Fair Play at FIFA?

ByTrisidium

Fair Play at FIFA?

The following post comes about as a result of the research and work put in by Auldheid.

He has drafted the submission to FIFA detailed below after closely looking at their rules, and taking on board the points contained in the Glasnost “Golden Rule” blog. TSFM has attached the blog’s name to the report since the overwhelming – but not unanimous – view of our readership is that the SFA and the SPL have again gotten themselves into an almighty and embarrassingly amateur fankle over this issue.

We believe that tens of thousands of football fans will be lost to the game if the outcome of the LNS enquiry is not perceived to be commensurate with the scope and extent of the rule breaking that LNS found had taken place. In view of this, we believe that we have to do what we can to explore all possibilities for justice for those who love the game so much and yet are utterly disillusioned by recent events.

LNS is not being questioned here. He has found that RFC were guilty as charged by the SPL.

What is being questioned is the SFA’s crucial – and seemingly conflicted  – role in the LNS enquiry, as is the effectiveness of LNS’s recommended sanction as either a deterrent or an upholder of sporting integrity.

It came to our notice last week that FIFA have created a web site at

https://www.bkms-system.net/bkwebanon/report/clientInfo?cin=6fifa61&language=eng

that tells us that FIFA have implemented a regulatory framework which is intended to ensure that all statutory rules, rules of conduct and internal guidelines of FIFA are respected and complied with.

In support of that regulatory framework FIFA have set up the above site as a reporting mechanism by means of which inappropriate behaviour and infringements of the pertinent regulations may be reported.

FIFA say that their jurisdiction encompasses misconduct that (1) relates to match manipulation; (2) occurs in or affects more than one confederation, so that it cannot adequately be addressed by a single confederation; or (3) would ordinarily be addressed by a confederation or association, but, under the particular facts at issue, has not been or is unlikely to be dealt with appropriately at that level.

Discussions arising from the previous blog on TSFM, “Gilt Edged Justice”, which was published after Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) ruled on the registration of Rangers players who had contractual side letters that were not disclosed to the SFA as part of their registration, suggest that there may be possible unfortunate consequences for football arising from the evidence presented by the SFA to the LNS enquiry that informed its findings on registration and consequent eligibility. There is also a question of the propriety of the SFA providing evidence on an issue which could have had a negative impact on them had it been found that they had failed to carrying out their registration duties with due rigour over a period of ten years when the existence of EBTs was known to officials within the SFA.

On the basis that the LNS findings require that registration rules be clarified by FIFA and rewritten globally if necessary to remove any ambiguity and under clause 3 above, this appears to be an issue that the FIFA should examine and that the SFA cannot address.

The following report has therefore been submitted by TSFM on behalf of its readers to FIFA drawing on the content and debate following the “Gilt Edged Justice” blog in respect of the possible footballing consequences of the LNS enquiry.

The hope is that by speaking for so many supporters, FIFA will give the TSFM submission some weight, but individuals are free of course to make their own points in their own way.  We await acknowledgement of the submission.

The report Submitted to FIFA is as follows;

This report was prepared on behalf of the 10,000-strong readership of The Scottish Football Monitor at http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/
It is our belief that FIFA general rules of conduct were breached by the SFA and their employees in both creating and then advising The Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) enquiry into the non disclosure of full payment information to the Scottish Football Association (SFA) by Rangers F.C during a period of player registration over 10 years from 2000.

We believe that although the issue has been addressed by the SFA the particular facts at issue suggest that it has not been dealt with appropriately and we therefore ask FIFA to investigate. The facts at issue are that the process and advice given failed to uphold sporting integrity, and that a conflict of interest was at play.

We believe the advice provided and the enquiry set up, where SFA both advised and is the appellant body, breaches not only the integrity the registration rules were intended to uphold, but also totally undermines the integrity of the SFA in breach of General Conduct rules 1, 2 and 4. (See below.)

1.  Firstly we believe that the advice supplied to LNS that an incorrectly registered player was eligible to play as long as the registration was accepted by the SFA however unwittingly, undermines the intent of the SPL/SFA rules on player registration and so undermines the integrity of football in three ways.

• It incentivises clubs to apply for a player to be registered even if they know that the conditions of registration are not satisfied, in the hope that the application will somehow ‘slip through the net’ and be granted anyway (in which case it will be valid until revoked).

• A club which discovers that it has made an error in its application is incentivized to say nothing and to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ – because it would be in a better position by not confessing its mistake.

• And most importantly, it incentivises fraud.  By deliberately concealing relevant information, a club can ensure that a player who does not satisfy the registration conditions is treated as being eligible – and therefore allowed to play – for as long as a period as possible (potentially his entire spell with the club). Then, if the club is no longer around when the deception is finally discovered, imposing meaningful sanctions may be impossible.

2.   Secondly we believe the process followed was inappropriate due to a Conflict of Interest. Had the LNS enquiry not ruled on the basis of advice supplied by The SFA, they and those persons advising the LNS enquiry, could have been subjected to censure and the SFA to potential compensation claims had LNS found that the players were indeed ineligible to play and results then been annulled as was SFA practice when an ineligible player played.

3.  Finally we contend that a law should not be applied according to its literal meaning if to do so would lead to an absurdity or a manifest injustice or in this case loss of football integrity.
See http://glasnostandapairofstrikers.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/gilt-edged-justice/

4. We therefore ask FIFA to investigate both the process used and advice given to Lord Nimmo Smith to satisfy themselves that FIFA’s intentions with regard to upholding the integrity of football under FIFA rules have not been seriously damaged by the LNS findings and also to reassure Scottish football supporters that the integrity of our game has not been sacrificed by the very authority in whose care it has been placed to promote the short term cause of commercialism to the games long term detriment.

General Rules of Conduct (These are taken from the FIFA web site itself and can be found as part of completing the submission process)

1. Persons bound by this Code are expected to be aware of the importance of their duties and concomitant obligations and responsibilities.

2. Persons bound by this Code are obliged to respect all applicable laws and regulations as well as FIFA’s regulatory framework to the extent applicable to them.

3. N/A

4. Persons bound by this Code may not abuse their position in any way, especially to take advantage of their position for private aims or gains.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

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

4,057 Comments so far

Danish PastryPosted on6:33 pm - Apr 11, 2013


y4rmy says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 16:46
19 0 Rate This

Nobody mention Orange Clubs.
————

Jaffa Cakes are orange in the middle, it’s not completely obvious at first. Not dissimilar to Jabba Cakes.

View Comment

greenockjackPosted on6:34 pm - Apr 11, 2013


relevance not reference, sorry !

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on6:34 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Paper talk on radio Scotland now with Michael Grant,Roddy Forsyth and Keith Jackson.

Radio to make your ears bleed.

(Switches off)

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on6:36 pm - Apr 11, 2013


@Dreddy I don’t know the reason for that, but I hope to have that info soon. #NoPromises

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on6:41 pm - Apr 11, 2013


bangordub says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 17:08
10 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit
“Trading while insolvent” an interesting phrase
=====================================================
There is no doubt whatsoever that during the period immediately preceding administration, Rangers were trading whilst insolvent. This does not necessarily leave the directors liable for the resulting debts.

However, the recent police inquiries are likely, I would imagine, to centre around Section 993 of the Companies Act:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/993

993Offence of fraudulent trading

(1)If any business of a company is carried on with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of any other person, or for any fraudulent purpose, every person who is knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in that manner commits an offence.

(2)This applies whether or not the company has been, or is in the course of being, wound up.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine (or both);

(b)on summary conviction—

(i)in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(ii)in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).

If this is the direction of travel, then Section 213 of the Insolvency Act would apply to the directors at the time:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/213

213 Fraudulent trading.

(1)If in the course of the winding up of a company it appears that any business of the company has been carried on with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of any other person, or for any fraudulent purpose, the following has effect.
(2)The court, on the application of the liquidator may declare that any persons who were knowingly parties to the carrying on of the business in the manner above-mentioned are to be liable to make such contributions (if any) to the company’s assets as the court thinks proper.

Even if no criminal charge is pursued, Section 214 of the Insolvency Act could apply:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/214

214 Wrongful trading.

(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, if in the course of the winding up of a company it appears that subsection (2) of this section applies in relation to a person who is or has been a director of the company, the court, on the application of the liquidator, may declare that that person is to be liable to make such contribution (if any) to the company’s assets as the court thinks proper.
(2)This subsection applies in relation to a person if—
(a)the company has gone into insolvent liquidation,
(b)at some time before the commencement of the winding up of the company, that person knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation, and
(c)that person was a director of the company at that time;but the court shall not make a declaration under this section in any case where the time mentioned in paragraph (b) above was before 28th April 1986.
(3)The court shall not make a declaration under this section with respect to any person if it is satisfied that after the condition specified in subsection (2)(b) was first satisfied in relation to him that person took every step with a view to minimising the potential loss to the company’s creditors as (assuming him to have known that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation) he ought to have taken.
(4)For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), the facts which a director of a company ought to know or ascertain, the conclusions which he ought to reach and the steps which he ought to take are those which would be known or ascertained, or reached or taken, by a reasonably diligent person having both—
(a)the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the same functions as are carried out by that director in relation to the company, and
(b)the general knowledge, skill and experience that that director has.
(5)The reference in subsection (4) to the functions carried out in relation to a company by a director of the company includes any functions which he does not carry out but which have been entrusted to him.
(6)For the purposes of this section a company goes into insolvent liquidation if it goes into liquidation at a time when its assets are insufficient for the payment of its debts and other liabilities and the expenses of the winding up.
(7)In this section “director” includes a shadow director.
(8)This section is without prejudice to section 213.

It may be that the authorities consider the parties to the Ticketus deal may have contravened S993 of the 2006 Act and the recent “raids” are evidence that they are following a positive line of inquiry.

I make no allegation of wrongdoing whatsoever.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:44 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Phil MacGiollaBhain (@Pmacgiollabhain) says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 18:17
10 1 Rate This

The Orlit issue hasn’t went away. Those folks want their money.
————

I’m sure I read the amount due being about £500,000. Do you know if that’s accurate?

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on6:46 pm - Apr 11, 2013


@Danish. My understanding is that the disputed invoice is £400k

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on7:00 pm - Apr 11, 2013


easyJambo says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 18:12
…………………………………………..

Dunfermline I believe have every right to appeal the SFA decision…it is absurd to have one club censured for non payment of monies associated to a Scottish cup game and another club banned for the same offence..

The only and I mean only justification in different punishments would be based on the grounds of a repeat offender….so unless Dunfermline have previous non payment offences in the same competition then the SFA are punishing a club unfairly based on previous decisions and Dunfermline MUST appeal that decision with a view to taking it to the CoS if need be.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on7:01 pm - Apr 11, 2013


It is a true saying that “One falsehood leads easily to another”.

Cicero
and he wisnae born yesterday

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:11 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Phil MacGiollaBhain (@Pmacgiollabhain) says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 18:46
4 1 Rate This

@Danish. My understanding is that the disputed invoice is £400k
———-

Orlit itself is difficult to trace. It’s not got an internet profile to speak of, but I’m no a very good sleuth 🙂 It’s perhaps quite a small investment company? Mr C F Meng is very traceable though. A very active businessman he seems too. Mr Green was off on his Asia-Australia tour round about the time this came up. I imagined he’d had a face-to-face to buy more time / make peace, hence the silence.

View Comment

ratethisthenyabampotsPosted on7:12 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Phil MacGiollaBhain (@Pmacgiollabhain) says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 18:46

@Danish. My understanding is that the disputed invoice is £400k

Or to put it another way, the same as the weekly trading loss at Ibrox.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on7:20 pm - Apr 11, 2013


@ratethis Indeed so. Which makes, TRFC’s behaviour over the Orlit invoice is,IMHO, very strange. #CashFlow

View Comment

arabest1Posted on7:21 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Phil MacGiollaBhain (@Pmacgiollabhain)

OT Phil, purely out of interest…… how many copies has Downfall sold to date?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:32 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Listened to the first ten minutes of Radio Clyde tonight prior to switching to the more objective Radio Scotland when it started. Gordon Dalziel on Clyde demanded to know everything going on at Ibrox, and who knew/knows what about any Green/Whyte dealings etc. He then went on to knock the fans for not wanting TRFC in the SPL. Is he really so thick he can’t see the irony in his stance?

View Comment

TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy)Posted on7:38 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Danish Pastry says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 19:11
————————————————————————————————————-
 
See the post by mick onFebruary 11, 2013 at 4:50 pm
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/i-have-been-nominated-for-an-award/comment-page-1/

Who lifted the information verbatim from KdS without acknowledgment of the source.

View Comment

douglas reynholmPosted on7:45 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Just had a look at some my twitter feeds from bears……what’s this Can’t pay Alloa stuff?

View Comment

FIFAPosted on7:49 pm - Apr 11, 2013


I just hope Charles didnt just tell the men from the East what he thought they wanted to hear aka a Whytey ,word of warning Charles,they will put you to the sword,literarely

View Comment

Sugar DaddyPosted on7:55 pm - Apr 11, 2013


I recently read Simon Jordan’s book Careful What You Wish For. It details how he lost his fortune whilst owner of Crystal Palace. The last few chapters describe how he took out a finance deal from a slightly unconventional lender to overcome cashflow issues. The deal was to be his downfall as the demands of the lender became impossible to satisfy. CP went into admin., Jordan lost control and over £30m of his own money.

Now which former SPL club in the south side of Glasgow recently raised a lot of money from unconventional sources?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:56 pm - Apr 11, 2013


TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 19:38
0 0 Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 19:11
————————————————————————————————————-

See the post by mick onFebruary 11, 2013 at 4:50 pm
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/i-have-been-nominated-for-an-award/comment-page-1/

Who lifted the information verbatim from KdS without acknowledgment of the source.
—————–

Ma heid’s spinnin 😀

That was very complicated. I’ve just read up on Mr Meng myself, and on the face of it, he seems a very well-educated businessman with his finger in a thousand pies. I’ll be interested to see what comes of the unpaid invoice.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on7:56 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Does whyte losing the ticketus case have real implications for Sevco?

Wasn’t the Whyte Floating Charge (wavetower) largely dismissed by D&P as they said there was no evidence he had funded the club in any way

now that ticketus are coming after whyte for the money – does that make his FC real

I know Sevoc bought assets from CW – but would they have been allowed to sell them if the FC was recognised

(i am out of my depth on this stuff – the above is a question, not a prediction/statement)

View Comment

loamfeetPosted on8:18 pm - Apr 11, 2013


What happened to the floating charge held over the assets? I thought it had been spirited off to BVI by way of Wavetower? Did the liquidation invalidate the floating charge?

View Comment

Rabo KarabekianPosted on8:25 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Question for our legal and biz-minded friends;

After the CVA attempt failed what, if any, say would CW have had on the sale to Sevco?
Would he have had to sign off on it? Or would his hands have been tied, and D&D empowered to dispose of those assets?

My thinking is that if CW thought he was selling to Sevco 5088, that he would have damn well ensured that’s EXACTLY who was being given the assets. However, if D&D sold them to someone else with CW’s hands tied behind his back, he might have a case against the Duffers?

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:41 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Rabo Karabekian says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 20:25
1 1 Rate This
Question for our legal and biz-minded friends;

However, if D&D sold them to someone else with CW’s hands tied behind his back, he might have a case against the Duffers?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The creditors may also have a case against Duff & Phelps. D&P claimed they had a contractual obligation to sell to Sevco 5088 and so would not entertain any other offers after the CVA was rejected. They then sold to a completely unrelated company called Sevco Scotland. CW could well have a couple of potential cases to bring and if any major creditor was of a mind to, they might also bring a case against D&P, or jointly against D&P and SS if they may be considered to have been in cahoots. Just a thought.

View Comment

Rabo KarabekianPosted on9:01 pm - Apr 11, 2013


scottc says:

Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 20:41
_____________________________________________

Wouldn’t the creditors be hog-tied because it would be difficult to prove that they got less from the sale to Sevco Scotland than they would have from a sale to Sevco 5088.

CW on the other hand could perhaps show a financial disadvantage a lot more comfortably?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:05 pm - Apr 11, 2013


It strikes me that one of the factors that requires some examination is Green’s role in the running of Rangers before the administration ended and the assets were sold to whoever – I seem to remember that he had some kind of role and possibly was acting for or on behalf of D&P.

Perhaps my memory is going the way of Green’s but something is nagging away at the last few brain cells

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on9:05 pm - Apr 11, 2013


@arabest. Very happy publisher. Very happy bookshops. A best seller last year in Scotland.

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on9:12 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 19:56

Quantcast
Does whyte losing the ticketus case have real implications for Sevco?

Wasn’t the Whyte Floating Charge (wavetower) largely dismissed by D&P as they said there was no evidence he had funded the club in any way

now that ticketus are coming after whyte for the money – does that make his FC real

I know Sevoc bought assets from CW – but would they have been allowed to sell them if the FC was recognised

(i am out of my depth on this stuff – the above is a question, not a prediction/statement)
___________________________________

What an interesting conundrum you’ve come up with, NTHM. It must be a fairly complex one even for the legal eagles, but it would seem strange if any entity can be given £17m then just get away with not paying it back. In the normal course, a guarantor would come after the debtor, though D&P successfully claimed this wasn’t a debt (if I remember correctly, TU didn’t contest this), but someone must be due this money from Rangers FC and now it would appear to be Craigie boy. I believe he still holds the floating charge, or Wavetower do, and no doubt will be coming to exercise that charge sometime soon. I suppose it will all depend on whether or not the liquidation of RFC might somehow be held to have interrupted the chain of debt, thus negating Whyte’s charge. There must be some cases in Scots Law where ownership of debt has been disputed and not settled until after an insolvency event, but never with the complication of the Ticketus deal as we know this is not covered under Scots Law in the way it is in England. As we know, therefore, it will all come down to just how much the establishment want Rangers to continue and how they will interpret Whyte’s rights under the floating charge. If Whyte does, eventually, win the right to utilise his floating charge, he’s going to need at least £17m for Ibrox and Murray Park, and need it quick! Any Blue Knight will have to bear this in mind when deciding just how much rescuing TRFC is going to cost!

View Comment

Rabo KarabekianPosted on9:26 pm - Apr 11, 2013


allyjambo says:

Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 21:12
_____________________________________

Prepared to be wrong, but I thought D&D were arguing that TU WAS a debt – and TU were arguing the opposite, saying that they had merely purchased tickets for the Big Hoose in advance and had not advanced RFC a loan.

I think TU were on the list of creditors published by D&D?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:54 pm - Apr 11, 2013


D&D reported that they had legal opinion that for voting purposes the Ticketus “claim” could be entirely excluded. Personally, I don’t think they ever made a claim.

From memory, I think Ticketus said they would pursue CW and might enter a claim to the liquidators.

Re the floating charge, CW could not prevent the sale of assets. He does though have a claim on the disbursement that ranks ahead of the unsecured creditors. Actually, since the fixed charge holders “tuped” over to Sevco, he is probably 1st in line – theoretically

The Ticketus court action strengthens his case to have a valid floating charge.

View Comment

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on9:54 pm - Apr 11, 2013


allyjambo says:

Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 21:12
_____________________________________

Prepared to be wrong, but I thought D&D were arguing that TU WAS a debt – and TU were arguing the opposite, saying that they had merely purchased tickets for the Big Hoose in advance and had not advanced RFC a loan.

I think TU were on the list of creditors published by D&D?

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

As I said this morning the detail of the Ticketus v Whyte pleadings would make for interesting reading just to see the detail of their positions re the security and the nature of the deal as plead by both sides.

I suspect that Ticketus will simply rely on the fact that they have not been paid and that they have a personal guarantee from Whytie that they can call on.

Such guarantees normally cover the position whereby the creditor doesn’t have to chase the principal debtor first so they can go after the guarantor from the off.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:59 pm - Apr 11, 2013


[Re-re-re-posted with offensive words edited !]

Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 21:58
0 0 i
Rate This
[Re-re-posted with offensive word(s) edited !]

Danish Pastry says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 18:33

y4rmy says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 16:46

Nobody mention Or*nge Clubs.
————

Jaffa Cakes are or*nge in the middle, it’s not completely obvious at first. Not dissimilar to Ja*ba Cakes
============================

Can’t resist…

Sorry, but it’s a yellow card for Danish: Jaffas are not biscuits but cakes, [as confirmed for VAT purposes, and probably discussed on RTC too.]

And with a nom de plume containing a Pastry reference, it’s a bit disappointing.

[That’s my ‘valuable’ contribution to today’s proceedings, thank you.]

View Comment

BrendaPosted on10:12 pm - Apr 11, 2013


🙁 sorry but I’m impatient ………. The clock’s exploded 🙂 it was keeping track of too many overdue events!! Really hope we’ll get some welcome news tomorrow, they were all very quiet down govan way today 😉 I wonder why???

View Comment

chipm0nkPosted on10:24 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Sorry if anyone has posited thusly.

Rangers need a good news story to sell season tickets.

Difficult to find one anywhere just now.

So contrive one.

Charles Green make an absolute arris of himself and the club. Become a total liability and embarrassment to the point of losing the plot.

Step forward a hero, let’s suggest Sir Walter or Malcolm M, just as an example.

“We have ousted that man from the board, just like you wanted. Now we need your support to keep things going and return to our rightful place, it’s all part of a journey etc …”

CG still owns 8%, loses nothing really, but stands down (like Sir David did a few years ago). Nothing really changes.

As usual no inside info or special knowledge, just a thought which occurred.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:35 pm - Apr 11, 2013


chipm0nk says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 22:24


Rangers need a good news story to sell season tickets.

Difficult to find one anywhere just now.

So contrive one.

Charles Green make an absolute arris of himself and the club. Become a total liability and embarrassment to the point of losing the plot…
=====================================

Fully concur with that cm: they desperately need a boost to sell the ST’s.

And they desperately need to put some distance between the club and Charlie, IMO.

A ‘hero’ type figure to brush away Charlie – and to play the pied-piper to the bears, [& their cash], could be a good move.

View Comment

goosyPosted on10:36 pm - Apr 11, 2013


When the assets were sold it was not possible to rename the newco TRFC without first dissolving the name TRFC. This could nt be done without the agreement of Whyte
If he has taped the conversations around the name change it will prove that the name change agreement between Whyte and Green was either

Sevco 5088 will become the new TRFC
or
A Sevco5088 subsidiary co called Sevco Scotland will become the new TRFC

View Comment

twopandaPosted on10:39 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Just wouldn`t it be just so perfect if some TU investors included some of our favs [old I know]
Hypothetical speculation of course 😉
[+ tax free]

Blimey

View Comment

redetinPosted on10:41 pm - Apr 11, 2013


ecobhoy says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 21:05

It strikes me that one of the factors that requires some examination is Green’s role in the running of Rangers before the administration ended and the assets were sold to whoever – I seem to remember that he had some kind of role and possibly was acting for or on behalf of D&P.

Perhaps my memory is going the way of Green’s but something is nagging away at the last few brain cells
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The following was the para in the CVA proposal that gave CG a formal role in Rangers.

4.21 From 6 June 2012, Charles Green will be appointed to assist in the day-to-day management of the business of the Company (at no cost to the Company or the Joint Administrators), in order to manage the ongoing trading costs of the Company and allow for a smooth transition in ownership.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:48 pm - Apr 11, 2013


StevieBC says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 21:59
8 0 Rate This

Can’t resist…

Sorry, but it’s a yellow card for Danish: Jaffas are not biscuits but cakes, [as confirmed for VAT purposes, and probably discussed on RTC too.]

And with a nom de plume containing a Pastry reference, it’s a bit disappointing.

[That’s my ‘valuable’ contribution to today’s proceedings, thank you.]
————–

It’s a fair cop, although the VAT cake designation came only after an appeal of their biscuit status to HMRC. I respect the HMRC decision, but they will always be biscuits to me 😀

While I’m happy to nom de plume pastry, I’ve no idea how it works.

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on10:50 pm - Apr 11, 2013


chipm0nk says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 22:24
……………………………………

If indeed Sir Cardigan of Govan is pushed forward to encourage ST sales…then it’s a rock and a hard place…ST money prolongs the Green/Whyte shambles….no ST money I would imagine kills the new club stone dead…another midnight think-athon by the spivs on how to manufacture a get out….what could that get it could be?..who knows…we don’t think like spivs!

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on11:05 pm - Apr 11, 2013


StevieBC says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 22:35

I think it has dawned on most Rangers people that Mr Green is a walking, talking reputational issue. To be fair Mr Green doesn’t seem to care about his reputation, (which is probably just as well), he is here to make money. However, it looks to them like he may not care very much about Rangers reputation, (such as it currently is), either, hence the increasing feeling that he has got to go.

The question then becomes, what are they looking for in a replacement? Is it a real Rangers man, you know just like the guys who got them in this mess? Or do they a need a proper professional, someone with experience of crisis management and a track record in turning companies around?

Ideally they need someone that fits all the criteria. When Celtic were on their Titanic voyage, they were extraordinarily lucky to land Fergus. Celtic minded and a pro, many didn’t appreciate just how good he was until after he was gone. Trouble is that sort of person is very rare, factor in being able to drop everything for a period of years to sort things, and the population gets even smaller.

Maybe they could get a non-Rangers connected pro to do it, but who would want it, and would the fans accept another unknown face on the bridge? So, realistically, we’re left with a Rangers man, heaven help him.

The master of the Titanic, was, of course Captain Edward Smith, so perhaps it would be fitting if Sir Walter d’EBT stepped up…..

View Comment

chipm0nkPosted on11:07 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Phil MacGiollaBhain (@Pmacgiollabhain) says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 21:05

@arabest. Very happy publisher. Very happy bookshops. A best seller last year in Scotland.

———————————————-

Good for you, Sir. I am pleased.

Well deserved for the hard work you have put into this and other stories.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on11:11 pm - Apr 11, 2013


@ChipmOnk Many thanks. It’s been an interesting journey writing about Planet Fitba these last 5 years.

View Comment

chipm0nkPosted on11:12 pm - Apr 11, 2013


I apologise in advance for the frippery, however another thought did genuinely occur.

With Green and Whyte have we actually moved from this being about succulent lamb to this being about sacrificial lamb.

That is all.

View Comment

nostarsandbarredPosted on11:14 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Danish…. For crying out friggin loud ! I can put up with all sorts of nonsense, but this just takes the biscuit….

StevieBC… you are, of course, correct.

Jaffa Cakes are Cakes….. they are called Cakes, they are defined as a cake due to a sponge base… they go hard when stale… biscuits go soft when stale. They have survived HMRC assault… and please note that HMRC have not appealed that decision…. no UTT…. no more arguments… its over. The JTC is done… finished… gone.

Jaffa CAKES….. forever. Cakes since 1927… 86 years and counting. Cakes then… Cakes now….. Cakes forever !!

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on11:25 pm - Apr 11, 2013


angus1983 says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 14:22

I was on RM tonight and there was comment regarding the lone complainer in the picture who all my earlier joking aside has to be admired for standing up and saying what he feels publicly within the Lions Den. The guy that opened the thread was scathing of him “Seriously, people doing things like this can f off……”

However there was a good post in his defence that got a fair bit of support.

Meanwhile, in the real world… A wee guy puts his money where his mouth is and makes his own statement… while an anonymous dude hides on the Internet to slag said wee guy off because he managed to get through a full set of Willie Vass pics.

Better than all the rest, eh…?

I particularly like his last line.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:30 pm - Apr 11, 2013


On the cake front:

What did Empire Biscuits use to be called. No internet peeking but a clue is it’s one for the old timers 🙂

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:37 pm - Apr 11, 2013


redetin says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 22:41

ecobhoy says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 21:05

It strikes me that one of the factors that requires some examination is Green’s role in the running of Rangers before the administration ended and the assets were sold to whoever – I seem to remember that he had some kind of role and possibly was acting for or on behalf of D&P.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The following was the para in the CVA proposal that gave CG a formal role in Rangers.

4.21 From 6 June 2012, Charles Green will be appointed to assist in the day-to-day management of the business of the Company (at no cost to the Company or the Joint Administrators), in order to manage the ongoing trading costs of the Company and allow for a smooth transition in ownership.
————————————————————————————–
Handy and pivotal position at a very critical time and there was a smooth transition in ownership – well sort of even if it wasn’t to the right company 🙂

And Green is such an obliging chappie that he took this role on without being paid – he deserves a medal. Maybe not as he’s already bought a load of them.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on11:38 pm - Apr 11, 2013


ecobhoy says:
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 23:30

Did they cost a mint !!!

View Comment

ekbhoyPosted on11:45 pm - Apr 11, 2013


On Green’s possible departure, other than the racist bilge spouted recently, he has also requested Alaistar looses his co-pilot and coach, whilst explaining to everyone that the only way he can go is if the Board throw him out or via a shareholders vote. Since Green represents the money , I suspect he is going nowhere soon. It will take a fans boycott of season tickets to remove him and as they are a rudderless lot , they will need to be told by someone. If Alastair uses the dog whistle then it is goodbye to £750k pa , so I’m guessing he will keep his counsel.

Walter will want to keep his legend status and say very little slowly making it sound slightly menacing and quasi intelligent but when you analyse what he has said , it is the cube of zero.
So on reflection, more cost cutting for Rangers , constant squealing from the big hoose,

It is a failed business model populated by football men who believe they are entitled to trouser millions out the club and demand millions upon millions for Players , this dysfunctional group of individuals will simply carry on until the cash runs out.

Are they paying their NI and VAT at the moment? Not an unreasonable question in the circumstances!

View Comment

TaysiderPosted on11:49 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Are St Mirren right that the 12-12-18 proposal includes effectively locking in the 11-1 majority vote for 3 years (by which time TRFC are likely to be back in top flight)? If so why are the “diddy” clubs supporting this? 11-1 has been the biggest obstacle to real SPL reform, especially income redistribution. Any chance of transparency on this important point?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f…county-1816413

“However Gilmour’s main issue is the retention of the equivalent of 11-1 voting structure, which he believes has been Scottish football’s biggest stumbling block since the advent of the SPL.

It gave the Old Firm a vice-like grip, enabling them to vote in tandem to quell the other clubs. The irony of that being the vehicle Saints are now using the kill the plan is not lost on them.

However Gilmour feels it would be wrong to vote in favour of what he considers a flawed product.”

“And it’s understood another major concern is Article 196 that prevents members from instigating any structural change for a minimum of three years, irrespective of whether or not the 12-12-18 is a flop.”

View Comment

Caveat EmptorPosted on11:57 pm - Apr 11, 2013


Empire Biscuits, previously known as German Biscuits. The name change was, I believe, entirely due to a tidal wave of ‘patriotic fervour’ at the outbreak of WW1. Glad we didn’t declare war on Mars!!

View Comment

chipsandblogPosted on11:59 pm - Apr 11, 2013


re voting structure, yawn. The majority of small clubs do not have the business acumen to run a successful business. Give them a fiver and they will spend £10. The voting structure works for all clubs but we cannot have small clubs that can only fill their stadiums when Celtic and Rangers call, having any major influence in Scottish football.

who do the TV audience want to see, the top 5 or 6 v the rest.

View Comment

Humble PiePosted on12:04 am - Apr 12, 2013


Hanlon’s Razor

What if the mainstream media hack pack were actually right all along and we are all just obsessed and imagining all these ‘outrageous conspiracy theories’ surrounding the death and rebirth of Rangers?

What if everything happened just as they described it and there really are no secret agendas or cover-ups involved in this fiasco?

How else might we explain the multitude of ‘headcracking’ examples of fiscal, corporate and professional lunacy we have been witness to throughout this debacle, particularly from such formerly venerable institutions as MIM, RFC, the SFA, D&P, Ticketus, Cenkos and the MSM?

Is it possible that the increasingly long list of unorthodox decisions and endless delays as well as the many ‘bizarre coincidences’ surrounding the folks and proceedings at Ibrox and Hampden could all just be ‘honest mistakes’. Taken individually, of course they could. However when you join the dots, these events taken together show all the classic hallmarks of a long-planned, multi-layered conspiracy and cover up in operation.

Noam Chomsky, philosopher, scholar, political writer and activist, defines ‘conspiracy theory’ as being the opposite of ‘institutional analysis’ which prefers to look at the public, long-standing misbehaviour of institutions, as recorded in official documents or mainstream media reports rather than being the work of secretive coalitions of individuals.

I suppose, on the face of it, this could provide a rational explanation for the consistent confusion, rampant misrepresentation and the systemic aversion to the truth displayed all the way through this mockery of a sham. The problem with that theory arises when we realise that many of the ‘officials’ and the mainstream media reporters appear to be in on the scam, so gathering information from those sources will likely yield little of benefit to any investigation.

Perhaps we should apply Hanlon’s Razor to the situation i.e. “Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.”

In fact, simple stupidity and bewilderment appear to be the favoured justification for the (in)actions of all the prime suspects in the Rangers downfall. “I was duped” says Mr Murray, “I didn’t know, nobody told me” says Mr Smith, “It was never my role” says Mr Ogilvie, “That’s what his PR people told us” says Mr Jackson, “It’s the first I’ve heard of it” says Mr McCoist.

Seriously though, I find it very hard to believe that so many seemingly intelligent, worldly-wise and ordinarily prudent individuals could have been so easily deceived by such transparently ‘dodgy’ characters as Craig Whyte and Charles Green.

How come we, illiterate internet bampots, were able to see through all the blatant lies and bluster proffered by these shysters to disguise their own obvious failings, while the Jacksons and Keevins’ of this world appeared to be entirely convinced by the veracity of every one of their lame utterances?

Either they are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people or they have absolutely no interest in untangling this well-woven web of deceit?

Given the sluggish (do you see what I did there?) progress of both the governing bodies and the investigative authorities in responding to the dodgy dealings at Rangers, there was a real danger that the chief culprits behind this debacle might actually live long enough to get away with it. In fact, if it hadn’t been for rangerstaxcase.com, Phil Mac and a few notable others, I have no doubt that they would have.

I am convinced that the forensic analysis of the facts and figures on RTC and now on TSFM is helping to accelerate a proper investigation into this sordid affair. Much of the new found determination of STV and The Daily Record to get to the bottom of this scandal appears to stem from the education they have received freely from these pages.

Whilst I wouldn’t want to take the JFK conspiracy analogy too far (for obvious reasons) I believe there is a valuable lesson to be learned from that ‘incomplete’ investigation.

Investigators into the JFK assassination concluded that:

“The single biggest clue to any assassination is to determine who had the power to call off or reduce the normal security measures.”

Whilst this person, may not be the prime instigator of the plot, their action or inaction makes them complicit in the crime (a conspirator, if you will) and they would certainly know where their orders came from.

So, what were the ‘normal security measures’ in the case of Rangers financial collapse and ‘who had the power to call off or reduce’ these measures?

Apart from corporate due diligence and fiscal responsibility, the only systems that are in place to prevent a football club tripping over the ‘fiscal cliff’ are the rules and regulations of the game as set down by the SFA, UEFA and ultimately FIFA.

These rules exist to ensure fair play among all participants in the sport, to mitigate the risk of the entire game being brought into disrepute and include the requirement for the submission of annual audited accounts and players contracts from all member clubs/companies.

In order to maintain these established rules and procedures and to discourage deviance, the rules have to be properly enforced ‘without fear or favour’.

With this in mind, let’s ask ourselves these questions.

Who had the power to ignore Rangers’ illegitimate implementation of EBTs (as per their SFA submitted documents) knowing this to be contrary to the SFA rules regarding players registrations?

Who was responsible for rubber stamping Rangers UEFA licenses for a number of years despite patently failing to meet the necessary criteria due to ongoing disputes with the tax authorities?

Who turned a blind eye to Rangers continuing to spend beyond their means (ignoring the contingent liabilities placed on them by their disputed tax bills) thus ensuring that they were able to fulfil their SPL fixtures in 2011/12 season?

Who was responsible for the shambolic implementation of the ‘fit and proper person’ test which allowed Craig Whyte to buy the club from David Murray, despite his well documented history of shady business dealings?

Who was then suddenly able to successfully implement this same test once the dirty deed had been done and consequently declare Mr Whyte neither fit nor proper, after the fact?

Who has subsequently utilised this same test to find Mr Charles Green (a self-confessed liar and conman) to be passed as both fit and proper to run a Scottish football club?

Who had the power to apply significant financial sanctions for ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ to an individual who they knew would not be compelled to pay the fine, while, simultaneously, minimising sanctions applied to the ‘club’ itself?

Who delegated their powers to another autonomous body and private company (SPL) to take control of the duel contract enquiry, gaining Sevco Scotland the time required to engineer the transfer of Rangers SFA membership?

Who sent their Registration Officer to the subsequent LNS enquiry to argue that ‘All women are pregnant’ that no sporting advantage was conferred by fiddling the taxpayer for multi-millions of pounds over a 10 year period.

Who proposed the ‘transfer of membership’ between an old company (Rangers FC PLC) and a new company (Sevco Scotland Ltd) instead of a new membership being granted, allowing Sevco to claim that they are in fact a continuation of the old Rangers?

Who was in a position to orchestrate the new fangled ‘conditional membership’ which allowed Sevco to play their first game in SFL3 despite not having full membership of the SFA?

Who had the power to delay the commencement of a player registration embargo until after the transfer window closed allowing Sevco to sign a number of new players despite not having paid all their football debts?

Who has the power to suppress the notorious five-way agreement detailing the obligations of the various parties?

Who allowed a subordinate to perpetuate the Armageddon scenario in the hope of scaring SFA member clubs into allowing Sevco/Rangers into the top tier of the SFL?

Who allowed a subordinate to publically and consistently undervalue the Scottish game in the midst of negotiating a major media rights contract to the severe detriment of the finances of the game in Scotland?

Who had the power to procrastinate, obfuscate and ignore any questioning of the activities of Rangers, The Rangers and the governing bodies by the general public?

Who had the power to call a halt to all these shenanigans at any point during the saga by simply applying the agreed rules without fear or favour, yet chose not to do so?

Who still refuses to publically declare that The Rangers is a new club, possibly to the financial detriment of creditors of the old Rangers?

I could go on but I think you get the point. In my humble opinion, the answers to these questions lead us directly to the identity of the ‘smoking gun’ in the cover-up of this conspiracy, the gatekeeper to many of the key people and facts behind the Rangers conspiracy and the one person who has continually used his powers in order to deflect, defer and delay any proper investigation into the decades-long debacle.

From the moment Sir David Murray realised the inevitability of Rangers FC going into administration the planning would have begun in earnest. As soon as those well dressed officers of the City of London Police raided fortress Ibrox back in July 2007 to investigate some dodgy transfer dealings, Sir Murray of the Mint knew that they would pass any information retrieved regarding Rangers Tax affairs to HMRC (who, funnily enough, take an interest in that sort of thing and will pay handsomely for incriminating evidence).

Realising that his number was up (the EBTs were only beneficial as long as they remained hidden from the authorities), his first port of call would no doubt have been to his ‘placeman’ in the SFA, our old pal and apparently the pure bestest administrator in the entire universe ever, Campbell Ogilvie.

The fact that this man still occupies the highest position in the Scottish game despite being ‘heavily conflicted’ and despite being ‘unable to do his job properly’ is absolutely astonishing. That our mainstream media fail to see the significance of his role in the Rangers shambles and don’t ever question him stinks of complicity, conspiracy and corruption.

J Edgar Hoover famously noted that “The individual can become handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.”

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:16 am - Apr 12, 2013


Thursday’s over

That will be a dud as predicted 🙂

View Comment

Caveat EmptorPosted on12:42 am - Apr 12, 2013


HP. Another quality post!
Applying Hanlon’s Razor to the situation still leaves the question that I have not been able to get my head around for around 30 years. What possible benefit can be derived by the succession of ‘establishment’ figures and organisations (with the obvious exception of Oor Cammy) who have, over the years, made accommodations for and bent the rules in favour of one football club? What am I missing here?
Actually, I know, in my heart of hearts the reason but cannot bring myself to articulate it. It pains me to be part of a society where these notions still prevail and I can only feel sympathy for those whose raison d’etre is defined by such narrow mindedness.
Hope this makes sense, I know what I’m trying to say!

View Comment

Humble PiePosted on12:55 am - Apr 12, 2013


Caveat Emptor says:
Friday, April 12, 2013 at 00:42

What am I missing here?
________________________

The Agenda ? …..”Supremacy must be maintained at all cost”.

View Comment

manandboyPosted on1:02 am - Apr 12, 2013


Humble Pie says:
Friday, April 12, 2013 at 00:04
__________________________________________________________________________

Well done HP – you might think of changing your moniker to Tournedos en Croute!

Yes, CO – the most gracious, most charming, most helpful, most reasonable, most benign man, you’re ever likely to meet.

The perfect camouflage.

But for him, this would have been over long ago.

With him still in place and seemingly impregnable – not to mention nearly invisible – I’d say there’s still a bit to go yet.

View Comment

Caveat EmptorPosted on1:03 am - Apr 12, 2013


HP. Nailed it!!

View Comment

ogmagaonghusaPosted on1:06 am - Apr 12, 2013


Tom English article:

Great.

Charles Green is a dodgy bloke.

I’ve just discovered this.

I wonder how all this has come about?

Let’s get rid of him and put in some other person in charge.

Then everything will be all right.

P.S.
Let’s cross-check the definition of “hubris” with the actions and attitude of SDM, and contemplate what has unfolded for Scottish football, for the Scottish “economy”, for the Scottish banking sector, for the Scottish legal system over the past twenty years.

View Comment

faza2010Posted on1:06 am - Apr 12, 2013


HP & CE

Incisive posts and straight to the point. Bravo!

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on1:22 am - Apr 12, 2013


Stewart Milne’s comments today are disappointing. Complaining that St Mirren aren’t voting as they’d indicated is one thing. But complaining that they’ve done it in public is out of order. We’ve all seen what keeping these decisions behind closed doors does. If Milne thinks that’s a good way to run a national league, then he shouldn’t be running a club.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on1:29 am - Apr 12, 2013


Humble Pie says:
Friday, April 12, 2013 at 00:04

=====================================================================

A small point – You fail to mention that in the timescale you deal with the completely incompetent Gordon Smith was CEO at the SFA and after being kicked out because he was clearly not very smart he reappeared in a senior position at Rangers. Who appointed him?

Also you fail to highlight the “Great Administrators” role at Hearts where they, very recently, settled a “dual contracts” dispute with HMRC. Who was Club Secretary when that started?

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on1:34 am - Apr 12, 2013


ptd1978 says:
Friday, April 12, 2013 at 01:22

Stewart Milne’s comments today are disappointing. Complaining that St Mirren aren’t voting as they’d indicated is one thing. But complaining that they’ve done it in public is out of order. We’ve all seen what keeping these decisions behind closed doors does. If Milne thinks that’s a good way to run a national league, then he shouldn’t be running a club.

=====================================================================

Milne is a tyrant. Transparency and democracy don’t exist in his corporate world. Even his advisors have to be turned over until he finds one he likes or who can deal with his peculiarities!

View Comment

Humble PiePosted on1:35 am - Apr 12, 2013


bogsdollox says:
Friday, April 12, 2013 at 01:29

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 😉

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on1:51 am - Apr 12, 2013


Humble Pie says:
Friday, April 12, 2013 at 01:35

bogsdollox says:
Friday, April 12, 2013 at 01:29

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 😉
===============================================================

Come on. A person should know who this person is. Maybe he is a vanishing actor in all this. Personally I think we all know who it is. But If you don’t name him we will never know. Especially since it has all gone boobies up at Rangers again. Last time it was so sad. Like the last time it’s so sad.

Obviously, I ain’t naming nobody here. Give and take. Is what is say. Lovely sentiments. Very good to see them these days. I don’t usually come across them. Everyone should because it’s the right way.

View Comment

Rabo KarabekianPosted on1:53 am - Apr 12, 2013


Caveat Emptor says:

Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 23:57
Empire Biscuits, previously known as German Biscuits. The name change was, I believe, entirely due to a tidal wave of ‘patriotic fervour’ at the outbreak of WW1. Glad we didn’t declare war on Mars!!
__________________________________________________

German biscuits, invented and named by the City Bakeries (Walter Hubbard & Co) which were around in Glasgow until the 80s I think, were renamed Empire Biscuits after the outbreak of WW1 since names associated with “the hun” were deemed unpatriotic.

At the same time, and for the same reason, the Saxe-Coburgs became the Windsors to sound a little less German.

Strange but true: Do you know you can’t get an Empire Biscuit in Greggs on a Monday?

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on2:02 am - Apr 12, 2013


Listening back to Radio Shortbread’s Paper Talk tonight. Michael Grant, Jangles (Why has he not done any phone-ins since his “wealth off this radar” column ?) and Roddy Forsyth were on the panel. According to them Mr Charles is Dead Dog Pie. Nearly spat out my tea when I heard Grant commenting that Whytey doesn’t “shoot his load” too quickly when releasing his taped conversations.

I’m sure that means something totally different in Aberdeen than in Paisley when I was growing up in the 70’s.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on2:02 am - Apr 12, 2013


Rabo Karabekian says:
Friday, April 12, 2013 at 01:53

Caveat Emptor says:

Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 23:57
Empire Biscuits, previously known as German Biscuits. The name change was, I believe, entirely due to a tidal wave of ‘patriotic fervour’ at the outbreak of WW1. Glad we didn’t declare war on Mars!!
__________________________________________________

German biscuits, invented and named by the City Bakeries (Walter Hubbard & Co) which were around in Glasgow until the 80s I think, were renamed Empire Biscuits after the outbreak of WW1 since names associated with “the hun” were deemed unpatriotic.

At the same time, and for the same reason, the Saxe-Coburgs became the Windsors to sound a little less German.

Strange but true: Do you know you can’t get an Empire Biscuit in Greggs on a Monday?
_________________________________________________________________________

However, you can always buy their hot brown sludge/shit filled pies, bridies and horse rolls any day of the week.

Does anybody sell a real pie or bridie these days?

View Comment

67ecossePosted on3:07 am - Apr 12, 2013


Humble Pie made some great points and yes.. one could use Hanlon’s Razor. The thing that baffles me is that back in 2005 Ogilvy was more or less thrown off the board at Rangers and went to Hearts. It was said at that time he was focusing his activities with the SFA and UEFA.

It would be good to know why he was ousted. What did he know or say when SDM took back the Chair from McClelland? Could it have been the fact he was dismissed that keeps him in charge at the SFA? Something simply does not add up. His position should be untenable and yes he received an EBT too…..in any other organization he would have been removed (with full pay) until the whole thing had been cleared.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on6:53 am - Apr 12, 2013


bogsdollox
Ah auld Smudger Smith ,another thread in the tangled web that is the ragers downfall debacle
Has the reason he left his post in the corridors of power so abruptly been properly explained yet .

HP
excellent post and IMO it shows us all what we have been dealing with in Scottish football for far too long now .
The stench from the sixth floor and beyond has become overwhelming as this debacle has played out and it will only get worse the more desperate sevco 2012 become .

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:00 am - Apr 12, 2013


That ‘suppressed’ interview comment from the other night on Clyde is coming back to haunt Mr Green. But if he’s as un-embarrassable as he’s been described, does he care?

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/charles-green-faces-second-no-surrender-charge-1-2891991

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on7:08 am - Apr 12, 2013


Only seven months from Charles Green’s ‘surrender’ interview and it coming to light, and a charge being brought. Things are starting to speed up folks!

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on7:24 am - Apr 12, 2013


Humble Pie says:

Friday, April 12, 2013 at 00:04

An excellent piece, Humble. I’ve written before how I could never understand CO’s move to Hearts, for despite of my love of that club, I could never see it as a natural, upward, move for such a ‘great’ administrator. Since the Rangers Saga began I’ve come to believe it was all part of the plan, with Ogilvie’s move a form of ‘cleansing’ and separation from Rangers before his planned next move to the SFA. It might appear like a very long game, but I’m sure shortly after the introduction of the EBTs, or maybe even from the outset, Murray was aware that ‘there may be trouble ahead’, and would want placemen in position to deal with it. Even if Murray wasn’t so far sighted regarding the EBTs, he probably wanted his man in place knowing that his, and Rangers, financial positions were deteriorating.

With succulent lamb, and such a hold on the football authorities, along with the natural inclinations of ‘The Establishment’, he must have felt quite secure. There were two things, though, that he couldn’t secure/anticipate, and that was the emergence of internet bampots 🙂 and the fact that he was going to have to get involved with out and out spivs at some point. Neither, it seems, are controllable.

View Comment

TaysiderPosted on7:33 am - Apr 12, 2013


The current blog on this site makes a reference to Glasnost and a Pair of Strikers. Glasnost, together with Perestroika, was of course a key philosophy in the Gorbachev era, when the totalitarian Soviet regime, under his leadership, recognised the need for change, including for increased openness and transparency. It is an extremely appropriate term and analogy for what is required in Scottish football.

Humble Pie at 00.04 makes the compelling case for complicity, conspiracy and corruption at the core of Scottish football. But if we accept that is the case, what does that say for the other 41 clubs in Scottish football? We may decry Scottish football being “Rangers centric” but there is a danger that we are too willing to interpret all that is wrong in a paradigm of the malign influence of one club.

The most persuasive case I have heard for the plans for Scottish football reform has been made by Turnbull Hutton, in a recording that could have been made, Craig Whyte style, by a phone in a room, not by the MSM, outlining why he sees it as overall a step forward. What does that say for “Glasnost” in Scottish Football? A lack of transparency isn’t simply about Rangers. It is an all pervasive culture in the corporate world of Scottish football that prevents open discussion leading to healthy beneficial reform and persuading the fans to buy into it. It reeks of smoke filled rooms, of shabby compromises in the corridors of power that no one feels comfortable explaining and persuading to the wider world.

You may believe that the 11-1 vote being locked into the new structure is a side issue as the scandal that is Rangers / TRFC continues to unfold. But to see our football in terms of one malign influence corrupting the game for 41 other clubs would be as naive as those taken in by all the promises of Craig Whyte and Charles Green. If there was a genuine appetite for glasnost and perestroika, for reform of Scottish Football in a transparent way from the other 41 clubs, involving the SFA, SPL and SFL, and their leadership, then it would happen.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on7:53 am - Apr 12, 2013


Andrew Woods says:
Friday, April 12, 2013 at 02:02
11 0 Rate This
Listening back to Radio Shortbread’s Paper Talk tonight. Michael Grant, Jangles (Why has he not done any phone-ins since his “wealth off this radar” column ?) and Roddy Forsyth were on the panel. According to them Mr Charles is Dead Dog Pie. Nearly spat out my tea when I heard Grant commenting that Whytey doesn’t “shoot his load” too quickly when releasing his taped conversations.

I’m sure that means something totally different in Aberdeen than in Paisley when I was growing up in the 70′s.
—————————————————————————————————————

I think he meant shot his bolt

View Comment

Comments are closed.