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. Few folk complaining about being blocked tonight. probably a new spam prevention tool turned up to eleven. I have switched it off for tonight and will tweak tomorrow.
    Apologies for the inconvenience


  2. Bigboab1916 28th April 2021 At 22:01
    ‘…Having an orgasm ya fenian cnut 17 seconds in’
    +++++++++++++
    Thanks for that link, Bigboab.

    If the SFA chooses to do so that recording could go straight to a forensic linguistic analysis lab to ascertain the precise words used.

    Will the SFA bother its ar.e to do so?
    No.
    No more than it bothered its a.se. over the Res 12 matter or over making liars of themselves by the 5-Way Agreement.

    Commitment to anti-racism? Oh, sure, they have the wonderful Marvin Batley as adviser.

    Commitment to anti-sectarianism? They have a dismal track record, and a deaf ear.
    As an organisation of any sort, the SFA is unfit for purpose not only in the field of ethics and morality but also in the practical business of the governance of football, as witness the whole bloody nonsense of the current play-offs ‘problem’.
    Good God Almighty!


  3. No players, match officials, St Johnstone representatives or the person recording the goal celebration have made any claims of sectarian abuse. Lots of online speculation, which we’re all doing now, about what people think they might have heard. Or not heard.

    This really doesn’t seem like the most solid of foundations for an investigation. I genuinely don’t hear any sectarian abuse here. Not sure where this is going.


  4. IAP 29th April 07.07

    This is being driven by bloggers and fans on social media, no-one else.

    No complaint from anyone at St Johnstone be it players, management or officials.

    Let’s think about it. A goal is conceded in the last minute where the opposition goalkeeper gets a free header in the box with no-one picking him up. Shambles from a defensive viewpoint, no organisation.


  5. Incredibleadamspark 29th April 2021 At 07:07

    I fail to see why St Johnstone would need to make a complaint for an investigation to be undertaken, and many others claim it IS sectarian what is being said. I would have thought with so many accusations being made that Rangers would want to quickly clear things up, in particular as they are such a welcoming club that does not have any racists or bigots attached to them or among their support, as they have confirmed to the world several times since Glen Kamara was abused.

    I see it said often that racism and other forms of discrimination is a big problem in football. Why is the world not learning from Rangers and asking how they don’t have any of these problems? Seems like an opportunity lost to me.


  6. John Clark 29th April 2021 At 00:13

    If the SFA chooses to do so that recording could go straight to a forensic linguistic analysis lab to ascertain the precise words used.

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

    If the accusation was that a black person was being abused then I am sure some sort of analysis would take place to clear things up. However in Scotland such alleged comments against Irish / Catholics rarely merit a second look with the SFA or the media.


  7. Albertz11 28th April 2021 At 21:49

    Wokingcelt 28th April 21.09

    “Having just conceded a last minute goal at which there was both a lack of “organisation & picking people up” then yes it makes perfect sense.
    Now as for orgasms !!!! anyone want to explain that?.”

    Would you agree that what is been said below is very audible and not what you presume to have heard or stated, and orgasm is very clear as is fenian cnut

    https://voca.ro/1kgejws1Ocgk


  8. Bigboab 29th April 10.10.

    I am hearing exactly what i stated previously.

    “How we not organising ourselves, picking people up”.

    Organise not orgasm & people up not fenian c**t

    Clear as day.


  9. Bect67
    “In amongst a plethora of other ‘facts’, which he likes to give us, Jonathan Sutherland I’m sure stated on Sportscene that the victory by St Johnstone was ‘Rangers first domestic defeat of the season’. Did I hear him correctly? If so, a couple of points:-”

    I remember hearing something of that ilk, but it may have contained “at Ibrox” or “home”.

    As for “orgasmgate”, the rant was allegedly aimed at the St Johnstone videographer who could be heard celebrating the late equaliser just before. But as has been said, you’ll hear what you want to hear


  10. “Albertz11 29th April 2021 At 11:11

    Bigboab 29th April 10.10.

    I am hearing exactly what i stated previously.

    “How we not organising ourselves, picking people up”.

    Organise not orgasm & people up not fenian c**t

    Clear as day.”

    And so another myth is created in the mind just like the same club myth.


  11. There’s no way on earth that says anything about “fxnian cnts”.

    “xxx fxckin organise ourselves, shouldnae be xxx” … though you can hear “havin’ a fxckin’ orgasm …” equally well.

    Anybody hearing sectarianism in there is absolutely just hearing what they want to hear, though. And only on a Celtic-minded site would there be such in-depth discussion of it, with more than a hint of desperation for it to turn out badly for Sevco.

    Interested to note that all pretence of being non-partisan has disappeared from this site.


  12. only on a Celtic-minded site would there be such in-depth discussion of it. says Angus1983.
    Well you wouldn’t expect to hear anything about it on a Sevco site. He/she also seems to make light of it. I wonder again if the discussion was over whether the words included “Black” would the attitudes be different. In my life experience many supporters of other teams have a leaning towards Sevco as their second team and that may be why they (Sevco) get away with so much.
    BTW, I’m still waiting for someone to advise me how to add an Avatar, how about it “Upthehoops” as you have yours.


  13. Ballyargus 29th April 2021 At 16:56

    BTW, I’m still waiting for someone to advise me how to add an Avatar, how about it “Upthehoops” as you have yours.

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

    I added my Avatar many years ago under a previous operating platform. It has continued throughout all changes and updates to the site. I’ve had a look and it doesn’t seem obvious to me how to add one under the current platform. Big Pink is the technical brains behind the site and may be able to help. Sorry I can’t help.


  14. Upthehoops 29th April 2021 At 08:24

    But there are no accusations, only online speculation. There is no general consensus as to what has been said, who said it or who it was aimed at. No person on or off the park who was involved in the match has suggested anything inappropriate was said.

    How can an investigation take place when there has been no complaints by anyone? Because internet says so?


  15. @Albertz11 – having listened through the links provided I can’t decipher what has been said.
    I would however be surprised if the words are as you heard them (“how we no organising ourselves, picking people up”) simply because that’s too polite given the circumstances!!!
    I’m off to play 7-a-sides this evening and if I don’t track back the abuse I’ll get will be of the industrial variety (and that’s in leafy Surrey!).
    The Authorities have the technology to better detect what was said. I don’t know who decides next steps.


  16. Incredibleadamspark 29th April 2021 At 18:29

    Several people have e-mailed the SFA, and contacted them via social media. Complaints HAVE been made. It needs looked into. The SFA have said they accept complaints from anyone regarding cases to be considered for video review, so why would they not look into this? As I and others have said if the allegations were that a black person was abused then it would be looked into, even just to clear things up. As I also pointed out Rangers have been keen to tell everyone there is no racism, sectarianism or other discrimination whatsoever attached to their club. You would think having worked so hard to attain such an enviable worldwide reputation they would be outraged at people trying to tarnish it. Especially as we are told the rest of football has such a problem.


  17. Upthehoops 29th April 2021 At 19:53

    Complaints by anyone involved in the match. Why wouldn’t the SFA look into it? Because disputed online speculation surely cannot be the basis for a complaints procedure to kick in.


  18. IAS, what makes ‘online speculation’ any worse than the speculation of people like Stephen Thomson, James McFadden etc whose views, it appears, form the basis of every other incident looked at by the Compliance Officer? You think they know better than reasoned, intelligent online posters?


  19. Albion Rovers player David Cox has retired from football and left the stadium at half time after the Stenhousemuir captain told him he should have done it right first time referring to Cox having attempted to take his own life.

    https://www.facebook.com/100004246595542/videos/2019976328153901

    Thought i’d seen/heard everything in the game but this is beyond comprehension.


  20. SFA didn’t dally when it came to suspending the Hamilton manager for 4 games with two reserved. Where was that action in regards to the Covid 5, one rule for favored club and another rule for others. If Rangers had been involved in a relegation fight and SG had been charged the hearing probably would have been held in 2022. One other thing, do Celtic really need a board of directors. It seems several former Ranger players have opinions and advice to offer. Get on with it DD and hire these people asap and put an end to the current regime.


  21. Incredibleadamspark 29th April 2021 At 20:51
    ‘.. Because disputed online speculation surely cannot be the basis for a complaints procedure to kick in.’
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    That’s not quite right.
    There is a question of fact to be settled.
    In the Kamara case of racist abuse, the matter was taken very seriously-even though the only evidence was Kamara’s assertion, supported by the unsworn testimony of some of his team-mates.
    Perfectly legitimately, an investigation was undertaken, and a judgment was made on the basis of ‘balance of probabilities’. [ I have no difficulties with that concept]
    In the present case of alleged sectarian abuse there IS a recording of what was shouted.
    There are differing ‘speculations’ about what was shouted.
    But the matter is at least as serious as the Kamara matter, in terms of the law
    And recordings can easily be forensically analysed to establish what in all probability was said.
    The SFA simply MUST have the matter investigated.
    And they will, as others have generously acknowledged, have the full backing of the Boards of RIFC plc/TRFC in their honest endeavours to root out racism and sectarianism.


  22. Angus1983 29th April 2021 At 15:49
    ‘..Interested to note that all pretence of being non-partisan has disappeared from this site.’
    +++++++++++++++
    Angus1983, I do not of course speak for this site or its operators.

    I speak only for unalterable fact and truth:
    RFC of 1872 died as a football club entitled to participate in Scottish professional football.

    TRfC is a lying football club, created in 2012 by deceitful persons with the support of equally deceitful persons in the very Governance body of Scottish Football.

    It is not ,and cannot be as a matter of simple fact and truth , ‘partisan’ to reflect the truth.

    There is absolutely no TRUTH in the assertion that TRFC is the ‘Rangers’ of one of my grandfathers who was 21 years old when the 4 young men of Glasgow Green founded RFC of 1872!

    To believe that it is , is itself partisanship of a ‘head-in-the-sand’ kind of simplicity that would be risible if not so dangerously indicative of perversion of intellect.


  23. Nawlite 29th April 2021 At 22:31

    I think pundits are capable of talking absolute mince just like online posters, myself included. They can also offer insightful comments just like online posters, mysel… I’ll leave that.

    I don’t see the relevance of your comparison here, sorry.


  24. John Clark 29th April 2021 At 23:47

    A players claim of being racially abused on the pitch is not the same as what is happening here.

    Which is a group of online fans currently trying to decipher what a member of the public, or player or someone else has said to another person. Nobody is sure who that person is or what was actually said and there has been absolutely to claim of abuse by anyone involved at the match.

    And this is the basis for an investigation into what? An investigation into online speculation, plain and simple.


  25. Incredibleadamspark 30th April 2021 At 06:52

    there has been absolutely to claim of abuse by anyone involved at the match.

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

    The Police sometimes still charge people with assault even though the person assaulted does not make a complaint, as other evidence is available. My personal view is anyone having sectarian abuse hurled at them at Ibrox might not think it’s worth the hassle from the mob. Neil Lennon used to complain about it…enough said.


  26. Upthehoops 30th April 2021 At 07:41

    And the police will sometimes not proceed with an investigation because of a lack of evidence or false accusations.


  27. Just in the passing:
    From the Court of Session Rolls

    “LORD TYRE – S Alexander, Clerk

    Tuesday 4th May

    Proof Before Answer (32 days)

    P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under paragraph 75

    This is BDO’s action v D&P
    I think ‘proof before answer’ is where further elaboration of the facts is called for before the judge can rule on the law.
    32 days????? Surely that must be a misprint? Or there’s been helluva lot of work done by BDO.


  28. Another thing about the video is it is also not McGregor speaking as at 19 seconds he is in the frame lips sealed and the official is now looking to the bench as fenian cnut is uttered, wonder if this might set a Jimmy Bell ringing.
    there was no fans and they know it is more damaging as they cannot accuse a deflection apart from the ones on here.
    The official is the main man to look at he has no reaction to the sentence until fenian cnut is uttered. It happened and no-one is suprised was a big game to lose as it would have earned more credibility to slippy G and the media would have been creaming the prospect of a double. As it stands the season for the new club is over same as Celtics it all about the semi finalists and good luck to them all and to the Saints on the pospect of been the second scottish team in the last decade to achieve a double, Celtic first achieving a double with title and L cup then topping it of with a treble by adding a SC .


  29. Incredibleadamspark 30th April 2021 At 08:08

    And the police will sometimes not proceed with an investigation because of a lack of evidence or false accusations.

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

    Of course, I understand that. However the basis of your argument is just because nobody from St Johnstone complained then there is nothing to see. As I said, sometimes putting your head above the parapet brings unwanted attention from unreasonable people, especially regarding something that has been acceptable in Scotland for so long.


  30. Upthehoops 30th April 2021 At 14:40

    And the basis for your argument is that online speculation is justification enough for authorities to begin an investigation.

    I don’t think we’ll agree on this so I’ll leave it there but completely accept your good faith argument as I hope you will mine.

    Enjoy your weekend.


  31. “Journalist” Keith Jackson says he and his paper are joining the weekend boycott of social media. Maybe Keith can use his free time to review some of his posts to social media while not as vile or vicious as some, they are pretty far out. One about covid and he being the only one not getting his knickers in a twist over of something along that line. The Scottish media should be thankful for the activity of credible social media sites as they garner a lot of their stories from there. Thankfully the Celtic/Ranger game this weekend will give them all they need to fill the required column inches.


  32. Incredibleadamspark 30th April 2021 At 17:36

    Please enjoy your weekend too. It was my birthday today and I am now quite p*shed. Happy days!

    There are some things we can all share in common I’m sure!


  33. If Celtic beat Rangers tomorrow will the word invincibles finally be removed from articles in regards to the Ranger’s season. If they win and also win their next two games will they be acknowledged as the second team in Scotland to complete a league season undefeated ( second to you know who again). What is behind all the media stories attaching Rangers to a number of potential players. Who is going and will there be yet another share issue, or, a dubious loan to cover these transactions. So many questions, so few answers.


  34. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56956183

    Interesting story about Dumbarton. I wonder where the new owners see the club going? I stopped and had a look at the stadium a couple of weeks back when I was in the area. Only one stand and right next to an ongoing new housing development. Hopefully that is not the intention.


  35. The Sun newspaper under freedom of information has been able to establish that Police told the Scottish Government that shutting down gatherings of Rangers fans at Ibrox and Glasgow’s George Square would have sparked “significant and prolonged” disorder. Is it just me that thinks that makes it seem that Rangers fans are untouchable, even when they break the law on a grand scale? Why does the law apply to some and not to others? However, having lived in Scotland my whole life I don’t find it at all surprising.


  36. UTH – the role of the police is:
    protecting life and property;
    preserving order;
    preventing the commission of crimes;
    and bringing offenders to justice.

    So I sort of get a “don’t interfere policy” as this may cause more damage to life and property and lead to more disorder. What I don’t get is what appears to be a complete abrogation of responsibility to “bringing offenders to justice”.
    Based on my understanding of COVID laws at the time EVERYONE who turned up at Ibrox and George Square broke the law. Huge amounts of video/CCTV/Social media footage exists to prosecute all and sundry. And yet…how many have been charged? And just to be clear the COVID restrictions are in place to minimise people dying (not too much of a stretch to say that if you breached these restrictions you are a potential accessory to murder).


  37. Watching Match of the Day and noticed they still refer to Man City as “champione-elect , in the same way it was once used here . I thought Celtic would be the Champion club until the end of the season ,


  38. Wokingcelt 1st May 2021 At 21:27

    I can see the argument that to facilitate them lessened the risk to public safety, but it poses so many other questions. Would the fans of every club have been treated the same? Police Scotland stopped a Celtic treble treble bus procession. What would they have done had the fans said “we’re not having this”. Would they then have allowed it to go ahead? I doubt it. There is also the inescapable fact that some officers were caught on video joining in with the Rangers fans illegal celebrations. As I said though, it is no surprise to me. One Scotland, many cultures…don’t make me laugh! If it ever changes, there are still decades to go.


  39. Wokingcelt 1st May 2021 At 21:27
    ‘..So I sort of get a “don’t interfere policy” as this may cause more damage to life and property and lead to more disorder.
    Upthehoops 1st May 2021 At 22:59
    ‘. to facilitate them lessened the risk to public safety,.’
    +++++++++++++
    Raises interesting questions, doesn’t it?
    The polis say they can’t cope, and opt to do nothing.

    The government agrees.

    That is ‘Carte blanche’ to lawbreakers, easy as pie, especially if they have not only sufficient numbers, but can rely on numbers of police officers who readily sympathise with them.

    The capitulation to law-breaking on the grounds that it cannot be counteracted is , in any country, the ABSOLUTE failure of government [ curiously, in the same kind of way that the 5-Way Agreement and the failure to investigate the Res !2 matter was an abject , cowardly failure by the governance bodies of Scottish Football to discharge their governance function]
    The Chief Constable and the politicos in Government should be punted for having been so ready to surrender to lawless masses.
    Cavalry charges? Kettling?
    Not a chance: those tactics only apply in the east end.
    As the record shows.


  40. Upthehoops 1st May 2021 At 18:24
    ‘..Interesting story about Dumbarton.’
    ++++
    I’ll say this: that report by the BBC is very poor; merely publishing a a PR handout, in effect.
    I fiddle about on the Companies House website, and see that you get nothing on ‘Brabco’.
    Because the name is actually Brabco 736.
    Useless tosspots of supposed ‘journalists’.
    Honest to God, we are very, very, ill-served by BBC Scotland.
    [ Although I laughed today at Ken Bruce’s story about the guy in the Sheriff Court in Glasgow who asserted ” As God is my judge, I am not guilty”, only for the Sheriff to say ” He is not. I am. And you are”
    True or not, that’s brilliant.
    And , as Sammy Pepys said, ‘so to bed’


  41. @JC – completely agree on the failure of police and government here. In the vast majority of convictions the law is broken, police gather evidence after the fact and then look to convict the individual charged with the crime. In this instance the law was repeatedly broken, the evidence of this (sufficient to convict) is in the public domain and what are the authorities doing about it? Not sure how anyone could vote for the current government this week given their complete and utter incompetence in what is a primary responsibility of any government.


  42. Morelos shows a complete lack of class and understanding of the Scottish game with his crocodile tears show to Scott Brown. Perhaps if he ever achieves the success Brown has enjoyed in the Scottish game he may earn the right to mock someone who has the trophy and medal haul Brown has. One trophy does not make you a great player. Also the media glossing over his scoring record noting that he has his second goal in three games with Celtic. I think if you go back over the years that would be the second goal in numerous games against Celtic, not quite as glossy as the media would like you to believe. Also interesting that the referee got a rave review from the DR, what would have been the take if a Ranger had been red-carded early in the game. And, finally still living in the land of make believe with their “pretendy” 55 banner.


  43. upthehoops 1st May 2021 At 19:01

    5

    1

    Rate This

    The Sun newspaper under freedom of information has been able to establish that Police told the Scottish Government that shutting down gatherings of Rangers fans at Ibrox and Glasgow’s George Square would have sparked “significant and prolonged” disorder.
    ………………………………..
    They just mention Manchester, that still sends shivers down the spine for the people who lived there. No scottish goverment wants that, better to have folk die with covid with no cameras about than see folk kicked to death on mobile phone images splashed around the world.


  44. I posted ,at 0035 this morning, a criticism of the BBC’s inadequate report about the sale of Dumbarton FC in respect of it not giving the full name of the selling company.
    I have since been reading up a little on Dumbarton FC.

    As far as I can make out from the Companies House pages, the majority shareholder of Dumbarton FC was Brabco 736, of which company the majority shareholder was Granada Enterprises Ltd, owning more than 75%.

    That Granada Enterprises Company seems to have been registered in Belize: they are not on CH, and I don’t have the savvy to find another source that would provide the information about who the shareholders of Granada Enterprises Ltd were. ( and the Sons and other smaller shareholders appear not to have known too much about who owned tat company]
    (An Andrew Hosie was a director of Brabco 376 until he resigned on 28 July 2012)

    Anyway, Brabco 736/Granada Enterprises sold their greater-than-75% shareholding to Cognitive Capital Ltd.
    That company had been incorporated under the name Sepit , with Company number 9567426, in April 2015.

    There were 100 shares , and two initial shareholders, one having 49 shares, the other having 51.

    On 20 June 2016, all 100 shares were owned by George New Mattam.

    On 28 September 2018 the company name was changed to Cognitive Capital Ltd.

    A Confirmation Statement on 22 April 2021 shows that George Mattam had transferred all 100 shares to an Andrew Hosie.
    This Andrew Hosie has the same month and year of birth ( August 1972] as the Andrew Hosie who was a shareholder of Brabco 736.

    Now, I note separately that the [relevant] Secretary of State ‘ ..accepted a ‘Disqualification Undertaking ‘ from an Andrew Laird Hosie (d.o.b. 09 August 1972] under which he is disqualified for 12 years from 24 November 2016 and may not, without the permission of a Court, act as a Director of a company.

    Is it the same Andrew Hosie?
    If it is, then there are two football clubs in Scotland which have majority shareholders who are not permitted to act as directors. ( Gosh, I’ve forgotten the name of the other one!]

    Is there something about football clubs that attracts a certain type? types such as those whom newspaper hacks happily claim (without checking!) to be multi-millionaires to those whose millions saved them from a very , very long prison sentence? or, God save the mark, those who have done time?


  45. @Vernallen – with regard to the points you raise:
    1. Brown and Morellos – if you dish it out then be prepared to take it., Brown has been a great player for Celtic, and in no small part with his ability to control both games and minds. I don’t think he will be losing any sleep over Morellos.
    2. Morellos goal record – agree. Highly unlikely to be having lots of big tempting offers to sell him (not to say he won’t be sold but not for many millions)
    3. Referee – he was too quick with his yellow cards for his first two (Simpson and McGregor). Probably trying to make an early mark but by doing so ruined the game. He was then unable to apply same level of consistency throughout.. Over the course of this season I’ve felt that McGregor has been trying to cover too much ground (consciously or sub-consciously) given Brown’s lack of legs. Personally I would not have started Brown.
    4. “55” titles – living in England fans of (English) teams find it risible that the “history” is considered to have just continued. Some people still think the earth is flat, what can you do other than keep telling the truth and it will eventually sink in.


  46. A quick visit to Rangers sites reveals a complete trust in today’s referee. Visited same sites last weekend following St. Johnstone win and they were more than harsh on the referee in that game. If you were to believe the comments Rangers were lucky to have enough players fit to play today. It seems they were under attack, hacked at, kicked at and mugged through out the game. I suspect today’s referee will be the toast of supporter’s clubs throughout the land and will be welcomed back to Ibrox with open arms. Last weeks referee will be walking the streets with one eye over his shoulder. Oh, by the way how muck did Kris Boyd pay for that set of teeth. hopefully it was a real dentist that did the work.


  47. New hair , new teeth , still the same Kris Boyd . A presentational change only .


  48. Paddy Malarkey 3rd May 2021 At 10:56
    ‘…speculation’….”.. it has now been claimed that there has been a row over comments he made regarding the Gers’ finances.”
    “”””””””””””””””””””””””
    What a useless ‘reporter’ Aidan Smith is.
    Did he make any attempt to speak to Andy Walker, and ask him what he allegedly said about the finances of RIFC plc/TRFC? Apparently not, he just lifts from the ‘Daily Mail’
    There are plenty of questions to be asked about how the lying club at Ibrox keeps the show on the road.
    If Andy Walker has asked any such question , good on him.
    I suspect that Sky Sports are as prejudiced/biased/cowardly as anyone in Pacific Quay when it comes to challenging the football club that embodies the biggest lie in the history of Scottish Football.


  49. Psychology 101: cognitive dissonance “..the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.’

    Karyn McCluskey is CEO of ‘Community Justice Scotland’. She is, among other things, a trained psychologist.

    She is also, of course, a member of the Board of the SPFL.

    I wonder whether she ever reflects on the fact that wearing one hat she is involved in promoting ‘justice’ while under another hat she serves on a Sports governance body which agreed to and supports the big lie that is embedded in Scottish Football, contrary to any understanding of justice and truth?

    Has she a very selective view of what constitutes ‘justice’?


  50. John Clark 3rd May 2021 At 12:07
    I think , JC , that Aidan Smith (if that person actually exists ) is merely dispensing information received from Ibrox , so the club themselves don’t look childish and insecure . I also think that Sky Sports looks at the demographic of their customer base before deciding their stance – don’t bite the hand that feeds you .


  51. John Clark 2nd May 2021 At 18:59

    As far as I can make out from the Companies House pages, the majority shareholder of Dumbarton FC was Brabco 736, of which company the majority shareholder was Granada Enterprises Ltd, owning more than 75%.

    That Granada Enterprises Company seems to have been registered in Belize: they are not on CH, and I don’t have the savvy to find another source that would provide the information about who the shareholders of Granada Enterprises Ltd.

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

    JC
    You’re not liable to find that information for a Belize company as like Panama and a few other places it’s used among other things, as a tax haven using offshore IBC’s and unlike CH has no requirement to carry the name or identity of any shareholder or director, the identity of this person will not appear in any public record.

    Andrew Hosie does indeed though appear to be the same disqualified person, good spot

    regards
    ff


  52. Can anyone ( Alberts 11 perhaps) who posts on here, confirm whether those Rangers supporters that bought a seat for life , in the club deck stand during the Sir David Murray years, still have the same seats ?
    When Charles Green bought the assets ( and supposedly the history ! ) were the dudes who purchased seats for life , given them back ?

    I vaguely know a couple of guys that were fairly vociferous about the ole Rangers, but since the implosion in 2012 , say very little.
    I’ve never asked either as it might seem vindictive, as it certainly wasn’t anything they could individually prevent.
    Without knowing either very well, I do respect both.
    Just asking, while wondering.
    Any feedback would be appreciated.


  53. The DR trolling former papers looking for upbeat news on Rangers. Why is it that the only seem to do this when they defeat Celtic. Why is there no trolling when they lost in cup playoffs. Now we have Mark Hately resurrected to provide comments on football. His comment that he is surprised the Edouard still has his teeth shows someone truly in touch with today’s game and treatment of athletes by teammates. He must have been a joy in the dressing room of the former Ranger’s club.


  54. AG
    They lost all the rights to their seats after Administration, some have regained them probably through a further/different payment method.

    As far as I’m aware the original 1990 club deck bond scheme purchasers still have their names on the seats, even though someone else may now have the seat.

    https://imgur.com/a/KY1Hc5K

    regards
    ff


  55. Paddy Malarkey 3rd May 2021 At 16:03
    ”..Aidan Smith (if that person actually exists )..’
    +++++++++++++
    Ha, ha! Yes, there is an Aidan Smith who is a sports journalist with regular pieces in ‘The Scotsman’ and other publications.

    To be scrupulously fair, his non-football articles are sometimes very entertaining ( he has one in ‘The Scotsman’ today , talking about the ‘final’ episode of ‘Line of duty’]

    My beef with him ,and the SMSM generally, is that they did not have, and do not now have , the moral fibre to challenge the Big Lie, but happily bought into it, most dishonourably and continue to propagate it.

    Proper journalists would have argued with their editors for the right to investigate and report, and, if not granted, would have quit.

    Or would have tried to explain in some sort of sensible, intelligent way how a football club that was created before their very eyes in 2012 can be the same club whose death by Liquidation also happened before their very eyes!


  56. John Clark 3rd May 2021 At 22:02
    In fairness , if the big beasts are reluctant to raise their heads , somebody at his level would be ridiculed . Oh for simpler days when football was honest and we were innocent !


  57. Fitbawfan 3rd May 2021 At 19:29
    ‘..They lost all the rights to their seats after Administration,’
    +++++++++++++++++++
    A trip down memory lane:
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/378676/rangers-fans-hit-by-8m-penalty/

    And, of course, there was NO ‘new owner’, Instead,
    RFC of 1872 went into liquidation,
    a monstrous sorting ie was created,
    and I believe that tomorrow there is further action in the Court of Session related to the value of Ibrox as quoted in that ‘Sun’ article as against the miserly sum that the Administrators sold it for to the founder the newest member of the SFA, TRFC, which of course would have denied any liability for the debts of RFC of 1872!


  58. Fitbawfan.
    Thanks for the reply. When I used an internet search engine, one of the links brought up a recent thread from the follow follow web site.
    On that thread , they mentioned Sir David Murray being culpable, and it was also claimed that the club can’t be arsed taking off the original names of bond holders who bought the seats , for life ( or 35 years).
    Another example of clubs treating their customers with disdain.
    I wonder why the 6 thousand fans who lost the seat for life at Ibrox , never get a mention in the media??


  59. John Clark .
    Yip . Indeed, there wasn’t ever a new owner.


  60. BDO v The Administrators, the smsm will be all over this i expect, or will there be a big deflection from ibrox to keep the glare away?


  61. Angel Gabriel 3rd May 2021 At 17:44

    6

    0

    Rate This

    Can anyone ( Alberts 11 perhaps) who posts on here, confirm whether those Rangers supporters that bought a seat for life , in the club deck stand during the Sir David Murray years, still have the same seats ?
    ………………………………………………
    They still get a Joint Liquidators’ statutory reports to all known creditors published on https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/rfc-2012-plc site within six weeks of each anniversary of the date of Liquidation, in accordance with Rules 7.4 and 7.8 of The Insolvency (Scotland) (Receivership and Winding up) Rules 2018.


  62. @ AG and JC – regarding that “seat for life” reading the Sun article implies the fans coughed up for the right to have the same seat but would obviously have to pay annual season ticket subs. Unless I’m misreading something the fans lost the right to buy a season ticket for the same seat to see RFC play. Given RFC no longer existed it wouldn’t have been possible for D&P to honour their rights… couldn’t be simpler.


  63. “The Scotsman” today reports Ian McCall as saying “nobody from the SPFL or SFA will be allowed in the stadium, which is great.” [ on Wednesday, from the club’s trophy celebrations]
    He added “Yes” when asked if Doncaster is banned .”They won’t be allowed in the stadium. Is it really going to make a difference? Is the governance going to change? It has been incompetent for decades now. Is it going to change? I don’t know”

    Not in any way do I disagree with McCall or seek to excuse the inability or unwillingness of the SFA and SPFL to recognise that punishing clubs that were victims of a natural disaster was totally unjust.

    Their readiness to punish innocent clubs was in marked contrast to their readiness to betray their Governance functions in order to concoct an absurd lie to enable a new club to claim, in its IPO , a sports pedigree and history that it simply could not have earned.

    The great shame of Scottish Football is that too many other clubs were and are prepared to buy into that lie.
    There be can be NO honest professional football governance until the BIG Lie is rescinded, and some form of truth and justice restored.


  64. Paddy Malarkey 3rd May 2021 At 22:20

    “… Oh for simpler days when football was honest and we were innocent !”
    “”””””””””””””””””””””
    Certainly we were innocent and unquestioning in former times.
    But I believe that the SMSM of those days had the courage at least to imply ,by the creation and use of the concept of the ‘Old Firm’ , that there might have been a mutually beneficial match-fixing wee deal operating.

    [There was something quite recently about the rights to soubriquet having been renewed? That’s a bit f a puzzle, because one cheek of that ar.e is DEAD and any new cheek could hardly be described as being old enough to pretend to be that old cheek.
    And, surely to God, the living cheek wouldn’t have the cheek to suggest that a new club could pretend to be the dead cheek? would they]


  65. If any teams in the Scottish premiership are looking for a new manager, may I suggest Barry Ferguson. His insights to games that have been played are tremendous and always full of praise for his beloved Rangers. Its a shame that he can’t focus on the team he currently manages as you hear very little about them, How must the players feel when they have such an esteemed leader raving about another club. On the other hand you have the bitterness of Charlie Nicholas and his constant moaning regarding anything Celtic. Somebody must have done the dirty on him for him to carry on the way he does. I remember back in the 80’s Scotland were playing an exhibition game in Edmonton, and, Charlie’s main concern expressed in the media was getting a hair cut trim daily. Another signing by Rangers today, while they have two or three teams next year, one for the league, one for cup games, and one for Europe. I see another share issue/loan coming.


  66. What’s this I hear?
    Dreadful inefficiency on the part of football club in going about the business of ensuring that whatever the problem is in obtaining a UEFA licence, a way cannot be found for love nor money to having it quietly removed?
    It surely can’t be that hard to get round the rules : I cannot believe it hasn’t been done before.


  67. Paddy Malarkey 12.16.
    Fair play to Patrick Thistle , who were denied any form of fair play when they were relegated. I wonder if any of the Scottish MSM will ask Ian McColl to expand, on his assumption that the governance of the game has been incompetent for decades.
    Personally, I think he’s being kind using the word incompetent. Crooked would be more apt.

    So the “ Old Firm” have both banned Andy Walker.
    I remember Neil Lennon being upset with Andy Walker describing the Dubai trip as a jolly.
    Neil’s defence of that accusation was stating that 80% of the Celtic squad don’t drink alcohol.
    I wondered then , wouldn’t it have been more apt for the remaining 20% and Neil Lennon , to refrain from drinking and show some empathy to the fans ?
    Remember, it was the fans, who were stuck indoors for months, that payed through the nose for the privilege of watching the team implode , on an average virtual streaming service.
    I’m certainly not Andy Walkers biggest fan , but find it strange that no other Scottish MSM individual, ever asks about the financial well being of a club with a “ going concern “ warning in their accounts.

    See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
    Or yer barred !!

Comments are closed.