Here we go again

I think everyone on SFM knew that when the new club won its first trophy, whatever that trophy was, the old “same club” mantra would surface. Over the years, and since the nature of the debate is in the “santa exists” ballpark, we have largely discouraged discussion of it.

On the “old club” side, that reluctance to debate is largely because there is little value in arguing the toss with someone who either ;

  • knows the idea is preposterous, but won’t admit it for whatever reason; or
  • has been lied to by the person at (a) above and can’t be bothered to look at the facts for themselves.

On the “new club” side, the discouragement to discuss is mainly because we are in the main already equipped with the facts, and there seems little need to go over them again and again.

So why republish stevensanph’s blog and Hirsute Pursuit’s response from almost a decade ago?

Well firstly because it is an excellent piece of forensic scrutiny cutting through the fog which had begun to be induced by the MSM merely weeks after they had unanimously heralded the death of the old club.

Secondly because it was written as a response to the (at the time very unpopular) decision we made on SFM to close down the debate on the subject (for the reason stated above.

And lastly because the course of the truth – even if it is only shifted by a few degrees – can get completely lost as time goes by. Consequently, there are possibly many who take sides because of a leap of faith. This is a course-correction that demonstrates the absence of any need to do so.

So here then is a reprise of stevensanph’s remarks from 2013, on his own blog.


The Newco/Oldco debate has been ended over on TSFM, with the deletion of the excellent post from HirsutePursuit marking the end.  While some think we need to keep reinforcing the message that its a totally new club, others are bored of the subject, so I can’t blame TSFM for wanting to move on.

Personally – I have read all the arguments – I am yet to be shown any factual proof that Green’s Gers are the old club.  People will, and can believe whatever they want.  For Rangers fans who want to believe its the same club, then, as long as they are happy, then fine.  However, on paper, and in law, its a  new club, and thats all that I care about!

TSFM posters wanting to continue the debate can do so below following on from HP’s excellent deleted post!

TSFM

This blog, as far as I have been concerned, is widely regarded as a forum for people who wish to highlight the inequalities and skewed reporting of the issues within the Scottish football arena. If it is not, perhaps you can make it clear what you see as its purpose.

Perhaps the biggest ever story within the Scottish game has been the circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers Football Club. It is a multi-layered story and one that that is still moving. In many ways, it may be a story that is only just beginning.

Central to the debate (that should be completely on-topic) for this blog, is whether or not the authorities (at all levels) have acted in an equitable manner and whether or not the “free press” have given life to events in a truthful and balanced way.

With absolute regard to these matters, there is a fundamental issue surrounding the status of the club incorporated in 2012 and currently playing in the 3rd division of the Scottish Football League.

If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are the same club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. You will probably accept that UEFA were right to “ban” the club from European competitions because of its holding company’s insolvency event; but feel completely persecuted by your fellow Scottish clubs who demoted your team to the arse-end of the game. You will see this “demotion” as a punishment far too severe for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club’s former “holding company”. To compound matters, you will see the LNS enquiry as just another opportunity for the clubs who have already revelled in meting out a severe punishment, to have another fly-kick. You would, no doubt, believe that whatever the previous owner of the club’s “holding company” did in terms of player payments, the trophies were won fairly by the club on the field of play and can never be taken away. You will be – in the main – satisfied with the narrative of the “free press” in referring to your club as the same entity as played in the SPL.

All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” existing as a separate entity from the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.

If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are a different club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you will still have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. UEFA would rightly refuse European Club Licence for the new club – if one was applied for – as the new club do not meet the criteria; but you will feel completely let down by the self-serving nature of the SPL and the weakness shown by the SFA in attempting to place the new club in the top tier of Scottish football. You will see the new club’s fast-track acceptance into the SFL as without precedent and their award of full member status (of the SFA) as against existing rules. You will wonder how – when the members of the SFL voted to give them associate membership as new club – the SFL executive list them on their website as the old club. As the old club had ceased footballing activities in June, there should have been no SFA membership or SPL share to transfer in August. Since the old club is no more, you will not recognise any punishment for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club. You will see the LNS enquiry as an opportunity for some sort of justice in relation to years of outrageous cheating by the now dead club. You will think that trophies and prize-money were stolen from clubs who played by the rules. You will think that a correction of results is simply a consequence of the old club being found guilty of cheating. You will probably think that the LNS enquiry has nothing to do with the new club; but may wonder if the enquiry orders the repayment of the old club’s prize-money, would this create a new “football debt” that has to be repaid by the new club to continue using the old club’s SFA membership? You will be aghast at the apparent repeated mis-reporting of the situation by the “free press”.

All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” being the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.

You may feel that these positions are “just a matter of opinion” and do not ultimately matter.

I disagree. The indeterminate status of the club incorporated in 2012 is a huge sore in the Scottish football landscape. This is the biggest story that just cannot go away. If the schism created by this sense of injustice is not resolved, Scottish football will implode. Attitudes may already be too entrenched; but that should not stop us trying to find a way forward.

The principal difficulty (again totally on topic) is that it appears – from both sides of the debate) -that people in positions of power within the game have made decisions that cannot be justified by their rules and articles of association.

We can – as you wish us to – stop talking about the status of the club incorporated in 2012, or we can continue to argue our respective positions as a crucial factor in this controversy.

In my view we can only hold the SFA, SPL and SFL to account if we insist that a definitive answer to all of the important questions are given.

The status of the club incorporated in 2012 is – in my view – a simple matter of fact. It is only because it is being considered to be a matter of opinion that we are where we are.

The Origins of the concept of  a football club having an owner from whom it can be separated and its subsequent misuse by the SPL/SFA in 2012.

The following are taken from a well informed contributor to SFM who points out that pre 2005 no such concept existed in SPL rules and the meaning subsequently applied by LNS and The 5 Way Agreement is a danger  to the fundamental integrity of the Scottish football industry and its member clubs.


The very short version of what follows is this:



The SPL articles state that its definitions and expressions need to be given the meanings as described in the Companies Act 2006.

The Companies Act 2006 says that an “undertaking” is “a body corporate” i.e. a company.

Lord Nimmo Smith has ignored this definition and instead accepted (or created) an alternative meaning for “undertaking” (as used in Article 2) which is fundamental to the concept of being able to separate Club from Company.

The principle of Club and company being distinct entities was expressly stated in the commissions terms of reference.

Lord Nimmo Smith has accepted the terms of reference as “facts”.

The SPL articles and rules apply to Clubs and to their “owners & operators”.

LNS asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” was owned & operated by Rangers Football Club plc.

He asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” transferred from Rangers Football Club plc to Sevco Scotland Ltd.

The Club (if found guilty) is still liable for the alleged breaches of SPL rules, even though the Club is no longer a member of the SPL.

He asserts that Sevco Scotland Ltd – as the new owner & operator of the Club – have a material interest in his commissions findings.

However…

Instead of his accepting LNS logic that allows the ethereal Club to be transferred between companies, the truth is – read in conjunction with the Companies Act 2006 – Article 2 really says that the Club is the “body corporate”. The Club is the Company.

The Club is Rangers Football Club plc. That Club is in liquidation.

Since Sevco Scotland Ltd did not purchase Rangers Football Club plc, Sevco Scotland did not buy the Club.

*On the simple basis of Sevco Scotland’s purchase of Rangers FC’s assets, the Commission cannot legally apply sanctions that would fall to Sevco Scotland for remedy.

This issue should have been fairly straightforward. We need to understand why it is not.

It is surprising to me that an experienced high court judge accepted the commission’s terms of reference without first checking its validity. It would be interesting to understand if the statement of reasons was really his own thoughts or a re-hash of the SPL legal advice that framed the commissions work.

It does not surprise me that the SPL have framed the commission in the way that they have. The “transferable Club” logic was first used to unsuccessfully argue that Newco should have Oldco’s share in the SPL. They are acting in their own commercial interest. Sporting Integrity has never been high on their agenda. We know what they are about.

It is hugely disappointing – but perhaps not surprising – that the SFA have not stepped in to clarify matters. Conflicted and/or incompetent probably best sums up its contribution.

Longer version.

The SPL – essentially as a trade association – will correctly do what they can to maximise revenue for their members. It falls to the SFA – as the game’s regulators – to ensure that the SPL’s existing procedures, articles and rules are adhered to.

It is almost without dispute that the SPL have not functioned well in following protocol. The SFA have been incredibly weak in insisting that they do so. In fact the SFA – by being party to the 5-way agreement – are themselves seemingly complicit in going off-plan. Again, regardless of your own beliefs and agenda, the SPL (by their actions) and the SFA (by their inactions) are not TRUSTED to act as fair brokers.

Lord Nimmo Smith is due to reconvene his enquiry in just over a week’s time. When writing my previous (and quickly deleted) post earlier in the week, my mind was already moving towards (what I consider to be) the insurmountable difficulty the retired High Court judge will face in steering his commission to a logical conclusion.

In football parlance, I fear that the SPL have given him a “hospital pass” that will eventually leave him just as damaged as the game. I had already prepared an outline of why I think his enquiry will ultimately flounder; but, wonder if this topic too will fall foul of the new censorship policy on this blog.

As I think Lord Nimmo Smith’s remit is an important point that needs discussion – and out of respect to those people who have supported this blog as the spiritual successor of RTC – I will attempt to post my thoughts here first. If this post gets removed or doesn’t get past moderation, I’ll do as TSFM (Big Pink?) suggested earlier and find another, more open, forum to engage in.

I apologise in advance for the length of this post; but the points, I think, are fairly straightforward. Please do bear with me.

We should probably start at the SPL Press Release of 12th September 2012:

Independent Commission Preliminary Hearing
The Commission has considered all the preliminary issues raised in the list submitted by Newco and points raised in letters from solicitors acting for Newco and for Oldco. It has decided:

1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.

2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules, will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as they think fit.

3. Newco, as the current owner and operator of Rangers FC, although not alleged by the SPL to have committed any breach of SPL Rules, will also have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as it thinks fit.

4. Written reasons for this decision will be made available in due course.

Further to the decision made today the Commission make the following procedural orders:

1. We set a date for a hearing to commence on Tuesday 13 November 2012 with continuations from day to day as may be required until Friday 16 November 2012. We will also allocate Tuesday 20 and Wednesday 21 November 2012 as additional dates should any further continuation be required.

2. We direct that the solicitors for The Scottish Premier League Limited lodge any documents, additional to those already lodged, together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses by 4 pm on Friday 19 October 2012.

3. We direct that Oldco, Newco or any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear and be represented at the hearing give intimation to that effect and lodge any documents together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses, all by 4 pm on Thursday 1 November 2012.

4. We direct that intimation of the aforesaid decision and of these directions be made to the solicitors for Oldco and Newco.

No further comment will be made.

Couple of points worth noting:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.

2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules

So it is clear here that Oldco and Rangers FC have, in the terms of the Notice of Commission, been described as separate entities. It is important to realise that this distinction is made before the commission has had any opportunity to consider the circumstances.

This is a non-negotiable “fact” – as supplied by the SPL – that LNS either accepts or stands aside. He has chosen to accept it.

This “fact” was later given reasoning by way of the Commission’s Statement of Reasons and carried the names of the Commission members:

History
[3] Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club. It was incorporated in 1899 as The Rangers Football Club Limited. In recent years the company’s name was changed to The Rangers Football Club Plc, and it is now called RFC 2012 Plc (in administration). In line with the terminology used in the correspondence between the parties, we shall refer to this company as “Oldco”.


[4] The SPL was incorporated in 1998. Its share capital consists of sixteen shares of £1 each, of which twelve have been issued. Oldco was one of the founding members of the SPL, and remained a member until 3 August 2012 when the members of the SPL approved the registration of a transfer of its share in the SPL to The Dundee Football Club Limited. Each of the twelve members owns and operates an association football club which plays in the Scottish Premier League (“the League”). The club owned and operated by Oldco played in the League from 1998 until 2012 under the name of Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”).

[33] It is now necessary to quote some of the provisions of the Articles of the SPL. Article 2 contains definitions which, so far as relevant are:
“Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League

Company means The Scottish Premier League Limited

League means the combination of Clubs known as the Scottish Premier League operated by the Company in accordance with the Rules

Rules mean the Rules for the time being of the League

Share means a share of the Company and Share Capital and Shareholding”.

[37] It is also necessary to quote certain of the Rules. Rule I1 provides definitions of various terms in the Rules. Of these, we refer to the following:
Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club

[46] It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator. While there can be no question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues.

Here we were introduced to a few new ideas:
1. That SPL members “own and operate” association football clubs
2. That “Rangers Football Club” was “owned and operated” by Oldco (Rangers Football Club plc).
3. Club means the undertaking of an association football club
4. An “undertaking” is “a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. “
5. “A Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. “
6. “A Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.”

So, the principle, by which Lord Nimmo Smith, purports to connect Oldco and Newco is by the alleged transference of a non-corporate entity between the two owners and operators of the “Club”. The Club is the non-corporate entity he identified as the “undertaking” referred to in Article 2.

However, this is where he gets into some very serious difficulty. It is very strange that – when quoting the relevant articles – the retired High Court Judge did not notice or think the following did not have a part to play.

2. In these Articles:-
2006 Act means the Companies Act 2006 including any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof for the time being in force;

4. Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant parts thereof are adopted.

The SPL articles make specific reference to the Companies Act 2006. Specifically “words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act”
So when the articles refer to “undertaking” we must refer to the 2006 Act to check what meaning we should apply. If we do so, we find:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1161

1161Meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions

(1)In the Companies Acts “undertaking” means—
__(a)a body corporate or partnership, or
__(b)an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.

(2)In the Companies Acts references to shares—
__(a)in relation to an undertaking with capital but no share capital, are to rights to share in the capital of the undertaking; and
__(b)in relation to an undertaking without capital, are to interests—
____(i)conferring any right to share in the profits or liability to contribute to the losses of the undertaking, or
____(ii)giving rise to an obligation to contribute to the debts or expenses of the undertaking in the event of a winding up.

(3)Other expressions appropriate to companies shall be construed, in relation to an undertaking which is not a company, as references to the corresponding persons, officers, documents or organs, as the case may be, appropriate to undertakings of that description.

This is subject to provision in any specific context providing for the translation of such expressions.

(4)References in the Companies Acts to “fellow subsidiary undertakings” are to undertakings which are subsidiary undertakings of the same parent undertaking but are not parent undertakings or subsidiary undertakings of each other.

(5)In the Companies Acts “group undertaking”, in relation to an undertaking, means an undertaking which is—
__(a)a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of that undertaking, or
__(b)a subsidiary undertaking of any parent undertaking of that undertaking.

Everything that LNS uses to connect Newco to Oldco relies on a Club being a non-corporate entity. Without that interpretation, his original acceptance of the commissions remit would look very foolish. In my opinion, the commission’s statement of Reasons were always poorly framed

Using the 2006 Act – as it appears it is bound to do – I cannot see how any interpretation of “undertaking” can be used in the context of the SPL articles, other than “a body corporate”.

If I am correct and the correct interpretation of an undertaking in this context is “body corporate”, SPL Article 2, specifically (and quite clearly) states that a Club is the company. Since the Club that played in the SPL is in liquidation and the current version of Rangers has never been a member of the SPL, any attempt to sanction the new club for the sins of the old will be laughed out of court.

The real question – for me at least – is why has this ridiculous proposition has been put forward in the first place? Perhaps we can assume that the SPL chose to frame the commission’s remit in this way for purely commercial reasons; but, more worryingly, why have the SFA allowed it to progress?

This entry was posted in Blogs by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

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.

1,142 thoughts on “Here we go again


  1. Would the idea of an appeal for the Covid 5 be in place if the injured Ranger’s player was available for selection. Surely with the amount of players they have available a juggle of the lineup could have been used and given some of the lesser players game time. Since they appear to be “invincible” and with the manager they have it appears to be a simple solution. However with the “namby pamby” attitude of the SFA nothing should come as a surprise. As I stated earlier if you put forward a 6 game suspension it should be the 6 games, not 4 with 2 suspended. If players follow the rulings on suspensions this can play into their hands and lead to ugly incidents down the road.


  2. Happy Easter to one and all.
    Just in the passing, there was an email in my inbox yesterday from the ICIJ.
    I sent the following reply

    “Dear Hamish Boland-Rudder

    “..And so we truly learned the full and awesome power of collaborative, deep-dive investigative journalism” ”

    That’s a sentence I lifted from your email of 3 April, an email which I read with interest.

    But I read it with a kind of detached, ‘academic’ ,interest rather than with a deeply-felt personal interest.

    Not that I do not understand that the big baddies in the world of high international financial skulduggery ultimately affect me and my family by their criminal money-laundering, tax-evasion and perhaps complicity in God-knows-what aspects of political corruption.

    I do understand very well , in my intellect, that what the ICIJ Team do is incredibly important.

    But somehow that intellectual understanding does not translate into the feeling of rage that is engendered when I learn that I have been ripped off by , say, a local second-hand car dealer or some such!

    Or when so-called journalists (including sports journalists in the BBC) in a wee small country such as Scotland buy into and propagate a sporting lie!

    Of course, this is small beer compared with the lies and deceit of FIFA that were investigated by the US soccer authorities and the FBI; and very successfully investigated.

    Soccer fans worldwide rejoiced to see ‘bad guys’ in the sport on which they spend good honest money being nailed for being less than honest and true in their governance responsibilities and duties.

    There was emotional satisfaction in seeing truth being sought, and dishonest people being brought to book.

    I come to the point I wish to make:

    There are suspicions here in Scotland that

    a) the Scottish Football Association colluded with a particular financially distressed football club to ensure that that club , in spite of not being entitled under the Rules relating to tax indebtedness, nevertheless was given a license to compete in UEFA competitions, thus automatically gaining several millions of pounds with the possibility of gaining several millions more if the club succeeded in winning games.

    b) there are serious questions to be asked about how a soccer/football club that was admitted , as a new football club, into Scottish Football in 2012 can be described for financial marketing purposes as being the very same football club founded in 1872 ,that is presently in Liquidation, having gone bust in 2012.

    The Press in Scotland have totally refused to investigate these matters as have the football authorities.

    In fact, the BBC has disciplined the occasional individual employee who has made ‘unacceptable’ observations.

    Now, here’s the thing!

    I understand that one or two Scottish journalists are part of the ICIJ team !
    Would it be possible to ask those Scottish members of the ICIJ team to have a wee in-depth investigation into the SFA and the awarding of a UEFA competitions licence to RFC plc of 1872 and into SevcoScotland and the 5-Way Agreement of 2012?

    If FIFA were called into question, is it too much to suggest that a wee national football governance body and a new football club could and should have a wee forensic light shone upon them?

    Down at very basic man-in-the-street level an investigation at that everyday level carries much more immediate relevance.

    Cheers,


  3. Steven Gerrard explains covid appeal while praising Nathan Patterson:

    “We don’t think everything has been taken into consideration.

    “We’re talking about one of the brightest prospects ever in terms of right-back. All of the sudden the SFA want to ban him for that long”.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I don’t think even Rangers under David Murray could have taken arrogance to this level.


  4. @UTH – I don’t know where you got the SG quote from (not doubting you), but if true he should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute as he quite clearly is calling out the competence of the SFA proceedings. And to begin to suggest that, because Patterson has potential (in his opinion-I haven’t seen enough to form a view) that this should provide him with special treatment is beyond belief. Maybe someone can better explain the SG quote as something other than an iteration of WATP.
    Of course we live in an Alice in Wonderland world – are the SFA processes robust and fit for purpose? Almost certainly not – but can you call them out as such? Of course not, as that’s bringing the game into disrepute…


  5. I agree with UTH and Workingcelt in regards to SG’s latest on the Covid 5. Does the punishment not fit because he believes one of the accused is a future star who only got into the lineup due to injury. I stand to be corrected on that point but don’t recall Patterson having featured in any games prior to that. Were the first tow violators deemed expendable so no need for an appeal. I believe a firm rap on the knuckles should be in store for SG for far too long has taken liberties, starting with his first ever game, with the SFA. Also I think SG and the Rangers support in general are placing a lot on Patterson’s shoulders talking about international stardom, etc. Does this not sound like the praise heaped on John Fleck many years ago. The Rangers management team must be complicit in the activities of the Covid 5 and should have stressed time and time again, following the initial incident, the rules involving Covid and external activities.


  6. Wokingcelt 4th April 2021 At 22:41

    The Gerrard quotes are widely reported by several media outlets. Bizarrely he has also chosen to mention that Steve Clarke won’t be too happy if Patterson gets a ban.

    Gerrard’s players broke the rules and also broke the law. I am sickened by Gerrard’s attitude, and equally sickened at the meek acceptance of it by the media.

    It so smacks of WATP.


  7. Upthehoops 4th April 2021 At 22:56
    ‘..and equally sickened at the meek acceptance of it by the media.’
    +++++++
    no, no! not ‘the meek acceptance’ , surely, but the wholehearted support of the lying media!
    Nothing new there.


  8. The latest appeal, even for the Newco Rainjurz makes a complete mockery of the justice system.
    Covid restrictions broken . Police involvement. Fine . Cautioned . Given credit by the government for quick decisive action, now they’re appealing the ban that was handed out, on grounds of what ? Potential ? Dear Doctor.

    Excuse my cynicism, surely yesterday’s cup draw and their captain being injured doesn’t figure in this development ?
    As ever , other clubs will meekly say, he haw .
    Strictly business after all .
    Sport ? My arse .


  9. @UTH – thanks, have now seen SG comments on the bbc. I am at a complete loss to be honest. If the manager of Motherwell, Aberdeen, St Johnstone or any other club made these comments they would be crucified by the SFA, Scottish government and MSM.
    My most acute/crystal clear football memories are of getting back on the supporters bus in the 80s and asking how Aberdeen and Dundee Utd (and latterly Hearts) had done. Had dropping a point at Dens Park cost my team? Had Hearts won again? There was a team missing from the calculus and I can’t help but think it was for the best for Scottish football: we qualified for Spain, Mexico and Italy world cups.
    We can choose to be small-minded as a country and have nothing to offer or we can be truly open and welcoming and embrace what differences can bring. However I think my ashes will be blown to the four corners of the earth before that happens as the “Establishment” only see what they may lose and not what we all would gain..


  10. Wokingcelt 5th April 2021 At 19:44

    I have been thinking of the media reaction if Neil Lennon had said Bolingoli’s career could be ruined by having to serve a ban. There would have been carnage. Now we have a manager saying it’s not fair on his player to serve a ban, because he is too good, and it might affect his career. How is a four match ban going to affect his career? It might just teach him a valuable lesson though. What a four match ban will affect though is Rangers being able to field a recognised right back in a crucial cup game.

    Do the media have no shame at all though?


  11. Upthehoops 5th April 2021 At 20:08
    ‘..Do the media have no shame at all though?’
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The puppet Gerrard is only doing what the puppet masters tell him.
    At least, I would hope that he was only following orders: he would be less ridiculously despicable than if he made those kinds of statements off his own stupid bat!
    For a brief period a little while ago the PR folk at Ibrox were coming across in a less aggressively hostile and more reasonable way.
    They seem now to have reverted to type!


  12. @UTH – media reaction to NL…nuclear. Let’s imagine if NL had been helped by a person well-known to the police to resolve a local difficulty and that person was subsequently shot dead in a “hit”…


  13. On a lighter note, what a nice, wee clever goal by QoS defender Maxwell!
    That was another splendidly entertaining game, and would really have been exciting if Willie the Ref had whistled for the penalty!
    And I speak as being nearly as complete a neutral as having had a very good friend who was a Hibs supporter, and whose son in Oz is my own son’s pal, can be!


  14. Sounds like Dafoe is lobbying for a contract extension ( is he on a rumored 60 k a week) with all his apple polished stories in the DR. If the 60 k is true or anywhere near that I can’t see an extension being offered to a 38 year old. Bologun referring to Celtic as the other team is interesting, I’m sure he was well informed before landing at Ibrox on the two clubs. Also his comment that a goalie refuses to watch them on tv. I think any player worth his salt would want to watch any of their opposition looking for advantages to use in upcoming games. And, finally we have Barry Ferguson offering his opinion on the potential new manager at Celtic and no news of a signing. The team he played for brought in a manager following an on line interview, Celtic on the other hand, except for this year, usually does their business in a, with no need to be professional and quiet manner with no need to be harping on about “world” records, and, media opinions of their latest triumphs. What is the status of their latest appeal to the SFA. Perhaps the backlash from most sources has caused them to pause and think.


  15. Vernallen 5th April 2021 At 22:43
    ‘..And, finally we have Barry Ferguson offering his opinion on the potential new manager at Celtic and no news of a signing.’
    +++++++++++++++
    Ah! dear old sneaky ‘two -fingers-to-the Scotland-team and Scottish football’ Barry!
    An icon of Scottish Football?

    Barry of the £2.5 M EBT, the ‘bankrupt ‘Barry, with assets transferred to the wife!

    The taxman might not get to him as easily as he may yet get to the ‘very frightened’ EBT recipient McCann!(And others who owe HMRC substantial sums of unpaid tax!)
    But, course, to any ordinary decent and honest person, Barry’s name is in effect ‘Mud’.
    His opinion on anything whatsoever is not of any greater significance than anything that comes from the pen of Keef Jackson; and that’s saying something!


  16. johnclark april 6th 2021 0:08

    Its a sad but true story for some retired athletes that once the adulation is gone and the back slappers aren’t around anymore they become pundits. Have the occasional article posted and some former player ( particularly Ranger players) get their name in the media and conjure up memories of what once was .. Funny nobody asks him about the EBT years, surely he could comment on them..


  17. Dominic McKay to join Celtic on 19 April, but take up officially in July.


  18. Most folk will have seen the (expected) plethora of negativity clearly aimed at undermining Eddie Howe’s potential appointment as Celtic manager from the anti CFC agenda driven posse of SMSM, Nicholas, Boyd, Rae, Commons (whit a right wee gnaff he is!) etc. Strikes me that therein lurks fear – that Celtic could restore the natural order of the 9IAR years, thereby depriving the 9 year old club of further league success next season. Time will tell I guess.

    (As an aside, regarding the ‘age’ of said 2020/21 champions, I don’t see anywhere on their current emblems, badges, strips etc the date of 1872 to indicate that they have existed continuously since then. Is that a tacit admission that they are indeed a new club? A good few clubs have the date they were founded on jerseys. Am I wrong? If so – apologies! Ahm jist no sure!)

    Anyway, back to Eddie Howe. Hitherto, before any links to Celtic, no one seemed to make any disparaging comments about his managerial and coaching abilities (wasn’t he linked with Arsenal at one point?). From most accounts, he received a great deal of praise and positive views.

    What might have changed dear readers?

    One of the stupidest and most pathetic comments to date for me is this extract from an article in Football Insider (Paul Robinson):-

    “Howe, a natural introvert, could be put off being at a club where the expectation is to win every match”

    Please read that again – whitaloadaguff!!!


  19. Just noticed this from last Thursday’s Court Roll:

    LORD TYRE – T Sadler, Clerk
    Tuesday 6th April

    Proof Before Answer (12 days)

    CA72/20 David Grier v The Lord Advocate &c ”

    I might try and listen in tomorrow.


  20. Nawlite 6th April 2021 At 17:52

    0 0 Rate This

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56651684
    “Mr Whyte bought the company that ran the Glasgow football club”
    Perhaps the investigation will reveal to the BBC that there was no company that ran the Glasgow football club. Then again perhaps they will keep looking the other way and pretend they didn’t notice.


  21. Nawlite 6th April 2021 At 17:52
    ‘.This appeared today, JC.’
    ++++++++++++++++++
    Thanks for that, Nawlite: I would probably have missed that report otherwise.


  22. Macfurgly 6th April 2021 At 20:16
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56651684
    “Mr Whyte bought the company that ran the Glasgow football club”
    Perhaps the investigation will reveal to the BBC that there was no company that ran the Glasgow football club. Then again perhaps they will keep looking the other way and pretend they didn’t notice.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    A little bit further on in that report and we have this ( in reference to Whyte):

    ” He was accused of using Rangers’ own money to buy the club while claiming the funds were his”

    As ever, those who lie must keep remembering the lie or else they slip up, as whoever wrote that BBC report did even as he/she was writing it!

    The relatively small fry who penned that report will probably be drawn aside and disciplined for writing that Whyte was buying the ‘club ‘

    But it’s the top brass who, like so many self-seeking, self-protective, gutless ‘gauleiters’ under the Third Reich, so disgracefully accepted and obeyed orders from the BBC Trust in 2012 to LIE to the nation and propagate an insulting myth ,who should be disciplined.
    The BBC Trust is no more, of course, but their lie continues.


  23. John Clark April 6/21 22:10

    I believe in most cases involving the on going story of Rangers/Sevco. or whatever name they appear to be operating under, as you get farther away from 2012, you get more lazy journalism. Why dig into the history/records when you scalp the information from previous stories, re-phrase a sentence or two, and ergo you have what they think is a new twist. Job done, everybody happy, except for those who have followed the saga and know the ins and outs and continue to keep the rightful version in front of the people. Don’t give up, there may be a dedicated, resourceful journalist out there who has a look and realizes that there is a helluva of story here and actually goes to print, tv, and radio with it.


  24. wokingcelt 4th April 2021 At 22:41
    @UTH – I don’t know where you got the SG quote from (not doubting you), but if true he should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute
    …………………………..
    Still wating on his charge of bringing the game into disrepute from this time last year, also for parks comments and Robertsons comments and releasing sensitive information that the SPFL said they would deal with but as yet nothing.


  25. upthehoops 4th April 2021 At 22:56

    22

    0

    Rate This

    ………………………….
    What part of Red card did the lad not grasp? NS put it in terms that even players would understand was a no can do.


  26. There was an old fan who swallowed a lie;

    I don’t know why he swallowed a lie – Perhaps he’ll die!
    There was an old fan who swallowed a myth
    That wriggled and jiggled and tickled his girth

    he swallowed the myth to feed the lie;
    I don’t know why he swallowed a lie – Perhaps he’ll die!
    There was an old fan who swallowed a rumour;
    How absurd to swallow a rumour!

    he swallowed the rumour to feed the myth
    That wriggled and jiggled and tickled his girth!
    he swallowed the rumour to feed the lie;
    I don’t know why he swallowed a lie – Perhaps he’ll die!
    There was an old fan who swallowed a fable;
    Imagine that! he swallowed a fable!

    he swallowed the fable to back up the myth
    that fed the rumour that tickled his girth
    to back up the lie that his club didn’t die
    cause the men in the brogues were terribly sly
    and sold him a dream to follow follow a team
    that didnae exist or widnae be missed
    by the rest of the world who remain rather pissed ……………..
    to be continued
    mibbees


  27. Vernallen 6th April 2021 At 22:47
    ‘..there may be a dedicated, resourceful journalist out there who has a look and realizes that there is a helluva of story here and actually goes to print, tv, and radio with it.’
    +++++++++++++++++
    Well, we had high hopes of Alex Thomson, of course!

    But I think he was frightened off by some gorilla of a sports hack in the mean streets of Glasgow!

    Or, perhaps more likely, warned off by his own media bosses and told not to ‘interfere’ in matters that don’t concern his and their English viewers/readers.

    And, to be fair to him, reporting on possible corruption in a sports governance body in what the rest of the world thinks is a nice wee part of somewhere in the north of England is not really going to win you any ‘journalist of the year’ prizes.

    And why should he bother when ‘journalists’ living in the feckin’ place are on the side of untruth?[ That’s actually a much better story! But who’s going to write it? ]

    There is not a liquidation-denying journalist in all the SMSM who could look me in the eye without embarrassment at knowing that I know that he/she is worse than worthless as a journalist -and also as a man/woman.
    The truth ALWAYS emerges, sooner or later.


  28. Timtim 6th April 2021 At 23:40
    ‘..cause the men in the brogues were terribly sly
    and sold him a dream to follow follow a team
    that didnae exist .’

    ..to be continued
    mibbees
    ++++++++++++
    Let’s have no mibbees!
    Continue!

    You have to work-in all the other evil-doers in the saga-the SFA, the SMSM, the LNS inquiry, good old Brysonisms, the cowed SPL and SFL .. but sing the praises of the only man to put his head above the parapet in the cause of sporting integrity and truth, Turnbull Hutton, God rest him!

    You have talent there!

    Rap? or maybe sea-shanty?

    Maybe Stuart and Tam or big John Beattie will help sell your record by giving you free advertising [but using our licence money to do so?]
    In a pig’s eye, would they! The BBC would not let them.


  29. @ John Clark. Re Alex Thomson. I doubt he was frightened off given his track record, probably more that the story was told as much as the wider audience was interested.
    Now perhaps he would be interested in the ongoing impact of tens of millions of Scottish Government money being spent on legal costs when public finances are stretched… if someone has the background details for the story maybe it could be pitched to him? May run well with the politics at this time.


  30. Mr Moynihan qc taking pains this morning to emphasise to Grier and the Court and the media that nothing that he , Moynihan ,is asking is meant to imply that Grier is any way guilty of any offence, having been acquitted of all criminal charges.

    Rather the questions he is asking are directed solely at trying to show that ,in the detail of the unusual financial arrangements under which Rangers loaned money (obtained from Ticketus by selling 3 seasons’ tickets in advance) to Wavetower to so that Wavetower could pay Lloyds there was enough to allow a Prosecutor to bring charges.
    Grier very composed in his competently delivered replies.
    Midmorning break
    To reconvene at 11.45.


  31. Court reconvened at 11.45.
    A lot of referring to para this and para that of various documents in various folders, email-chains, and stuff that was learned during the English civil Court proceeding, about involvement of various people in ‘frantic communications’ about funds being available to complete the transaction, letter of comfort, people having ‘visibility’ of funds when what was required was absolute guarantee that the funds were there.
    Two points of interest:
    Mr Moynihan QC ended this morning’s proceedings with a clear allegation that Mr Grier had been misleading when he had ,in a witness statement, said that he had had no involvement in arranging for ‘show money’.
    Mr Grier pooh-poohed that observation, but had in an email had merely been relaying the concerns of his client (Whyte).
    Earlier, I was amused when Grier referred a couple of times to ‘the process of selling the club’- and not to some ‘holding company’.

    I don’t think I’ll bother to try to tune in any further. The experience of virtual hearings is not quite the same as being in the court-room.
    And there are things to do, and wifely orders to follow!


  32. Judging by something posted on another blog last night, the appeal and hearing etc for the Covid 5 might be sometime in the distant future. Writer was quoting from the guidelines and it got a little confusing. Apparently once the appeal is received they need to form a panel and the the group has 5 days to approve the panel, etc. Perhaps there is someone out there a little in touch with the guidelines and could take a look. By the tone of the posted item it might be well down the road and long after the upcoming Celtic/Rangers/Sevco games, allowing time for injuries to heal and let the latest rising star in Scottish Football show his wares.


  33. vernallen 7th April 2021 At 17:39
    Both sides have to agree on panel appointments. It will be some time down the road, the ibrox club know how to kick a can.


  34. Cluster One 7th April 2021 at 23:26

    Now that Tav has agreed to a contract extension the suspensions will probably carry over to the new season ensuring he is well and truly healed. Would be interesting should he pick up an injury and pre-season, would that lead to further appeals., The SFA may as well drop the rules regarding suspensions as the current system appears to be a mockery of rules. Maybe a re-write should be looked at after investigating other sporting organizations to see how they deal with suspensions, appeals, etc.


  35. Cluster One 7th 23.26

    Appeal date set for April 20th.

    All players therefore free to play until then.


  36. So the appeal for the Covid five will be heard on 20th April, which of course means Rangers will have right back cover v Celtic three days earlier. Utterly farcical that the initial hearing took so long in the first place, and it appears Rangers have been allowed to control the entire narrative. With a media willing to do its job that wouldn’t happen of course, but it’s no longer worthwhile even asking why they are not prepared to.


  37. The recent photo of the Ranger’s brain trust brought to mind a couple of captions for each individual some kind some not. Opted for the kinder version, SG gazing into the future in regards to SFA ( Steve forever appealing rules), the coach with the finger in the eye ( we only need one eye to see them off on rules), the fellow with his finger in his, this doesn’t smell too bad coming from the SFA, and Gary MacAllister had to turn his back as he was laughing so hard, can’t believe we hood winked them again guys. What can we do to them next.


  38. Celtic interim manager John Kennedy on delays in disciplinary process. Made me chuckle at how late he is to the party.

     “…..Players played against us who probably should have been banned’’


  39. ” Kennedy cannot comprehend why the saga has become so protracted ..” reports Andrew Smith (The Scotsman”, today) about re-action to the 39 day delay in fixing the appeal hearing of the TRFC Covid-5.

    It is clear from the Judicial Panel Protocol ( see Para 15 et seq] that in respect of ordinary appeals by players against a Disciplinary Tribunal decision the Judicial Panel Secretary (or his nominee) has absolutely arbitrary power to decide on the date of an appeal hearing, in that there’ no specified time period in which he must set up a Hearing.

    The Judicial Panel Secretary can take as long as he likes over the process !
    (The Judicial Panel secretary is appointed by the SFA Secretary( CEO))
    And anyone in that position can act the madam with impunity, as can, of course, the SFA board.

    Scottish Football governance was holed below the waterline in 2012 by the fabrication of the Big Lie, and holed again when the SFA simply refused to allow an independent investigation into the Res 12 UEFA licence matter.

    I have no doubt in my mind about why the Covid-5’s appeals hearings were kicked into the long grass for so long!
    I rather imagine Kennedy also has no doubts!!

    The time for calling out the SFA was in 2012.
    And Kennedy’s call will be met either with crap about the ‘independence’ of the Judicial Panel process and the people who operate it, or with some bureaucratic nonsense about unavailability of panel members or some such.

    And nothing will change, because everyone is thirled to the Big Lie.


  40. Don’t think there’s anything unusual about the the Rangers* appeal in the sense of “gaming the system”. In my TU days, I spent a lot of time poring through rulebooks looking for procedural loopholes that would allow an advantage at meetings, conferences etc.
    I don’t think that Rangers* are any different from anyone else in that. The problem lies within the system itself, allowing the abuse to take place. With money and honours at stake, I’d expect any club to try to turn the rules to their own advantage.
    With the league already won, and another trophy up for grabs, if a key player’s suspension could be deferred (at worst), I’d be expecting the same from my club/company 🙂
    There is much to find fault in how Rangers * acquit themselves, including the ridiculous (if reported accurately) suggestion that discipline shouldn’t apply to a good player, but I’m not sure using the existing rules to you advantage is one such example.


  41. John Clark
    My instinct is to hope that the authorities do not systematically run their processes to deliberately give any one club an advantage. The car-crash over relegation last year gives me cause to think that there are some folk running the game who you wouldn’t send for a loaf or a pint of milk, and feeble minded folk have a habit of buckling readily in the face of any kind of assertive behaviour on the part of others.
    However, it seems crazy that any club disadvantaged by the bendability of the feeble-minded would keep their own counsel in the matter.
    As an example, Celtic (who might feel disadvantaged by the current shambles), who are often reluctant to go public about matters adversarial, are nonetheless quite adept at using the media to get their displeasure aired. On all matters involving both Rangers and Rangers*, Celtic (and others who have been cheated in the past) have remained silent.
    That seems to me to be either an acceptance of what goes on – or a belief that everything is kosher.
    Of course we have long been unable to explain the meek attitude of Scottish Football to proven cases of cheating by Rangers, so new club or not, at least some things appear to be no different.


  42. Big Pink 9th April 2021 At 10:47
    ‘..My instinct is to hope that the authorities do not systematically run their processes to deliberately give any one club an advantage…’
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    In which connection, maybe the upcoming Appellate tribunal will have a special look at para 15 of the Judicial Panel Protocol at
    “15.9 Frivolous appeals and submissions
    15.9.1 Where a Tribunal considers an appeal, it shall be open to the Tribunal to also
    consider whether:
    15.9.1.1 The individual bringing the appeal had no prospect of success;
    15.9.1.2 The appeal is considered by the Tribunal to have been an abuse of
    process or a delaying tactic for the sanction originally imposed; and/or
    15.9.1.3 The appeal is considered by the Tribunal to have been a frivolous claim.”
    It would be a brave tribunal which did not at least look at that para, with Gerrard’s fatuous and irrelevant comments in their minds as being nothing but despicable ‘gamesmanship’
    [ps. I went to ‘Thumbs up ‘ you but my effort appeared and immediately returned to zero?]


  43. I listened into the Grier case this morning. Lord Mullholland (former Lord Advocate) was giving evidence. It was relatively short as he had submitted a written statement yesterday.

    A couple of points of note: He distanced himself from the claim made previously by Gerry Moynihan in a hearing before Lord Malcolm that he had “his hand on the tiller” throughout the progression of the case. He acknowledged a supervisory role but was not involved in decision making. It sounded like he was prepared to throw Depute Advocate James Keegan under a bus. Moynihan objected to the line of questioning (the implication being that he had previously misled the court), but Lord Tyre overruled and allowed Grier’s QC to continue.

    Lord Mullholland also made a brief reference to the sale of Rangers from administration, but quickly corrected himself by saying “sorry, the sale of Rangers assets”.


  44. Big Pink 9th April 2021 At 10:47

    My instinct is to hope that the authorities do not systematically run their processes to deliberately give any one club an advantage.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++=

    I feel the issue is much broader than that. The rules on paper are the same for everyone. The wider attitude of the media and (in terms of Covid) the SNP Govt, have a major bearing on how those rules are applied. Both the media and Govt. have taken a far softer line with Rangers on Covid breaches than they have with Celtic. It makes it far easier for the SFA to rigorously apply rules when two such influential bodies are baying for the blood of one particular club.

    We had a situation only four weeks ago where not only did Rangers management and players actively encourage Covid breaches among fans, they committed breaches themselves in terms of car sharing, social distancing, and mask wearing. Yet compared to the outrage from the media and Govt. over a poolside photo of Celtic in Dubai, there was zero mention let alone criticism of any breaches involving Rangers management and staff.

    Had the media and Govt. created a huge stink about Ranger Covid breaches the SFA might just have felt they were on shakier ground in terms of how they dealt with the matter. Instead the entire situation is now beyond farcical, and whether or not it actually is, looks (to quote from a recent major political issue) to be ‘tainted with apparent bias”.


  45. Another 20 million .Directors keeping their side of the bargain , it seems .
    https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/oPXIq1V9S7CCQPWPf9S-36RInwR2h88giwpQM_lWDjo/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3MRRX6QUY%2F20210409%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20210409T162409Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEBsaCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJGMEQCIDs8LmvLcdwVfifBi1J%2FULzifLGWZwPcri3lst1dxyxfAiBvQeKiTuYH%2BhjEEyd6XGStGqfCO9CbPunpqUimYb7Nfyq0Awh0EAMaDDQ0OTIyOTAzMjgyMiIMKyDEiDOPj0f5anYsKpEDdYsbpaX%2BUI%2FZf7E7Buy0sqIvzxYYrrxrjx3%2BW1UI08dtErHusrun0Gr0VPvjMOPCYp5zCG2wGvZh5gC%2Bx3PT%2Bfh4DBw4rj5wuda7%2B6biQxE2iPSdaO7KzSWyt0BjUqdXt52iJFSA0QjOrNWgWwIo0tS4wiONsv%2FpDGs1lrUvbIHMT4Zxzz4%2BLmKsKcx4aHl8w7SIrsmXAgEnQ08s9yWqe1Fvgefz2RvvKrhXi%2BkFsE4RdtvBMcrHhlBpaviuWytC2gC%2FvfkfIr9Rq8LG8JYL9lNHs5bbXkGsXrTsMtqiD3YSFiOcM9I%2Bp7n0dmlJQgnAXjHEBygiK4%2BAaLLQCrAaVdPsDxauKsFQk3k37Cy1iz8IMoPck7bSMaGnUpL6upwLt7Spw170OdTf0%2BSBP8quCeSlBnjlQ6ykHUTFBUYmjvsFNOZPKH%2FIIW8Fy08x6Qw8XtB89bTSZPKmXV0DSsDbSiovL0kvTyql%2FAYJBWdF1Bnvs6zKdpc13voHknGl78BHWcZi65Q6M67fG5dQ%2F4UdlKAwmN%2FAgwY67AFJeB03kMpuBe%2Bv5rXxm54rKYfgrkcMfMXG48KjrQBxKNgcoNqbG%2FFp0PrFqT81cZdZ80RRjpmkDo9SHX280qe%2Bvo0rwY%2F5AZAxpQf5OgDxyl14dXEhuXgFy1R4qTuFgpyb7sCnBgPNRX%2BXUDaablxU%2B8EzHdRtvfE4p740Jinm9hH4%2Buc4cnGf0Zlea1%2F4b4k8TIkpaGLIgQI4KmDOtu8bOSTh4CzEeBPqY0BpoMLeDVwGWKYknIOdk5c87He1Y2r3ID4jTh3U2iv9GWfdb11qGbgr%2BAK9H%2F6SIacQad0JjlWLfPEw10RjIlaLyA%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=63cc83558dcecfde9282c9c8caba30282833d1f19ea230c3618dea6fb23500e7


  46. Paddy Malarkey 9th April 2021 At 17:25
    ‘ another 20 milion’
    +++++++++++++
    Gremlins got you there, PM!
    Yes 20 million shares issued from yesterday @20p each.
    Desperate need for cash, I imagine.
    It’s a wonder they could stump up the appeal deposit for the Covid-5 @ £1000 a head!
    Have they been told they’ll winm and get it back?


  47. John Clark 9th April 2021 At 17:59

    I read on social media that Carlos Pena won an unfair dismissal claim against them, was awarded £2.1m, and that another load of share confetti was required to settle up. No idea if fact.


  48. I can’t fathom how the Celtic board cannot reach decisions on manager, DofF, etc. They are receiving plenty of advice from the likes of Kris Boyd, Craig Moore, who seem to have a pipeline to the Celtic boardroom. The best part of this unsolicited and basically useless advice is that it’s free. Only if all these ex-Rangers had come forward in the EBT years.


  49. John Clark 9th April 2021 At 17:59
    Just a lack of competence , JC ! I still regard this stuff as being akin to magic . With one club in particular , that would be necromancy .


  50. Upthehoops 9th April 2021 At 18:14
    ” ..I read on social media that Carlos Pena won an unfair dismissal claim against them”
    ++++++++++++++++++
    Sadly, UTH, I don’t see any record of such a case on BAILLI (British and Irish Legal Information Institute)
    http://www.bailii.org
    which publishes even Employment Tribunal stuff.
    I think TRFC referred in its statement at the time that Pena’s contract was terminated by’ mutual consent,’ which probably means that Pena did not do too badly out of it, or at least well enough to prevent him taking an unfair dismissal action.
    (But perhaps BAILLII is not quite up to date-Pena left only in Feb 2019……..and BAILLII may not yet have got round to reporting. Unlikely, I’d say, with regret!)


  51. Upthehoops 9th April 2021 At 19:44
    ‘But an insufficient youth system and lack of published accounts could bar the club from Uefa competition’
    ++++++++++
    Apologies, but for some reason I’ve only just seen this post of yours, UTH.
    Oh, I love it!
    What do we have?
    A serious, very serious matter!
    ‘Lack of published accounts’, eh, what?
    Whoooofff!
    What in heaven’s name would UEFA make of

    -FALSE statements about social taxes indebtedness made by a club

    -the uncritical ENDORSEMENT of those false statements by the licensing committee of the National Football Association of which that club has not been a very long member

    Have there been allegations that such things might have happened?

    If so, have those allegations been independently investigated?

    In respect of one national association , I understand, the answer to question one is ‘YES’
    and to question two, a not unpredictable ‘NO’

    Honest to God!


  52. And can I just say that the death of HRH Prince Philip is of infinitely less emotional significance to me than were the deaths of my mum and dad.
    But obviously I understand that his widow and children and wider family may be affected as we all are at the death of a loved one or close relative.
    I sympathise and condole with them as I do with any family that suffers a bereavement


  53. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56694137
    Senior judge Lord Mulholland gives evidence in Rangers damages case
    A senior judge has been giving evidence in the £7m damages case brought by business expert David Grier over his prosecution in the Rangers fraud probe.

    Lord Mulholland, who is now a High Court judge, was the head of Scotland’s prosecution service at the time Mr Grier was charged in 2014.

    The former lord advocate denied having his “hand on the tiller” of the doomed Rangers investigation.

    He said other Crown lawyers made the key decisions in the investigation.


  54. Ally McCoist is right when he states the Covid 5 situation is not John Kennedy’s concern. It’s the concern of any club who has played the Rangers since the incident first surfaced more than two months ago, and it should be the concern of the clubs who will have to play following the split in league games. There is a lot at stake for a number of these clubs including the potential of European football next season. These clubs should follow the lead set by Rangers and swamp the SFA with letters demanding answers NOW, not two months or longer later. What took so long from the initial reporting of the incident until where we are today. As Bomber Brown claimed long ago “show me the deeds”, the clubs should be demanding “show me the paper trail.” Would it not be sweet justice if the undefeated season fell during the games following the split, and, for a double dose of sweetness, elimination from the Scottish Cup.


  55. Hats off to Graham Spiers in his column today:

    “…I commend Rangers FC, the club I supported passionately as a kid but have been extremely critical of in my working life, for their anti-racism stand in the wake of the Glen Kamara outrage. The rise of racism in our society is worrying — fuelled by social media — and football can play its part. But I do just want to check: Rangers FC are just as animated and passionate, aren’t they, about fighting anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bigotry, which have been blights around the club for decades? They are, aren’t they?”

    Rangers of course are right to be angry about the alleged racism towards Kamara, but Spiers aside they are getting a very easy ride from the media. They are being portrayed as some kind of saint like trailblazers in the fight against racism, when the fact is if fans were currently attending games, the huge issue they still have among a section of their support would be laid bare.

    I have completely given up on any hope of the vast majority of the Scottish media growing a set and actually doing their job. I actually gave up a long time ago, but it just gets worse by the week. They should be truly ashamed, but instead continue to act like a huge collective positive PR outlet for Rangers.


  56. Reading the report on the conclusions reached by La Liga on the alleged racist abuse by Juan Cala I find it difficult to see UEFA reaching anything but the same conclusion re the Kamara case. To be followed by howls of indignation from “the pundits”.

    With regard to the COVID 5, John Kennedy has every right to comment as the team which employs him is directly impacted. McCoist of course has the same right as you or I to comment as bystanders. Whilst TRFC may be playing the system would it be too much to ask that the grounds of the appeal are made public? Without further details one assumes appealing on grounds of a technicality rather than substance of the charges.


  57. I suspect that TRFC’s appeal may be based on ‘disproportionate punishment’; commonly called ‘whitabootery’.

    This may reference the refereeing team who went to Greece, didn’t obey protocols & weren’t cited, or even other teams that may or may not have played fast’n’loose with the rules & escaped the beady eye of the Compliance Officer (HAFC buses, CFC in Dubai etc etc. ad nauseam.).


  58. Wokingcelt 10th April 2021 At 11:53

    I believe in the case of Kamara another Rangers player claims to have heard what was said. Not sure if that makes a difference to how UEFA will deal with it.

    As for McCoist I am sure he knows fine well Gerrard had nothing to comment on regarding Celtic breaches as none of his players had at that point been treated differently. Celtic have every right to ask why what appears at face value to be favourable treatment is being given to Rangers players in this case. I don’t believe they will get an answer though. Rangers and ergo the media are quite happy with the way it is panning out so the SFA are on safe ground.


  59. I am not a lawyer but my understanding (delighted to be educated?) is that when you appeal a decision you have to give a reason/rational that supports the appeal. And the court grants leave to appeal based on the reason/rational given or not as the case may be. Surely a professional sport with multi millions at stake would have robust protocols in place to maintain (or should that be regain?) the integrity of the game…


  60. Hearts are now promoted after one season spent in the Championship in the most acrimonious of circumstances. The top league will be far better for their presence. It would be good if the excellent Hearts contributors who used to post on here would consider coming back to the forum.


  61. Upthehoops 10th April 2021 At 12:21
    I think it is the media who are saying that another Rangers player heard the alleged racist abuse , and Stevie G is happy to go along with that . It seemed to me that the other Rangers playewr reacted to what Kamara was shouting as he chased Kudela . The UEFA investigation should clear it all up .


  62. @Paddy M – that was certainly my impression (and I would stress impression) watching the TV pictures, that Kamara told a colleague what was said. It doesn’t change what may have happened but it does change the quality of the evidence if no one else heard first hand. Separately we await the judgment on the tunnel shenanigans; if as serious as reported then I wouldn’t be rushing into the transfer market on the back of CL millions this time next year Rodney…


  63. Upthehoops 10th April 2021 At 22:06
    ‘..It would be good if the excellent Hearts contributors who used to post on here would consider coming back to the forum.’
    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    I agree.
    And I confess to having been too preoccupied [who said ‘obsessed?!] with what I considered(and still consider) to have been the DELIBERATE and calculated wrongdoing of our Football Authorities in the Rangers liquidation matter and the false claims of TRFC , to get too involved in a matter ,occasioned by Nature rather human badness, but which exposed our Football Governance people as being hopelessly blinkered!

    A once-in-a-lifetime event that was no-one’s fault could surely have been dealt with in a way that did not punish any members of the business groupings that made up the membership of the SFA.

    And I regret that I didn’t focus my SFM blog attention on that issue in support of the clubs that suffered.

    I was very happy today that ( whatever other internal problems!) Hearts got over the line early , and will be back in the SPL.


  64. I have just read this:
    “The Guardian
    “Cameron ‘lobbied senior Downing St aide and Matt Hancock’ to help Greensill”
    Kalyeena Makortoff, Michael Savage and Ben Butler 14 mins ago”

    ‘The Observer can reveal that Cameron was in line to profit from a $30m (£21.8m) employee benefit trust registered in Jersey thanks to his role with the collapsed Greensill Capital.’
    ++
    Good old EBTs, eh, what?
    Honest to God: greedy, grasping, lying bast.rds!
    In SDM’s/RFC of 1872’s case the EBT scheme was not licit.
    Cameron’s EBT scheme was probably licit ( else he would have been a stupider Etonite ‘fag’ ( allegedly)of Boris than I think!), but the lobbying, the tapping-in to people in positions of influence (some of whom might owe their present jobs to him ?) reeks of that disgusting moral corruption at public expense so familiar to us in the humbler sphere of Scottish Football.
    Really.


  65. John Clark 10th April 2021 At 23:08

    The former Hearts posters were good at keeping me in line…well if not quite in line, certainly good at presenting an alternative view on certain issues which made me stop and think. In terms of the league, Hearts are one of Scotland’s biggest clubs and the top league can only be better by their presence.


  66. Paddy Malarkey 10th April 2021 At 22:46
    ‘..The UEFA investigation should clear it all up .’
    +++++++++++++++++++
    I’ve been trying to find on the UEFA website what the ‘standard of proof’ is that they use.
    They have already made a preliminary ‘judgment !
    ” In accordance with Article 49 DR, the CEDB today decided to provisionally suspend Mr. Ondřej Kúdela for the next (1) UEFA club competition match for which he would otherwise be eligible for the prima facie violation of Article 15(1)(a)(iv) DR, without prejudice to any ruling that the CEDB may subsequently make on the alleged violation of Article 14(1) DR.
    Further information about this case will be made available once the CEDB has taken a decision in due course.”

    Your man has already been tried and convicted by BBC Sportsound etc ( I could not believe my ears that BBC people would not automatically use words like ‘alleged’-Kenny at his partisanship worst, I think, not checked by the producer)
    We simply do not know for a fact what was said to Kamara. We have what he said was said to him. But that is uncorroborated by anyone except by hearsay from the victim.
    I’ve tried to find from the UEFA website what is the ‘standard of proof’ they use in their disciplinary cases. I can’t find any reference to it.
    So I can’t say whether they operate on the basis of ‘balance of probabilities’ or actual proven evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
    Having myself been a ‘victim’ of racism, I am instinctively on the side of any other victim.
    But allegations are allegations- not necessarily well-founded.
    And allegations by a suspect football club itself founded on a lie are, perhaps, to be treated with caution.


  67. Does Kris Boyd not understand the meaning of the word irony. He is quite willing to flap his gums on Leeds being successful due to the fact they spent a lot of money ( and I believe it was their own money). Does his memory bank not go back to the years when money was poured onto the Rangers in some what dubious ways allowing for their success.

    Steve Evans now claiming Gerrard could be the next Sir Alex Ferguson. Where to start on that one. He wins one title and all of a sudden the world is his oyster. Can we give it a few years before going off the deep end with silly comparisons.

    And, finally, SG says he is the only one who knows the details in regard to the Covid 5, If that is the case would that information not have been put forward to the SFA to alleviate all the aggravation that has arisen in the last two months. Of course SG knowledge of the details would have been completely unbiased. Should the SFA be asking for said information if it hasn’t already been presented. Where is the media following up on details.

Comments are closed.