For those following the games, rooting for their favourite teams and feverishly discussing their matches between two glasses of ale, football is a mix of entertainment and something to be excited about. These fans are, in turn, a massive customer base for those behind football as a business: their dedication and following is the driving force behind broadcast rights, merchandise, and ticket sales, all of which turn a wonderful sport into a cash cow for those pulling the strings. As long as the game is fair, both in the field and behind the scenes, it’s a win-win for all parties: the players get their salaries, the fans get their quality football, and the business entities behind them, ranging from football betting operators to the teams’ owners, advertisers, sponsors, and such, all get their money. Like in every business, though, there are parties in football that don’t exactly operate according to the rules. Of business, that is.
What many people don’t realize, though, is that football goes beyond being simply a game. As MEP Stelios Kouloglou pointed out in an op-ed published on Euractive this April, football can often flow into different areas like politics and racial bias, pointing out that the emergence of Pelé, one of the best football players ever, was instrumental to significantly reducing racism in Brazil. Yet the democratic nature of football is degraded today thanks to all the money flowing into it. And the best example of this, Kouloglou writes, is the UEFA Champions League.
As he points out, the only clubs that can reach the Champions League semi-finals are from the “big 5” countries – Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Great Britain. And this happens not because there aren’t any talented teams in other countries but because of all the money flowing into the clubs nowadays. After all, not all clubs can afford to pay almost £200 million for a single player, no matter how talented and marketable the player might be. These big clubs with big money behind them syphon all the most talented players from all over the world, offering amazing transfer fees and strengthening their ranks – investing in their future success with the goal of keeping their fans’ attention pointed on them, and making even more money in the process.
And where there’s money, there must be scandals related to money. Corruption and tax avoidance run rampant across football, from the top of organizations like FIFA and UEFA down to local clubs and players, working with financial advisors like Kingsbridge that allegedly help them invest in ways that will grant them tax relief, schemes that “don’t work”, according to HM Revenue and Customs.
A few years ago, an unpopular opinion emerged in the press stating that the influx of big money into football will ruin it forever by attracting the “wrong kind of owners” that see clubs as their “cash cow”, among others. MP Damian Collins went as far as saying that “Running a big football club now is like running a Hollywood studio – it’s a content business. The money goes to the stars”. And this is one of the biggest issues today’s football faces that can ruin it forever.
Re. The Morelos contract extension.
Maybe all this touting him around has backfired and as a £20m striker he has demanded a suitable wage rise. Sevco happy to pay him the extra in the knowledge it will only be for a few months????
I think it just might be that the agent of Señor Morelos has been reading the Scottish papers and listening to ClydeSSB and has negotiated a better deal for his client. I don’t think he’s now on a par with Jermaine Defoe though.
wottpi8th March 2019 at 12:04
===========
My point does not surround the competency of the Catholic politicians you mention. You could have the best one around but there is clearly an unwritten rule which stops them getting to the very top, just like there is clearly an unwritten rule which makes it very difficult for a Celtic fan to get to a grade 1 Referee. There is a lot that would have to change to convince me that some of the foxes in Government and the SFA should get the key to the strict liability henhouse!
As for some of the stuff some of the Celtic fans were singing at Tynecastle, you wont get any argument from me. No place for it at all.
'Jingso.Jimsie 6th March 2019 at 11:27
I wonder if Morelos' agents, World In Motion, have made representations to TRFC for a large increase in their client's remuneration?
If not, why not? He's a £20m footballer after all
'
###################################################
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/i-have-come-to-realise-how-special-this-club-is-alfredo-morelos-signs-new-rangers-deal-until-2023
Gosh! Imagine that! Hooda thunk it?
Well done, Stewart Robertson. A hubristic, throwaway remark in New Zealand is going to cost TRFC how much?
I've just had a quick look at Morelos' details on Transfermarkt:
https://www.transfermarkt.com/alfredo-morelos/profil/spieler/338962
His contract details have been updated to reflect his extension to 2023, but his valuation is still just (!) 3m Euros, or approx. £2.6m sterling, about 12% of TRFC's ‘£20m’ figure.
Re-Morelos, there was a claim made on Twitter his contract had a buy out clause which didn't suit Rangers, so that may be the reason for a new one. Quite why they think he is worth £20m is beyond me though.
I can't decide whether Stewart Fisher's tongue was firmly in his cheek or not when he wrote this in the Herald:
'But quite apart from anything else, he has the capacity to be a game-changing financial deal for Rangers – along the lines of the Jean-Alain Boumsong transfer – when he eventually is sold.'
The Boumsong transfers were indeed 'game-changing' for RFC, particularly when the City of London police became involved.
I wonder why a player who wants to move to a bigger league would sign a new contract at his current club rather than threaten to let his contract run down until he goes for free.
Why would his agent advise him to do this unless he is of the opinion that an increased wage at his current club is the best deal his client is likely to get?
upthehoops 8th March 2019 at 15:22
====================================
I doubt they think anything of the sort, good thing to put out there for the fans though.
Like a non-existent £5.2m profit.
Or "breaking even" on an EBIDTA basis.
From the people who brought you a £9m bid from China turned down, whilst losing money hand over fist.
Bill1903 8th March 2019 at 13:26
I wasn't saying it doesn't happen just that it's a West of Scotland thing in the main.
It really does hold the country back
===========================================
I believe you mean anywhere west of the east coast in the main.
Well said Stevie Clark ……….. although I'm not sure if the Kilmarnock Board supports your wishes.
Homunculus 8th March 2019 at 16:54
From the people who brought you a £9m bid from China turned down, whilst losing money hand over fist.
……………..
If i remember correct, and only happy to be corrected. Did it not eventually peak at £11m bid from China?
'Allyjambo 8th March 2019 at 16:31
I wonder why a player who wants to move to a bigger league would sign a new contract at his current club rather than threaten to let his contract run down until he goes for free.
Why would his agent advise him to do this unless he is of the opinion that an increased wage at his current club is the best deal his client is likely to get?'
#############################################
Stewart Robertson dropped a ricket in NZ & gave Morelos' representatives carte blanche to look for a mid-contract improvement in terms. That's what's happened & a pay rise for Morelos is also an increased commission for his agents. TRFC's only bargaining card was to request an increase in the length of his contract. The fact that the contract has increased from three to four years to run is moot.
Both World In Motion & TRFC know that Morelos will be sold before the contract expires & probably not for the oft-mentioned £20m. An extra few quid every month until he leaves isn't to be passed up.
(Actually, I wonder if Morelos is, after this new deal, at the peak of his earnings curve? It's possible, I suppose!)
StevieBC 8th March 2019 at 14:10
And this is a first: well played Level42!
No really.
Grab control of the narrative and stop the social media ridicule.
A good news story for the bears just before a tricky game against Hibs tonight, and Aberdeen in the cup next week.
………………..
Wonder what Aberdeen player will be linked with a summer move to ibrox before next week’s game.
Jingso.Jimsie 8th March 2019 at 19:35
Stewart Robertson dropped a ricket in NZ & gave Morelos’ representatives carte blanche to look for a mid-contract improvement in terms. That’s what’s happened & a pay rise for Morelos is also an increased commission for his agents. TRFC’s only bargaining card was to request an increase in the length of his contract. The fact that the contract has increased from three to four years to run is moot.
Both World In Motion & TRFC know that Morelos will be sold before the contract expires & probably not for the oft-mentioned £20m. An extra few quid every month until he leaves isn’t to be passed up.
……………
An increase on the ibrox wage bill. Oh! Dear.
Hibs fan on the park just before half time having a go at Tavernier this is getting way out of control.
shug 8th March 2019 at 20:46
4 1 Rate This
Hibs fan on the park just before half time having a go at Tavernier this is getting way out of control.
……………
The question is, who let it get out of control?
shug 8th March 2019 at 20:46
Hibs fan on the park just before half time having a go at Tavernier this is getting way out of control.
============================
Just heard Leeann Dempster say all the right things in a radio interview and, most importantly, that "everything is on the table".
Predictably in the studio, there remained a naysayer, questioning SL, a possible points deduction (as if that was the only sanction) and the possibility of an opposing fan causing trouble.
The person responsible is in custody and will be banned for life from Easter Road – Good! Get the club to seek a maximum sentence when he comes up in court. John Wilson, who assaulted Lennon was sentenced to 8 months. Give him something similar.
I haven't seen the game (I was at a Lowland League match), so didn't see what happened with Tavernier. Let's say that he was shaken by the incident and didn't perform in the second half, contributing to Rangers losing their lead. Is the deduction of a point justifiable in a SL sense? I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, but I'd put it out there as a potential sanction for recurring incidents.
easyJambo 8th March 2019 at 22:16
I haven’t seen the game (I was at a Lowland League match), so didn’t see what happened with Tavernier. Let’s say that he was shaken by the incident and didn’t perform in the second half, contributing to Rangers losing their lead. Is the deduction of a point justifiable in a SL sense?
………………
Not for me. The Hibs players fought hard for that point, why should some clown be allowed the taken away of the point the players on the field had to fight hard for. The Hibs players had some control of what they could do on the pitch to gain that point but the players have no control over a clown running onto the track side.
Cluster One 8th March 2019 at 22:27
Not for me. The Hibs players fought hard for that point, why should some clown be allowed the taken away of the point the players on the field had to fight hard for. The Hibs players had some control of what they could do on the pitch to gain that point but the players have no control over a clown running onto the track side.
=========================
I accept your view, but at what point does physical intimidation or even harm to opposing players by "fans" become a problem that merits a game being abandoned, replayed, or points awarded to the victims (of say an assault)?
I fear that if no effective action is taken, then someone will end but getting seriously hurt. That could just as easily be a fan, a player, an official or a steward.
Jingso.JimsieJingso.Jimsie 8th March 2019 at 19:35 4 1 Rate This 'Allyjambo 8th March 2019 at 16:31 I wonder why a player who wants to move to a bigger league would sign a new contract at his current club rather than threaten to let his contract run down until he goes for free. Why would his agent advise him to do this unless he is of the opinion that an increased wage at his current club is the best deal his client is likely to get?' ############################################# Stewart Robertson dropped a ricket in NZ & gave Morelos' representatives carte blanche to look for a mid-contract improvement in terms. That's what's happened & a pay rise for Morelos is also an increased commission for his agents. TRFC's only bargaining card was to request an increase in the length of his contract. The fact that the contract has increased from three to four years to run is moot. Both World In Motion & TRFC know that Morelos will be sold before the contract expires & probably not for the oft-mentioned £20m. An extra few quid every month until he leaves isn't to be passed up. (Actually, I wonder if Morelos is, after this new deal, at the peak of his earnings curve? It'spossible, I suppose!)
______________
I get what you say, Jingso, but can't understand why TRFC would feel they had to give him a better contract whatever they say about his value – he was, after all, on a contract that he'd been happy to sign not so long ago. Clubs bum up their players continually and don't feel the need to pay them more, especially if they believe a sale is imminent, especially while they have a few years left on that contract and no need to extend it to ensure they get full value for the player.
Putting up his wages hardly makes him more saleable, while the player has tied himself to a longer deal which could keep him at Ibrox longer than he wants if, as most would expect, he has ambitions to play at a higher level.
I just wonder if his agent has been sniffing around other leagues and has discovered that no one is all that interested and so has decided that getting a better, extended, deal is the best option for him and his player.
As ever, though, strange things seem to happen at Ibrox.
"I’m interested in the one decision that’s cost us three points tonight. The referee is five yards away from it and it’s a blatant foul, 10 times out of 10, 100 times out of 100 [on Tavernier]. You can talk about VAR, talk about supporting referees, but it’s impossible to support a referee if he cant give a foul five yards away.
==========================================
Will this be another ref who will not referee sevco matches.
easyJambo 8th March 2019 at 22.36
" .. then someone will end but getting seriously hurt. That could just as easily be a fan, a player, an official or a steward."
****************
I think Tavernier showed self-restraint to a degree that I don't think even at my age I could have managed!
The minute that idiot raised his hand to him, I was hoping Tavernier would , in self-defence, aim a footballer's powerful kick at his privy parts, and put him down, very painfully.
Opposing players 'assaulting' each other on the pitch is one thing: an assault from some 'nutcase' out of the crowd ( and who knows-maybe a real mentally ill person in need of professional help,but capable of anything?) is something very different.
Ex Ludo 8th March 2019 at 11:56
Regarding becoming Prime Minister. The Act of Settlement 1701 certainly precludes a Catholic monarch but doesn’t prevent a Catholic becoming Prime Minister. That there hasn’t officially been a Catholic PM is a result of constitutional precedent. It could be argued that Tony Blair was in fact a Catholic PM even though he had not formally entered into the faith and did not do so until he was out of office. Ever the political animal he was well aware how an open declaration would be received in certain quarters.
=======================
I am well aware there is no official barrier to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister. However, there is clearly no chance of one ever making the grade. There was clearly a time a woman could not make it but that barrier is long broken, and rightly so. However, as long as the underlying prejudice against Catholicism exists at that level in both the Scottish and English Parliaments then declarations against bigotry by MPs and MSPs has a hollow ring in my view. I realise not everyone holds religious views and I fully respect that, but let there be no doubts that eradicating white collar prejudice against Catholicism, and groups associated with Catholicism has some way to go, especially in Scotland. I make no apologies for posting this link again. This clown was in charge of policy at a hugely prominent Scottish newspaper for years. I doubt very much he is alone, and it is only about 3-4 years ago STV actually had him on as some kind of respected voice. Says much.
https://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/rfc-politics/136-rangers-protestantism-and-scottish-society
https://twitter.com/bbcsport/status/1104311866862460928?s=21
How the mighty have fallen (in value)
I heard earlier today a little clip of Leeann's justifiable anger.
But, surely, some of the anger must have come from some feeling of personal guilt for allowing a fan incursion-which should, one would think, be to some extent easier to prevent than a sleekit coin-throwing or bottle-throwing episode?
Swearing to wreak vengeance on a guilty fan whose progress from his seat might have/ought to have been seen by stewards is scarcely an adequate response from a CEO.
There was a time (how long ago was it?) when , at fairly 'unimportant' but large crowd games the whole circumference of a pitch was patrolled by the plod , plodding stolidly round at intervals of about fifteen yards from each other, with a sergeant or two striding round in the opposite direction .
It may now be time for the big clubs to forget about using 'stewards' and accepting that they have to pay increased policing costs.
'Allyjambo 8th March 2019 at 22:39
I get what you say, Jingso, but can't understand why TRFC would feel they had to give him a better contract whatever they say about his value – he was, after all, on a contract that he'd been happy to sign not so long ago. Clubs bum up their players continually and don't feel the need to pay them more, especially if they believe a sale is imminent, especially while they have a few years left on that contract and no need to extend it to ensure they get full value for the player.'
################################################
Morelos' agents had an 'open goal' after Robertson's injudicious statement & they did what they're supposed to do: they got more money for their client & for themselves. That's 1-0 Morelos & WIM.
TRFC then claim they've equalised by extending the contract for an extra year. It's the way that the club gets some kudos/feelgood factor out of the situation. But (and here goes!) it may have suited WIM to extend the contract anyway depending on what a) the old contract contained & b) what the new contract contains.
'Whatiffery' follows:
What if Morelos' previous contract had a buy-out clause of (say) £5m? TRFC's '£20m' asset could be bought for a quarter of their valuation? That's not good for TRFC financially or WIM/Morelos' future percentage from any transfer & the contract would need to be revised.
What if the 'cost' to Morelos & WIM to change the buy-out upwards (£10m? £15m? £20m?) to benefit both TRFC & themselves was an additional year on his TRFC contract at improved terms?
Apologies for the rather speculative, rambling post…
I'm not sure if Dempster will follow through on closing a part of the ground once her anger/shame subsides and that's fair enough. I know some Hibees don't like her (I have no opinion) but you can see how pissed off she is with happenings at her own club. The thing is should she not close it down because it punishes the innocent? Crimes have consequences, that's a fact. I also believe that we are dangerously mixing up unacceptable and unlawful behaviour with being able to watch a game of fitba: an entertainment that has unfortunately transgressed into being some sort of tribal affair way past healthy competition. Public performances and the participation of the public (especially when it's a commercial enterprise) have no preferential rights compared to the requirements the rest of us have to comply with.
Club Statement: Disciplinary Hearing
Sat, 9th Mar 2019 8:15am
The Club attended a disciplinary hearing yesterday where a sub-committee of the SPFL Board charged Clyde FC with playing an ineligible player (Declan Fitzpatrick) in two Ladbrokes League Two matches:
•Saturday, 16 February 2019 – Clyde v Albion Rovers (1-0)
•Saturday, 23 February 2019 – Queen’s Park v Clyde (1-1)
Clyde FC admitted breaching SPFL Rules and were sanctioned as follows:
1.Club reprimanded, warned as to future conduct and fined £1500 (£1000 suspended until 30 June 2020)
2.The original match results were also annulled and the outcome of the matches recorded as follows:
16 February 2019 – Clyde v Albion Rovers (0-3)
23 February 2019 – Queen’s Park v Clyde (3-0)
The three points for a win were awarded to Albion Rovers and Queen’s Park respectively, and the four points previously awarded to Clyde were withdrawn.
Club Chairman, David Dishon commented:
“We are deeply disappointed with the outcome of yesterday’s hearing as, despite the fact that we admitted the breach of the SPFL rules, we feel that we put forward a robust and cogent case as part of our defence. The case concerned a player, Declan Fitzpatrick, who has been registered with Clyde since September 2018 and was recently on loan at Clydebank.
“The breach occurred as a result of a genuine oversight and a gap in the administrative procedures. This error was not the fault of any individual.
“We feel that the sanction imposed was unprecedentedly harsh.
“As a result of yesterday’s outcome, we have instigated a full review of our roles & responsibilities and logistics in match day operations and we have put in place additional checking procedures to ensure there is no repeat of this breach.
“I understand that the supporters will share our devastation at this news, but we have to try to stayed focused on the rest of the season. For that reason, the Board and I have rejected the offer of two directors to resign from their position.
“Promotion is still a realistic target and that remains our priority. We will continue to give the management and the players our support as they push for promotion.
“The Club now has seven days to decide whether or not to appeal the decision and we will take stock over the weekend and consider our next action. We will make no further comment until the end of this process.”
………………..
One for Mr Bryson
Cluster one….
glad you posted that C1.
i was going to stick up a link.
good to see the authorities still know how to deal with such despicable – or even accidental and bureaucratic – discrepancies in the registration of players.
where would we be if clubs or clumpanies didn’t abide by basic rules?
Jingso.Jimsie 9th March 2019 at 10:36 1 0 Rate This 'Allyjambo 8th March 2019 at 22:39 I get what you say, Jingso, but can't understand why TRFC would feel they had to give him a better contract whatever they say about his value – he was, after all, on a contract that he'd been happy to sign not so long ago. Clubs bum up their players continually and don't feel the need to pay them more, especially if they believe a sale is imminent, especially while they have a few years left on that contract and no need to extend it to ensure they get full value for the player.' ################################################ Morelos' agents had an 'open goal' after Robertson's injudicious statement & they did what they're supposed to do: they got more money for their client & for themselves. That's 1-0 Morelos & WIM. TRFC then claim they've equalised by extending the contract for an extra year. It's the way that the club gets some kudos/feelgood factor out of the situation. But (and here goes!) it may have suited WIM to extend the contract anyway depending on what a) the old contract contained & b) what the new contract contains. 'Whatiffery' follows: What if Morelos' previous contract had a buy-out clause of (say) £5m? TRFC's '£20m' asset could be bought for a quarter of their valuation? That's not good for TRFC financially or WIM/Morelos' future percentage from any transfer & the contract would need to be revised. What if the 'cost' to Morelos & WIM to change the buy-out upwards (£10m? £15m? £20m?) to benefit both TRFC & themselves was an additional year on his TRFC contract at improved terms? Apologies for the rather speculative, rambling post…
_________________________
I have to admit, I've no idea what Robertson said, but I can't imagine any situation where an injudicious remark, no matter what was said, could lead to any business having to increase an employees wages.
Even in a situation where someone is named employee of the year, with the CEO going over the top and declaring him/her the greatest salesperson in the world and stating, categorically, that they deserve an increased salary, there would be no obligation to give them a more lucrative contract. Only fear of losing such a good worker could possibly force an improved contract. But then, unlike the Morelos situation, most employees are free to leave, with only varying lengths of notice to deal with, while Morelos was tied to TRFC for a longer period than he is likely to remain there.
It seems to me that, not only do TRFC's mouthpieces talk dangerous bollocks more often than at any other club, they seem to lose out financially at an alarming rate whenever they do.
Re: Strict liability,I too have my reservations mainly who watches the watchers. Having seen the incident concerning the assault on Tavernier last night then the need for some kind of action is pressing. I would like to see the police become more involved and suggest that such incursions should force the hosting club to double their spend on proper policing (not stewarding) for the following three/four games regardless of the profile of the matches.It punishes the club and puts the emphasis for controlling unruly/criminal behaviour back where it belongs.
View Comment Cluster One 9th March 2019 at 11:13 5 0 Rate This Club Statement: Disciplinary Hearing Sat, 9th Mar 2019 8:15am The Club attended a disciplinary hearing yesterday where a sub-committee of the SPFL Board charged Clyde FC with playing an ineligible player (Declan Fitzpatrick) in two Ladbrokes League Two matches: •Saturday, 16 February 2019 – Clyde v Albion Rovers (1-0) •Saturday, 23 February 2019 – Queen’s Park v Clyde (1-1) Clyde FC admitted breaching SPFL Rules and were sanctioned as follows: 1.Club reprimanded, warned as to future conduct and fined £1500 (£1000 suspended until 30 June 2020) 2.The original match results were also annulled and the outcome of the matches recorded as follows: 16 February 2019 – Clyde v Albion Rovers (0-3) 23 February 2019 – Queen’s Park v Clyde (3-0) The three points for a win were awarded to Albion Rovers and Queen’s Park respectively, and the four points previously awarded to Clyde were withdrawn. Club Chairman, David Dishon commented: “We are deeply disappointed with the outcome of yesterday’s hearing as, despite the fact that we admitted the breach of the SPFL rules, we feel that we put forward a robust and cogent case as part of our defence. The case concerned a player, Declan Fitzpatrick, who has been registered with Clyde since September 2018 and was recently on loan at Clydebank. “The breach occurred as a result of a genuine oversight and a gap in the administrative procedures. This error was not the fault of any individual. “We feel that the sanction imposed was unprecedentedly harsh. “As a result of yesterday’s outcome, we have instigated a full review of our roles & responsibilities and logistics in match day operations and we have put in place additional checking procedures to ensure there is no repeat of this breach. “I understand that the supporters will share our devastation at this news, but we have to try to stayed focused on the rest of the season. For that reason, the Board and I have rejected the offer of two directors to resign from their position. “Promotion is still a realistic target and that remains our priority. We will continue to give the management and the players our support as they push for promotion. “The Club now has seven days to decide whether or not to appeal the decision and we will take stock over the weekend and consider our next action. We will make no further comment until the end of this process.” ……………….. One for Mr Bryson
_______________________
There's so much to say about this that shows up the LNS decision for the corrupt farce that it was, but there's one thing I'd like to cover, though without knowing the full details of how this error came about.
There are two games involved here, so at least one must have been played after the player's registration was accepted and the error not recognised. With the player's ineligibility not recognised (the first game), surely, under Bryson, that game, at the very least, must have been covered by the SFA's own working practices!
Also.
The following quote from the statement I think is actually quite telling. Telling in two ways.
1, I have the impression that it is a reference to Rangers deliberate cheating, and,
2, the club are afraid to use the LNS decision to frame their defence.
“The breach occurred as a result of a genuine oversight and a gap in the administrative procedures. This error was not the fault of any individual."
A decision was made in Scottish football, in a case of deliberate mis-registration, that could/should be used by clubs to get off lightly with charges of breaches in the rules surrounding player registration. Clearly, however, clubs falling foul of those rules are afraid to use that decision because of the fallout that would almost certainly follow.
Regardless of what we all might feel individually about Strict Liability, there is clear justification for the belief that one club, in particular, could/would be treated differently when major breaches occur, while the necessary 'example' will be made against 'smaller' clubs!
The Clyde decision is another shameful one by the SPFL demonstrating how "big teams" are given leniency when compared to punishments handed out to "wee teams".
Hearts were docked two points in the League Cup earlier this season following a similar administrative error. Hearts had won the game 2-1. There was no reversal of the result as such, which meant that Hearts could still qualify from their group on goal difference by beating ICT in their final game, which they duly did.
Had the Hearts result been reversed and awarded to Cove, then Hearts would have been unable to qualify.
Allyjambo 9th March 2019 at 12:40
————–
Iirc Bryson claimed that although the Registration papers for RFC(IL) players had not been completed correctly as the EBT payments were not declared, the players were not ineligible to play as this was not known by the SFA at the time and their assumed eligibility could not be revoked retrospectively. In effect, players could only be ineligible if the club realised its error and notified the SFA prior to the match taking place – a complete absurdity. It's not clear from the above statement, but it appears that if a club now reports an oversight after the match, then they are found guilty and punished. Bryson should be in touch immediately with his colleaagues at the SFA and Clyde to correct this misinterpretation of the rules and to remove sanctions imposed on Clyde.
I welcome any corrections on my interpretation of the Bryson statement.
Stupid quote of the week.
When talking of TRFC's result from last night, Steven Gerrard said that his club were 'not in a title race because of nights like tonight.'
Well, Mr Gerrard, Hearts are not in a title race for exactly the same reason (they've just had more such nights – and days), as is the same for Aberdeen, Kilmarnock, Hibs…not winning as often as the club that eventually wins the title is the only reason any club isn't in a title race. Even then, the club that is in a title race all of it's own has also had nights, or days, like TRFC had last night, just less often.
'
Allyjambo 9th March 2019 at 13:24
=====================================
I take it he has given up, in spite of the fact they are only 7 points behind (albeit Celtic have a game in hand … but it is Aberdeen). With two games to play against the leaders (a potential 6 point turnaround) and plenty of other games to play.
Know Surrender.
When the “fan” got onto the track last night the incident highlighted the poor standard of stewarding evident in many grounds. The steward standing at the bottom of the passageway seemed blissfully unaware of the “fan” heading towards him and then breezing past him before vaulting over the barrier until it was too late. Clubs seem to be over dependent on people on minimum wage and probably zero training to keep the crowd in order. Simply wearing a yellow jacket does not deter anyone and from the stewards point of view, minimum wages aren’t worth the risk of getting a sore face. Before fines and stands are closed it would be easier if the Clubs themselves were required to employ a coterie of stewards (pro-rata to the size of their average crowd) and ensure that these employees were properly trained and managed. These could then be supplemented by additional stewarding from external companies.
Finance director Odam took over responsibility for the preparation and signing of player contracts from secretary Ogilvie and discussed the mechanics of the side letters with McMillan and group internal solicitor David Horne.
In a witness statement, Odam told the commission: ‘I did not believe the letters had to be lodged with the football authorities as part of the player registration process.
I understood lodging the letters could have been misinterpreted as indicating a contractual commitment to the player — thus potentially prejudicing the effectiveness of the scheme.’
In layman’s terms, Odam clearly feared that telling the football authorities about the arrangement might alert the tax authorities to something which might — and did — bring awkward questions.
The decision to keep quiet about the side letters was premeditated and deliberate, as the commission report makes clear. ‘A decision was taken that the side letters need not be, or should not be, disclosed,’ it goes on.
‘The evidence of Mr Odam indicates a view amongst 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 side letters to the football authorities.’
The Nimmo Smith commission also considered if Rangers had breached SPL rule D1.11 concerning the fielding of ineligible players
Here the testimony of SFA head of registrations Sandy Bryson proved crucial.
Bryson told the three-man panel that once a player is registered by the governing body, he remains so until his registration is revoked. Even if Rangers were guilty of breaching the rules on payments to players and of non-disclosure of payments, therefore, the 91 players were legitimately registered.
And, as SPL lawyer Rod McKenzie accepted, there was no way of retrospectively revoking a player’s registration due to a breach of rules. Rangers, then, did not field an ineligible player and breached no rules there.
It would be gratifying to think all of this brings a long-running, snarling episode towards closure.
That, in line with Charles Green’s wishes expressed in the wake of the report’s release, Scottish football will now climb from its knees and focus on the future rather than the past. Yet only in the world of the totally naive could that be possible
……………
A small reminder of Bryson
Allyjambo 9th March 2019 at 12:40
A decision was made in Scottish football, in a case of deliberate mis-registration, that could/should be used by clubs to get off lightly with charges of breaches in the rules surrounding player registration. Clearly, however, clubs falling foul of those rules are afraid to use that decision because of the fallout that would almost certainly follow.
……………
We have to ask ourselves what are clubs afraid off. the only fallout would come to the governing bodies, and that can’t be a bad thing
Just to be clear about Bryson:
https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CommissiondecisionRangers.pdf
We should not accept the LNS conflation between registration and eligibility.
Bryson gave evidence on the question of player registration from an SFA perspective. Evidence which, as far as I can see, was entirely accurate.
The question of eligibility was a matter for the SPL and was conceded quite disgracefully by Rod Mackenzie acting on the SPL's behalf.
The SPL rule was specifically intended to cover the situation that Sandy Bryson (correctly, IMO) described.
If a registration is found to be defective some time after it had originally been accepted as correct, you cannot turn back time to pretend that the player had never been registered in the first place. All the SFA could do was revoke the registration when the defect became known.
The SPL rule was written to deal with both the players' registration AND eligibility.
The SFA can say that the registrations would not have been made if the full facts were known – but cannot use a time machine to say that the players had not been registered.
The SPL (via Rod Mackenzie) was derelict in it's duty to present a case that accepted that the players had been registered – but nevertheless ineligible to play in official matches.
That Mr Mackenzie and LNS allowed the two things to be conflated is, if I am being kind, incompetent.
On this matter I don't think kindness is an appropriate sentiment.
It was not for Sandy Bryson to explain the SPL rules to LNS. The commission has the rules in front of them. It was up to Mr Mackenzie to ensure that the commission were given a technically correct interpretation.
It was Rod Mackenzie (acting for the SPL) that should be the focus of our concern.
We perhaps don't know enough about the exact circumstances of the Clyde player to determine whether or not Bryson applies. If I understand correctly the player was not re-registered as a Clyde player following a loan spell, rather than there were flaws in his registration.
If the SPFL have not received registration documents, then he couldn't have been registered as a Clyde player when the games were played, hence he was deemed ineligible to play in any of their games.
The Bryson doctrine refers to players for whom registration documents (albeit flawed) have been supplied by a club and accepted by the SPFL (SPL) in good faith.
Here is an extract from the minutes of an SPL Board meeting following the LNS decision (from JJ)
What I took from that was the Rod McKenzie, on behalf of the SPL, accepted the construction of the rules supplied by the SFA, without question. That seems an incredible stance to take, given that he understood along with the SPL that both the intention and the letter of the SPL rules was clear in his mind and that of the clubs. As Rod McKenzie probably wrote the SPL rules himself, that interpretation should have been a given
Why he did not challenge the SFA's position by defending his and the club's interpretation of the SPL's rules is a mystery to us all. After all LNS commissioned by the SPL Board to investigate any breach of the SPL's own rules.
Cluster One 9th March 2019 at 11:13
from your extract from Clyde's statement:
"…and we have put in place additional checking procedures to ensure there is no repeat of this breach.'
**************
Ah, if only certain EBT recipients in a position and with a duty to do some checking on the ridiculously low earnings reported by arch-cheat SDM to be being paid to some of Europe's best footballers, the whole rotten scheme would have been nipped in the bud, and the cheating exposed!
By the Woodwards and Bernsteins of the SMSM.
(D'ye think?)
As regards the Brysons and Mackenzies of this world, their names are forever linked in my mind with that of Lord Denning.
EJ
It is worth remembering that the ignoble lord took great pains to ensure that the commission was conducted as an adversarial process.
Rod Mackenzie acted for the SPL as the prosecutor and James Mure for Rangers as the defendant.
There is no suggestion from the commission's report that the SFA (via Bryson) gave any opinion on the SPL's rules.
On the face of it, it would seem more likely that, as a matter for the defence, Mr Mure (acting for Rangers) would introduce an argument that would seek to conflate the SFA's registration procedures with the SPL's rules on eligibility.
But, as you say, it was Mr Mackenzie who wrote the SPL rules. He could and should have been able to repel that specious line in short order.
I genuinely do not believe that the SFA gave any opinion on this at all. From my reading of LNS, Sandy Bryson simply provided a factual run-through of its own registration process.
The big question is this: who put forward the creatively alternative interpretation of the SPL rules – that effectively let Rangers off the hook?
Was it Sandy Bryson? Was it Mr Mure? Was it Lord Nimmo?
Or was it Rod Mackenzie himself?
I know who I think it was.
Listening to SSB recently, which more than ever is fed the line and sucks it up like a hungry prostitute short on protein, they had a semi sentient guy who phoned in ( to my mind a placeceman) , who said there was a £15M sell on clause in Morelos's new contract.
Within minutes Big DJ had responded by saying he had two calls/texts to say this was absolutely incorrect/wrong/utter nonsense. Hehe.
Cluster One 9th March 2019 at 19:02 9 0 Rate This Allyjambo 9th March 2019 at 12:40 A decision was made in Scottish football, in a case of deliberate mis-registration, that could/should be used by clubs to get off lightly with charges of breaches in the rules surrounding player registration. Clearly, however, clubs falling foul of those rules are afraid to use that decision because of the fallout that would almost certainly follow.
……………
We have to ask ourselves what are clubs afraid off. the only fallout would come to the governing bodies, and that can’t be a bad thing
_____________________
I think there is much more for clubs, particularly small clubs, to fear in the way of fallout, just ask those of whom Super Ally demanded, 'Who are these people? We have a right to know?'
I believe there is a genuine fear of severe physical abuse amongst those running Scottish football clubs (and the game's governors) should they ever highlight, in any way, the corruption surrounding Rangers (IL) or TRFC. – and not without good cause.
McCoist knew what he was doing with that statement, and the result was far-reaching and without limit of time. For any other club and it's supporters, it would have been an embarrassment they could never live down, for these two clubs, however, it is seen as an example of just how much of the fabric of Scottish society they are and is worn with pride.
John Clark 9th March 2019 at 22:47
14 0 Rate This
Cluster One 9th March 2019 at 11:13
from your extract from Clyde’s statement:
“…and we have put in place additional checking procedures to ensure there is no repeat of this breach.’
Ah, if only certain EBT recipients in a position and with a duty to do some checking on the ridiculously low earnings reported by arch-cheat SDM to be being paid to some of Europe’s best footballers, the whole rotten scheme would have been nipped in the bud, and the cheating exposed!
………………..
JC
Andy Goram £1000 a week? Nov 5, 1996.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12082308.rangers-star-fined-and-banned-for-drink-driving/
Allyjambo 10th March 2019 at 09:43
I think there is much more for clubs, particularly small clubs, to fear in the way of fallout, just ask those of whom Super Ally demanded, ‘Who are these people? We have a right to know?’
I believe there is a genuine fear of severe physical abuse amongst those running Scottish football clubs (and the game’s governors) should they ever highlight, in any way, the corruption surrounding Rangers (IL) or TRFC. – and not without good cause.
………………
Gary Allan QC did call out Ally for putting him his family and others in danger.Oct 27, 2012.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1104705103066468353?p=v
At what point do clubs start to stand up for themselves and say enough is enough.
Finally, the SPFL finds a voice, to say ……………………………. not a lot!
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1436167-spfl-to-take-appropriate-steps-after-pitch-invasion/
I was talking to a TRFC fan about the one-man pitch invasion on Friday and ,while agreeing that something had to be done , I thought that his proposal of immediate closure of a stand was draconian , and suggested that time be taken to set out procedures with sanctions attached to deal with any future occurences. I reminded him that they'd had the same problem v Villareal in November , including glass bottle thrown onto the pitch , and had recieved only a fine and a warning from UEFA . I suggested that this may be the way to go . I am now deemed a "hater"
paddy malarkey 10th March 2019 at 20:48
=================================
You really should read follow follow occasionally, they really don't do irony.
The number of things they deem fantastic when their own players and support do it but consider it appalling behaviour when others do it is quite extraordinary.
Homunculus 10th March 2019 at 21:23 …………… I Never go to the Darkside
I suppose i just don't want to show myself what i have read of that site.
Not to exonerate any of the Neanderthals who have thrown objects / punches whilst posing as normal footy fans, but…
When we have in Scottish football;
etc.
Rather than query why a few neds throw bottles, flares or approach players on the park, the questions should be;
Why should anyone expect decent, upstanding citizens to support such a reprehensible sporting set up?
And further: why should they buy tickets for their kids and expose them to the total shambles that is Scottish football?
Absolutely no point in focusing on those who tarnish Scottish football at the stadiums – if there is no focus on those who tarnish Scottish football from their positions at the SFA / SPFL.
StevieBC 11th March 2019 at 00:53
'…Absolutely no point in focusing on those who tarnish Scottish football at the stadiums – if there is no focus on those who tarnish Scottish football from their positions at the SFA / SPFL."
***************
And that is a point that cannot be made often enough, StevieBC.
The wrongdoing of nutcase fans (even if there may be thousands of such), is as nothing compared with the cynical cheating and lying of the very Sports governance body!
The Big Lie was devised, constructed and put into effect by unscrupulous men of no moral fibre whatsoever: men ready to swear away any regard for sporting integrity, and even common sense, and sell their filthy little souls for an outrageous fantasy.
If there were never to be another incursion by fans, or another episode of sectarian singing, the Governance of our game will still remain rotten at its core for as long as the Big Lie is allowed to stand.
John Clark
There is of course the argument that the maintenance of sectarianism, racism and tribalism, all of which is readily monetised, is one of the main drivers of corruption in the sport.
Ridding ourselves of that, despite the best endeavours of the football authorities, at well have a beneficent knock-on effect at Hampden.
Caught a wee bit of the radio shortbread phone in this morning re the recent issues regarding misbehaviour at football matches and what should be done.
What struck me was that a good few people who phoned in said they either didn't or no longer attended football because they were not interested or turned off by the nonsense that goes on.
In the same way I don't often go to Opera, these folks are part of the larger population that have no interest in an activity that others enjoy. They are getting this nonsense rammed down their throats on news items etc because there is a belief football is in some way important.
Therefore the question has to be asked. Who exactly are the like of the Union Bears, the Green Brigade and others appealing to?
There may indeed but some folks who like to sing the songs and spew the bile but a good deal of 'fellow fans' are probably cringing. Others who could be attracted to the game are giving it a miss and doing something they feel is a better use of their time.
So I suppose my question is what is the point of it all?
I'm not a fan of the old "why are you arresting me for speeding when there's real criminals to catch?" argument. SFM'ers, football authorities and society in general are capable of dealing with the bigger Scottish fitba corruption (for want of a better word) and crowd trouble. It's not an either or and in fact, as has been suggested by Tri, can be easily linked. Is it a coincidence that the sectarianism and crowd trouble at the fitba has got worse in the last few years?
Can anybody point me to he sanctions taken against clubs whose fans have entered the field of play this season ,or statements of condemnation from politicians of the clubs/fans ? Struggling to find much .
Just for context, a list of EPL arrests for pitch incursions, over the last 5 completed seasons.
I think that points deductions for at least the top five might encourage some idiots to stop and think again.
"Therefore the question has to be asked. Who exactly are the like of the Union Bears, the Green Brigade and others appealing to?"
That's a great question wottpi, to which I think the answer is "other deluded, angry men". It is possible to relate this to the rise in populism, fuelled itself by a sense of being abandoned, but it has been going on throughout many cycles of general, public trends. The problem is that the people who run our clubs and our game have convinced themselves that this is where the money is, or more realistically, to stop this stuff would threaten the income stream. The immorality of this is bad enough but I happen to believe they are wrong. It's often paraphrased from WW1 that we are "led by donkeys" but I think "led by dinosaurs" is more apt. Their time is up though, hence the upsurge, it's a lashing out at the death.
Just watched a clip of wee Dembele scoring a late goal against Hearts today and I'm appalled to say that the same sh+te is being spewed from so called fans at a reserve match on a monday afternoon.
I hope the link works.
https://twitter.com/GarethSpeal/status/1105135951041515521?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1105135951041515521&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fceltsarehere.com%2Fbelter-watch-karamoko-dembeles-last-gasp-goal%2F
easyJambo 11th March 2019 at 16:05
Cheers , EJ , but I omitted to put "Scottish" in the post .
Trisidium 11th March 2019 at 10:27
22 0 Rate This
John Clark
There is of course the argument that the maintenance of sectarianism, racism and tribalism, all of which is readily monetised, is one of the main drivers of corruption in the sport.
Ridding ourselves of that, despite the best endeavours of the football authorities, at well have a beneficent knock-on effect at Hampden.
……………………
That time the SFA fined Charles Green for making alleged racist remarks.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1104792698400268288/photo/1
paddy malarkey 11th March 2019 at 18:33
easyJambo 11th March 2019 at 16:05
Cheers , EJ , but I omitted to put "Scottish" in the post .
==================================
It's OK. I wasn't specifically responding to your post, just adding information on the scale of the "individual" fan issue to the general debate on strict liability.
I was looking back at this from 2017 .
http://www.parliament.scot/S5MembersBills/draft_consultation_strict_liability_Scottish_football_clubs_NEW_WEBSITE_OCT_17.pdf
WE could easily copy UEFA table of sanctions
The UEFA sanctions are as follows— 16 warning; reprimand; fine; ban from selling tickets to supporters for away matches; annulment of the result of a match; order that a match be replayed; deduction of points (for the current and/or a future competition); order that a match be forfeited; playing of a match behind closed doors; full or partial stadium closure; playing of a match in a third country; withholding of revenues from a UEFA competition; prohibition on registering new players in UEFA competitions; restriction on the number of players that a club may register for participation in UEFA competitions; disqualification from competitions in progress and/or exclusion from future competitions; withdrawal of a title or award; withdrawal of a licence; and community football service.
Some of the club responses are interesting .
https://jamesdornanmsp.wordpress.com/strict-liability-consultation-responses/
With his solitary cap , how many continuous squad selections would Alfredo have to attain to reach the threshhold of 75% of fixtures in the past two years . To date , I make it 6 World Cup qualifiers , 4 matches at the World Cup and 3 friendlies played . There are 2 friendlies upcoming before 3 Copa America group matches (if he makes the squad) ,plus any knockout matches . I can't see him being eligible for a permit to work in EPL by the end of the next transfer window . As an aside , I emailed SPFL in December and tried twice more , asking for the number of work permits currently in operation in their leagues , but have yet to recieve an acknowldgement or a response .
PS just noticed that 75% refers to competitive matches only .
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/mar/11/allan-mcgregor-decides-to-retire-from-international-duty-with-scotland-euro-2020
Meantime, the Liquidation process of the Rangers Football Club of my grandfather's era (that is, of 1872 vintage), the football club of the four young men on Glasgow Green, continues on its inevitable ending in 'dissolution'.
There is some piece of routine action in Court tomorrow notified as a further 'unstarred' motion
"..P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for Orders under Para 75" before Lord Doherty.
No appearance of Counsel required, so there is nothing to be argued about, merely some judicial rubber-stamping of some procedural arrangement. ( Who knows, though: perhaps Henderson and Jones reached an agreed settlement, with BDO happy to avoid a court battle?)
John Clark 11th March 2019 at 20:36
Meantime, the Liquidation process of the Rangers Football Club of my grandfather's era (that is, of 1872 vintage), the football club of the four young men on Glasgow Green, continues on its inevitable ending in 'dissolution'.
There is some piece of routine action in Court tomorrow notified as a further 'unstarred' motion
"..P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for Orders under Para 75" before Lord Doherty.
No appearance of Counsel required, so there is nothing to be argued about, merely some judicial rubber-stamping of some procedural arrangement. ( Who knows, though: perhaps Henderson and Jones reached an agreed settlement, with BDO happy to avoid a court battle?)
====================================
That case is BDO's action against the administrators (competence/negligence).
The case no. for the H&J action is P997/17
paddy malarkey's link at 19.07 this evening to the Strict Liability consultation document and the replies thereto [ what a brilliantly crafted series of intellectual arguments in support of their 'opposed' was provided by club 1872. Not Socrates, not Plato nor yet Aristotle could have matched it] made me turn to a Parliamentary debate about the abolition of corporal punishment in schools
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1981/jun/08/corporal-punishment
I've been reading it on and off this evening.
Because I remembered:
there was a fight at dinner time one day in 1955, on waste ground outside the school. 'Fight, fight, fight' was the cry, and I think every pupil who heard the cry was present to see as bloody a 'schoolboy' fight as ever was seen.
It happened that a wee wumman passing by stopped to try to break it up. She was hunted- and someone threw a clod of earth at her, some of which made a mess on her coat; and the fight carried on.
When we all got back to our classrooms, we, that is, every class, were asked 'who threw the clod'.
No one owned up.
Result: the whole damned school got the belt.
Even as a 13 year old I thought that a bit excessive- we had only just been reading about the Roman Army, where they were content just to punish one-in-ten!
A more mature understanding of that and similar, one-classroom, experiences makes me instinctively opposed to SL. There can be no justification for punishing the 'innocent.' Doing so is essentially an admission of defeat, and a resort to the unprincipled behaviour of the bad guys.
We on this blog are strong in our condemnation of our Football Governance body's contempt for truth and justice when it comes to applying basic rules of sporting integrity: we should not , I believe, compromise ourselves by suggesting that there is a 'greater good' that can be served if we ourselves dispense with notions of fairness and truth and justice.
From ET last week;
"6th March
Alex McLeish: Allan McGregor won't take the huff with Scotland over his SFA rap
By Stewart Fisher
ALEX McLeish will confidently name Allan McGregor in his Scotland squad next week – putting an end to fears that the Rangers goalkeeper could take his recent brush with the SFA’s disciplinary department out on the national team…
"Are there any concerns about Allan?" said the Scotland manager. "No, I don’t think so. The SFA are the governing body and we are all part of it but no, I don’t think so. That would be like me back in the day going up for one of my disciplinary hearings and shouting ‘Jock, Mr Stein – that’s it, I’m not playing for Scotland any more’. That won’t be an issue with Allan, he is bigger than that.” …
Then 5 days later, from the ET today;
"Rangers keeper Allan McGregor steps down from Scotland duty
… [he] has announced his retirement from Scotland duty…"
============
Good to see the Scotland manager has his finger on the pulse WRT his team…
https://twitter.com/fackillthebill/status/1105211637424967681?s=21
Double standards anyone?
easyJambo 11th March 2019 at 21:12
'..The case no. for the H&J action is P997/17'
**********
Aye, eJ, I should have checked the list!
Just hoping for some interesting development.
Ex Ludo
Were any of those concerts at Hampden , perchance ?