Good Try Mr. McKenzie

Avatar ByGuest Blogger

Good Try Mr. McKenzie

Guest Blog by Shyster and Shyster

Anyone hoping for some “on the record comments” made under oath in the Kinloch v Coral case is Court last week would have been sorely disappointed.

Like many people I followed James Doleman’s tweets from Court with interest. However, it became clear very early on in the proceedings that there was to be no seminal moment in the OCNC debate – despite the obvious defence available to Coral which would have made it so.

A tweet from Mr Doleman (see below) makes it clear that Coral sent a letter to Mr Kinloch explaining the reason why they would not pay out on his bet.

The reason, in a a sentence was that “Rangers were demoted, not relegated”.

Here is that Tweet from Mr Doleman.

I assume then, that an employee of Coral communicated this letter to Mr Kinloch without getting it “legalled” first.

That is extraordinary for a number of reasons; firstly, it is factually incorrect, and secondly it can be argued that this position leaves Coral open to exposure in other areas.

I find it difficult to imagine how this letter left Coral without the approval of their legal people, especially given that £250K plus legal costs was at stake.

If I was in Kinloch’s position, I would on the phone to the nearest no-win-no-fee lawyer I could find, because in the light of their explanation for refusing to settle the bet, and using terminology that Coral would understand, he is better than evens to win the case.

I think it would be fair to conclude this employee may be facing disciplinary action, and that this action will turn up as a case study in the training manuals sitting on shelves in every bookmaker shop in the country.

However just because the OCNC debate sat on the bench last week it doesn’t mean there wasn’t something juicy on show.  The SPL’s legal representative, Rod McKenzie – a defence witness in the case –   made some very interesting comments in his evidence.

Before I go into his comments further I would like to address some unfair criticism aimed at Mr McKenzie.  As most of us know, he is the lawyer who helped create in elusive 5 Way Agreement.

Nothing has blurred the lines of the OCNC debate more than this document, and Mr McKenzie himself is most likely to have authored the 5 Way Agreement, and provided a rationale for his client, the SPL signing up to it. But the SPL would have outlined what they wanted in the Agreement, so any anger directed at McKenzie is misdirected.  He was, quite rightly, looking after the interests of his client.  It is not his fault that his client is an idiot.

Notwithstanding this, Mr McKenzie said – or rather didn’t say – some very interesting things.

  • He told us that the 5 Way Agreement contains (what appears to be) nuclear grade confidentiality clauses.
  • He couldn’t – or wouldn’t provide a definition of Relegation.

The man who wrote the rules for the SPL says he cannot define relegation.  Well he can, but he chooses not to.

Conclusion? I can only infer that there is something in the 5 Way Agreement that precludes him from saying more.

I have seen (online) what are alleged to be draft versions of the 5 Way Agreement. In Football term though, and despite of existing Corporate Law,  the OCNC debate cannot be fully settled until the actual and final terms of this agreement are known.

If only there was a way to see that document.

About the author

Avatar

Guest Blogger author

Guest Bloggers are drawn from SFM members and beyond. The opinions in Guest Blogs are not necessarily shared or endorsed by SFM. If you would like to submit a guest blog to SFM, let us know.

358 Comments so far

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:30 pm - Jan 23, 2017


Darryl i am the SFA Broadfoot                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Darryl Broadfoot, a former chief football writer at The Herald, will join Frame as a partner from his role as head of communications and corporate affairs at the SFA on March 27. He is expected to continue providing PR and communications support to the football body in his new post
Mr Broadfoot said: “I am hugely excited to be joining one of the fastest-growing PR agencies in Scotland and working alongside a respected and motivated team put together by Stephen. After more than a decade in sports media, and seven years at the Scottish FA, I am energised by this latest challenge.”
———————-
He will continue to provide PR and communications support to the football body01

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on9:55 pm - Jan 23, 2017


Darryl I am the SFA,
to become
Darryl I am ‘The’ Jabba.

Can we expect a quantum leap in the amount of copy/pasting in the SMSM? 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:24 pm - Jan 23, 2017


If anything comes out of this case it may be that the term Relegated may not be used anymore.One can only hope. Who knows there may be more claims out there.Who knew that there would be a court case about relegation a couple of weeks ago.Anyway If anything comes out of this case let’s hope that the term Relegated may not be used anymore.
small steps.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:29 pm - Jan 23, 2017


I’ve had a look at the full cup draw record of the Newco since their first game against Brechin on 29 July 2012.

Prior to the recent home run of 10 in a row, they participated in 35 other cup draws.  They were drawn at home 18 times and away 17 times, which is much more what you would expect statistically.

I also looked at how the 1024 combinations for the last 10 draws could have worked out
10 home 0 away – 1 combination
9 home 1 away – 10 combinations
8 home 2 away – 45
7 home 3 away – 120
6 home 4 away – 210
5 home 5 away – 252
4 home 6 away – 210
3 home 7 away – 120
2 home 8 away – 45
1 home 9 away – 10
0 home 10 away – 1

So there is a 66% chance of a fairly equitable split of 6-4, 5-5 or 4-6.

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on10:34 pm - Jan 23, 2017


Apologies if this has already been covered.

I’d take minor issue with Trisidium from the previous blog on Rangers maxing out on revenues at this time. I’m fairly sure a £50 price hike was put in place at the start of the season for season books. That’s an extra £2M . League distribution of funds is likely to bring in an extra £1M

In Rangers position an extra £3M is significant. The decision of the board was whether to use that to work towards sustainable trading or to gamble on some kind of on field success. The fact that they chose the latter could prove extremely expensive. It’s also a decision I doubt any other board in Scotland would have taken

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:09 pm - Jan 23, 2017


Having heard most of the witnesses over the three days (I only heard half of McKenzie’s testimony), I think that there is a belief that Kinloch somehow was very clever in deliberately framing his bet in the way he did.  I don’t think that was the case.

He is certainly not a mug punter (he said that himself), but he does recognise good value in a bet.  You have to recall the time when he placed the bet (5 September 2011).  What was the situation with Rangers?  Phil and RTC were certainly on the case of things looking bleak for the Oldco, then McCoist’s boys had just got emptied out of Europe by Malmo, then Maribor (25 August 2011). 

However what were the soothsayers opinions at the time? They could certainly go bust, particularly if the big tax case went against them.  A CVA might be possible, but equally might not if HMRC held sway.  We knew about the wee tax case, but we didn’t know anything about PAYE, NIC and VAT payments being withheld, Martin Bain didn’t get his claim ring fenced until 13 September.  Did anyone really know with any certainty what was going to happen, from a points penalty, “relegation”, “demotion”, to complete extinction.

I don’t believe that Kinloch knew any more than most of us “bampots” at that time. It was a “punt” in the truest sense of the word. As I mentioned earlier I think he saw good value in the odds on offer of a “relegation” scenario.  (note that the odds came direct from their head office and not the shop).

I’m certain that Coral felt they were dealing with a narrow definition of relegation on a points basis, although there have been a few instances of relegation for match fixing or other financial reasons.  It is how the story played out since the failed CVA that offered Kinloch an opportunity to make his claim of a winning bet. That being on the basis of a wider, or common speech, definition of “relegation”.  That was the story which was deliberately promulgated by the MSM, the SPL, SFA and even the bookies themselves, adding weight to Kinloch’s claim.

I think Lord Bannatyne’s judgement is a straightforward one (although not simple) of deciding whether the narrow or the wider definition of relegation applies to the bet.  Personally, I hope that he comes down on the side of a wider definition (Kinloch wins), but that he makes clear that it was a metaphysical club that was “relegated” and that no legal entity could have survived the process.

I still think that it is an even money bet on which way the judgement will go.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:53 pm - Jan 23, 2017


Well said EJ.  I think the punter deserves his cash, not for having a winning bet per se but realising the issues Coral were going to have with their defence and calling their bluff on it.  That and a wee contempt charge for Mackenzie with a wee note from his Lordship along the lines of “I can read the bampots just as well as you: shame for you I had the balls to become a judge and you’re just happy to be a bent lawyer” would just about cover it.

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on9:38 am - Jan 24, 2017


If the judge finds that Rangers were relegated or demoted,would’nt he have to make a determination as to whether the it’s the same club as the one mr kinloch put his money on.

You can’t relegate or demote a club that does’nt exist.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on10:09 am - Jan 24, 2017


Tangoed

The way I see it is this.

The judge is only qualified to determine the status of TRFC in terms of law – and clearly that precludes any OC outcome. However, what is being asked of him is whether Coral have implied ‘relegation’ from their publicity materials, which clearly allow one to infer that TRFC are one and the same as RFC, and whether Mr. Kinloch had reasonably inferred the same.

The timing appears to be odd as well (perhaps related to the refusal by Kinloch to hand over the betting slip?). For example, when did Kinloch first attempt to cash in on the bet? Was it on July 4th when the SPL refused to allow Sevco entry to the league –  or even when the club was put into liquidation?

At that point, it seems to me that there is a slam-dunk losing betting slip right there. Maybe the slip ended up in the waste bucket at that point, only for Kinloch to see that the emerging continuity myth in the papers gave him some hope, further bolstered by Coral’s own ‘OF is back’ publicity.

Curiously though it appears that Coral are implicitly using the argument that TRFC are not RFC, although they don’t want to deploy that weapon explicitly.

For example, when taken to task about their “OF is back” publicity article, they distanced themselves from it, saying that the piece was written by a freelance journalist. That implies that they take the view (backed up by their ‘Kenny Miller scores for all three OF clubs’ tweet) that TRFC are a new club.

Seems to me they want their cake etc. In fact their refusal to argue the NC case explicitly is further proof of that. The status of Mr Kinloch as a gambler is neither here nor there as far as I can see. Any reasonable person could be expected to believe that, given Coral’s publicity materials, the same Rangers were playing in the league. And any reasonable person wouldn’t see any difference between ‘relegated’ and ‘demoted’.

I hope the guy gets his cash, but whether he does or not, the decision will not be predicated on a legal finding over OCNC

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:34 am - Jan 24, 2017


easyJamboJanuary 23, 2017 at 23:09

That’s pretty much how I see it, EJ. Kinloch saw an outside chance to make a fortune from the £100 he regularly carries in his pocket, probably thought he’d lost it when Rangers fell into liquidation, but once the big lie was pushed, not just by the SFA, SMSM, etc, but also by the major bookies in advertising TRFC as ‘Rangers’, with the use of the phrase ‘Old Firm’ to drum up interest in the game, he realised he maybe had a case to demand payment. I am sure, too, that he will have contacts within the gambling business who will have been able to appraise him of Corals’ desire to not let the cat out of the bag over the big lie and realised they would be, at the least, reticent to use the liquidation of the club in their defence for all the reasons outlined here and elsewhere.

I suspect that neither side has managed to win the case by virtue of the arguments made in court, and that the judgement will be based solely on what it was reasonable to take ‘relegation’ as meaning in this particular bet. I very much doubt that there will be any mention of whether or not, in legal, or even football, terms, Rangers were relegated in his Lordship’s summation of the case.

View Comment

Avatar

joburgt1mPosted on10:46 am - Jan 24, 2017


EASYJAMBOJANUARY 23, 2017 at 23:09

As you say pretty much a 50-50 call for his lordship, but do you think either side will appeal if they lose?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:48 am - Jan 24, 2017


BIG PINK JANUARY 24, 2017 at 10:09
——————–
It was August 2012 when he claimed the winning bet I.e. After the first game v Brechin and the share transfer to Dundee. 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:57 am - Jan 24, 2017


Agree and disagree BP.

Because of the way the case was presented his Lordship doesn’t need to make any judgement on TRFC at all.  The self proclaimed rules expert has given him an ethereal entity that no-one knew previously existed on which to base his judgement – what the common man/mug punter would identify as “Rangers” when filling in a betting slip.  Your point on timings notwithstanding I agree also that Mr Kinloch’s credentials as no mug when it comes to betting matters is immaterial.  Also, remember the prosecution made no attempt whatsoever to specify what relegation actually meant in terms of the rules.  Again therefore they have permitted the judge to use a mug punter’s definition of “Rangers” and protected, unchallenged, flexibility in the use of the word “Relegation.” This “Rangers” is now in a division lower than the division wot “they” were in before.  If I was Kinloch I would now actually be bloody annoyed if I lost.

The draft 5WA (I know, cart and horse etc but there is a delicious tangential irony given that we now know the source of the materials) gave us the clearest demonstration that Mackenzie was required to distinguish between club/company (Mackenzie’s club) and the ethereal brand thingy (Mackenzie’s Club) AND that both the SFL as was and the SPL as was (and as the SPFL now combined) required per legal contract to distinguish that Mackenzie’s Club were NOT relegated instead having to make provision “as if they had been relegated.”

And yet the author (I assume) of that very line stood up and when asked by the prosecution case who required the distinction to be made offered “No Comment” and “I can’t tell you, its a secret.” 

Developing that point even confidentially (there must surely be a method whereby a judge can see a document but commerciality is maintained?) would still not necessarily have transparently hung Coral on OC/NC incidentally although the press furore and investigation skills suddenly employed would have been a joy to behold.  The judge could still utilise his “demoted” get-out card which is what I understand is what was being offered and seems to have been Coral’s strategy all along.  But to offer it whilst refusing to back it with any substance, substance that we know, as best we can in this pathetic little chapter, exists, is just about the weakest case they could have come up with in my opinion particularly given their promotional materials that were demonstrated to court in evidence against them.  And also, for that matter, the weakened (spiked?) case requires Mackenzie publicly to come out looking at best incompetent and at worst “selective in his opinions and communication of them.” 

And hopefully that last sentence keeps you away from the lawyers BP!04 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:02 am - Jan 24, 2017


Mark CJanuary 23, 2017 at 15:35  John C.  I am in agreement with you that Rangers were not relegated.  Albert Kinloch is clearly chancing his arm in my opinion.  Where I am not fully in agreement with you, or i just dont believe its clear enough to say that your judgement on the matter is the letter of the law is on how liquidation of the company is treated in respect of the club. I have read all the arguments on here ad infinitum, all of which are reasonable and sensible but when push comes to shove, the evidence in the courts, on football body websites and in general doesnt support the general consensus of us all on here. For a QC in this situation to not use what you would believe to be the easy option of going down the liquidation route means he had to know or have reasonable doubt, it would hurt his case…
________________________________________

Mark C,

I’ve re-visited what you say in this post from the previous blog, not to take issue with you, but to use it to show, that by turning it on it’s head, it actually says the opposite of what you concluded, for clearly, if there was anything that Corals’ counsel wanted to avoid within an examination of the OC/NC debate, such as evidence that TRFC are the same club as RFC, then surely Kinloch’s counsel would have used it instead! If they could show that ‘Rangers’ were still playing, then their ‘relegation’ argument would be much easier to prove.

In other words, if there was any evidence that Mr McKenzie, in his position with the SPL/SPFL, that might prove the ‘same club’ argument, then the Kinloch team would have been on it in a flash. There can be no doubt that the SPFL would love the opportunity to prove they are the same club, and would have been only too happy to assist anyone bringing it up in court! But everyone in both legal teams knows that the ‘same club’ argument would fail, and that is why Kinloch’s team didn’t use it, otherwise it would have been their ‘slam dunk’! 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:03 am - Jan 24, 2017


BIG PINK
JANUARY 24, 2017 at 10:09
=============================

As I said a few days ago, the Judge’s rationale in how he came to his decision and how much detail he goes into will be just as important as his decision with regards whether he considers the current club to be the same one as the the on on which bet was placed. His decision may not directly relate to the old club / new club debate, that does not mean his rational won’t. 

As I also suggested a few days ago, that may well be why the Coral lawyer did not use the liquidation argument (possibly on the instruction of his client) as that would be to invite the Judge to discuss it in his ruling. Why would he mention it at all if it did not form part of either side’s argument. 

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on12:05 pm - Jan 24, 2017


BIG PINK
JANUARY 24, 2017 at 10:09
———————————————————-
If this case is solely about the use of the words Relegation or Demotion which pretty much has the same end result,then why would mr kinloch lose his bet.

QC sandison did’nt offer any evidence to show that rangers were demoted,kinloch did provide evidence to show that public statements made for and on the behalf of coral that rangers were relegated,rangers were back(Back from where?).

It should be a win for mr kinloch,providing the judge like you say takes nothing else into consideration(I think he will).

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:09 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Oh what a tangled Web we weave etc.
As I, the man in the street saw it, relegation in football has always been based on points earned  at the end of a season.
Even when clubs were punished by points deduction, relegation did not necessarily follow unless that deduction put the points total below the relegation level. In fact dont the rules recognise the timing on the consequences of a points deduction to prevent a club taking a hit when the hit is meaningless in relegation terms?
Has any club ever been relegated as a punishment for infringement of football rules and if so in what circumstances and in what respect was the points earned disregarded by the football authority?
Even if the view was that TRFC and RFC were the same club RFC/TRFC were not relegated but demoted, so Mr Kinloch in a straight historical  footballing context is on to plums.
That Coral used the term demoted (if that is what they did) seems accurate enough to defend their stance without going anywhere near the circumstances that brought about  the demotion into account.
Had the same club myth not been given legs Mr Kinloch could not have made a claim. Further  in footballing terms who has the ultimate authority on whether RFC and TRFC are the same club and on what basis is that held to be the case and does that bare scrutiny?
If the final authority is UEFA their view is now a matter of public record but why invoke them if relegation and demotion have two different meanings in a historical footballing context?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:15 pm - Jan 24, 2017


In October 2011, by which time it was clear RFC were heading for the rocks, Mr McKenzie and a member of the RFC Board had a chat, considered helpful by the Board member, about SFA/SPL rules and compliance.
So the 5 Way was at least 9 months in the planning.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on12:28 pm - Jan 24, 2017


I should have added that both sides made voluminous written submissions, the contents of which which were not aired in court. So we have little idea what additional arguments the judge will have to consider. 
If the case goes Kinloch’s way then I would expect Coral to appeal, but I can’t see Kinloch risking further costs making an appeal himself. 

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòr

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on12:33 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Reading EasyJambo’s earlier post above about the timeline of events with a CVA etc. has reminded me of another of Jingle Jangle’s ‘Off The Radar’ moments.  Anyone remember him tweeting a few days prior to the CVA being rejected that HMRC would accept 12m and the CVA would pass? Where did he get that hopelessly inaccurate info from?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:00 pm - Jan 24, 2017


AmFearLiathMòrJanuary 24, 2017 at 12:33 
Reading EasyJambo’s earlier post above about the timeline of events with a CVA etc. has reminded me of another of Jingle Jangle’s ‘Off The Radar’ moments.  Anyone remember him tweeting a few days prior to the CVA being rejected that HMRC would accept 12m and the CVA would pass? Where did he get that hopelessly inaccurate info from?

I’m guessing the same place the 12m was supposedly coming from?

AuldheidJanuary 24, 2017 at 12:15 
In October 2011, by which time it was clear RFC were heading for the rocks, Mr McKenzie and a member of the RFC Board had a chat, considered helpful by the Board member, about SFA/SPL rules and compliance. So the 5 Way was at least 9 months in the planning.

A conversation occurring if I recall correctly at or around (and ultimately instead of) an SPL meeting called to rubber stamp a TV deal that was a hell of a lot more than 9 months in the planning and supposedly to the benefit of all.  It was subsequently mothballed quicker than a moth sitting in a gun barrel. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:08 pm - Jan 24, 2017


AuldheidJanuary 24, 2017 at 12:09
‘…. Further in footballing terms who has the ultimate authority on whether RFC and TRFC are the same club and on what basis is that held to be the case and does that bare scrutiny?’
__________
I rather think, Auldheid, that in the matter of the legal identity of a football club as a legal person, the law of the land is probably the final authority.
The Football authorities cannot exercise powers that they do not have. They simply cannot say that a club which under their own rules lost its entitlement to be a member of their association/league was punished in football terms by ‘relegation’.
That is an absurdity.
As a matter of Insolvency law, Rangers football Club of 1872 ceased to be able to operate as legal entity, and as a matter of the then Articles of Association of both the SPL and the SFA, ceased to exist as a member of both of those bodies.
They were not in any sense ‘relegated’. They died.
The fact that the new Club created by Charles Green was reluctantly accepted into bottom level Scottish professional football could not in a million years be construed by even an idiot, let alone a Court of Session judge, as an indication that the dead club had been ‘relegated’.
Two entirely legal and football entities , quite distinct in law and under football governance rules simply cannot be the one club, huff and puff and tergirversate as McKenzie and others may do, as they try to dodge the fact that there was no ‘Rangers’ that could be relegated!
The judge has as easy a decision to make as had the Court of Session when it decided that EBT’s as used by archcheat SDM were just a tax evading bit of cheating: a straightforward application to plain facts of what the Law says.
Neither the dead RFC nor the new Creation is above the law: and while a sports governing body might wish to cheat, and ignore  its rules in order to cheat, they are not empowered to change rules retrospectively, so as to turn ‘death by liquidation caused by the cheating by, first Sir David Murray as its  majority shareholder and then by CW as its majority shareholder, into mere ‘relegation’.
The SFA and the SPFL simply do not have the power to say that RFC was ‘relegated’, or ‘demoted’ . Further in footballing terms who has the ultimate authority on whether RFC and TRFC are the same club and on what basis is that held to be the case and does that bare scrutiny?
It is inconceivable that the judge in this case could rightly decide in favour of Kinloch, even at the almost-invitation of Coral to do so, by the absurdity of their ‘liquidation denying’ approach to  the presentation of their case.
No harm to Kinloch, of course, but in effect he is a ‘liquidation’ denier- and therefore cannot be allowed to ‘win’ his bet and his case.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:57 pm - Jan 24, 2017


AmFearLiathMòrJanuary 24, 2017 at 12:33
‘…another of Jingle Jangle’s ‘Off The Radar’ moments. Anyone remember him tweeting a few days prior to the CVA being rejected that HMRC would accept 12m and the CVA would pass? Where did he get that hopelessly inaccurate info from?’
_______
Come, come, AmfearLiathMor! 
Your  man must have been as falsely ‘duped’ as poor SDM declared himself to have been ( in the  ham-actor  way that insincere persons tend to do). 
I haven’t, to my regret, the skills to have another look at that utterly phoney ‘I was duped’ tv interview.
Where was there any SMSM guy to ask, gently and, perhaps, with a wee touch of the forelock, ” But, Sir david! You are a self-made millionaire, sharp as a button in world-wide business enterprises! What fiendishly clever ( or little runt of a cheapskate conman) was able to dupe you, my hero?Especially if he was a wee runt already known to you as a would-be, wannabe  big-time asset stripper of failed companies or clubs with no substance of his own”
Certainly, your man Keef was not the man to do that.
 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on2:04 pm - Jan 24, 2017


SmugasJanuary 24, 2017 at 13:00
…A conversation occurring if I recall correctly at or around (and ultimately instead of) an SPL meeting called to rubber stamp a TV deal that was a hell of a lot more than 9 months in the planning and supposedly to the benefit of all.  It was subsequently mothballed quicker than a moth sitting in a gun barrel. 
__________________________

Reading that bit of your post, Smugas, brought to mind that, despite Armageddon claims being nothing more than a fear tactic from a desperate mind, a great deal of harm, both financially and image wise, has been done by football’s authorities in their attempts to create/facilitate a ‘continuation Rangers’. Instead of concentrating all their efforts on securing the future of the game, itself, the authorities were fixated with an Ibrox club. Nothing, and no one, else mattered to them, In a classic case of ‘trying too hard’ they have ensured Scottish football is in a worse state than it would have been if they’d left it to whoever purchased the Rangers’ assets to fend for themselves! Not that I am suggesting Scottish football is in a ‘worse state’ than it was when Rangers imploded, but that it is not in as good a state as it would have been if RFC/TRFC had not been the SFA and SPFL’s main project for the past 5 years.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:21 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Agreed AJ.  I completely understand the viewpoint that without Rangers (sic) then there is no old firm then there is no Scottish football.  Don’t agree with it but I can understand it.  What I don’t understand prior to the engine room subsidiary myth being created is how there was to be no Rangers since, no offence, are you telling me average crowds of circa 40,000 were going to suddenly turn there backs on a club (little c) called Rangers?  And indeed why would they need to since apparently the Club (big C) was immortal anyway?

View Comment

Avatar

naegreetinPosted on2:51 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Re AmFearLiathMor 24 Jan @12.33
Suspect Jackson may have got his figure from that well known financial football expert Mr Neil Patey – haven’t heard from him recently !

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:01 pm - Jan 24, 2017


John ClarkJanuary 24, 2017 at 13:08

While I agree with your argument, John, I don’t agree that the judge must find in favour of Corals.

He would, I have no doubt, have found in their favour if Corals had gone with a full and frank liquidation/new club defence, but they didn’t. While I don’t think Kinloch’s counsel has shown that Rangers were actually relegated, or that they are seen by everyone as relegated, neither has Corals team shown that they weren’t.

To my mind the judge might simply look at the ‘fairness’ of the bet, or what was meant by the bet. He might decide that, by their subsequent use of the word ‘relegation’ to describe what happened to ‘Rangers’, Corals have accepted a colloquial version of what relegation means, and, therefor, accepted the same meaning at the time of taking the bet.

What has to be remembered is that it is only relatively recently (2005) that gambling contracts could be taken to court, having previously been viewed under the maxim ‘sponsiones ludicrae’, and too trivial to be given legal effect. It is, therefor, possible that no similar case has been taken to court before, so the judge has nothing, or little, to refer to by way of example to guide his decision.

I think the judges decision could ignore anything and everything around the true meaning of relegation, and make his ruling on what he considers was intended by the bet, and what Corals have demonstrated they accepted the bet as meaning. Their use of the publicity material suggesting ‘Rangers’ were liquidated, regardless of how the wording came about, must surely weaken their position. Even their defence, that, rather than concentrating on the legal facts of Rangers liquidation, was very wishy washy, using opinions and how people (McKenzie and the SPFL) view relegation. This, I think, plays into Kinloch’s hands, as his argument is based on a very similar premise of what ‘people’ mean by relegation! The introduction of ‘demotion’ might also be a mistake, for the judge might make it easy on himself by simply looking at whether ‘relegation’ can be taken to mean ‘demotion’, as far as the man/punter in the street is concerned.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on3:13 pm - Jan 24, 2017


If the law is applied the judge shouldl make the distinction that there never was an old firm and that by bringing two Glasgow teams together as in a derby the term old firm can be used merely as an advertising ploy and the infamous quote made by someone years ago.
So when the old colub died and a new colub formed there still was no legal or copyright to the term old firm so it can be used legally to promote the fixture going forward. If Queens and Partick applied this tag they could do so freely as no copyright is in place for use of the term.
The argument is whether the old colub was relegated and, clearly it was not, therefore the argument ends and even if Coral state demoted or relegated on their chippie wrappers technically it is the wrong use of a term and an error, but regardless the bet placed on Rangers was of old Rangers when the bet was taken.

View Comment

Avatar

gunnerbPosted on3:33 pm - Jan 24, 2017


I wonder , should Coral lose this case , would they appeal and exactly what would they bring to the table next time .Round two could be even more entertaining.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on4:08 pm - Jan 24, 2017


AULDHEIDJANUARY 24, 2017 at 12:09   
Oh what a tangled Web we weave etc….Has any club ever been relegated as a punishment for infringement of football rules and if so in what circumstances and in what respect was the points earned disregarded by the football authority?

Well, I guess Livingston were dumped down a couple of leagues, though it was due to a breach of football insolvency rules, rather than football rules. Does that count? 19

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1204561/Rescued-Livingston-demoted-division-breach-insolvency-rules.html

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:25 pm - Jan 24, 2017


A general observation related to the Corals court case.

Is it not just absurd that there is even a court case arguing about whether one of Scotland’s highest profile football clubs was ‘relegated’ or ‘demoted’ ?

IMO, this action is wholly reflective of the incompetence and lack of leadership at Hampden, [& by default, in the member clubs’ boardrooms].

With the inconsistencies and confusion created by the SFA/SPFL wrt RFC/TRFC in recent years, then it would seem that further court actions could be raised to obtain decisions…whilst the Hampden ‘leaders’ sit it out in the bunker.

And it’s just a matter of time, IMO, for a player or club to refer to the Court of Session, whilst not expecting any sanctions for doing so – as per TRFC.

 

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on6:22 pm - Jan 24, 2017


John ClarkJanuary 24, 2017 at 13:08
‘tergirversate’
___________________________________________
Bloody cracker of a word!!04

View Comment

Avatar

PackmanPosted on6:28 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Interesting BBC comment re liquidation of London Welsh Rugby at following link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38736486

View Comment

Avatar

billyj1Posted on6:33 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Test

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on6:35 pm - Jan 24, 2017


https://stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/300192-qa-what-happens-if-rangers-form-a-newco/
A wee bit of nostalgia to jog the memory before the myth was invented, i rember when the journos did plain sailing as best as until the carrot was dangled.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on6:46 pm - Jan 24, 2017


I would take a wider perspective than that Steve.  I don’t believe that lenders to football clubs have remained completely impassive whilst the previously understood construct of club and company has now had a discernible gap ripped into it.  So imagine how they now feel finding out that there’s a third party, the Club, to consider.  It’s most likely to come to a head in a distressed situation.  Imagine a chairman under pressure financially.  He can possibly keep tabs on the club since in his drawer is a file marked membership but can he keep the  Club in check as well?  Particularly if the club isn’t doing so well due, funnily enough, to the financial constraints it finds itself in.  But who controls the asset value when the inevitable push comes to shove?  Well, the Chairman is still in prime position, in control of that membership file.  But the Club (think Kings boycott) will control his turnover and his asset value.  

Don’t get me wrong, power to the fans is fundamentally a good thing but that could very very quickly be abused.  I would fully understand if a club (or Club)’s bankers returned the verdict “computer says naw”

Of course I may be wrong in this.  Richard Wilson seems very assured in his terminology tonight  as to why Coulibaille’s (sp?) transfer will keep the wolf from Kilmarnock the club (or Club)’s door.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:48 pm - Jan 24, 2017


JOHN CLARKJANUARY 24, 2017 at 13:57 4 Votes
our man must have been as falsely ‘duped’ as poor SDM declared himself to have been ( in the ham-actor way that insincere persons tend to do). I haven’t, to my regret, the skills to have another look at that utterly phoney ‘I was duped’ tv interview.
———————-
All i can find john is an STV piece saying it was off camera. but have a look.

It may be part of another interview, so hope someone can find it for you

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on6:54 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Obviously new here and just wanting to get things off my chest and see what others think and i follow the site at my liesure and enjoy the debates and arguments put forward to keep the media in check and their cronies in the SFA/SPL
Corals should only have to state
Rangers utterly ceased to exist for a while- and if you recall had no place in the initial league set up but were merely called “club 12” and had no SFA license etc
There was a gap when there was no “club” so continuity cannot be claimed
You cannot relegate what ceased to exist. I am assuming Coral used demoted to avoid the use of the L word.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:06 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Re the relegation…i know,i know
All anyone had to ask was
 On what day did this relegation happen?

View Comment

Avatar

naegreetinPosted on7:24 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Cluster One 24 Jan @ 18.38
The quote “I was duped” was made when SDM was being interviewed by Jeff Randall (ex Sunday Times) Sky Business Editor in March 2012 from memory . SDM got a bit prickly when Jeff referred to the EBT set up as “a tax wheeze” again from memory .
I’m sure its on You Tube somewhere .

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:36 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Please don’t take this as an anti The Rangers comment, it is not intended as such.  But I was surprised at Lee Wallace’s comment in The Daily Record.

Regarding Kenny Miller :
“We need to feed off his ambition and desire day in, day out to be the best we can, to get successes back to this club and get the fans coming back here on Tuesday nights and listening to the Champions League music,” the full-back told the Daily Record”

To be fair he didn’t mention which season he was aspiring to achieve this goal.  But I wonder if the Record journalist asked about this.  I only read a few short quotes on Rangers Now ( I don’t like to give the Record any clicks).

I just found it strange that he didn’t mention the Europa on the journey to the Champions League.

I think Kenny will be retired before that dream happens.

Maybe some of you can enlighten me if the Record asked some serious questions?

(BTW I might be wrong but I don’t think the Champions League Music is played until after the qualifiers).

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:56 pm - Jan 24, 2017


NAEGREETINJANUARY 24, 2017 at 19:24 Rate This
I’m sure its on You Tube somewhere .
—————
still looking but can’t find so i’m with john on this one… I haven’t, to my regret, the skills to find it05
————————–

JIMBOJANUARY 24, 2017 at 19:36
Maybe some of you can enlighten me if the Record asked some serious questions?
———————–
06060606

View Comment

Ballyargus

BallyargusPosted on11:07 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Here’s a link to the video on you tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HSlvsZfPuo&feature=player_embedded

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on11:15 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Jimbo 19:36

I’m with Cluster One’s response on the Radar asking serious questions.

I think you are correct Zadok is only heard from the group stages.

I don’t think it is only Miller but Wallace himself who will be retired long before, if ever,  an entity playing out of Ibrox will be anywhere near CL Group stages or even qualifiers.

View Comment

Avatar

GeordieJagPosted on11:22 pm - Jan 24, 2017


Comment on Good Try Mr. McKenzie by bigboab1916.
If the law is applied the judge shouldl make the distinction that there never was an old firm and that by bringing two Glasgow teams together as in a derby the term old firm can be used merely as an advertising ploy and the infamous quote made by someone years ago.So when the old colub died and a new colub formed there still was no legal or copyright to the term old firm so it can be used legally to promote the fixture going forward. If Queens and Partick applied this tag they could do so freely as no copyright is in place for use of the term.
_____
Sorry Boab, but a quick (and free) look on the UK intellectual property office website will show that the trademarks “Old Firm” and “The Old Firm” are jointly owned by Celtic F.C. Limited and The Rangers Football Club plc (i.e. Oldco). The registrations cover a wide range of goods and services including advertising, marketing and promotional services, and radio, television and cable television broadcasting services.  In principle, the trademark holders have the right to prevent anyone else from using these terms to promote the Other Glasgow Derby without their permission.  
TRFC plc are obviously in liquidation and I’m not sure what obligations trademark holders have to update the website details if there is a change of circumstances. Does anyone know if joint ownership of these trademarks were part of Charles Green’s basket of assets?

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on5:51 am - Jan 25, 2017


Courtesy of @Mintyslamb….With an email from Reagan linked

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/rangers-lowest-league-victory-fans?CMP=share_btn_tw

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:48 am - Jan 25, 2017


Very quiet on here today so I think I’ll start a rumour.  Jean Brodie is the (kept quiet) daughter of ‘The Prime of’ Edinburgh school mam.  Which explains why she is rolling in money, all those copyright fees.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:56 am - Jan 25, 2017


Seeing as it’s Burns Day here is my favourite:

Can’t listen to that especially with Kenneth McKellar singing without a lump coming to my throat.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on12:32 pm - Jan 25, 2017


GEORDIEJAG
i would assume the “brand” old firm is gone after one of the sides was due to be liquidated,say we had a firm called tony & geordie,i went bankrupt and was then liquidated,i’m assuming you couldn’t go around still calling yourself tony & geordie unless you bought my share of the name from the liquidators,but i would think that would be rather silly considering there was no tony,so in my feeble brain once RFC are liquidated then the brand old firm goes with it,just my opinion as i am not a business person

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on12:38 pm - Jan 25, 2017


AmFearLiathMòr
January 24, 2017 at 12:33
 
http://twohundredpercent.net/rangers-the-cva-failure/

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:56 pm - Jan 25, 2017


jimboJanuary 25, 2017 at 11:56
‘..Seeing as it’s Burns Day here is my favourite:…’
____________
Interestingly ( at least to one such as I who just  last year visited Burns’ farm house in Ellisland, Dumfries [ now  a wee museum complete with a ‘dummy’ of Rabbie in full , or as full a set of ‘regalia’ as his degree entitled him to] I was at a Burns’ supper on Saturday night last, here in Birkdale, Queensland.
Discussion took place about Rabbie’s ‘carronade-running’ little adventure.
Now,I’m not sure whether I was hearing something about Rabbie that I hadn’t heard before, or whether I was merely being reminded of something I had long ago heard and forgotten.
Anyway, it seems to be the case that  Rabbie ,at his own expense, had purchased some Carron Ironworks carronades, and tried to ship them over to the French Revolutionaries , who at the time were cutting aff the heids of kings and queens and other such low-lives  as princes and aristocrats generally.
But the boat was intercepted by a ship of the Senior Service, and his little ‘assist the Revolutionaries’ plan was thwarted.
 Great Britain was not technically at war with France at the time, but the circumstances were kind of, in a way, similar to the present day circumstances where UK nationals who run weapons for, or go for ‘training’ with, ISIS are regarded as possibly committing treason and certainly of some criminal offence or other.
But astonishingly, Rabbie, the Exciseman, as what would nowadays be called a public servant, far from being tried and convicted for gun-running to assist an enemy of the UK, kept his job as an Exciseman!
And this, only because he wrote a crawling, begging, letter to his ‘patron’ -some bloody Duke or other ( not of Kent) , or Earl or something of the sort, who brought influence to bear to save him.
Personally, the ‘idealism’ of the ‘gun-running’ I can live with.
But I find it unpalatable and cannot really accept
a) that he was unprincipled enough to crawl and beg to keep his job but is nevertheless   ‘venerated’ as a ‘saint’
and,
 b) that individuals in power then, or  now , can ‘help’ people evade the consequences of their actions, whether those be   gun-running ,or tax evasion, or the rigging of a  sport ,or resiling from their  duty as journalists to tell the truth.
I quite enjoyed that Burns’ supper- although the haggis’ hurdies were  more  like the skinny arse of one of they ‘fitness’ fanatics than ‘like a distant hill’.
The Glenlivet went down quite well, though.19

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:19 pm - Jan 25, 2017


JimboJanuary 25, 2017 at 11:48
‘…so I think I’ll start a rumour. Jean Brodie is the (kept quiet) daughter of ‘The Prime of’ Edinburgh school mam….’
_________
Jimbo, come on! our Jean7 is scarce old enough to be a granddaughter of the fabled school teacher of Muriel Spark’s creation!
Mind you, didn’t she tell us she was/is a teacher? It must be in the genes.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:28 pm - Jan 25, 2017


JC, I guess I owe Jean an apology the next time she is on, I didn’t do the maths! It would make her about 90.  Oh dear.  Just shows lies always end in trouble.

View Comment

Avatar

shawfieldtoteboardPosted on2:19 pm - Jan 25, 2017


Demotion, relegation and “placement” all mixed up together to describe Livingston moving from division 1 to division 3.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/livingston/8179998.stm 

However, it is in the context of the SFL commenting and therefore based on their rules at the time.

ETA: Just saw Scott C’s earlier post on the same topic. Apologies.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:34 pm - Jan 25, 2017


Happy Burns Day to all the Internet Bampots!
[Scunnered as my wife is back in Glasgow enjoying haggis today, whilst it is still classed here as contraband.  🙁 ]

Anyways, wrt the ongoing focus on the inept SMSM and the ineffective SFA/SPFL ;

– the SMSM will be sorted out eventually, with the approaching demise of print media and their ‘sports journalists’ and with the ever increasing influence of both social media and the alternative information sources to the main media outlets.

– the Hampden residents, however IMO, will not be given any slack until the departures of Regan and Doncaster at least.
There are valid arguments to completely restructure both of the Scottish football governance bodies – but the trust will never    be there whilst these 2 chancers remain in post.  Agreed, they are not the power brokers, but to buy some goodwill from the   paying punters their removal from the 6th floor is a fundamental prerequisite.

Until then, Scottish football will be lucky to tread water – rather than regress.

  …to state the bleedin’ obvious…  16

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on3:49 pm - Jan 25, 2017


Since it is Burns day a good line from him re the OC/NC debate might be:
“But facts are chiels that winna ding
 An’ downa be disputed”
From A Dream (1786)

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on3:51 pm - Jan 25, 2017


StevieBC, I’ve said on here before, as have others, the only reason Regan & Doncaster are still in power and have got away with their shenangins (sp) is by the goodwill of the member clubs.  Only the late Turnbull Hutton had the mettle to stand up to the powers that be at Hampden.

It baffles me as to how they think about things, how they could be so cowardly from 2011.  The sad thing is no matter who eventually replaces Regan & Doncaster, I can’t see things changing much. The member clubs mind set seems to be set in stone – don’t rock the boat.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:17 pm - Jan 25, 2017


Phil MacGiollaBhain ‏@Pmacgiollabhain 1h1 hour ago
“This isn’t about “relegating” Rangers. Rangers don’t exist any more. ”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/rangers-lowest-league-victory-fans?CMP=share_btn_tw
==============================================

I don’t remember reading this decent article – which is honest and accurate !

It also contains this quote ;

“…These [Internet Bampots] sites give us hope that what may follow is not just a renaissance in Scottish football but in Scottish media…”

The article was published in The Guardian in July 2012.

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on4:24 pm - Jan 25, 2017


jimboJanuary 25, 2017 at 11:48
John ClarkJanuary 25, 2017 at 13:19
____________________________________________________________
Hahaha21.
To sum up, I may feel like 90 some days from all that teaching but I still don’t have two pennies to rub together thanks to the WASPI situation01
Keep up the great work guys04

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on6:49 pm - Jan 25, 2017


JIMBOJANUARY 25, 2017 at 15:51    The member clubs mind set seems to be set in stone – don’t rock the boat.

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

If the Supreme Court uphold the ruling of the Court of Session this March it will be very interesting to see how the other clubs react. I expect Celtic to repeat the statement made following the COS ruling but will any other club say similar? If not then you really have to wonder what WOULD need to happen for them to be up in arms. 

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on7:17 pm - Jan 25, 2017


jean7brodie
January 25, 2017 at 16:24
“thanks to the WASPI situation”
——————————————————————— 
Jean I visited  the website, and have just finished reading the oral evidence to the work and pensions committee.
Appalling isn’t strong enough 07

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:36 pm - Jan 25, 2017


UPTHEHOOPS
JANUARY 25, 2017 at 18:49 

JIMBO
JANUARY 25, 2017 at 15:51    

The member clubs mind set seems to be set in stone – don’t rock the boat.
===========================
If the Supreme Court uphold the ruling of the Court of Session this March it will be very interesting to see how the other clubs react…
===========================

Whatever the Supreme Court result, I fully expect the clubs to do exactly nothing.

When the fans were looking to their clubs for leadership over the last 5 years or so, the clubs’ boards were found wanting.
Why would they change their behaviour know ?

And of course, the only significant action taken by clubs was to reject Sevco/TRFC being slotted directly into the SPL or SF1…but that was only driven by self-interest – as supporters had threatened withholding ST monies otherwise.

The SMSM cliches will be rolled out: TRFC ‘have been punished enough’, ‘move forward’, ‘Scottish football needs Rangers’, ‘for the good of Scottish football’, etc.

The SFA & SPFL will look the other way, and play dominoes in the bunker, until the Supreme Court decision blows over.

The only issue on the TRFC horizon is dwindling cashflow – and nothing else.

[Well, that and a failed GBP6M bid for McKay, and a dodgy roof, and a poor/thin squad, and a dominant CFC…  15 ]
 

 

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on9:08 pm - Jan 25, 2017


woodsteinJanuary 25, 2017 at 19:17
____________________________________________________
Thanks woodstein. I could weep every time I think about it. I, at least have a wee works pension but tens of thousands of other women don’t and are living on the breadline, God love them.  I wish all of of you on here would support us. I have lost tens of thusands of pounds on a contract, not a benefit, which these bas****s have stolen.
Sorry to all for being off ‘topic’

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on9:22 pm - Jan 25, 2017


Sorry, should read ‘tens of thousands of pounds, !!!

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on10:53 pm - Jan 25, 2017


Since we’re correcting wur ain spelling , I recall recently spelling “off” as “of”in a post . So, that’s an “f” I owe you and it will be repaid at the earliest opportunity . Couldnae be ffairer , could I ?

View Comment

Avatar

PortbhoyPosted on1:28 pm - Jan 26, 2017


Since its not busy, …the gap between Celtic and trfc, ….

https://i.imgflip.com/1idvcv.jpg

View Comment

Sergio Biscuits

Sergio BiscuitsPosted on1:32 pm - Jan 26, 2017


Very quiet in here today, where has everyone gone?! 19
Seemingly there was a big board meeting at Ibrox last night, important enough for King himself to show his face!
Looks like something’s going down over Govan way. Next few days could be interesting.

View Comment

wee_alpha

wee_alphaPosted on1:34 pm - Jan 26, 2017


As its a bit quiet today so far, some of you might find this interesting. Its a podcast featuring Motherwell’s Chief Operating Officer Alan Burrows giving his views on Project Brave and in particular the Elite Academies proposal. Lets just say he is not for it! But he does raise some valid reasons for that, including once the elite 8 have been chosen its pretty much a closed shop after that. (Its quite a long interview, about 60 minutes, with other views being chipped in by the other podcast guys).
http://www.mfc1886.com/mfc-podcast-2016-17-episode-21/#more-3057

It seems that there is an update meeting today with the SFA at Hampden, so I will keep an eye on his reaction to that – he’s usually pretty good at tweeting directly or answering questions from fans.

At the moment the Development League top 8 are (in League order) – Hibernian, Motherwell, Hamilton Accies, Ross County, Falkirk, Partick Thistle, Dunfermline and Celtic (who have played 4 or 5 games less).  Do you think these would be the teams that are top of the list for Elite Academy status?

View Comment

Avatar

The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty?Posted on1:46 pm - Jan 26, 2017


I note, with interest, that John James’ latest offering leans heavily on an article in the Guardian from 2012. He is to be commended on his research.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:53 pm - Jan 26, 2017


Wee Alpha, I agree with Hibs, Motherwell, Hamilton and Celtic, not so sure about the others though.  Happy to be corrected.  I would include Dundee Utd., Aberdeen and Hearts.  Normally I would include the operation at Auchenhowie but there is so much financial insecurity there at the moment it could be risky.

Don’t know who my eighth would be.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:00 pm - Jan 26, 2017


wee_alpha January 26, 2017 at 13:34
At the moment the Development League top 8 are (in League order) – Hibernian, Motherwell, Hamilton Accies, Ross County, Falkirk, Partick Thistle, Dunfermline and Celtic (who have played 4 or 5 games less). Do you think these would be the teams that are top of the list for Elite Academy status?
=======================
I wouldn’t take Development League positions as any indication of the success or otherwise of a club’s academy. Each club seems to approach each game with different objectives, whether it is to give senior players a game, facilitate the fitness levels of players returning from injury, or as a true test of development by introducing younger players into the side.

As an example, Kilmarnock’s “development” side beat Hearts 1-0 at Rugby Park on Tuesday.  Killie had played an U20 youth cup tie on the Sunday and Hearts had a first team game on Wednesday. Kilmarnock’s starting lineup consisted of 5 x overage players, 3 U20s (1997s) and 3 U19s (1998s).  Hearts fielded 1 x overage player, 1 x U20, 5 x U19s, 1 x U18, 1 U17 and 2 x U16. Now which side got the better “development” value from the fixture?

I would suggest that a better measure of academy development is the number of games played in the Premiership by players developed by a club, up to say age 23. (games played need not be with the developing club)  If there was a league table based on that measure, then I suspect that the top positions would look quite a bit different.
 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:13 pm - Jan 26, 2017


I wonder if the two stories above have a connection.  King is in Glasgow and the SFA are having a meeting about the elite academies?  I can just see King pitching his claim to be in the elite and rubbing his hands in glee at the thought of all that lovely money on it’s way to Ibrox.

just a thought!

(Remember what the South African judge said).

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:49 pm - Jan 26, 2017


Jimbo,

Not clear why you would automatically include Hibs and Motherwell but not mention Falkirk?  Aberdeen could find themselves on a sticky wicket given the lack of progress re club specific training facilities.

View Comment

Sergio Biscuits

Sergio BiscuitsPosted on2:59 pm - Jan 26, 2017


THE RANGERS NIL? WHOMISSEDTHEPENALTY?
JJ didn’t have to do much research, the article in question was posted on here yesterday, from PMGB’s twitter.

View Comment

Avatar

naegreetinPosted on3:00 pm - Jan 26, 2017


Ref Corrupt Official yesterday @ 09.51 – thanks for the heads up on that excellent article by Mike Small in The Guardian (some time ago but still very relevant) . I note you picked it up from @Mintyslamb – interesting to note JJ uses the same article as the backbone to his epistle to-day – either he (JJ) still reads this blog or he got it off @Mintyslamb .

Either way it was an excellent article which puts to shame anything printed up here – quelle surprise !

View Comment

Comments are closed.