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.
cmontheshire says:
April 23, 2015 at 8:34 am
On the subject of pavement drawings.
You took me back to my childhood in and around the Gorbals where ex-servicemen, usually double leg amputees, used to draw on the pavements and raise a few pennies.
I can still remember how striking their art was but had forgotten it. It could be a trick of memory but I don’t remember scenes of carnage and war but more landscape. I wonder if any of it was ever photographed at the time.
In this day and age it would have survived but I wonder if it’s something that has disappeared. Obviously much later in life I saw street art especially in Argyle Street in the city centre but I knew nothing about the artists.
Whereas the street artists in the Gorbals were known locally and what their service record was which IIRC was from WW1 but again my memory could be playing tricks and perhaps some were WW2.
Eco,
I can’t buy the argument that if the match officials aren’t punished, then the player shouldn’t be punished.
I don’t know what actions can be taken against the match officials, but the consequences for the player seem fair to me, and to Falkirk as well. If the officials had done their job, Meekings wouldn’t be playing (the argument that ICT wouldn’t be playing is another matter).
Again, if the charge was being brought against a Ranger’s player for any of the non-violent sending off offences listed i.e. spitting, abusive language or gestures, I can’t believe that there would be a call for the player to be allowed to play in the final because the officials hadn’t been punished!
melbournedee says:
April 23, 2015 at 10:08 am
—————————–
Agreed melbournedee, subject of course to the ICT/Josh Meekings appeal. My view with the benefit of multiple replays is that I would’ve sent him off for that incident but I’m not a referee. He may persuade the judicial panel that he had no time to react and it really was ‘ball to hand’.
Haud the bus eco.
I am perfectly happy to accept that the officials didn’t see it even if that does cast me in a minority!
I am equally concerned that you feel the officials should be swayed by the reaction of the crowd. If they didn’t see it, they didn’t see it!
Blu,
I’m not sure what form the appeal will take, if it is solely to query the actual decision, ball to hand etc, or whether it is to query Meekings singular very very isolated case being cited by the compliance officer. Certainly Yogi has said he would go armed with a list of similar cases that were not cited and would seek explanation.
Not another list!
Melbourne Dee,
I accept your point but ask (I presume, having not heard it that this was the shouty debate re rules last night) again show me the other instances where an offence of this nature as opposed to a violent conduct one, or a deliberate preconceived ‘cheating’ offence like a dive, or feigning injury leading to a sending off has been cited previously?
melbournedee says:
April 23, 2015 at 10:08 am
I find myself posting a viewpoint that seems to be against the majority view:
I’m baffled by all the support on (T)SFM for ICT and Meekings.
I am not sure why you are baffled if you have been reading the site – like some of us from RTC days? The problem is not the rules per-se but the way in which they are used and/or interpreted – when are they ever applied consistently or sometimes even logically. That is the real problem with Scottish Football and the administrators (using the term loosely) that we have in place at the moment.
Ask the question: If the “handball” had been by a Celtic player do you really think our administrators would have taken this step? A possibility but the likelihood is not. Nothing against Celtic whatsoever because if I were a Celtic supporter I would have been as annoyed as any of them on the day at how the (5)officials missed the action. Even Meekins confirmed his move was instinctive and he handled and expected to walk, but he didn’t and as RD has said these things (referees decisions) even themselves out over the season – so let’s move on!!!
On a different issue just compare the treatment of Livingstone and Rangers with regard late payment of taxes, dual ownership etc. The efforts to parachute a club into the SPL or First Division after a liquidation event (compared to what happened to Gretna and others), and the lack of any subsequent action on the shambles, 5 loan players, and precious little working capital at Ibrox when other teams would have been fined, deducted points, relegated or kicked out of existence. The promised Armageddon that never came etc etc.
Your point about the rules is understood, but it is the interpretation and enforcement (or lack of enforcement) by our administrators which is the real problem that is tearing Scottish Football apart.
As I posted yesterday, and before, I just wish all of the clubs who are interested in a level playing field, transparency, and efficient administration would get up complain and make themselves heard. Only they, the clubs, as members can force change at the top.
I really hope the administrators drop the case and, for once, use common sense; but I fear in their case common sense is not always common. I think everyone wants to see a real festive/family occasion on the day of the final and a great game – with Meekins playing. I hope ICT and Falkirk serve up an occasion to prove Scottish Football is alive and well.
We still need a strong Arbroath and East Fife though!
Fisiani says:
April 23, 2015 at 5:55 am
I hear that ICT have decided to state that they will play Meekings in the starting 11 in the Cup Final and dare the SFA to award the final to Falkirk no matter the result. This is the nuclear option and one that will produce a backdown from the SFA before the final.
============================
That’s a nice, romantic notion. However, surely the referee would not accept the team lines from ICT if Meekings, known to be on a (high-profile) suspension, was listed? If they missed it (surely not!), ICT deliberately listing a banned player would lead to forfeiture of the match & possibly subsequent suspension from the Scottish Cup for several years. Indeed, think of the Bairns & how they would feel.
Tricky beggars, those two, rules & integrity…
Many moons ago, I was responsible for choosing colour schemes for renovated tenement stairs in Edinburgh. A nightmare job. Anything based on green or maroon was obviously out, as there would be guaranteed to be at least one Jambo or Hibee is any stair who would raise an objection. Blue (or orange)-based tones were similarly ruled out. Too much red looked like an abbatoir. Yellow or white weren’t practical at hiding scuff marks. Grey with highlights in purple generally flew under the radar of criticism (with fingers crossed that there wasn’t a flat owner who had a thing against Anderlecht or Fiorentina).
So for the new logo, might I suggest 50 shades of grey? That can’t have any unfortunate associations, surely?
Smugas says:
April 23, 2015 at 10:54 am
Haud the bus eco.
I am equally concerned that you feel the officials should be swayed by the reaction of the crowd. If they didn’t see it, they didn’t see it!
—————————————————
I don’t think I said that but if you advise me of the post then I’ll check.
My recollection is that I didn’t say they should be swayed by the crowd but that they might have wondered why the crowd had erupted. Didn’t the ref do a quick check over the radio?
However if you let me have the offending post details as I say I’ll check and, if necessary, make the appropriate correction.
EDIT:
Indeed didn’t he do a quick check after celtic players complained to him. And that’s the problem IMO with the Compliance Officer becoming involved.
I see it as a clear attempt by the SFA to deflect because Celtic asked for an explanation. The SFA are unable to provide a believeable explanation and have chosen to crucify the player. Well that doesn’t wash with me – just the usual keep it in-house cover-up in operation.
melbournedee says:
April 23, 2015 at 10:08 am
In many respects I sympathise with the spirit of your argument. The Compliance Officer is acting within the rules, and the rules have been agreed with all the clubs.
But.
There are two issues, as I see it:
First is the principle of retrospective punishment for offences of this kind. Its a bit like the RIPA laws being used to spy on parents that local authorities believe may be sending their kids to the “wrong” schools. Within the letter of the rules, yes, but, leaves a very nasty taste in the mouths of most of the citizenry.
The second issue, cuts to the heart of the problems faced by Scottish Football in general, and the SFA in particular. Very few fans, (and I suspect quite a percentage of club officials), have any confidence in the SFA’s ability, or even the SFA’s intention, to apply the rules its supposed to enforce, in a fair and even handed manner.
Frankly, until the second issue is resolved, Scottish Football has SFA chance of making any progress on anything.
melbournedee says:
April 23, 2015 at 10:08 am
I find myself posting a viewpoint that seems to be against the majority view:
I’m baffled by all the support on (T)SFM for ICT and Meekings.
—————————————————————
Taking your viewpoint to it’s logical conclusion, then any issue that a referee doesn’t make a decision** upon is open to charges being brought by the SFA. I am all for that when it comes to violent play and simulation where players careers are potentially put on the line through thuggery and for blatant cheating, that we all hate, to get that stamped out.
Handballs etc could fall under the blanket of the MacLennan and his ilk, but do you really want every such situation to be challenged? I’d bet every game could in theory throw up something that could fall under this blanket. We could reach the stage where teams have problems finding enough players if bans are going to be hurled about willy-nilly!! F1 for all its insanely dull problems has a name for it “a racing incident”, no blame can be attached to the driver, sometimes it just happens. Any blame in the footballing sense can only lie with the officials who failed to spot and/or act on these issues. Indeed there was at least one more incident on Sunday that should be every bit as much a compliance issue as the handball – and yet nothing on that.
If the SFA really want to do this then the only possible outcome would be complete chaos, and expensive chaos at that, every club down at Hampden every week representing one player or another. It wouldn’t be one compliance officer either, they’d have to hire more to cope! I don’t imagine the other FA’s around the world will be thrilled at whats going on either!
**although to my mind a decision was made, and that decision was, for whatever reason, that the referee could not award a penalty – the wrong decision, but a decision all the same. I realise that makes me very unpopular with some here.
JC you have a wee PM Re:Pharmacist.
That was my take on what you said ecobhoy, I’d imagine that referees would take account of the level of reaction from players – and a number Celtic players close to the incident did react strongly, but referees probably follow the Louis Heren philosophy of, “Why is this lying bastard lying to me?” because that’s where we are with professional football.
We have had a Compliance Officer for 4 years, I think. Over that period, how many goal line handballs have been missed by the officials, but caught on camera? There must have been a fair number, so why no action until now? What is so special about this case? After all these incidents are all pretty much the same.
If the Compliance Officer’s role is to ensure consistent application of the rules in an independent manner, then I’m all for it.
However, if his job is to cherrypick cases at the instigation of Hampden Hierarchy, then I’m totally opposed.
Does anyone really believe that the Compliance Officer has acted independently in this matter?
Tartanwulver says:
April 23, 2015 at 11:23 am
__________________________
TW, I worked in RBS HO when FG was still there and my mate was in overall charge of the branch at South Gyle when the Exec were still close by, so visited occasionally. The branch was being refurbed and my mate had learnt that one of FG’s foibles (yet another!) was that he didn’t like grey. After painting and ahead of any possible visit by FG, my mate was calling all his staff mates into the branch and desperately asking them “That’s mushroom, isn’t it? You would call that shade mushroom, wouldn’t you?!!” Your ‘grey’ story reminded me of how I found that funny. Sorry for OT.
My thoughts on the TSFM logo thing. I agree that Monitor, Enquirer etc don’t suggest a sense of action which is what we need to see change. Imo RTC and TSFM were founded on a feeling of action against corruption given the SFA and SMSM’s handling of the various Rangers-related issues over the years (and I appreciate that continues with Auldheid’s Resolution 12 work). However, I don’t believe we should use Corruption in our title for a few reasons:-
1. On here, corruption alleged against the football authorities tends still to surround Rangers (allowing the loan players, probably allowing DCK etc) and if we are (eventually) to be a site for all fans, Corruption has too many adverse connotations for them to come on board.
2. I’m not convinced that the reasons we want the authorities out are all about corruption. Some of them are, but I think it’s becoming more and more obvious with every decision they make that they’re simply inept, self serving, weak, greedy, scared and simply don’t understand the sense of fairness that we are actually looking for. The scheduling of the Hearts-Rangers game; the deflection/closing ranks of the Meekings case are just stupid, greedy, out of touch people trying to protect themselves.
3. My management career (such as it was!) taught me that ‘toward’ motivation is stronger than’away-from’ motivation, so our title/aims shouldn’t be anti-corruption, but more positively aimed toward what we want.
For that reason, I think the word that deserves inclusion is Fairness – that is what I want to see delivered for all clubs in the pyramid. (NB I considered Integrity, Honesty etc, but none of them fitted into a slogan/logo easily.) Here’s my thought – how about Scotland’s Football Fans for Fairness? For the logo, it shortens to S4F, where the 4 Fs are the words in the slogan, but the logo could also be read with the 4 as ‘for’ so that it’s just Scotland’s for fairness. As you can tell, my management career wasn’t in Marketing but, hey, anyone can make a suggestion, right?
Apparently ICT believe that a Meekings appeal should be successful. It’s just a classical attempted two week deflection technique by the SFA to take the heat off the refereeing scandal and hope the current anger settles down. In the event of the appeal being unsuccessful they are prepared to issue the nuclear option of giving advance notice that he will play in the Final. Referees are not issued with lists of suspended players. They are handed a team sheet and have no grounds to exclude a player. The game would have to be played and UEFA would be interested in the aftermath. I call it nuclear because it effectively ignores an SFA ruling thus challenging the very legitimacy of the SFA. Add in the multiple “honest mistakes” and first leg red cards and penalties that will surely happen to ensure a certain team gets through 4 or 6 playoff games and into the Premiership and the contempt for the SFA will sweep through decent Scotland. Further contaminate the scene with the UEFA response to resolution 12 at the same time and the ruling body would be destroyed.
Alternatively the SFA could accept the appeal and let the innocent player take part in the final and hope that thae honest mistakes are not too blatant and that UEFA will stay silent. This is the football equivalent of mutually agreed destruction and I reckon the SFA would blink first.
nawlite says:
April 23, 2015 at 12:09 pm
As long as your mate didn’t make off with Fred’s biscuits
ecobhoy says:
April 23, 2015 at 11:26 am
Smugas says:
April 23, 2015 at 10:54 am
Haud the bus eco.
I am equally concerned that you feel the officials should be swayed by the reaction of the crowd. If they didn’t see it, they didn’t see it!
———————————————————–
I don’t think I said that but if you advise me of the post then I’ll check.
My recollection is that I didn’t say they should be swayed by the crowd but that they might have wondered why the crowd had erupted. Didn’t the ref do a quick check over the radio?
————————————————-
I’ve checked back and 2 days ago found the undernoted post. It accords with my recollection that I didn’t say what you think I said and which has ‘concerned’ you.
However if I did say what you suggest anywhere I’ll be happy to check it out and set your ‘concern’ to rest if you identify the post.
And they must have been equally mystified as to why the Celtic players were demanding a penalty for a hand-ball. I suppose it all depends what planet you’re on.
neepheid says:
April 23, 2015 at 8:42 am
I am surprised at the public silence on this issue so far from Hibs, for example. They need to follow the lead from ICT and make their concerns public. I reckon that cracks are finally starting to appear in the Hampden bunker. If enough clubs express well founded concerns in public, then we just might see the long-awaited clearout that the game so badly needs.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Alas, Hibs are badly hampered on this front due to Rod Petrie, who is embedded with the cabal at Hampden and desires further advancement there. No boat rocking from him on the SFA front.
I don’t think it would. We already know that rule-breaking isn’t rule-breaking until it’s discovered, and can’t be back-dated – so all Inverness would need to do would be to hand a team sheet without Meekings on it and jobs a good’un!
Eco,
Thank you for checking back. I regret I haven’t had time today so apologies for that.
Yes the officials, all five, would have been wondering why the crowd were going mental. Yes they should be wondering why the celtic players were going mental AND yes, they should be thinking dangnabbit, it looks/sounds like I’ve missed something here which will may well have some kind of disciplinary repercussions FOR ME.
Should they allow it to cloud their judgement the next time there’s a 50:50 shout for something? Should they feel pressured that they have to ‘give’ a decision, rather than make a decision not to award/agree with the claim if they have insufficient evidence, or an alternative viewpoint to do so?
Absolutely positively unequivocally not!
Nawlite@ 12.09 pm
………..
And that’s a pretty fair suggestion.
However, I have grued for many years now at the use of 4 for ‘for’.
It is text shorthand, I know: but only four people whose ears canny distinguish the sound of ‘fawr’ from the sound of ‘fore’,, as sounded in Scotlanf.
I have my little foibles, too!
Gabby says:
April 23, 2015 at 10:19 am
Caley Thistle hae already changed the game forever. We were the ones responsible for abolishing the 10 000 seat stadia rule
============================================
While that was no doubt a good thing (half the team in the top league do not need 10,000+) and no doubt in football terms Inverness deserved promotion, the downside to that was that the rules were changed WITHIN the season. That is, a media campaign (and the fact that the real Thistle were sh**e that year) led to rules being changed so Inverness didn’t require the 10000 stadium and could be promoted. That should have happened between seasons.
I should point out that two season’s back when PTFC were in a promotion race with Airdrie and were rebuilding part of their stadium to meet the 10,000 seat requirement, they asked for the March deadline to be delayed as the work had fallen a little behind. They would still have been able to complete well before the start of a new season.
This was denied – causing extra expense via overtime to the club in order to make the deadline – the club being told that the rules could not be changed or ameliorated in the slightest. Only later the same club was relegated, being told that the rules COULD be changed mid-season if it suited the current climate. Even then they had the ridiculous situation of the vote on this being taken twice as the “right” result wasn’t obtained the first time.
It will be very obvious from this what club I support but it’s just because of that I remember a blatant example of rule bending which many others have forgotten.
For those who are mystified as to why the Compliance Officer got involved
He is only following through on the Bryson rule that an offence isn`t an offence until its discovered retrospectivel
The Meekins involvement sets the precedent nicely for honest mistakes etc being used to ensure TRFC get promoted
i.e.
Mock outrage after the play off final and disciplinary penalties applied retrospectively to TRFC players who are not having their contracts renewed
in any event
Watch this space
At the foot of Phil ‘ s latest blog he mentions Res12 and a letter to UEFA.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/amicable-discussions-and-plausible-deniability/
The post at
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=17243&cpage=1#comment-2555317
clarifies the position further.
It’s all grist to the same mill folks. Res12 is on the move.
smugas @1.22pm
‘….should they allow it to cloud their judgement….’
—
Prescinding (oh, how I love that word!) from the immediate dispute between you and ecobhoy, it is now observed matter-of-factly by BBC Radio Scotland commentators that the referee will compensate for errors made in the course of a game.
That this level of cynicism should exist at all is disgraceful.
That it should be entirely justified is a severe indictment of the inability/unwillingness of the SFA to bring the functioning of referees more stringently under control.
It is no longer enough to assume that all referees are honest men.
There have been too many recent examples of anything but impartiality on the part of what were once regarded as some of our best referees.
Having had time to reflect on the Meekings incident, I was surprised at the difference in my own reaction.
If I compare it to the Thierry Henry incident, [intentions may be different, but outcome the same], I was shouting and screaming at the TV, and almost foaming at the mouth ! I was so annoyed.
Yet, when I saw the Meekings incident against my own team, I was more outraged at the officials – and I found myself having sympathy for Meekings when it transpired he was being charged and could miss the Final.
Why the difference in reaction ?
OK, I’m 5 years older and wiser [?] since the Henry incident, but this time I think it’s the ‘consistent inconsistency’ displayed by the SFA, [and their own referees], that irritates me now.
I am probably happier that another ‘wee’ team gets a chance to win a big trophy, than CFC getting that treble, [so that probably marks me down as not a proper CFC fan].
The whole Meekings thing could be yet another ‘inconsistency’ which comes back to bite the SFA on the bum – and there are quite a few inconsistencies piling up now.
Court of Session for an appeal anyone ?
“Missing The X Factor? Watch Glasgow hopefuls sing at Ibrox audition”
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/u/x-factor-auditions-begin-at-ibrox-stadium-in-glasgow.1429782996
=====================================
IMO, I really don’t think they’ll find the ‘X’ factor at Ibrox.
That disappeared from the stadium a long, long time ago.
I’ll get my microphone… 😉
GoosyGoosy says:
April 23, 2015 at 2:42 pm
For those who are mystified as to why the Compliance Officer got involved
He is only following through on the Bryson rule that an offence isn`t an offence until its discovered retrospectively.
The Meekins involvement sets the precedent nicely for honest mistakes etc being used to ensure TRFC get promoted
i.e.
Mock outrage after the play off final and disciplinary penalties applied retrospectively to TRFC players who are not having their contracts renewed
in any event. Watch this space.
————————————————————
Best explanation I’ve heard yet 😆
Auldheid says:
April 23, 2015 at 3:29 pm
…
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/amicable-discussions-and-plausible-deniability/
========================================
If Murray and Gilligan were at SD to ask for more money to buy them more time, then as a sign of good faith – and to add some credibility – you would think that the TRFC ‘saviour in waiting’ could have attended, [in his role as keen investor] ?
King is chomping at the bit to splurge his/his childrens’ cash on TRFC, but is just waiting for the nod from the SFA, apparently.
But King didn’t bother to jet in.
And Ashley didn’t bother to waste his own time listening to the TRFC pitch either…
Doesn’t look very encouraging for the bears.
StevieBC@3.44 pm
‘…..the thierry henri incident..’
—–
And me just going to my bed (12.55 a.m.in Brisbane), you mention that cheat of cheats!
Thanks a bunch!
And may his va va boom fly up the cheating b’s a.se, and may his ‘success’ turn to ashes in his mouth.
May he as an old man , like that 91 year old SS man currently on trial as a war criminal, never have
emotional peace and quietude of such soul as he possesses.
To have sunk so low, with all the talent he had!
StevieBC says:
April 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm
I rather think DCK is PNG at Fortress Ashley
EDIT
Can we please nail this canard about DCK not being able to splurge the cash until he gets the FPP nod from the Blazerattie? There are no impediments, none, zero, to DCK splurging on RIFC right now.
There are any number of reasons as to why he isn’t, but none of them have anything to do with the SFA declaring him a FPP. The FPP nonsense is about being a director, not about, investing, loaning or otherwise burning his kid’s inheritance. As excuses go, its a load of pish
scapaflow says:
April 23, 2015 at 4:22 pm
StevieBC says:
April 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm
I rather think DCK is PNG at Fortress Ashley
==========================================================
I think Ashley might have been intrigued if King turned up at his office – and the bottom line is that King – allegedly – does have deep pockets.
Don’t know about Gilligan’s wealth.
But Murray’s pockets only contained a few coppers, a used tissue and an old Curly Wurly wrapper – allegedly. 🙄
Jim Spence was tweeting about points penalties for insolvency events earlier. Have these changed again? Didn’t know that points penalties affected two seasons.
PS @Auldheid, good to know everyone is pulling in the same direction. Was a bit puzzled by the mixed messages.
scapaflow says:
April 23, 2015 at 4:22 pm
StevieBC says:
April 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm
…
EDIT
Can we please nail this canard about DCK not being able to splurge the cash until he gets the FPP nod fro the Blazerattie? There is no impediments, none, zero, to DCK splurging on RIFC right now…
==================================
Agreed absolutely !
That’s why I stuck ‘apparently’ at the end of the sentence.
Apologies for being too subtle. 😕
StevieBC says:
April 23, 2015 at 4:35 pm
Sorry StevieBC, it is just that this pernicious bollocks really gets on my goat
“Sons of Struth calls for kit boycott: Don’t buy new Rangers tops unless board can loosen Mike Ashley’s vice-like grip
“We understand fans have lost trust with Ashley, his appointed directors and Sport Direct and we would recommend a new deal which is fairer to Rangers as this would go some way to restore sales to a normal level and be mutually beneficial.
…
“With the obvious ongoing discussions we would ask fans to consider holding off any kit purchases until the talks are concluded…”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/sons-struth-calls-kit-boycott-5570264
======================================================
That might get Ashley’s attention.
But you have to laugh: after the RFC/TRFC boycotts of other clubs for various ‘perceived misdemeanours’ the bears are now boycotting their own club – yet again.
“Scotzine @scotzine 15m15 minutes ago
Disciplinary tribunal dismiss the charge against Josh Meekings and the defender is now free to play in the cup final.
”
I’m not sure that this really helps the situation anyway, would have been better for SFA to withdraw the charge
scapaflow says:
April 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm
“Scotzine @scotzine 15m15 minutes ago
Disciplinary tribunal dismiss the charge against Josh Meekings and the defender is now free to play in the cup final.
”
I’m not sure that this really helps the situation anyway, would have been better for SFA to withdraw the charge
==========================================
And for consistency [!] the SFA IMO should issue a statement re: the ref and the match officials’ roles in the match – and what happens next to avoid a recurrence.
A refresher course/training, and/or temporary demotion ?
There’s a fantastic article on Borussia Dortmund posted today on The Offshore Game webpage.
https://www.theoffshoregame.net/profit-loss-dortmund-insurance/
StevieBC says:
April 23, 2015 at 5:52 pm
scapaflow says:
April 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm
“Scotzine @scotzine 15m15 minutes ago
Disciplinary tribunal dismiss the charge against Josh Meekings and the defender is now free to play in the cup final.
”
I’m not sure that this really helps the situation anyway, would have been better for SFA to withdraw the charge
==========================================
And for consistency [!] the SFA IMO should issue a statement re: the ref and the match officials’ roles in the match – and what happens next to avoid a recurrence.
A refresher course/training, and/or temporary demotion ?
———————————————————–
All of the above plus a clarification as to how/why the Compliance Officer became involved in the first place.
And possibly an answer to Celtic as to what actually happened on Sunday from the officials’ point of view 🙄
Methilhill Stroller says:
April 23, 2015 at 11:04 am
Ask the question: If the “handball” had been by a Celtic player do you really think our administrators would have taken this step? A possibility but the likelihood is not.
=============================
This seems to indicate your belief that Celtic would have received special treatment. I’m curious to know why you think this. Have there been any cases where it has happened that Celtic have received misplaced lenient treatment from the game’s administrators?
I always thought the opposite to be true.
So much still has to come out on the Meekings case that we need to know – and by we, I don’t mean Celtic or Celtic fans, but all of us. As far as I’m concerned, the Compliance Officer’s involvement was just a fabrication so they could say none of the officials saw anything. Answers to these simple questions would help.
1. What DID the officials see?
2. Was there any discussion between them as to why the Celtic players and fans in the ground were in uproar? Are recordings kept of in-game conversations?
3. Why did the Compliance Officer become involved in this decision when there are any number of other cases (not necessarily handball) over recent years where he could have – but didn’t – become involved?
4. Was his involvement prompted by Celtic’s letter to the SFA asking for clarification?
5. What are the reasons for the case being dismissed by the review panel? I.e. Did they think it wasn’t handball? Did they accept it wasn’t deliberate?
6. Did Mr Boyce’s ‘personal’ view and the possibility of UEFA involvement affect the review panel’s decision?
7. Will the SFA now respond to Celtic’s request for clarification?
I’m sure there are others, but that’s just off the top of my head in three minutes.
Adeste Fideles says:
April 23, 2015 at 5:56 pm
There a fantastic article on Borussia Dortmund posted today on The Offshore Game webpage.
https://www.theoffshoregame.net/profit-loss-dortmund-insurance/
——————————————————————–
That is indeed a fascinating story. Of course insurance at its very base is simply gambling. It might be cloaked in all sorts of mumbo-jumbo (aka statistical consideration of risk factors) but there’s little difference.
However I’m intrigued by the comment: ‘Such contracts are banned in the UK for obvious reasons’.
I assume the ‘obvious reasons’ is the possibility that sporting integrity could be affected.
But if these contracts aren’t illegal under German law nor presumably under the German FA Rules then I don’t see how they can be banned in the rest of the EEC as that would appear to be a restraint to competition.
That doesn’t mean I agree that clubs should be allowed to use such contracts but it seems to me it has to be open to all or open to none.
ecobhoy says: “All of the above plus a clarification as to how/why the Compliance Officer became involved in the first place.”
honest mistake ??
I’ve just seen the BBC report on Meekings being cleared to play in the final (I’m pleased for him), but now I’m more confused than ever. The BBC report says “But it is understood the independent panel took into consideration that the referee and his other officials had seen the incident.” My understanding was that the Compliance Officer could only become involved if the officials hadn’t seen the incident and, further, part of the justification for the Compliance Officer citing Meekings was that the officials themselves claimed not to have seen it.
nawlite says:
April 23, 2015 at 6:23 pm
It raises more issues than it resolves for the wider game rather than simply the cup final.
I think you’ve probably got most of them but wrt: ‘6. Did Mr Boyce’s ‘personal’ view and the possibility of UEFA involvement affect the review panel’s decision?’ I posted this time last night that Boyce was quoted on BBC TV News IIRC that a ‘decision’ had been taken so basically that was an end of the matter.
So was a decision taken or is he just another buffoon who opens his mouth in a knee-jerk support of refs. As I pointed out last night – if the BBC had pointed out to him that there wasn’t a ‘decision’ would he have contradicted that there was or changed his position?
Of course perhaps the decision was that no one saw anything and I’m afraid that this is one that can’t be laid to rest until some facts are supplied to answer some very basic questions that fans have the right to ask and to receive answers.
I wonder whether the Celtic reply will be one line or two?
I know Lunny isn’t SFA anymore but even he said at the time “The very fact that the action has been raised is confirmation that all six match officials missed it and the fact that the compliance officer thinks it is a sending-off offence suggests that the referee has got it wrong, but the panel should be left to come to their decision on their own without any other external pressures.” STV Sport’s report described it as “The only time a handball offence will be taken up by the compliance officer is when it has been an act which has denied a goal or goal scoring opportunity. And, crucially, if none of the match officials have seen the contact with the hand.” SO prior to the review meeting today, everyone seemed to be taking the view that all the officials had missed seeing the handball, but today the panel clears him because the officials HAD seen it and decided it wasn’t a penalty, presumably because they deemed it not deliberate – which, by the way I agree with. We need to know which of these is the truth.
nawlite says:
April 23, 2015 at 6:23 pm
=============================
My view all along has been the previous expectation that Meekings would have lost his appeal would have rubber stamped that the officials saw nothing and they were all officially in the clear.
I have nothing against Josh Meekings and I’m really pleased for him he is now clear to play in the Cup final. However he himself admitted what happened, as did his Manager, as did every sports journalist, as did every ex Referee who was asked for a comment. Penalty and red card without a doubt. Meekings also (unwisely in my view) used social media to confirm he knew he had a major let off.
Yet now we are being told he did NOT deliberately handle the ball, and that every single person who has previously commented is wrong. So it wasn’t a penalty then, and the Ref was absolutely right? Is that what they are saying? I am as confused as I am hacked off at how Scottish football is governed.
Even more baffled if what some of you guys are saying is true and the SFA have told Meekings and his club that this incident wasn’t dealt with at the time because none of the officials believed it was deliberate.
So the story they’ve ran for the last half a week was, as many of us suspected, a sheer fabrication.
HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH THIS STUFF?
Because our clubs let them. Not this time Celtic.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/a-dangerous-game/
James, I honestly believe it could be instinctive rather than accidental. I’ve done it myself – playing in a local amateur cup final, I went to the edge of the box to close down a cross from the wing. I was absolutely adamant that the ball struck me on the arm and I hadn’t moved toward it, but a pen was given. All my teammates told me afterward that I had clearly moved to pat the ball down yet I know I didn’t mean to! (We still won 3-2!)
upthehoops says:
April 23, 2015 at 6:54 pm
nawlite says:
April 23, 2015 at 6:23 pm
=============================
My view all along has been the previous expectation that Meekings would have lost his appeal would have rubber stamped that the officials saw nothing and they were all officially in the clear.
I have nothing against Josh Meekings and I’m really pleased for him he is now clear to play in the Cup final. However he himself admitted what happened, as did his Manager, as did every sports journalist, as did every ex Referee who was asked for a comment. Penalty and red card without a doubt. Meekings also (unwisely in my view) used social media to confirm he knew he had a major let off.
Yet now we are being told he did NOT deliberately handle the ball, and that every single person who has previously commented is wrong. So it wasn’t a penalty then, and the Ref was absolutely right? Is that what they are saying? I am as confused as I am hacked off at how Scottish football is governed.
,,,,,,,,
Nope
Its not about whether or not an offence was committed
Its about the definition of the offence
What we are being told is that the Bryson Rule required the offence to be reported because it was discovered after the match by the Compliance Officer
However
The same Bryson rule requires no punishment to be handed out
Because
Punishment are only handed out for offences that are spotted by the Compliance Officer DURING the match (and he decides whether or not he saw it during or after the match )
Or put another way
The Compliance Officer has to report all offences
Those he picks up during the match are punished
Those he picks up after the match are not punished
,,,,,,,,,,,,
Just like the side letters nonsense
No knowledge of an offence for 10 yrs means no punishment is appropriate But If it continues after being brought to the attention of officialdom it becomes a punishable offence
What a wheeze
Could only have been dreamt up by an expert Administrator
StevieBC says:
April 23, 2015 at 5:52 pm
what happens next to avoid a recurrence.
————————————————–
There will be another such incident along very shortly.
If you scour the internet you will probably be able to find one this very weekend somewhere in the world, maybe not in Scotland but that will happen soon enough.
That’s what happens when you are in a live fast speed sporting environment when split second decisions are made.
Currently there is no mechanism in our game to allow officials to stop the game and have a conflab about what each other saw debate all the possibilities, talk about who was best placed to see anything, argue about potentials and possibilities and thus make a decision etc etc. The nature of football is that the game flows and you play to the whistle.
I still say watch the BBC highlights in real time and tell me hand on heart (without sneaking a peak at the replays) if you can determine where the ball struck Meekings.
Then take account the angles in which the ref and the official behind the goal see the incident from. These angles are different from the all players. The far side linesman (not seen in the camera shot) most likely has his view blocked by Griffiths so can’t make the call. Similarly the nearside linesman and forth official in the technical area are not going to make a call when three of their colleagues are closer to the incident.
Indeed the fourth official may not even have been watching the game as he has other duties to attend to and the nearside linesman may have been scanning the field for off the ball incidents and potential players positions for a counter attack he would have to pay attention to as opposed to focussing in on the action where the ball was.
Therefore talk of multiple officials ‘missing’ the incident is stretching it.
It comes down to the ref and the official behind the goal.
In my view the guy behind the goal is looking in a manner that Meekings’ body is most likely obscuring what his arm and hand is doing. The ball strikes Meekings hand at head height so the official has difficulty knowing what part of the body the ball hit, especially as Meekings’ head moves in a manner that he has headed the ball.
The ref has a similar angle but from the other side and further away. He can see Meekings’ arm but because it is raised in direct line with the player’s body (from the refs viewpoint) and the hand hits the ball at head height with the aforementioned heading motion from the Meekings he cannot make the distinction between handball and header.
The ref, in that split second must then make a call. IMHO he can’t be sure what part of the body the ball struck, therefore does not automatically and immediately blow his whistle.
His first reaction is to look to the official behind the goal for help. No reaction. Next he looks to the far side linesman. Again no reaction – flag firmly down. The ref and officials are going to dismiss the reaction of the Celtic players because the ref will be programmed to avoid making decisions based on player reactions, knowing that some would sell their granny to gain an advantage. He has probably been bitten far too many times before as he worked his way up the ranks.
Similarly the officials can’t make decisions based on crowd reaction, where would that take us!!
IMHO the issue comes down to what the two officials saw from their positions at the point of impact. Despite all the other evidence showing it clearly was hand ball that’s all that matters at the exact time of the incident.
Like Juror Number 8 I believe that the above is a possibility that needs to be considered before reaching a verdict.
Don’t disagree with that, WOTTPI, but the ref is now saying (from the BBC report)”Steven McLean had explained he had sought the advice of Alan Muir – the official behind the goal – and was told by him that he thought the ball had struck the defender’s head.” This conflicts with the initial comments from the officials and the authorities and also brings into question the Compliance Officer’s involvement because his role is only when the officials haven’t seen an incident. So was the original story the truth or is Mclean’s report today the truth. Can anyone believe that before citing Meekings, the Compliance Officer wouldn’t have spoken to the officials as to whether or not they had seen the incident and made a decision on the pitch? Something fishy, despite the ultimate right answer on Meekings imo.
James Forrest says:
April 23, 2015 at 6:56 pm
Even more baffled if what some of you guys are saying is true and the SFA have told Meekings and his club that this incident wasn’t dealt with at the time because none of the officials believed it was deliberate.
So the story they’ve ran for the last half a week was, as many of us suspected, a sheer fabrication.
HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH THIS STUFF?
============================================
In my view because the media will not countenance a debate without first demanding that those asking questions accept 100% that it is impossible for a Scottish Referee to act out of bias. The debate is normally reduced to Celtic fans believing there are regular large gatherings of people in secret locations conspiring against the club – well I don’t believe too many Celtic fans actually think that is the case. What I DO believe though is that most fans of all clubs believe most match officials take to the field to do their level best to be fair. I also believe the same fans are sensible enough to realise you can never rule out bias in any situation. History shows that official cover ups are part and parcel of the British way of life. That is not to say that Steven McLean or any other official acted out of bias last Sunday. However I am unwilling to be told by people from an Industry who call Politicians liars every day, that it it physically impossible that a Scottish Referee COULD act out of bias, and MAY also have done, even in recent history.
I posted earlier about Boyce and his statement that there had been ‘a Decision’. Looks as though he could indeed have been told that a decision had been made at the time and that’s why he was so adamant about the issue.
So how does the Compliance Officer get involved – does no one tell him that a Decision was reached – presumably by the ref although there is nothing in this incident that can be taken at face value IMO.
Was the incident mentioned in the referee’s match report?
Some transparency at an early stage could have taken the heat out of the controversy – it wouldn’t have removed it totally but it would have helped. It’s now too late for that and the confusion and mystery has now become entrenched and nothing coming out of Hampden will be believed.
So what’s new? Absolutely nothing! It’s business as usual.
Danish Pastry says:
April 23, 2015 at 4:33 pm
Jim Spence was tweeting about points penalties for insolvency events earlier. Have these changed again? Didn’t know that points penalties affected two seasons.
========================================================
Yep, all change, only one season before but across two now it would seem…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32436839
nawlite says:
April 23, 2015 at 6:39 pm
___________________________________________
To necessitate a ruling by the DP, the incident would have to have been missed at the time.
I have a theory:
The officials that were well placed to spot the handball did not see the incident – so THEY did not rule on the incident.
The officials that were less well placed did see the incident and thought it had come off his chest, and THEY ruled that it was no foul, and so took no took no action.
Since the incident was ajudged on (incorrectly) by an official at the time, rather than ‘missed’, the DP should not rule again (double jeopardy).
I can imagine something along the lines of the following:
Phone call Monday am:
Compliance Officer: ‘Did you see the handball?’
Match OfficialX : ‘No. I did not’
Intigates proceedings: Issues retrospective Red Card for incident that was not judged upon during the match by the match officials.
Disciplinary panel Thursday :
Disciplinary Panel: ‘Did you see the alleged incident at the time?’
Match OfficialX: ‘ Yes I did.’
Disciplinary panel:’ Then why did you take no action?’
Match OfficialX: ‘ I thought it had struck his chest’
Disciplinary Panel:’ But you told the compliance officer you didn’t see the handball?’
Match OfficalX : ‘ Yes. I saw the incident, but I didn’t see the ‘handball’, because I thought it had struck him on the chest.
Compliance Officer:’FFS!’
Disciplinary Panel:’Case dismissed’
My indignation wrt ‘Handballgate’ has subsided, and I agree that Meekings would have been hard done to in missing the final.
Regarding the officials, seems a stick on for a future Specsavers advert!
I can picture it, RLD – Carry on Compliance! Ffs indeed.
Pants on fire …….. That is all 😥
On the subject of changes to sanctions in the event of insolvency can anyone explain what is meant by
“Insolvency events that are part of the same insolvency process would be treated as a single deductible insolvency event”
In my naivety I had assumed an “insolvency event” was a one off – what “events” (plural) would count as part of the same process ❓
I know what I’m thinking here but assume I’m just being paranoid…
http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-general-meeting/
parttimearab says:
April 23, 2015 at 8:26 pm
_______________________________________________
Suppose RIFC Ltd. went into administration. The liquidator moves in and 1 week later liquidates TRFC Ltd. This would – under the rules constitute 1 not 2 insolvenvencies. However insolvency of an Opco does not automatically involve the insolvency of the holding co.
(USC went into insolvency, and yet SDH continues to trade profitably, as an example)
However, in the example of Hearts, it was the insolvency of the parent group that led to the administration of the HMFC Footballing opco.
In short, any legal company can have an insolvency. Since there may be many companies associated with any footballing enterprise, multiple entities may actually suffer administration simultaneously or successively as a result of one core business failure.
nawlite says:
April 23, 2015 at 8:10 pm
I can picture it, RLD – Carry on Compliance! Ffs indeed.
______________________________________________
😆
There’s legs in that :
Sid James as a scheming RCO,
Terry Scott as an inept Neil Doncaster…
Jim Dale as the hapless Regan…
it writes itself.
Fisiani says:
April 23, 2015 at 12:17 pm
… and I reckon the SFA would blink first.
_______________________________________________
They’d have to open their eyes first, however!
parttimearab says:
April 23, 2015 at 8:26 pm
On the subject of changes to sanctions in the event of insolvency can anyone explain what is meant by
“Insolvency events that are part of the same insolvency process would be treated as a single deductible insolvency event”
In my naivety I had assumed an “insolvency event” was a one off – what “events” (plural) would count as part of the same process ❓
I know what I’m thinking here but assume I’m just being paranoid…
http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-general-meeting/
—————————————————————
It’s good to be paranoid 😎
Just searching for ‘Insolvency Events’ I came across this:
Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.
In particular I look at:
And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD can appoint a Receiver.
Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?
Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead 💡
But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?
It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.
Yesterday’s RRM meeting with SD at their Shirebrook HQ.
(nothing sinister – just trying out the new browse facility)
GoosyGoosy says:
April 23, 2015 at 9:07 pm
In view of the contradictory statements by the SFA this week
A lateral thought
Did any of the major bookmakers experience suspicious betting activity
related to the ICT v Celtic match?
____________________________________
Funny thing GG, I heard this question from someone a few days ago ❓
Bit ironic that Specsavers sponsor the SFA with logos on their tops. They must be glad nobody was wearing specsaver specs on the day or was spotted having their eyes tested in one of their stores prior to the game. They are missing an opportunity if they don’t invite all 5 in for an eye test.
Billy Boyce says:
April 23, 2015 at 9:13 pm
Yesterday’s RRM meeting with SD at their Shirebrook HQ.
——————————————————-
I see from your exclusive pic that Big Mike popped in 😆
briggsbhoy says:
April 23, 2015 at 9:23 pm
Bit ironic that Specsavers sponsor the SFA with logos on their tops. They must be glad nobody was wearing specsaver specs on the day or was spotted having their eyes tested in one of their stores prior to the game.
—————————————————————–
Seriously, I wonder if there is any mandatory procedures wrt eyesight tests for refs and officials. It would be easy to assume they would be in place but after Sunday’s outbreak of collective myopia I seriously wonder.
StevieBC says:
April 23, 2015 at 5:36 pm
“Sons of Struth calls for kit boycott: Don’t buy new Rangers tops unless board can loosen Mike Ashley’s vice-like grip”
=======================================
I’ve thought for a while that a way round this situation would be for some “new” company could be set up which “supplies” tops – but by devious routes the tops could easily come from SD. The fans see the new front company which seems to be the supplier but backstage MA is still getting most of the money. That’s probably too crude but I wonder if something along these lines could be done.
Eco
That is a fair point. I have Pm you
nawlite says:
April 23, 2015 at 7:30 pm
Don’t disagree with that, WOTTPI, but the ref is now saying (from the BBC report)”Steven McLean had explained he had sought the advice of Alan Muir – the official behind the goal – and was told by him that he thought the ball had struck the defender’s head.” This conflicts with the initial comments from the officials and the authorities and also brings into question the Compliance Officer’s involvement because his role is only when the officials haven’t seen an incident. So was the original story the truth or is Mclean’s report today the truth. Can anyone believe that before citing Meekings, the Compliance Officer wouldn’t have spoken to the officials as to whether or not they had seen the incident and made a decision on the pitch? Something fishy, despite the ultimate right answer on Meekings imo.
______________________________________________________________________________
Nawlite as I may have missed it I would be grateful if you could show where the confusion lies between explanations because on Monday the 20th, the day after the game Leigh Griffiths is widely quoted saying the following.
‘He is the one who said it hit him in the face (the additional assistant ref). I asked the ref why he didn’t give the penalty and he said the assistant behind the goal said it hit him in the face. I don’t know what angle he is looking from because everyone else could see it was a penalty.
‘He said the referee behind the goal said it hit him in the face”
It has to be assumed that to make the morning papers Griffiths made his comments some time after the game on Sunday. Straight from the horses mouth so to speak.
Griffiths’ account fully matches my explanation of the ref looking to the man closer to the incident to make the call. Perhaps wrongly because due the the angles McLean had a better view than Muir but IMHO you can see why the ref did it if he was unsure.
From the above the ref’s story seems consistent unless people think Griffiths is in on the conspiracy. 😀
The problem is however why the compliance officer then got involved and once again why there is no immediate transparency with regard to official explanations of ‘controversial’ incidents from the authorities as opposed to us having to piece together reports from players, the MSM and taxi drivers.
For the best part of six months or so this site has been dominated by events Govan way.
The past ten days has seen the shambles of the SPFL fixture list and then one of the most ridiculous and indefensible refereeing decision many reasonable fans of al clubs have seen in a long time.
So the fire has been burning under Doncaster and then the SFA’s feet.
Barely getting a mention? The man who would be King.
Coincidence or job done by Traynor and his cohorts?
The losers?
Competitively and short term, Celtic; through a scandalous refereeing decision and cover up; longer term, Bears who just want to follow a team but are being conned again by their “betters” and the SMSM. Longer term winners of course are Celtic. Does this explain their relatively anodyne statement on Monday?