, 2013 at 10:58 pm

Aye, but Shug had “the stare”!!!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on11:17 pm - Jul 22, 2013


iamacant says: July 22, 2013 at 10:40 pm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/155371977/Jack-Irvine-Snake
=========
Assuming that Irvine is telling the truth (?), that is a quite incredible quote that (S)DM had the time – and motivation – to speak to the press every day and with up to 20 phone calls to the press in a day!

…maybe that’s why MIH is now in the toilet…

View Comment

Avatar

CastofThousandsPosted on11:59 pm - Jul 22, 2013


ianjs says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:28 pm

“reply PM”
————————
Thanks for the correspondence ianjs. I’m not familiar with ‘Fahrenheit 451’ but in this particular context we all have our stories to tell. I have encountered a few occasions when posters mental recollection filled a knowledge gap. We may not all remember everything but all of us will remember something. That rich and varied tapestry is being composed daily on the TSFM blog.

Many posters and lurkers will have copied some if not all of Charlotte’s tweeted publications. Their removal from Charlotte’s twitter account will merely attract attention to their significance and suggest a second look is necessary. If those missing documents can then emerge from their repositories at a later date then the process of trying to censor Charlotte will be nullified.

View Comment

Avatar

iamacantPosted on12:06 am - Jul 23, 2013


Markybhoy says:
July 22, 2013 at 11:54 pm

I had my stake returned as I bet on a corgi being born

View Comment

helpmaboab

helpmaboabPosted on12:28 am - Jul 23, 2013


Keevins. What an excuse for a journalist.Does anyone know if he actually trained in the craft? Methinks he stole his papers from The Orlando Sentinel Staff Employment Records.

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on12:45 am - Jul 23, 2013


kitalba says:
July 22, 2013 at 10:23 pm
‘….that Hillary Clinton’s great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, ..’
—–
‘Never did lke her,son, an’ hang me if’n I still don’t like her! An’ now I knows why: bad blood in them thar goddam horse stealin’ rodhams.

As my ol’pappy used to say, them Rodham gals go for men who don’t inhale and don’t have sex with Polish-named ( Good God! the very idea! and God bless bless the virtuous daughters of America!) junior secretaries.”

We think the SFA is questionable?

They are as innocent as :slamb: compared to those who would inhabit the White House.

Mind you, they have learned fast. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

briggsbhoyPosted on1:10 am - Jul 23, 2013


when I mentioned the name Jack Irvine back in June to a friend who is a retired Sports journalist he immediately used the expression “a bag of monkeys” and I posted on here. The more I read on CF about the way he works I think that he was being to kind, the man is lower than a snakes !! 👿

View Comment

Avatar

briggsbhoyPosted on1:15 am - Jul 23, 2013


StevieBC says:
July 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm

If the Knight in Rusting Armour was talking to the press 20 times a day it suggests to me he was trying to deflect the story away from the real issue, he was driving the story rather than being the story.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:32 am - Jul 23, 2013


Ecobhoy

The DOS tax arrangement covered Flo 2000 to 2002 and De Boer 2000 to 2004 so would cover both early periods in LNS but the differing nature of both DOS and EBT was not made in that DOS was deemed irregular in Feb 2011 from which the wee tax case and UEFA licence questions have arisen. The distinction in terms of different FTT findings has only recently occured to me.

The Aberdeen Asset FTT decision in HMRC’s favour was made early Feb 2011 and created a precedent on the basis of which Rangers were advised in early March to settle rather than further appeal. Ironically it was the hidden side letters that were the deciding factor in the advice given but played no part in the Aberdeen Asset case.

CW took on that liability then dodged it with an SFA interpretation of an overdue payable that does not stand scrutiny even on Bryson logic but that is a separate issue from the irregular nature of the DOS payment which should have been dealt with under Article 5.1. but probably was’nt because the focus was on ebts and registration.

History will show that the 2003 title was won using a player who was signed and paid for by a process an FTT deemed irregular.

History will show that the wee tax case when you follow the trail from conception through liquidation and UEFA licence granting is a clear example of cheating against Article 5.1 and an ensuing cover up.

It was only one player but it signalled what was to follow via ebts, the only difference being the FTT did not deem them irregular although the UTT might.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on3:19 am - Jul 23, 2013


Ecobhoy

On re reading your post:

The DOS FTT in fact sat in October 2010 and it was on the basis of that FTT ruling that Rangers accepted in March 2011 that the tax on De Boer (Moore and Flo) was due and HMRC offered Rangers to settle on that basis in Feb 2011..

I was unsighted that AAM appealed to the UTT and in October 2011 that appeal was rejected, so the DOS arrangement used to pay De Boer, Flo and Moore was not one other clubs could avail themselves of and in using it in the manner Rangers did, which included denying when asked by HMRC the existence of side letters subsequently discovered ( and presumably hiding them from the SFA) , makes the DOS payments as paid by Rangers irregular if not highly so and breached Article 5.1. long before LNS was commissioned to look at the issue

Craig Whyte accepted the liability for the ensuing DOS tax bill when he took over and HMRC pursued him for payment thereafter throughout 2011 having billed Rangers not long after CW arrived in May 2011..

I am not suggesting the DOS should have any impact on the EBT FTT (although I did wonder why two FTTS could come up with two different opinions but put that down to factors of difference between EBTS and DOS. )

By the time LNS looked at the issue in Jan 2013 there is no doubt that irregular payments had been made to 3 players from 2000 to 2004 via DOS but as there was no reference for LNS to consider breaches of to Article 5.1 then LNS could not have ruled because he was commissioned to look at the registration/eligibility issue.

The only difference in Article 5.1 terms between Rangers use of EBTS and DOS is that the FTT and UTT process has still to run its course in the former and HMRC won on the latter once the course was completed. Should HMRC win on the EBTs the larger amounts involved and the method used (concealemnt of side letters) make the Article 5.1 breach much greater than the DOS breach although it becomes one huge breach by two irregular means.

The more you look at LNS and its commissioning and conduct the more it looks like a smoke screen..

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on7:26 am - Jul 23, 2013


kitalba says:
July 22, 2013 at 10:23 pm
======================
Hate to spoil your fun but an important aspect of this site is not believing everything we’re told. When I read that I thought it had a kind of fishy smell so I did a ten-second check and …
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_remus_reid.htm

Nice story though.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:04 am - Jul 23, 2013


StevieBC says:
July 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm
===============================
Again on the assumption Irvine is telling the truth about Murray making up to 20 calls a day to the media.

For a Celtic fan living through the years of 1986-1994 the media coverage was horrific. Not only horrific in that the only medium available to us at that time contained negativity about Celtic every day, but also stories about Rangers that anyone taking a step back even at the time could see were fantasy. Phone-in’s in those days were normally once a week or a ‘special’ following a big game, but they followed the same pattern. Any Celtic fan complaining about the coverage was completely paranoid and needed treatment.

Some of the things we were force fed then were along the lines of:

1. Rangers are the biggest football club in Britain
2. Rangers are the richest football club in Britain
3. David Murray is a financial genius
4. David Murray buys players for Rangers with millions of his own money

Celtic meanwhile were portrayed as incompetent at best and downright amateurish at worst, but it was rarely put as nicely as that. Paraphrasing what the late Alex Cameron of the Daily Record said, ‘comparing the two clubs is like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Lada. Rangers are about to disappear out of Celtic’s reach for ever, and may even be lost to Scottish football altogether’. The Daily Record meanwhile chose in December 1986 to run the ‘biggest poll ever’ for Scottish football fans, and two questions stick in my mind.

1. Which manager is a genius?
2. Which ground is the biggest midden in Scotland?

Question 1 was won overwhelmingly by Graham Souness, despite Rangers at the time sitting behind Celtic in the league. Celtic Park of course was voted the biggest midden for question 2. Yet still the Daily Record had the temerity to present this as a serious poll.

Thinking back it is utterly shameful how Murray was allowed to ruin Scottish football and how the media went along with it. It is equally shameful how they still embrace every chancer who walks through the Ibrox doors with open arms.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on8:26 am - Jul 23, 2013


upthehoops says:
July 23, 2013 at 8:04 am

Paraphrasing what the late Alex Cameron of the Daily Record said, ‘comparing the two clubs is like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Lada. Rangers are about to disappear out of Celtic’s reach for ever, and may even be lost to Scottish football altogether
———————————————————————————
He was right! :mrgreen:

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on8:45 am - Jul 23, 2013


upthehoops says:
July 23, 2013 at 8:04 am
StevieBC says:
July 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm

Thinking back it is utterly shameful how Murray was allowed to ruin Scottish football and how the media went along with it.
=========================================================

And let’s never forget the complicity and active support of the Scottish Football cabal who wanted Rangers and Celtic kept in their ‘rightful’ places!

View Comment

Avatar

Richard WilsonPosted on9:00 am - Jul 23, 2013


10 days to the new season and the SPFL still doesn’t have a sponsor. Such is the problem with leaving everything to the very last minute. One can only perceive that the only deals that will be forthcoming will be the like of the Blackthorn deal for Rangers – short of term and short of money. Why can the administrators of the game not get things like this sorted before the very last minute?

View Comment

Avatar

TSFMPosted on9:11 am - Jul 23, 2013


Richard Wilson says:

July 23, 2013 at 9:00 am
10 days to the new season and the SPFL still doesn’t have a sponsor. Such is the problem with leaving everything to the very last minute. One can only perceive that the only deals that will be forthcoming will be the like of the Blackthorn deal for Rangers – short of term and short of money. Why can the administrators of the game not get things like this sorted before the very last minute?
__________________________________________________________________________

I suspect Richard, that haste was more of a priority than care and consideration. I also think that we will, when the real reason emerges, be banging fists on the table thinking, “Why didn’t we see that one coming”? (© Messrs Bryson, LNS)

Having said that, ten days is an age for these guys. Perhaps there will be a provisional sponsorship put in place half an hour before the Thistle – Arabs match, and a subsequent transfer of sponsorship from the previous sponsors to the new, short term sponsor. This even though it will be unclear whether the newly minted sponsor (who looks identical to the old one) will actually be able to fund the process.

Sounds about right.

View Comment

Robert Coyle

Robert CoylePosted on9:41 am - Jul 23, 2013


Richard Wilson
July 23, 2013 at 9:00 am

TSFM says:
July 23, 2013 at 9:11 am
—————————————————————-
Who would actually sponsor scottish football right now?.Any company that would consider themselves reputable would do well to steer clear.The last thing these guys would want is to have their brand tarnished by the corruption within scottish football.

View Comment

Avatar

kitalbaPosted on10:14 am - Jul 23, 2013


Who would actually sponsor Scottish football right now?.

G4S Care and Justice Services UK would be tailor made for the task and might be up for it.

View Comment

Avatar

PaoloDeCanioPosted on10:17 am - Jul 23, 2013


“Who would actually sponsor Scottish football right now?.”
How about:
– Shred-it
– Private Investigators
– Media House

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:20 am - Jul 23, 2013


Auldheid says:
July 23, 2013 at 3:19 am
—————————————————

I think there are a few things we have to consider and learn about the Rangers Discounted Option Scheme to make any informed opinion on whether payments under it were ‘irregular’ or not.

We don’t know if it was designed by the accountants who created the DOS model which was sold to AAM. Always remember the huge tax reduction industry is out there always seeking loopholes and ways of reducing tax. So when someone comes up with a scheme that works then plenty of imitators jump on the bandwagon and market their own-brand alternatives which usually have differences from the original to save any pesky copyright infringements.

I have also now had the chance to skim through the FTTT and UTT Decisions on the AAM DOS and as I suspected there is no mention or connection with Rangers. It also appears to me that certain bits of the complex AAM DOS blueprint provided by the scheme’s accountant ‘architects’ weren’t followed which obviously left trapdoors for HMRC to attack the scheme. But it has to be remembered that HMRC were unable to act against companies using DOS until tax legislation was changed in 2003 after the schemes had been running for 3/4 years.

So, all in all, I really don’t think we have enough info to extrapolate any finding from the AAM DOS to the Rangers DOS. Wrt to the AAM DOS there doesn’t appear to be any side letter mechanism as the scheme was structured and operated differently from EBTs.

This virtually guarantees the Rangers DOS involving De Boer, Moor and Flo didn’t have side letters so Rangers would be telling the truth if they denied their existence IMO and by extension they couldn’t have been hidden from the SFA if they didn’t exist. However LNS factored in the Rangers DOS payments and found Rangers guilty of failing to disclose them and also the EBT payments. What LNS didn’t know was that The Rangers DOS was a totally different scheme from the Rangers EBT scheme.

I had another look at the Rangers FTTT Decision and also read the transcript provided by CF of Murray’s evidence to the FTTT. There is no mention of the Rangers DOS in his evidence which means it doesn’t get a mention in the Rangers FTTT Decision although there is the passing reference to the AAM UTT Decision on the definition of ‘payment’ which was basically dismissed as irrelevant by the Rangers EBT FTTT.

We may have a conspiracy theory over the lack of mention of the Rangers DOS or it might mean nothing – perhaps if CF is reading she might be able to find something which throws light on the matter.

I also don’t accept your statement that the Rangers DOS: ‘was not one other clubs could avail themselves of’. All of these schemes come with a fairly short shelf life in the sense that if HMRC thinks it will lose significant revenue from a newly launched one then it will test it and/or change the tax legislation to close the loopholes. So we always have to remember that there is usually nothing illegal about these schemes and don’t forget the involvement of Celtic and Juninho in one.

Most prudent businessmen would be very wary of getting involved quite simply because there is every possibility that they could end-up with Hector breathing down their neck. But legally any football club was perfectly entitled to avail themself of such schemes if they wished to take a gamble.

The reason that the FTTTs could reach different conclusions is because the two schemes were very different and no doubt the evidence may also have been different – I have checked and Dr Poone wasn’t on the AAM FTTT btw :mrgreen:

As I previously posted, once the HMRC have won a ‘test-case’ it uses it to pressurise other users of schemes to pay-up the tax due and if they don’t and decide to fight the assessment then penalties and interest are added – that has always been the carrot and stick approach used by Hector.

I agree that should HMRC ultimately win on the Rangers EBT case that technically would allow the deployment of an Article 5.1 complaint but I truly doubt if there is any appetite for it within the footballing authorities and there will be even less say five years down the line if it goes the full distance.

As to the Rangers DOS then I doubt whether it can be proven that any payments were actually ‘irregular’ or not as we don’t have the necessary evidence to make an informed judgement one way or the other IMO. As a pure guess I would say the Rangers DOS payments ceased in 2003 when the law was changed on such schemes so Hector wasn’t bothered about Rangers because they had accepted liability and agreed to pay when Hector eventually came calling years later 😆

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on11:02 am - Jul 23, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 23, 2013 at 8:45 am
14 1 Rate This

And let’s never forget the complicity and active support of the Scottish Football cabal who wanted Rangers and Celtic kept in their ‘rightful’ places!
=========================================
Ah…the ‘rightful’ place, or where a club ‘rightfully’ belongs. The comfortable position always was Rangers would be successful most of the time, and Celtic could be successful some of the time, as long as they were not more successful than Rangers. That meant not only on the park, but off it as well. The general acceptance was that Rangers were bigger, richer, and grander in every aspect than Celtic. Then along comes Fergus McCann and builds a Celtic Park that is bigger and grander than Ibrox. He puts in place a structure that makes Celtic a richer club than Rangers. So Rangers turn to other ways of staying (in their mind) bigger, richer and grander. Now that it has all fallen apart they, and their media apologists, say they must return to their rightful place at the very top of Scottish Football. Except a return to ‘other ways’ is the only way to do it, given they are unlikely to be given the time to put in place a structure to match Celtic’s while maintaining a healthy support.

Will they use ‘other ways’ of trying to get to the top rather than a solid base similar to that Fergus built at Celtic? I personally have absolutely no doubt at all they will and I have no doubt the SFA will let them away with it as well. In terms of it meaning they will forever be bigger, richer and grander than Celtic though, I think those days have gone forever.

View Comment

Avatar

BangordubPosted on11:13 am - Jul 23, 2013


Celtic 67Live ‏@the_eriugena 6m
BBC NI provided some exciting coverage of last week’s match while STV and BBC Scotland continue their ‘no surrender’ policy to Celtic games

Is tonights game seriously not being shown on TV in Scotland? 😯

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on12:09 pm - Jul 23, 2013


Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 16m

Phil Mac getting under the skin of Murray aka Fraser and Jack Irvine.
1. http://i.imgur.com/SAI7sh9.jpg
2. http://i.imgur.com/ctinyTG.jpg

View Comment

Avatar

Gym TrainerPosted on12:10 pm - Jul 23, 2013


BBC 2 NI is on 969 (Freesat) or 972 (Sky) – anyone with only Freeview is stuffed.

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on12:12 pm - Jul 23, 2013


regardless of how the RFC players were paid (brown bags, DOS, EBT’s etc) the Bryson defence will stand – there is no way to nullify their registration, so results will stand as they are.

Old co will get a pitiful fine which won’t be paid

honestly guys, lots of great work, interpretation, writing, concern etc – but stop wasting your time, the SFA will do SFA about it. None of the clubs are going to rock the boat.

Game is a feckin bogey.

Simply enough, if you can be bothered, watch your own club – ignore any SFA based competition and the national team. Better still abandon the senior game, write to your clubs and tell them why and go watch the local amateur teams

Football without fans is nothing – they need to learn that the hard way it seems.

View Comment

Avatar

brian53Posted on12:23 pm - Jul 23, 2013


Its been a long time since I have posted on this and other sites as I have been totally scunnered by Scottish Football and in no small way, Scottish society as a whole. I, like most of you other internet bampots, live for football. It has coursed through my veins ever since my Dad lifted me over that first turnstile and I have been its slave ever since.

I no longer live in Scotland but as one of the many fifth columnists in England I watch from afar and occasionally come up to watch the odd game. My addiction being served by TV and the internet. Before this all started, well that’s not strictly true as its always went on, so I will say instead, before the corruption came to light I enjoyed posting my football views on the internet and reading the views of others. However, now that we all know the level of corruption, how far it has seeped into Scottish football and society, I struggle to enjoy the once beautiful game.

I have not mentioned my team yet as it shouldn’t really matter but for the record it is Celtic and therein lies my problem. I notice that the MSM are going all out recently in reviving that tag I have always hated, the old firm. They want to keep a tenuous link to my team even though they are now in the lower leagues and want to tell the world that Celtic fans are just as bad if not worse than their own fans. I mean WTF? Most people down here are not really interested in Scottish football but do believe all the propaganda from the MSM.

Getting back to my problem, I don’t want to watch any incarnation of Rangers. I was more than a tad annoyed when Celtic TV recently started showing old Celtic v Rangers games over the close season. I thought, you have to be kidding, right? After all that they done and they expect me to watch them again, ok its matches when we beat them but still, I can’t watch them, I don’t want to watch them again. So there you have it, I do not want to watch them ever again. In a way I’m glad that I no longer live in Scotland, that I no longer have my season ticket because I just press the remote and that’s that.

What of the thousands of fans that still go on a regular basis, what will they do when Rangers get back to the top league? Do they really want to watch a team that has such a tainted history, a team that is unrepentant and by all signs intends to do the same again with the blessing of our football association and the higher echelons of our society. I do not envy them their decision. Me I will never watch them again.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on12:49 pm - Jul 23, 2013


brian53 says:
July 23, 2013 at 12:23 pm
===============================
Glad you’re posting again brian.

My observation about a few of the Celtic fans posting so far today is that it is all still about ‘Us and Them’, which is understandable because of the rivalry between the two Glasgow teams, but was something I thought both RTC and TSFM had been somewhat successful in moving on from.

Anyway, to address your post Brian, my guess is that Rangers 2012 will take some considerable time to arrive at a position that its fans think it has a right to – back competing with Celtic on level terms. No matter what Rangers 2012 and its fans say (including those in the media), they and every other club and all fans in Scotland know what happened and they won’t forget readily and won’t forget to remind Rangers 2012 fans of it – that’s just how things are. If they’d been ambitious, the SPL clubs would have seized on the opportunity to kick a strong competitor when they were down (some would say you should finish your competitor off in these circumstances) – that’s how things should work in a competitive world.

They should all now work as hard as possible to maximum the benefit to their clubs while the opportunity still exists – that means Celtic maximising Euro monies and the solvent SPL clubs getting as much benefit as possible from higher league placement, TV contracts, Euro participation and the increased crowds and sponsorship that come with these. Rather like NTHM, I think the retribution opportunities for the damage caused to Scottish football by Rangers 1872 conducting business so recklessly that they are going bust are limited. Don’t look back, Carpe Diem!

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on12:49 pm - Jul 23, 2013


harlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 1h

@JackIrvine airing his view on Media House client to another potential. Signs off with an unlinked dig at the end.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155479790/Media-House-Chairman-slags-off-company-clients

waitinfurrapolis ‏@corsica1968 7m

@CharlotteFakes @Henriklubo @JackIrvine Now, why would media dept control an independent charitable foundation?

View Comment

Comments are closed.