Thoughts and observations from watching and reading a transcript of Alex Thomson of Channel 4’s Interview with Stewart Regan (CEO of the SFA) Broadcast by Channel 4 on 29 March 2012.
http://www.channel4.com/news/we-run-football-were-not-the-police-sfa-boss
Introduction. I came across the above interview recently and listened to and transcribed it again as it reminded me of questions it raised then that the passage of time since has provided some insight into.
There is a lot to digest so the blog is broken into four sections. Three parts cover the Interview plus what they seem to tell us now, knowing what was not known then viz:
- Why No independent or independent element to the enquiry that became the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission. given the potential extent of the corruption at play?
- Why no effective fit and Proper Person scrutiny and the absence of real governance?
- EBTS and whether they constitute wrong doing and why that mattered so much and still does. plus
- The “hard to not to believe” conclusions about the whole exercise with the benefit of what we ken noo.
There is also an Annex at the end with excerpts from the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision for ease of reference:
The comments (in bold italics) are based on what Regan said then and what we ken noo, either as facts or questions arising from them. It is a long read but hopefully readers will be enticed by this introduction to stay the course.
In the following “SR” is Stewart Regan CEO of the SFA and “AT” is Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.
No Independent Enquiry?
SR No
AT I’m just curious as to why they wouldn’t. With something as big as this potentially this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport, which is – a thought – and yet the SPL deem themselves fit to investigate themselves.
SR Well I think you are calling it potentially the biggest corruption case, at this stage there has been no wrongdoing proven. There is an investigation going on
AT But you would accept that potentially, potentially that if guilty there is no question this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport.
SR There is no wrongdoing as I said at the moment and there is nothing yet that has been established as far as the club registering players without providing the appropriate documentation, so I think it would be wrong to jump to conclusions and even use words like corruption. You know there are a series of issues here. There are some footballing matters which are being dealt through the football authorities and there are tax mattes which are being dealt with through HMRC and there is to be a Tax Tribunal due to be heard as I’m sure you are aware in April.
So even before the investigation got underway Mr Regan was saying that it would be incorrect to assume that any wrong doing took place in terms of the registration process and use of ebts. He later expands on this point in relation to EBTs as a legitimate tax arrangement device. Given that the FTT did not rule until November 2012 that the ebts issued under the Murray Management Group Remuneration Trust (MMGRT) were legal then this stance by Mr Regan appears justifiable at the time of interview – but more on that later.
AT I’m just wondering why at no stage anybody seemed, or perhaps they did, to think we need an independent body coming in this is big this is huge, potentially we need somebody from the outside or we are going simply going to be accused of investigating ourselves.
SR Well I think that might be one for you to ask the Scottish Premier League as far as their Board..
AT Well they appeal to you so I’m asking you.
SR No as you said we are the right of appeal so if the club is concerned with any punishment it has been given well then they can choose to appeal to us. We as a body have the provision in our rules to carry out independent enquiries, indeed we did so very recently by appointing the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith to carry out our own investigation into Rangers and we are part way through disciplinary proceedings and they will be heard on 29 March.
Given that player registrations are ultimately lodged with the SFA where Sandy Bryson has been doing the job for some years, I did wonder why the SFA were not the body taking the lead. They had the expertise on what turned out to be a key issue, the eligibility of players if misregistration occurred. Indeed Sandy Bryson was called in to give a testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith that most folk involved in running a football team from amateur level upwards (as I was) had difficulty accepting. The Bryson interpretation suggested us amateurs had been daft not to take the risk of being found out if we did not register players correctly if only games from the point of discovery risked having results overturned. The Bryson interpretation on eligibility made no sense against that experience and it still does not to football lovers. I’m not sure if the rules have been amended to reflect the Bryson interpretation yet, but cannot see how they can be without removing a major deterrent that I always thought proper registration was there to provide.
The point about their having to be a body of higher appeal sounded plausible then, but could the Court of Arbitration on Sport not have been that body? Or did that risk taking matters out of the SFA’s control even though it would have introduced an element of the independence that Alex Thomson raises in the following paragraphs in his interview?
AT But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?
SR Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition
AT I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?
SR No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,
AT Never?
It is notable here that Alex Thomson pushes the point about lack of independence, which is where we enter “wit we ken noo territory”.
Given that it is now known that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie sat on the Rangers FC Remunerations Policy Committee in September 1999 where it was decided Discount Option Scheme (DOS) ebts would be used as a matter of club remuneration policy using the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT).
Given that we know that Campbell Ogilvie instigated the first ebt payment to Craig Moore using the Discount Options Scheme.
Given that Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo had both been paid using the same type of DOS ebt as Moore from 2000 to 2002/03 but accompanied by side letters, later concealed from HMRC in 2005 and of course the SFA from August 2000.
Given that Mr Ogilvie was also in receipt of the later MMGRT ebts disputed by HMRC in the big tax case on which the FTT had still to rule
Given that Mr Regan must have been aware at time of interview that Sherriff Officers had called at Ibrox in August 2011 to collect payment of a tax bill, which means even to a layman that it must have gone past dispute to acceptance of liability and so crystallised sometime after 31st March 2011.
Given that Craig Whyte had already agreed to pay the wee tax bill in his public Takeover statement in early June 2011.
Given that on 7th December 2011 Regan had written to Andrew Dickson at RFC, who had sat on three of the four SFA/UEFA Licensing Committee meetings in 2011, to approve a draft statement by Mr Regan on the SFA’s handling of the UEFA Licence aspect of the wee tax case, which arose as a direct result of the use of the DOS ebts to Flo and De Boer during Dickson’s ongoing tenure at RFC from 1991.
Given that Campbell Ogilvie accompanied Stewart Regan to meet Craig Whyte at the Hotel De Vin on 15th December 2011 as a result of an invite stemming from that consternation causing draft that RFC thought likely to cause problems for the SFA (having agreed before the hotel meeting that no comment should be made on the wee tax case)
Given that the wee tax case was a direct result of those early types of DOS ebts being judged illegal by an FTT considering an appeal by the Aberdeen Asset Management company in 2010.
Given all of these facts, how credible is it that no conversation took place between Regan and Campbell Ogilvie on the requirement for an independent enquiry?
If a conversation did not take place as claimed, the question has to be should it have?
Given the foregoing facts on the early ebts, how credible is it Mr Regan during this interview did not know as a result of his involvement with the overdue payable and the UEFA licence in 2011 of the illegal and therefore wrong doing nature of those early EBTS with side letters concealed from the SFA and HMRC in 2005 just before Mr Ogilvie left RFC?
SR The SPL run, the SPL run the rules of The Scottish Premier League and they apply that. There are a whole host of people raising issues on internet sites and passing comment s about various theories that they have about Scottish football particularly in the West of Scotland. I think it’s important to establish that governance of Scottish football is managed by the appropriate body whether it is the Premier League, The Football League or the overall governing body. So that as far as we are concerned we let the Scottish Premier league manage their own rules and if those rules are then broken and the club is charged they have the right of appeal to us as the Appellant body.
Given all of the now known facts listed above how credible is it that the reason given by Stewart Regan to Alex Thomson for the SFA being the appeal body was indeed the only one?
Given the foregoing how credible is it that Mr Regan was not aware that he was being economical with the truth during his interview or had he indeed been kept in the dark by others in the SFA?
Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance
AT Let’s talk about Craig Whyte. Ehm – Presumably when Craig Whyte was mooted as coming in as the new owner – for the grand sum of £1 – for Rangers Football club, presumably the SFA took a keen interest in this and did some kind of due diligence on this man.
SR Well we have under our articles, Article 10.2, we have a process which sets out a number of criteria for what defines a fit and proper person within football. Now as you know we cannot stop people getting involved with a business and we cannot stop people getting involved with a PLC, all we can stop them doing is having an involvement with football, so what we do as part of that process is we ask for a declaration from the Directors of the club that they have a copy of the Articles,, that they have gone through the conditions and criteria within Article 10.2 and they have confirmed to us that they meet those criteria. If subsequently those criteria are breached then of course we take appropriate action.
AT You keep quoting rules back to me that’s not what I’m asking, I’m asking is did the SFA conduct any due diligence on this individual.
SR No we asked for a self-declaration from the Directors of the club and the individual himself.
AT Forgive me that sounds absolutely incredible this is the biggest club in Scotland which has been brought to its knees by a whole range of fiscal mismanagement, it is all on the record and proven. A new man comes in claiming all kinds of things, just like the previous man, and the SFA did not check or do any due diligence whatsoever.
SR That is part of the process of governing football, we
AT That’s, that’s NOT governing football that’s the exact opposite to governing football that’s running away from governing football.
SR No if you let me, if you let me finish my answer the point I am about to make is we govern the entire game from the top of the game down to grass roots. We have changes of Directors we have changes of ownership throughout the course of the year. I’m sure that if we were to spend football’s well earned money on doing investigations into potentially every change of Director, then there would be a lot of unhappy Chairmen out there.
AT You could have easily have googled (?) for free
SR Well we rely on the clubs telling us that the Articles have been complied with and that is the process we undertake.
AT This is extraordinary I say to you again you have years of fiscal mismanagement at Rangers Football Club, a new man comes in you are telling me that nobody at The SFA as much as got on to Google to get any background information nobody did anything ? That is extraordinary.
SR Well you refer to alleged years of financial mismanagement. I think it’s important to separate out the previous regime at Rangers and the new owner.
AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that
SR But I think it’s important in the case of the point you are raising regarding the fit and proper person test, to separate out the previous regime from the new owner. The club was in the process of being sold, they were challenging a tax bill that had been challenged by HMRC,* and the club had been sold to a new owner. That new owner had come in, he had purchased the club, the paper work for that sale had gone through and the club had complied with our Articles of Association. We run football we don’t, we are not the police we don’t govern transactions, we don’t govern fitness, we run football and we had asked the club to declare whether or not that person was fit to hold a place in association football. They had gone through the articles they’d signed to say that they had read those articles and that there had been no breaches of any of the points set out there. That included whether a Director had been disqualified. That wasn’t disclosed to us, indeed it did not come out until the BBC did their investigation back in October of last year.
(* note that in spite of all the “givens” listed earlier, Mr Regan fails to distinguish (or appreciate) that there is more than one tax bill at play and the one for the wee tax case was not under challenge or Sherriff Officers would not have called in August 2011 to collect it.)
AT So the BBC did due diligence on fitness (??) not the SFA?
SR No, as I said it came out in October 2010 primarily as a result of a detailed investigation. We then have to respond to potential breaches of our articles and we did that We entered into dialogue with the solicitor who was acting for Mr Whyte and we were in dialogue until February 2011 (?sic) of this year when the club entered administration.
AT What I’m simply asking you to admit here is that the SFA failed and it failed Rangers in its hour of need over Craig Whyte and it failed Scottish football.
SR We didn’t fail.
AT You didn’t do anything, you said you didn’t do anything.
SR We complied with the current processes within our articles. That said I think there are a number of learnings and I think the same goes for football right across the globe. People are coming into football into a multimillion pound business and I think football needs to take a harder look at what could be done differently. We are currently exploring the possibility of carrying out due diligence using the outgoing regime to make sure that there is a full and rigorous research being done before the transaction is allowed to go ahead.
AT Do you feel the need to apologise to Rangers fans?
SR I don’t need to apologise because we complied with our articles. I don’t feel there is a need to apologise whatsoever. I think….
AT You need some new articles then don’t you?
SR Well I think the articles
AT Well let’s unpack this. You said there is no need to apologise because we followed the rule books so that’s all right. So you must therefore admit you need a new rule book.
SR No well I think it’s easy at times to try and look around and find a scapegoat and try and point fingers at where blame is to be apportioned. I think perhaps it might be worth looking at the previous regime who for four years when they said they were selling the club, said that they would sell it and act in the best interests of the club. With that in mind I think the previous regime also have to take some responsibility for selling that club and looking after so called shareholders of Rangers football club and those people who that have put money into the club over the years.
AT ?? (Interrupted)
SR the Scottish FA, as I said have a process, that process has been place for some time. It has worked very very well until now I think there are learnings undoubtably and as I said we will review where we can tighten up as I know is happening across the game right now.
The above segment on Craig Whyte and Fit and Proper Persons is a timely reminder to supporters of all clubs, but particularly of Rangers FC of what happens when those charged with governing Scottish football hide behind the letter of the rules when convenient, rather than apply the true spirit in which those rules were written. It is the approach of The Pharisees to make a wrong , right.
To be fair to the SFA though, I doubt anyone could have imagined the degree of deceit and deception that they had allowed into Scottish football in May 2011 and how useless their rules were as a result, but I am not aware to this day if the SFA have apologised to Scottish football generally and Rangers supporters in particular, not only for failing to protect them from Craig Whyte, but also failing to protect them from the consequences of the foolish financial excesses of Sir David Murray, especially from 2008 when the tax bills in respect of the MMGRT ebts began to arrive at RFC . Some intervention then, assuming something was known by some at the SFA, who also held positions at Rangers, of those huge tax demands, might have cost Rangers three titles from 2009, but what Ranger’s supporter would not give all of that up to protect their club from the fate that the failure of the SFA to govern has caused?
Also to be fair the SFA have changed the rules so that the outgoing regime is responsible for doing due diligence on any new club owners rather than relying on self-certification by the incoming club owner, but we know that did not work particularly well when Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnstone did due diligence on Craig Whyte , but then again Sir David Murray was under pressure to sell and the guy coming in, everyone was told, had wealth off the radar.
The Nature of EBTS.
AT Let’s look at EBTs. Did nobody question ebts in the Scottish game in the English game come to that simply because nobody thought they were illegal in any way and indeed are not illegal in any way if operated correctly? Is it as simple as that?
SR There is nothing wrong with ebts when used correctly and ebts are a way of providing benefits to employees and if managed in a correct manner are perfectly legitimate. I think that the issue that we know is under investigation at the moment by both HMRC as part of the large tax case and the SPL as part of their own investigation into potential no disclosure of side letters is whether or not there has been any wrong doing and I think the issue at hand is that wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing has been discussed with HMRC for some time for several years in fact so we would not get involved in anything that there is no wrongdoing taking place and ebts are, as I said, a legitimate way of doing business when used correctly.
Again taking the “givens” into account, particularly the significant event of Sherriff Officers calling to collect unpaid tax in August 2011 and the logical deduction that the SFA President must have known of the difference between the two types of ebts Rangers used, (and perhaps why they were changed) why the insistence at this point that all the ebts used by Rangers had been used correctly? Mr Regan at the time of the interview was either kept in the dark by his President, given he claims to have spoken to no one about the independence of the enquiry, or being economical with the truth.
The whole of Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement made months after this interview, where Mr Regan stressed again and again there is no wrongdoing in the use of ebts if arranged correctly (or lawfully) is predicated on all ebts with side letters used by Rangers since 23 November 2011 actually being used correctly and in Lord Nimmo Smiths words on being “themselves not irregular”. (Para 5 of Annex 1). It is almost as if Mr Regan knew the outcome before Lord Nimmo Smith.
(In fact the ebt to Tor Andre Flo had a side letter dated 23 November and it related to a tax arrangement that had not been used correctly (using Regan’s own words) The irregular ebt for Ronald De Boer with a side letter of 30 August was placed beyond the scope of the Commission because in spite of it meeting the criteria specified by Harper MacLeod in March 2012 asking to be provided with ALL ebts and side letters and any other related documentation from July 1998 to date (including the HMRC letter of Feb 2011 that fully demonstrated that those particular ebts under the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) were not used correctly) and so were unlawful, NONE of that documentation was provided when requested.
This enabled Lord Nimmo Smith to state in para 107 of his Decision “while there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate” which is a statement he could not have made had he had all the requested documentation denied to him either by dishonesty or negligence during the preparation of his Commission.
How would he have had to judge one wonders if deception and dishonesty was indeed the factor we now ken that it is?
What exactly were the consequences of the failure to provide Lord Nimmo Smith with the required documentation?
It is stated in the Decision (Annex 1 para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the MGMRT ebts) were “lawful”. As it transpired the outcome of the FTT decision announced in November 2012 was that the MGMRT ebts indeed were (although this is still under appeal by HMRC.)
However, because Lord Nimmo Smith treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust (REBT) as one and the same, (para 35 of Decision) this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the earlier REBT were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the REBT been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them) as “continuous” or allowed Lord Nimmo Smith to say “we are not aware that they were different trusts“(Annex 1 para 35)
From the Decision (Annex 1 para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the REBT). We know now that the President of the SFA had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (sitting on the RFC remuneration policy committee that agreed to their use in 1999 and indeed was active in its setting up). Why the President failed to volunteer such crucial information is surely something he should now be asked?
By the time of the Inquiry, Rangers FC had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the now unlawful REBTs). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (that is an echo of what Regan stressed to Alex Thomson about ebts) where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, must be a breach of the rules.
Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the REBT could not be “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision) or disputed, but Mr Regan presumably did not enquire too much into the history of the wee tax case before agreeing to talk to Alex Thomson.
It will be obvious from the above that the unlawful nature of REBTs had been masked from SPL lawyers and Lord Nimmo Smith as a result of:-
(a) the failure by the Administrators of Rangers FC to provide the documentation required of them;
(b) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and presumably as a result of it, an appreciation of the differences between the two types of ebts and the consequences thereof for the investigation.
Had the REBT been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-
(i) the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;
(ii) the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the REBT ebts was lawful;
(iv) the “no sporting advantage” decision given in respect of the lawful ebts could not have been applied to unlawful ebts.
The real issue in the case of the unlawful ebts was not one of misregistration (Annex 1 para 104) which in turn justified the no sporting advantage decision in paras 105/106 but of paying players by an unlawful means which “constitutes such a fundamental defect (Annex 1 para 88) that the registration of players paid this way (i.e. unlawfully) must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. “
Had the true nature of these early ebts been known to SPL lawyers the Terms of Reference of the Investigation would have to have addressed the wrong doing that Mr Regan was so keen to argue with Alex Thomson had not actually occurred (long before Lord Nimmo Smith agreed with him) or had President Ogilvie made the distinction in his testimony, it would have been impossible for Sandy Bryson’s to advise as he did regarding the effect on eligibility. He would have to have been asked questions about two types of ebts not one. Finally Lord Nimmo Smith could not have treated both as continuous.
Finally, given this incidence of non-disclosure by the Rangers Administrators (an identifiable trait of RFC dealings with authority from August 2000 to date), it is impossible to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can be allowed to remain unchallenged.
Of course the failure to supply the key evidence could just be an oversight given Rangers Administrators were hardly likely to have established of their own volition the importance of the documents to the enquiry and yet, had they been supplied, the enquiry could not have been based on the defence Stewart Regan was at such pains to stress in his interview with Alex Thomson at a time only 3 months after Mr Regan and Campbell Ogilvie had joined Craig Whyte for dinner as a result of an invite prompted by questions on the SFA UEFA Licence handling of the wee tax case , created by the very same unlawful ebts.
AT But as the governing body why did you not say to Rangers “look guys this this smells really bad, this looks bad you look (and you have admitted you have not paid your tax) you know we can’t do this, we have got to be open and above board, it looks bad.
SR Well think you need to look at what is legal and above board. At the time the club, were in dispute with HMRC. There was a tax case ongoing the new owner was in discussion with HMRC. In fact he has made comments and the club have made comments to that effect and because the amount was not crystallised under UEFA guidelines, whilst ever it’s in dispute it’s not classed as overdue.
AT Sometimes
SR So you need to separate out the licensing requirement, which is what the Licensing Committee did, from the tax that was owed to HMRC which is as we know what is still ongoing.
Mr Regan was not being accurate here. The Big Tax case was in dispute and the bill has not crystallised as a result. However the wee tax case crystallised in mid June 2011 and at 30th June 2011, the UEFA licence checkpoint under Article 66 of UEFA FFP, did not meet the conditions to excuse it as being an overdue payable to HMRC. Quite how the SFA handled the processing of the Article 66 submission from RFC is subject to a resolution asking UEFA to investigate put to the Celtic AGM in November 2013 which is still in progress. As has been mentioned twice before Mr Regan has either been kept in the dark or was being less than honest with Alex Thomson. Interestingly Andrew Dickson who has been at Rangers in various administration and executive capacity since 1991 sat on 3 of the four UEFA Licensing Committee meetings during 2011. He may of course have excused himself from any discussions on this matter as the rules allowed, but was a full explanation why he did so, if indeed he did, offered? Would such an explanation have enlightened Mr Regan of what he was dealing with?
AT Sometimes things can be within the rules but from a PR point of view, indeed from a moral point of view, hate to introduce morality to football but can be the wrong thing to do. You would accept that?
SR Well I think that football around the world is going through a difficult time, clubs are in difficult financial circumstances, not just in Scotland, you look down into England and look at the clubs in Administration at the moment. You know Portsmouth and Port Vale in recent times and I think Plymouth is as well again. As far as that is concerned you know that indicates that clubs are living from hand to mouth and there are deals being done all the time with HMRC, payment plans being agreed. There is huge amounts of debt in football.
AT I’m just inviting you to accept that sometimes things can be within the rules but just look bad because morally, they are bad.
ST I think when taxes aren’t paid ehm VAT in particular, National Insurance Contributions of course that’s bad and I think we accept that and we know that in the current regime there is evidence to suggest that Rangers has not paid its taxes since Mr Whyte took over the club. That’s wrong that is against the spirit of the game and certainly we would look to deal with that and stamp out that type of behaviour which is not acting with integrity.
If Carlsberg did irony!
End of Interview.
The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions
There is always the danger in examining anything of finding what you want to be there rather than what is there and it is a danger any writer has to be aware of, but given the responses from Harper MacLeod on TSFM and the total lack of response from the SPFL and SFA when being informed of the missing evidence along with what has been written here it is hard not to conclude that the Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry was deliberately set up in such a way as to produce two results
- The minimising of the wrongful behaviour that had taken place from 1999 to 2012 when The Commission sat
- The avoidance of the consequences of admitting that serious wrongdoing in the form of illegal payments had been made via irregular EBTs, which consequently made the players involved ineligible from the outset, making the Bryson ruling inapplicable in those cases with the consequences of that ineligibility on trophies and remuneration won.
The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either
- there was a huge screw up by the SPL lawyers charged to set up the Commission which they might be able to defend
- or
- Vital knowledge was concealed within the SFA itself in order to achieve the above two results and
- This knowledge was deliberately concealed because had it not been The Inquiry could not have come to the conclusion it did on player eligibility, not only because unlawful ebts were used in early instances, but also because the deliberate concealment from HMRC of the side letters to De Boer and Flo, the former also kept from Harper and MacLeod, suggests Rangers knew all along and in 2005 in particular that what they were doing since 2000 was morally wrong and against the spirit of the game. It perhaps also explains why HMRC is determined to push an appeal all the way.
- This failure to supply all documents meant that the line being taken by Mr Regan in March 2012, when the Commission was being set up into the use of ebts and failure to register them with the SFA, came to fulfilment in the Decision of Lord Nimmo Smith himself, achieving the two aims suggested above.
Given that Harper MacLeod have said they passed on to the SFA in September 2014 the evidence kept from them by Rangers Administrators, has Stewart Regan spoken to either Ogilvie or Dickson since then about keeping him in the dark? Or did he know all along?
Of course these hard to believe conclusions could be discounted as delusional ramblings if either the SFA or SPFL were to say they would investigate the evidence kept from Harper MacLeod. It would also help if only one of the thirteen main stream journalists would look at the hard copy of the concealed documents they were provided with, because until someone who values sporting integrity does, the stench of corruption will hang over Scottish football for years to reek out anytime the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission is used as a justification for anything that it contains.
Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision
[5] Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in
breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;
Outline of the Scheme
[35] As we have said, a controlling interest in Oldco was held by David Murray through the medium of Murray MHL Limited, part of the Murray Group of companies. Murray Group Management Limited (MGM) provided management services to the companies of the Murray Group. 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, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.)
[40] Mr Ogilvie learnt about the existence of the MGMRT in about 2001 or 2002, because a contribution was made for his benefit. He understood that this was non-contractual. Although as a result he knew about the existence of the MGMRT, he did not know any details of it. He subsequently became aware, while he remained director of Oldco, that contributions were being made to the MGMRT in respect of players. He assumed that these were made in respect of the players’ playing football, which was the primary function for which they were employed and remunerated. He had no involvement in the organisation or management of Oldco’s contributions to the MGMRT, whether for players or otherwise. He said:
“I assumed that all contributions to the Trust were being made legally, and that any relevant football regulations were being complied with. I do not recall contributions to the Trust being discussed in any detail, if at all, at Board meetings. In any event, Board meetings had become less and less frequent by my later years at Rangers.”
He also said: “Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers”.
However it should be noted that Mr Ogilvie was a member of the board of directors who approved the statutory accounts of Oldco which disclosed very substantial payments made under the EBT arrangements.
[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 a 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.
[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.
[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.
[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.
[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
Just a thought…
We saw that for a while Charles Green was not trusted by the bears, to the point of them not buying their ST’s.
Charlie then ‘bought’ McCoist’s public support, and hey presto, there was a big line outside Ibrox of bears throwing their money at ST’s.
Ashley is the perceived ‘enemy’ of the bears now, and for him to win them over – or just put their hands in their pockets to maximise merchandise sales etc., – he could do with a similar Ibrox personality to give their support.
Could King be that person ?
If he is reluctant to use his own cash, and to save face, could he come to some arrangement with Ashley ? He could still become Chairman, but in effect Ashley’s guys would be calling the shots. King could be a useful buffer between Ashley/SD and the bears ?
Grasping at straws here as I really don’t have a clue what is going on re: King…
does SFM get to keep the TSFM history and will it be in the hands of Real TSFM men? We must be told
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 2:44 pm
I have said a few times that Ashley has a problem in pulling the plug because of a default in the loan. If he does even if he refloats/refinances another version of Rangers then IMO the Bears won’t buy shirts from him. I’m also not sure how many would buy STs.
________________________
Could it be, though, that owning the IP might be more profitable than manufacturing/transporting/selling the merchandise?
If he pulls the plug and gets his hands on those assets, plus the heritable property and those held under the floating charge, he could make a pretty penny leasing them all to the club without any of the hassle he would face as the manufacturer and retailer of the goods themselves.
As things stand, whatever happens, there’s going to be resistance to him and SD that might lead to poor returns on sales, which might not be the case if it’s left to another company, unconnected to him and SD.
Lots of guessing, of course, but maybe the anger aimed at him and his company might backfire as he realises it’s too great to overcome should he continue to be the provider of all the merchandising, while providing the crests and badges etc won’t impact negatively (no badges = no jerseys) as the new manufacturer and retailer(s) will be considered good guys by the supporters.
Probably not a part of his plan at the moment, but could it be a possibility should his plan begin to appear unprofitable, or not profitable enough?
SFM says:
April 21, 2015 at 2:07 pm
I will change my name to something else very soon – something cuddly perhaps 🙂
——————————-
“Something Cuddly”, Nice name, suits you sir! 😛
This is probably apropos of the square root of zilch which given ny numerical illiteracy might well be a significant amount 😆
But I was looking at the new share thingy wrt to Rangers and noticed that Eurovestech Plc is also listed on the same site.
I remember doing a piece which involved them and other investors disappearing off the Rangers radar back in September 2013 at: https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/rangers-shareholders-and-a-director-go-missing-will-they-return-by-ecojon/
I have previously posted wrt to them investing in TRFCL pre the public float of RIFC Plc as did their CEO Richard Bernstein – respectively £600k and £400k.
And of course they turned-up in the CF ‘return of capital’ emails which apparently indicated a repayment from Rangers in December 2012 of £180k to the company and £120k to the CEO.
These payments apparently were the difference between the pre-float price paid of – by some – of £1 a share and the 70p float price. Laxey & Partners were probably better known for this ‘return’ which I believe took the form of additional shares.
That might be the case with the others as well right enough.
As I say probably absolutely no significance in the coincidence.
I noticed a TSFM post also of some interest:
Steven McLean has refereed 6 games involving Rangers in his career. Rangers won 4 and lost 2 . He sent off 3 Rangers players in those 6 games. That doesn’t have the look of someone who is predisposed to unfairly benefit Rangers.
He has also refereed Celtic 4 times this season, and Celtic have lost 3 of those games. 2 of those games involved critical incorrect decisions against Celtic . However over the 4 years he has refereed Celtic games his overall stats don’t suggest anything untoward.
I always start from a baseline that Officials are not predisposed to make deliberately incorrect decisions to unfairly benefit any team. My feeling is that the decision on the handball needs and deserves an explanation from the SFA and the officials because it was 1) Such a terrible call 2 ) A National Cup semi final and 3) Prevented an historic treble .
I can’t give a logical reason as to why a penalty and red card wasn’t the outcome , however on the balance of probabilities I doubt it was an act of cheating by the officials. The problem is that the SFA are such an appalingly incompetent organisation with a proven history of bias, that Mclean and his assistants are being judged as being from the same mould as Dougie McDonald and Hugh Dallas, without any proof that they are in any way guilty of anything.
I’d like an explanation, an apology and McLean and co given a short demotion to punish the incompetence. What though has kept emotions at fever pitch , is the ridiculous statement from John Fleming that NOBODY in the stadium thought it was a penalty until they saw the replay. Thats insulting, it’s totally incorrect and it smacks of an arrogant disregard for the Scottish football public. He has presided over a shambolic season for officials and that comment should be the final nail in his coffin. It won’t be , but thats down to the self interest of those higher up .
Allyjambo says:
April 21, 2015 at 3:42 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 2:44 pm
I have said a few times that Ashley has a problem in pulling the plug because of a default in the loan. If he does even if he refloats/refinances another version of Rangers then IMO the Bears won’t buy shirts from him. I’m also not sure how many would buy STs.
________________________
Could it be, though, that owning the IP might be more profitable than manufacturing/transporting/selling the merchandise?
———————————————–
A big bit of the Ashley Empire has been built on buying-up brand names for companies that may have slipped a bit but whose brand still had a cachet.
So he trundles out the gear appropriately branded and does make a fortune. I’m not sure however how well that would work with an extinct football club.
Not very well would be my off-the-cuff reaction.
IIRC the original Rangers Retail deal was for 7 years so there’s still a fair bit to run and it might well have been extended at some stage.
So he’ll still want to source, make and distribute the gear. That’s a big part of his bread and butter business. Rangers no longer have the means of doing this. I would even reckon that the online orders from the Rangers web site go straight to SD and are fulfilled from there.
But you’re right – somehow he has got to shift the football side onto someone else and who is there? There could be a deal with DK & MA that effectively ends any other onerous contracts to give some more income to the football side.
And maybe SD might need to cut a bit of slack in what it has already bitten off. That would impress the Bears that DK faced Ashley down and got something back.
All just part of the smoke and mirrors but it’s always worked in the past and more easily swallowed when presented by a Saviour who is actually a RRM!
Haven’t commented on the handball thing, though I think barca makes some good points.
Anyway, the SFA compliance officer has sprung into action 😉
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/317900-inverness-josh-meekings-charged-by-scottish-fa-over-celtic-handball/
EDIT
Unsurprisingly, ICT are going to contest this. #popcorn
scapaflow says:
April 21, 2015 at 4:38 pm
Haven’t commented on the handball thing, though I think barca makes some good points.
Anyway, the SFA compliance officer has sprung into action 😉
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/317900-inverness-josh-meekings-charged-by-scottish-fa-over-celtic-handball/
—————————————————–
Oh dear…… this could set a real messy precedent.
Barcabhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm
What though has kept emotions at fever pitch , is the ridiculous statement from John Fleming that NOBODY in the stadium thought it was a penalty until they saw the replay. Thats insulting, it’s totally incorrect and it smacks of an arrogant disregard for the Scottish football public.
——————————————————-
My ears are still ringing from the booing that broke out immediately and continued almost non-stop.
I know that no one in my immediate vicinity saw any replay so as you say not only is the remark made-up pash but makes me wonder what he was on when it happened. Was he actually at Hampden?
Perhaps mandatory hearing and eye tests are required for anyone connected with the SFA and refereeing.
I had a good laugh after remembering how he declared refs are as accountable as players:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfas-head-referees-john-fleming-3058905
Just another nonsense PR puff-piece.
I can only hope that Meekings isn’t being used as the sacrificial lamb by the SFA.
He did what he did and it should have been correctly dealt with at the time. It wasn’t and if I was Meekings I would be appealing and playing in the final and I won’t fault the guy for that.
Celtic fans and the club have paid a heavy price for this failure and we need explanations. The compliance officer sticking a charge on will mean no answer to Celtic because proceedings are active.
They’ll want it into the close season and fogotten about. Well that ain’t going to happen. A full explanation is required and also suggestions to reduce the chance of it happening again.
Our game deserves it and so do fans and in this technological age the Hampden dinosaurs need dumped and a new regime installed that actually wants to improve our game and ensure it’s as fair as we can make it.
It obviously isn’t that at the moment.
Jingso.Jimsie says: April 20, 2015 at 7:54 pm
Re “The Affair Of Meekings Arm”:
It (almost) proves that Additional Assistant Referees are pointless & powerless.
——————————————————————————–
Extract from FIFA Laws of the Game 2014/15
58-59 THE FOURTH OFFICIAL AND THE RESERVE ASSISTANT REFEREE
• A fourth official may be appointed under the competition rules and officiates if any of the three match officials is unable to continue, unless a reserve assistant referee is appointed. He assists the referee at all times
• Prior to the start of the competition, the organiser states clearly whether,if the referee is unable to continue, the fourth official takes over as the referee or whether the senior assistant referee takes over as referee with the fourth official becoming an assistant referee
• The fourth official assists with any administrative duties before, during and after the match, as required by the referee
• He is responsible for assisting with substitution procedures during the match
• He has the authority to check the equipment of substitutes before they enter the field of play. If their equipment does not comply with the Laws of the Game, he informs the referee
• He supervises the replacement balls, where required. If the match ball has to be replaced during a match, he provides another ball, on the instruction of the referee, thus keeping the delay to a minimum
• He assists the referee to control the match in accordance with the Laws of the Game. The referee, however, retains the authority to decide on all points connected with play.
• After the match, the fourth official must submit a report to the appropriate authorities on any misconduct or other incident that occurred out of the view of the referee and the assistant referees. The fourth official must advise the referee and his assistants of any report being made
• He has the authority to inform the referee of irresponsible behaviour by any occupant of the technical area
• A reserve assistant referee may also be appointed under competition rules.
His only duty shall be to replace an assistant referee who is unable to continue or to replace the fourth official, as required
Additional assistant referees may be appointed under the competition rules.They must be active referees of the highest category available. The competition rules must state the procedure to be followed when a referee is unable to continue, and whether:
1. the fourth official takes over as the referee, or
2. the senior additional assistant referee takes over as the referee, with the fourth official becoming an additional assistant referee
Duties
Where appointed, the additional assistant referees, subject to the decision of the referee, are to indicate:
• when the whole of the ball leaves the field of play over the goal line
• which team is entitled to a corner kick or goal kick
• when misconduct or any other incident occurs out of the view of the referee
• when offences have been committed whenever the additional assistant referees have a better view than he referee, particularly inside the penalty area
• whether, at penalty kicks, the goalkeeper moves off the goal line before the ball is kicked and if the ball crosses the line
Assistance
The additional assistant referees also help the referee to control the match in accordance with the Laws of the Game but the final decision will always be taken by the referee.
In the event of undue interference or improper conduct, the referee will relieve an additional assistant referee of his duties and make a report to the appropriate authorities.
83-84 THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT REFEREES
The additional assistant referees help the referee to control the match in accordance with the Laws of the Game. They also assist the referee in all other matters involving the running of the match at the request and direction of the referee. This commonly includes such matters as:
• inspecting the field, the balls used and players’ equipment
• determining if problems with equipment or bleeding have been resolved
• maintaining back-up records of time, goals and misconduct
Positioning and teamwork
1. General positioning during the match
The additional assistant referees’ position is behind the goal line.
The additional assistant referees are not allowed to enter the field of play unless there are exceptional circumstances.
2. Goal kick
The additional assistant referees must check if the ball is placed inside the goal area. If the ball is not placed correctly, the additional assistant referee must communicate this to the referee.
3. Penalty kick
The additional assistant referee must be positioned at the intersection of the goal line and the goal area, and the assistant referee should take up a position in line with the second-last defender.
4. Kicks from the penalty mark
The additional assistant referees must be positioned at each intersection of the goal line and the goal area, to the right and left of the goal respectively.
The additional assistant referees are responsible for indicating to the referee when the whole of the ball has passed over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar.
5. “Goal – no goal” situations
The additional assistant referee must communicate to the referee when a goal
has been scored.
Signalling system for the additional assistant referees
The additional assistant referees will use a radio communication system only and not flags to communicate decisions to the referee.
In the event of a breakdown of the radio communication system, the additional assistant referees will use an electronic signal beep flagstick to indicate their decisions.
As a general rule, the additional assistant referee must not give obvious hand signals. However, in some instances, a discreet hand signal may give valuable support to the referee. The hand signal should have a clear meaning. The meaning should have been discussed and agreed upon in the pre-match discussion.
I was unable to identify any reference to Additional Assistant Referees on the version of The Laws of the Game on the SFA website 😳
For anyone who wants to educate themselves further regarding the current Laws of the Game here’s a link to it on the Fifa website. As you can see from the above “It’s not easy being a referee.” 😀
bfbpuzzled says: April 21, 2015 at 3:33 pm
Does SFM get to keep the TSFM history and will it be in the hands of Real TSFM men? We must be told.
—————————-
Snorts whilst 😆
OT but I will be visiting Glasgow on Saturday – hoping to get to Hampden to see Queens Park but Sunday 26th we have a spare ticket for Nick Cave at the Royal Concert Hall. It’s a sell out and donn’t like to sell to touts
Face value – meet at venue – PM me if interested.
Apologies in advance if this breaks the site rules 🙂
tayred says: April 21, 2015 at 4:45 pm
Haven’t commented on the handball thing, though I think barca makes some good points.
Anyway, the SFA compliance officer has sprung into action 😉
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/317900-inverness-josh-meekings-charged-by-scottish-fa-over-celtic-handball/
EDIT Unsurprisingly, ICT are going to contest this. #popcorn
________________________________________________________________
Oh dear…… this could set a real messy precedent.
—————————————————————–
I agree that barca makes some pertinent points.
I infer from the action of the SFA Compliance Officer that the match Reports of the 5 officials state that none of them saw the “handball” incident.
NB Just because the Referee was facing the incident does not mean that was where his eyes were focused in a “busy” 6-yard box.
Sorry, the compliance officers role is surely for looking out first and foremost for dangerous incidents that are missed by the officials.
At a huge stretch of the imagination, and in the shade of a massive can of worms about to be spilt, he could possibly cite deliberate premeditated actions (I consider Meeking’s instinctive btw) designed to change the result of a game such as Maradonna’s, or as another off the top of my head the Mulgrew Lafferty ‘head butt’.
Horribly unfair on Meekings if he misses the final. He’s lucky to be in it certainly, but if that’s a reason to crucify the lad metaphorically then as I say, let the cascade of worms commence.
This was neither.
Smugas, agree totally with this.
“Sorry, the compliance officers role is surely for looking out first and foremost for dangerous incidents that are missed by the officials.”
Charging Meekings, stinks of bread & circuses. A typically myopic attempt to show that the Authorities do listen to the fans’ “concerns”, while at the same time being blissfully ignorant of the fecking great rod they are making for their own backs.
If Carlsberg did stupid, they’d brand it SFA
If Meekings is banned I will have some sympathy for him, but had McLean done his job on Sunday and Inverness overcame adversity he would have been banned for the final anyway.
Smugas says:
April 21, 2015 at 5:28 pm
Sorry, the compliance officers role is surely for looking out first and foremost for dangerous incidents that are missed by the officials.
————————————————
Surely Guidetti’s singing wasn’t that bad 😆
tayred says:
April 21, 2015 at 4:45 pm
scapaflow says:
April 21, 2015 at 4:38 pm
Haven’t commented on the handball thing, though I think barca makes some good points.
Anyway, the SFA compliance officer has sprung into action 😉
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/317900-inverness-josh-meekings-charged-by-scottish-fa-over-celtic-handball/
Oh dear…… this could set a real messy precedent.
===================================================
Don’t know if this has happened before for a ‘missed handball’, but should the main ‘learning’ from this incident for Regan and co is that the quality of officiating at top games is being ‘brought into disrepute’ ?
And how can we make it better, to avoid a recurrence in future ?
Penalising the player will do nothing to achieve that, IMO, and is just deflection.
“Premier League clubs turn down £135m mega-offer from Guinness for naming rights…
Guinness offered the top flight a huge deal of £135m over three years, a £5m-a-year increase on the payments from Barclays, whose 15-year partnership with the Premier League will finish at the end of next season…”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3047802/Premier-League-clubs-turn-135m-mega-offer-Guinness-naming-rights.html
===================================================
Whilst the Scottish football leagues’ naming rights are worth the princely sum of hee haw ?
According to Mr. Doncaster that is… 🙄
STV News states: SFA say none of the officials saw the handball.
Meekings facing a charge is just unbelievable…
The authorities should be ashamed…
Is there a precedent for anyone facing a charge for not “owning up” to handball…
It’s beyond farce…
I speak as a Celtic supporter who would not like the boy to receive a ban and who thinks Celtic have a right,if not a duty,to encourage transparency in the matter of decisions made by officials…
The charge is absolutely incredible and smacks of attempting to displace blame for a bad decision…
The SFA has thrown Josh Meekings under the bus. Conveniant scapegoat, which deflects the blame. Scandalous. Free The Inverness One.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/sfa-compounds-disgraceful-decison-by-punishing-meekings/
Smugas says: April 21, 2015 at 5:28 pm
Sorry, the compliance officers role is surely for looking out first and foremost for dangerous incidents that are missed by the officials.
————————————————
ecobhoy says: April 21, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Surely Guidetti’s singing wasn’t that bad 😆
______________________________________________
Smugas,
For the avoidance of any doubt (Copyright acknowledged 😀 ), the role of the SFA Compliance Officer is set out at 5. in following link to the SFA Judicial Panel Protocol 2014/15
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2014-15/Judicial%20Panel%20Protocol%202014-15.pdf
EDIT The Disciplinary Rules are at Annex A on Page 49 of 182.
abigboydiditandranaway says:
April 21, 2015 at 6:04 pm
Is there a precedent for anyone facing a charge for not “owning up” to handball…
—————————————–
I’m sure if the ref had asked him he would have fessed-up at the time.
However if all 5 officials were looking elsewhere they didn’t know there was a handball. They must have been wondering why 95% of the crowd was going mental booing. Maybe they didn’t hear that of course.
The 5 stupid monkeys – I’m sure someone will come-up with an appropriate graphic.
I wonder if our SMSM are going to ask what each of them was actually looking at come the critical moment.
I was prepared to keep an open mind on this now I’m not. My mind is now made-up. It’s a stitch-up for whatever reason and that’s most likely because it’s an absolutely diabolical call or non-call as the case actually is.
Scottish Football continues to exceed itself in the laughing stakes and nothing will change until Hampden is cleared-out.
I most certainly won’t be going back to Hampden for any reason unless it’s to support my team. And I won’t support the Scottish Team even if they play at Parkhead.
The wallet has closed until this mob get the heave.
IIRC, nothing happened to Thierry Henry after the infamous hand ball (x2) against the Republic of Ireland – in a crucial World Cup playoff game.
But the SFA believe they can penalise the ICT player ?
The SFA confirm yet again that they are the real diddies in Scottish football, and this farcical charge should be dropped ASAP.
Instead, let’s hear the SFA plans to help their refs’ to improve their standards.
Ecobhoy…having played football I would never in a million years have owned up to a handball…now if the ref asks and you deny,we have a different scenario…but he didn’t and we don’t…
So the charge IMO stinks…
It will be interesting to see if this deflection from the SFA works. It’s being helped admirably by the BBC report which states
“Celtic – who later had goalkeeper Craig Gordon sent off – wrote to the SFA to ask why Meekings was not dismissed and a penalty awarded at the time.”
What Celtic actually said (and I researched this thoroughly by clicking on the link in the BBC article) was
“”we are duty bound to seek an understanding of what actually happened,” the club said.
“We have not been given any other specific explanation so far and this is simply to understand the circumstances of what went on and why such an obvious error was made.”
You could argue that the gist is the same, but the emphasis is quite different.
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 6:11 pm
————————————–
The SFA in my opinion have let themselves down twice today. Firstly the Head of Refereeing comes away with the breathtaking statement that no-one knew it was a hand ball without a replay. The reaction of the Celtic players and much of the crowd shows how pathetic a view that is.
Secondly the SFA are now trying to ban Meekings from the final. Forgive me for thinking the system is being used to officially declare the Ref missed the incident and the lad is going to possibly miss out on the final to rubber stamp that official line.
It would possibly be better to look into the fact that later in the game ICT players clearly influenced McLean into booking the wrong player to ensure the player who should have been booked didn’t miss the final. That was just plain simple cheating, and should be pointed out.
A good cat story from Phil 😀
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/general-ashley-and-the-ibrox-mice/#more-6189
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 6:48 pm
I really wonder why this fairly simple request by Celtic has caused such reaction.
================================
According to Phil McG tonight Celtic have now officially written to UEFA over Resolution 12. More media meltdown on the way.
Ecobhoy
Of course the issue should be raised but folks are going over the top.
Conspiracy, demanding apologies and punishments, boycotting the national team. I’ve heard that type of stuff before but on blue tinted sites.
I underdtand folks are hurting but let’s not lower the tone,
upthehoops says:
April 21, 2015 at 7:09 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 6:48 pm
I really wonder why this fairly simple request by Celtic has caused such reaction.
================================
According to Phil McG tonight Celtic have now officially written to UEFA over Resolution 12. More media meltdown on the way
——————————————————-
I have often observed that if you kick even the most placid of dogs repeatedly it might eventually turn and attempt to rip-out the throat of its attacker.
However perhaps at long last the lid will be lifted on what actually went down over the UEFA Registration which will make Sunday’s fiasco a mere drop in a very deep ocean.
StevieBC says:
April 21, 2015 at 5:55 pm
“Premier League clubs turn down £135m mega-offer from Guinness for naming rights…
Guinness offered the top flight a huge deal of £135m over three years, a £5m-a-year increase on the payments from Barclays, whose 15-year partnership with the Premier League will finish at the end of next season…”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3047802/Premier-League-clubs-turn-135m-mega-offer-Guinness-naming-rights.html
===================================================
Whilst the Scottish football leagues’ naming rights are worth the princely sum of hee haw ?
According to Mr. Doncaster that is…
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Donkey is useless
But it gave me an idea
This offer is funded entirely by a Scottish co Diageo who own 100% of Guinness and half the distilleries in Scotland
If Diageo have over £100m to throw at English Football maybe they could spare half of that for Scottish football. This would help serve the nation who keep them in business
,,,,,,,,,
£50m is peanuts to Diageo but could be a life line for Scottish fitba
Are you listening Nicola ?
wottpi says:
April 21, 2015 at 7:26 pm
Ecobhoy
Of course the issue should be raised but folks are going over the top.
Conspiracy, demanding apologies and punishments, boycotting the national team. I’ve heard that type of stuff before but on blue tinted sites.
I understand folks are hurting but let’s not lower the tone
========================================
I have to say I believe most fans would settle for a system of accountability within the SFA. Nowadays Refs earn more than a lot of players. There should be a process to explain decisions, and admit those that were wrong. All talk of conspiracies would soon disappear if that was in place in my view. The SFA and Referees would not want to explain too often why some clubs might be on the receiving end more than others. I disagree that it would put people off Refereeing. At £850 a game in the top flight, with 3-4 games a month, why would it?
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 7:32 pm
I have often observed that if you kick even the most placid of dogs repeatedly it might eventually turn and attempt to rip-out the throat of its attacker.
================================
Jeez Echo, you don’t walk around kicking poor wee dogs do you?!!! 😀
upthehoops says:
April 21, 2015 at 7:40 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 7:32 pm
I have often observed that if you kick even the most placid of dogs repeatedly it might eventually turn and attempt to rip-out the throat of its attacker.
================================
Jeez Echo, you don’t walk around kicking poor wee dogs do you?!!! 😀
———————————————
Nope. Just rip the throat out of anyone I see abusing any animal. I have been surrounded by animals all of my life and learnt many decades ago that anyone who doesn’t like animals should never be trusted.
My animals always get that one right even if sometimes I’m unsure.
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Nope. Just rip the throat out of anyone I see abusing any animal. I have been surrounded by animals all of my life and learnt many decades ago that anyone who doesn’t like animals should never be trusted.
——————————
I’m an animal lover myself, but my mistrust has always been reserved for people who don’t drink or swear!
upthehoops says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:15 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Nope. Just rip the throat out of anyone I see abusing any animal. I have been surrounded by animals all of my life and learnt many decades ago that anyone who doesn’t like animals should never be trusted.
——————————
I’m an animal lover myself, but my mistrust has always been reserved for people who don’t drink or swear!
————————————————-
I don’t know anyone like that 😛
About Meekings. I have waited for journalists to establish a very basic point. Is the proposition that none of 6 officials saw an incident or did none of 6 officials consider it was a deliberate handball? The two scenarios are very different and one is more credible than the other. If it is the latter can the Compliance Officer intervene?
Secondly the radio suggested the charge was in reference to a deliberate handball. Was that the charge or did someone embroider a report? That opens a Meekings defence.
It’s difficult to know where to begin with the developments following Sunday’s game. I didn’t intend posting as I felt that, at the end of the day, ICT deserved to win – why? So I may as well start there. (BTW I have supported Celtic for 50+ years and contribute a substantial portion of my pension to following them, but long ago ‘got a life’ and always try to keep things in perspective)
1. Deserved to win?:
– Celtic seemed to have a chronic problem keeping their feet during the whole match. To begin with, I and many around me thought the pitch must have been poor – and I’m sure it wasn’t great – but the ICT players managed to keep their feet far better and Celtic did not seem to make any effort to change studs or whatever at half time.
– The ICT players got to the second ball far too often. Much has been made over the past few months of the high level fitness regime put in place at Celtic – was this evident on Sunday? Even when both teams had full complements, ICT were stronger on the ball. Occasional flashes from Forest and good distribution on occasion could not overcome poor control requiring 2/3 touches before passing.
– Celtic were unable to score in open play during the whole match – ICT scored twice.
– Every single Celtic player is paid at least a 5-figure sum PER WEEK – yet how many can hit a shot on target while moving? Some can’t even shoot across the by-line!
I’m sure that Ronnie D and John C will be dissecting individual performances to identify what went wrong and it would be very dangerous to hide behind a poor refereeing performance if they really want to plan for an effective european campaign. Poor discipline lost us games in Europe this season, no matter how aggrieved we might feel and a professional set-up like Celtic have to smarten up in this regard.
(BTW – would Celtic object if Zaluska is served with a ban notice following his ‘assault’ on the ICT player?)
2. SFA
Today’s action just beggars belief. Talk about a panic reaction to divert attention from the ineptitude of their own officials!! What kind of precedent do they set if they penalise Meekings? Handball? obviously. Deliberate? Probably … but instinctive and part of the game to be penalised or not as per ability of referee – BUT not in any way vindictive/injurious or career threatening. I have often thought that while rules exist to preserve order, those who hide behind them when common sense should prevail should not hold their position of power in the first place.
The danger now is that relations between Celtic and ICT may be forever soured through the desperation of the SFA to dig themselves out of a hole.
Good luck to ICT in their challenge and to both teams in what should be a great Cup Final occasion.
Meekings was not the cheat.
Phil’s blog on Res 12:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/celtic-send-letter-to-uefa-about-resolution-12/#more-6195
This should be an interesting development. I wonder who’ll be lined-up by the SFA to take the rap over this one?
It’s always the same tell one lie and the others follow like clockwork. I must applaud all those who have worked at getting Res 12 to this stage.
This truly could become a game-changer for Scottish Football governance ❗
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:33 pm
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:33 pm
Phil’s blog on Res 12:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/celtic-send-letter-to-uefa-about-resolution-12/#more-6195
This should be an interesting development. I wonder who’ll be lined-up by the SFA to take the rap over this one?…
===============================================
Phil’s blog isn’t clear, but assuming this is true – does anyone know when the letter was sent by CFC ?
Was it sent after Sunday’s game, or is the timing of this information just a coincidence ?
I’m not Phil’s biggest fan, but fair play, he has unequivocally come out with alleged dramatic revelations tonight. If these are true I will be gagging to give him a very public apology on this site, but if they somehow turn out to be keach (again) its time he was treated accordingly.
occam says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:31 pm
The danger now is that relations between Celtic and ICT may be forever soured through the desperation of the SFA to dig themselves out of a hole.
——————————————————
I would like to think that the majority of Celtic supporters will be well aware of the deflection being operated by the SFA. Hopefully there will be no lasting problems between Celtic and ICT.
If the game had been properly or even half-decently officiated we would not be in the position we are in. The culprit here is the SFA.
Wrt to Celtic – I don’t know what went wrong but the team wasn’t quite firing on all cylinders and ICT were very good at what they did and that has to be remembered.
The playing surface seemed to be atrocious and many around me just couldn’t understand the need to water at half-time, Still there seemed to be no adaptation to what was obviously a slippy park.
I thought ICT suffered from it as well but maybe you’re right that Celtic fared worse for which there’s no technical excuse.
Losing a defo penalty is always a downer and tbh I think the loss of CG had a bad psychological effect. The problem with working out a defeat like this is that often it’s kept within the dressing room and therefore hard to know.
I won’t go into it here but there were changes I didn’t agree with but it’s easy to blame the manager not so easy to get it right when walking in his shoes.
But you’re right about Europe – we simply weren’t good enough and we need to sharpen-up and we do need some players.
The support stayed solid right to the end although it was a real sickener but it’s football and like every team – possibly bar one although I’m still not sure about that – we know there is no pre-ordained right to win.
We’ve had plenty of worse disasters and as RD said we have to buckle down to winning the league and tomorrow is the next most important game and, if lucky, then the 2 after that. Don’t know if the Dons would be happy losing at home right enuff 😎
Paul says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Deary, deary me.
———-
Indeed.
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 6:11 pm
“The 5 stupid monkeys – I’m sure someone will come-up with an appropriate graphic.”
——————————————————-
Ask and you shall receive
There are only 3 but they cannot see hear or say where the other 2 are 🙄
woodstein says:
April 21, 2015 at 9:46 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 6:11 pm
“The 5 stupid monkeys – I’m sure someone will come-up with an appropriate graphic.”
——————————————————-
Ask and you shall receive
There are only 3 but they cannot see hear or say where the other 2 are 🙄
—————————————-
Obviously looking in the wrong place 😆
Can the failure of the 5 officials now be referred to as The Second 5 way agreement?
StevieBC says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:55 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:33 pm
Phil’s blog on Res 12:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/celtic-send-letter-to-uefa-about-resolution-12/#more-6195
This should be an interesting development. I wonder who’ll be lined-up by the SFA to take the rap over this one?…
===============================================
Phil’s blog isn’t clear, but assuming this is true – does anyone know when the letter was sent by CFC?
Was it sent after Sunday’s game, or is the timing of this information just a coincidence ?
——————————————
I haven’t a clue but no doubt it will emerge. I haven’t been a part of the group involved but I know a helluva lot of work has been put into it and a lot of significant progress made in recent times.
I doubt if Sunday’s game would be of any relevance to the letter’s timing. This issue has been grinding away for some time and it’s obviously reached the next stage.
No doubt the group or CFC will make an announcement in due course and we are all going to have to be a bit patient. I have the feeling it will be worth waiting for.
Celtic denied penalty shocker.
http://www.football.co.uk/chelsea/10-of-the-worst-refereeing-decisions-of-the-season-so-far/5394330/
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/oct/26/worst-refereeing-decisions
Just 2 articles from an extremely large back catalogue of referees having a bad day. it happens. all over the world.
incredibleadamspark says:
April 21, 2015 at 9:09 am
bigsbee says:
April 21, 2015 at 12:07 am
I was told when the foul is given the referee has satisfied himself, by considering a number of factors, that makes it deliberate in his mind and therefore a foul. If you are telling me this is nonsense, something I hear a lot when giving my opinion, then I’m always happy to be corrected. Everyday should be a school day. I have a little knowledge on the subject and you know what they say about that. I appreciate the job referees do and hope you get plenty of enjoyment out of it and not too much hassle.
Absolutely not – I’m not saying your opinion is nonsense.
In 99.9 of the tackles in a football match the defending player does not go into the tackle deliberately attempting to foul an opponent – it’s just that some of his ‘deliberate actions’ results in a foul. For example in a tackle where a defending player is ‘caught out’ by the quick feet of his opponent and connects with his leg rather than the ball – he’s not deliberately tried to foul the player on the ball but it is a foul none the less.
And yes I get a lot of hassle but I do enjoy it – without refs in youth football the game dies
Good grief.
What the feck is going on in Scottish football?
Doncaster was on the verge of finally being outed and ditched when his mates on the sixth floor come up with one of the most incompetent series of events that even the dysfunctional Scottish football governing bodies have produced.
Enough has been said already about blindgate, so I wont bother about that, but the Meekings persecution must be one of the largest squirrels ever sighted.
Doncaster and the fixtures scandal-forgotten?
Blindgate is now being turned into the SMSM ritual beating of Celtic with their keyboards, and the less fervent adherents to the party line are given the Meekings sacrifice to froth over with faux rage. Welcome to media management and manipulation Scottish football style Mmes Dempster and Budge.
Who said that the authorities are a disorganised shambles? They’ve certainly got everyone running around like Corporal Jones at the moment, with the SFA bailing out the SPFL by trumping their incompetence.
Don’t panic though, Resolution 12 may be riding over the hill like the cavalry to our rescue.
And the G&SL has still to source the readies to pay the wages let alone the potential promotion bonuses, so eyes may turn once more to the seemingly forgotten nouveau regime in the blue room of dignity.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/ronny-deila-hails-fantastic-scottish-referees-1-3622704
Deila and Celtic had no problems with refs earlier in the season when it suited them and their players were diving in the box. Over a season it would all balance out, it is going to be quite equal with decisions, we were told by the treble chasing coach. What has changed now? Why has the standard of referreing suddenly dropped in one particular game? The semi was part of the same season. Things got balanced out in the manner predicted. That’s football, that’s sport.
I have stayed clear of the incidents during Sunday’s semi-final but I would like to comment on the way the media and SFA have reacted.
The media have immediately reverted to type when Celtic asked for an explanation it was “demanded”. Let’s be clear, Celtic is in no position to demand anything from the SFA. They can enquire plain and simple and that is what they have done. I would like to think, after the debacle at Hamilton earlier in the season, when Aberdeen had a good goal not given and one chalked off incorrectly for offside that they made an enquiry also. When Hibs had a goal not given in the Edinburgh derby last year I would like to think that they made an enquiry. There have been other examples this season of the appalling, for that is what it is, standard of refereeing in Scotland yet the media always use inflammatory language that raises emotions for and against. None of these clubs would have “demanded” anything only an explanation and just that. They may also ask what can be done to ensure it doesn’t happen again. You see that is progress, improvement of standards but we don’t do that here.
There second trick is the old paranoia routine. Simply because they cannot do their job and ask probing questions of the people in authority they stick it in a box and label it. You see that allows them to do what they have done for the last twenty years; nothing.
Now on to the SFA; just when you think they cannot become any more embarrassing they find a secret door to a whole new level of idiocy. First up today was the Head of the Referee’s circling the wagon’s; no one saw it. Remember this will probably be before the reports have come in as the game was only held on Sunday so has he personally phoned all five, or is it ten, officials to find out everyone’s view of it? I don’t think so. He has simply laid out the party line.
Next up you have a former referee telling everyone the same tail and that the officials will be feeling really bad. Well boohoo!
Remember these guys are on over £800 a game!
Perhaps that is what they are feeling really bad about, the fact that they may be getting the chop. This brings me to another point; how bad does an official have to get before he gets the bullet? No one is suggesting that it is an easy job but neither is a lot of other occupations and if you ain’t up to it you get your jotters. Can anyone remember a referee that has been sacked in Scotland?
As mentioned earlier this is about raising standards in our officiating that are clearly sub-standard. I personally think this is the worst batch of referees that I have witnessed in my thirty eight years of watching the game.
Finally tonight the final ignominy was the compliance officer wading into the affair. It is as blatant an attempt at deflection as anything else they have done in the last three and a half years. This organisation is clearly dysfunctional for anyone that cares to look; Hampden Park pitch is a joke, three sides of the stadium are as basic as you get with horrific views while the fourth end, where the great and the good sit, seems palatial. The organisation seems to be run by a cabal of individuals who deflect and blame others for their own rank incompetence. Refereeing standards are appalling. The pricing and timing of the semi-finals over the weekend were dreadful ensuring that the stadium was little more than half full on both days. This is our national cup competition for goodness sake but the buffoons have reduced it now to a car boot sale where people wander in, have a look, and leave again. They are utterly hopeless!
StevieBC says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:55 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:33 pm
Phil’s blog on Res 12:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/celtic-send-letter-to-uefa-about-resolution-12/#more-6195
This should be an interesting development. I wonder who’ll be lined-up by the SFA to take the rap over this one?…
________________________________________________
Isn’t Ogilvie due to retire anyway?
Maybe the SFA will use the chance to do some laundry…
(Honest mistake, well intentioned governance… can’t happen again etc.)
My, my, my. Dave King and Level5 must be loving the way events have been distracted from Citadel Ibrox.
You have to hand it to the SFA…..in screwing a rival they assist their love child. Campbell will be well pleased.
Now Uncle Mikes sunk all the readies into his Chelsea property deal,reduced his SD stake to 55%. What odds any interest in Govan? I’d guess the next time he fancies a wee vacation he will be asking for his going away money back.
occam says:
April 21, 2015 at 8:31 pm
________________________________________________
You sir, are a gentleman.
Your team was unquestionably hard done by, and many of your fans feel righteously aggrieved. You all have my heartfelt commiserations.
For myself I see no need for any souring of the cordial relations that have existed between ICT and Celtic (and indeed ICT and every other club in the league) on the back of this.
If this was F1, we’d be talking about a ‘racing incident’.
This was a failure of governance, and not of sporting endeavor by either team imo.
Winning is always our aim, but ‘at any cost’ is not the ICT way I sincerely believe.
I support my clubs decision not to accept the 1 match ban, whatever the outcome of the hearing ( I am not optimistic of the ban being overturned, and am somewhat equivocal as to whether it even should be – now it has been handed down – in view of the clear illegality of the (I believe unintentional) transgression and the obvious advantage we obtained as a result)
But because Josh is a good guy, and he deserves his day in court, if only to go on the record with the truth. As things sit today, he stands accused of ‘deliberately’ cheating.
I believe he has every right to face his accusers and am completely confident that he will provide an honest account of himself when he does so. That is more important than the ultimate outcome in my view.
And I have no wish to see Zaliuskas or any other players indicted by those kangaroos at the SFA, whatever the result on Thursday.
Because that would be silly.
Wottpi at 11.36pm. I agree with you that over a 38 game season that a lot of decisions may or may not even out, but in a one off game that must be decided on the day (extra-time and penalties included) there is no evening out of decisions. If you are handed a bad call, Tough luck.
wottpi says:
April 21, 2015 at 6:16 pm
……………
2:05 in and onwards. Obvious handball according to the commentary.
Can’t recall any hoo ha and major discussions on here re that incident nor any official club complaints or compliance officer involvement.
Funny that!
Compare and contrast
……………
Couple of points to raise on your comment…
1. Compliance officer will have checked with the ref if he had seen incident…if he did but did not deem the action intentional…no punishment would follow
2. I’m pretty sure Derek McInnes would have spoken to the ref after the game…if he did and was given an explanation…then no more is required.
3. Celtic football club did not complain…they simply asked a question
As to hoo ha or discussions…I did not see the game or the highlights previously…so did not know of it…If RD or JC did not ask or given permission to speak to the ref after the game…then the club have merely asked a question to clarify…
It seems a few are getting their knickers knotted that the club dared ask a question….maybe if more clubs asked or challenged decisions we might…just might get better officials
It seems to me too many of our so called top officials get tolerated within their own circles and structures…
The majority of officials in Scotland would not survive in England…why..Sunday would have seen all participating officals demoted for a period of time for an incident that could only be described in one of two ways…dishonest or inept.
The match assesor in England would have had a negative influence on their careers…that does not appear to be the case in Scotland and therefore there seems no fear factor to refs that their position is in threat by poor performance…instead they appear to be promoted?…which means if the SFA drop him…then FIFA drop him..(as the Semi Ref’s badge indicated he is FIFA listed) the SFA would rather have poor performing refs on the FIFA list than none.
On the Celtic/UEFA/SFA Res 12 thing …
As far as we are aware, there was a letter sent to the SFA from Celtic shareholders on Friday asking some new questions about the affair. The letter was copied to Celtic and they were aware of the developments. At this stage, Celtic have NOT written to either the SFA or UEFA on the matter – although we are sure they will be interested to hear the SFA’s response.
Without saying too much more – for it was never intended that news of this development should break so soon – I have to take my hat off to the Res 12 Requisitioners 🙂 Their tenacity has been both focused and relentless.
In other news, the proposed ad in the Sunday Herald is progressing 🙂
The SH have responded to the ad and have raised some constructive points which we are taking on board. Some more talks are required with all interested parties. Hopefully we will have that discussion soon.
I think we need to draw a line under the ref debate. We are entering yet another cycle of debate, and the playing the man tactic is emerging.
I totally subscribe to the “evening out” theorem on refereeing decisions. I also observe the fact that this was a semi final of a cup competition and not a league game. When your luck is out on those occasions there is no possibility for that promised equilibrium to be reached.
For that reason, I think the anguish felt by Celtic fans is more acute than had it been a league match. Consequently I think it would be charitable to cut the Celtic fans a bit of slack on that. I am also aware that at the same stage of the competition last year, Aberdeen were the victims of a shocking decision which cost them their place in the final. My memory is that people were almost – though not quite – as aggrieved about that, and got a fair hearing.
Searching as I do for some balance (and a suitable cuddly nickname), I think it is worth reflecting that the cultural, racial and religious backgrounds of referees should not be a topic for discussion on the occasion of an unfavourable decision (or even a favourable one) – but also that it is not a character defect for football fans to vent a bit when there is a perceived injustice.
I think ICT will grace the final. I hope so too does Josh Meekins. More importantly, no matter the sense of injustice they may have felt, Celtic fans on SFM have overwhelmingly been generous with praise, congratulations and good wishes towards ICT.
Those who think the discussion has found flaws in our community are wrong. It has highlighted our strengths. Please now let us move on.
And another thing about the refs…! 😉
Has anyone seen the lesser spotted SPFL CEO ?
Is he still ‘travelling’, or is he really back in the Hampden bunker ?
What has Doncaster learned from the fixture shambles ?
How has he reached out to affected member clubs ?
What plans are being discussed to ensure this embarrassment is not repeated by the SPFL?
Does the CEO have any message for the paying fans, a.k.a. the customers who pay his wages and bonus ?
[A few wee pointers for Keef… 🙄 ]
The Return of the King – And so it begins…. :slamb: ALERT!
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/walter-smith-king-can-run-rangers-without-sfa-test-1-3750394
sannoffymesssoitizz says:
April 22, 2015 at 2:43 am
The Return of the King – And so it begins…. :slamb: ALERT!
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/walter-smith-king-can-run-rangers-without-sfa-test-1-3750394
==========================================================
And the article finishes with;
“…[Rangers] have got to get up this season,” Smith said.
“…that is where they should be playing for their own sake and that of Scottish football.”
======================
And the churnalist, Lindsay Herron, did not query this assertion.
Merely accepted and regurgitated as fact – although most non-TRFC fans might strongly assert otherwise.
A simple copy/paste job for the Scotsman.
:slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
SFM says:
April 22, 2015 at 12:59 am
In other news, the proposed ad in the Sunday Herald is progressing 🙂
The SH have responded to the ad and have raised some constructive points which we are taking on board. Some more talks are required with all interested parties. Hopefully we will have that discussion soon.
===========================================
That’s good news. I think it’s clear there will be another furious onslaught of media ridicule but that’s par for the course. If anything the debate of recent days has shown that the majority of the Scottish media are so determined to attack the messenger the message itself is often completely missed.
sannoffymesssoitizz says:
April 22, 2015 at 2:43 am
The Return of the King – And so it begins…. :slamb: ALERT!
—————————————
Aye, Walter’s the man with a keen discerning weather eye always ready to spot any dangers heading the way of the Rangers. Perhaps they should get him into some position of authority on the board, from where he could use his great abilities to defend them from…oh wait.
I am not convinced that the Meekings case is a good use of the Compliance Officers time. I am not convinced that cases like this are what was envisaged when the role description was put together. I am convinced that this short term expediency makes our governing bodies look as if they lack moral principles. 😳 I am sure ICT will give a good account of themselves with or without Josh Meekings and that the cup final will be a competitive, enjoyable occasion for both sets of fans.
I might have missed the discussion but is the new Masthead a pre-emptive measure to avoid falling foul of Lord Lyon:?:
Some strong feelings there Bryce Curdy, no doubt you have your own reasons for this. However, the underlying facts are correct and any/all journalists should be subject to scrutiny. SFM says no letter from Celtic FC to SFA or UEFA and Phil MacGhiollabhain says there have been letters sent to both re. Resolution 12/awarding of licence to play in Europe in 2011/12. Phil also dodges a direct question from a poster on his site on this matter. It’s all here: http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/celtic-send-letter-to-uefa-about-resolution-12/
@magicroundabout,
Ha! Very funny. The Lord Lyon is another one who’s ‘inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity’, as my old history teacher used to say (quoting Disraeli on Gladstone).
All else aside, the final should be fun. Sort of thing they could perhaps move to Pittodrie?
I have to say I think the SFA response to cite Meekings is rather a stupid mistake even for them. It is an act of appeasement in my opinion and would not have happened had they been under pressure as a result of the refereeing cock up in the SF.
Will we see the next handball in a game also cited? Given how many have not been cited so far this season I think not.
Its time the Compliance officers role was review and a set of very clear guidelines created for when/how he decides he should act and what type of incidents are within his remit.
It can’t surely be the case that he will bend with the wind and act on anything given enough pressure from within our outwith the SFA.
Going back to incidents like Lennon’s citing for offensive language, the whole system seems very odd and inconsistent.
It also seems to me that this is more evidence of just how weak the leadership within the SFA is, they seem to act to protect themselves before they ever act to protect the game.
Its no wonder referees will lean towards favouring the big teams given the lack of spine within the SFA they are given no protection when the inevitable backlash ensues a bad decision.
It seems we not only need to improve the refereeing, but improve the clarity of the compliance officers role and find someone to lead the SFA with some spine. They can’t govern the game properly if they are quick to crumple in the face of outraged fans and try to offer up a sacrifice to save their own skins.
I think some steps could to be taken to help referees, such as miking them all up to aid communication. I’d happily see use of a TMO for some types of incidents as well. This handball would be a perfect example, if in the slightest doubt of a goal the referee could ask for the TMO to review the replay.
The compliance officer’s role should be reduced in my opinion to cover a short list of types of incidents that are in his remit. We also need a much clearer undertanding f how incidents are brought to his attention – perhaps the only people who should be able to raise complaints should be the 2 clubs involved in each game.