History, Neighbours and Made Up News

Avatar ByFinloch

History, Neighbours and Made Up News

Or, a story of how and why Mr Lawwell consigned resolution 12 to the deepest grass;
by Finloch

“It’s about history and being neighbours”, young Elisabeth said to her mum.

And it has to be done for tomorrow, Elisabeth said.

“I’m supposed to ask in an in-person interview about what life was like where an older neighbour grew up and what was life like when the neighbour was my age.

It’s not my fault that we’re new here and haven’t spoken to our old, next door neighbour yet and don’t even know his name.

“I’ve an idea her mother said, why don’t you make it up.

Pretend you’re asking him questions and then write down the answers you think he’d give”.

“It’s supposed to be true”, Elisabeth said. “It’s for News”.

“They’ll never know”, her mother said. “Just make it up.

The real news is always made up anyway”.


publicLibraryI was lucky enough to catch Ali Smith at the Edinburgh Book Festival.

I was part of a very diverse audience and unusually for this kind of event nobody in the sold-out Charlotte Square tent had a Scooby about what she was going to share with us.

Most would have been expecting a reading or two from her recent short story collection, Public Library, about the cynical, thoughtless and almost silent and unpublicised demise of Libraries up and down our land.

Our libraries.

Our land.

Ali is always value for money though and was amazing, reading from her as yet unpublished “Autumn” book, the first she said of a four-book series.

As I listened to her, I was also thinking and juggling around at the back of my mind about what I was going to write for this blog, having been asked for my thoughts, as a non-involved, non-Celtic supporter, on how I see the Resolution 12 situation.


Well Ali’s words stung like a bee and proved quite inspirational. The wisdom and clarity in her new books is highly relevant to all of us who care about Scottish Football and Resolution 12 including Mr Lawwell, Mr Doncaster, Mr Regan, Mr Petrie and us too – the real stakeholders.


Ali also shared with us a Bernard Maclaverty insight from when he once visited a school as part of (I think) a Scottish creative writing initiative and in the course of his talk asked some youngsters,

“What is fiction” ?

Someone put their hand up and said “Please Sir, it’s made up truth”.


Near the end Ali also got to talking about post Brexit Britain and used the chaos to ask the bigger question.

“Why do we never seem to have real debates about anything and why in any “debate” we might see or read that there never seems to be room for to-ing and fro-ing on points because everyone seems to have already made their minds up and just wants to maintain their status quos, achieve their own personal agendas or to steamroller us all to their point of view”.


“People in power seem to be genuinely scared of honest debates”, she said.

She asked how without more real discussions and insightful and open minded debates can any of us (and the debaters themselves too) learn because without that we will just get more of what we’ve had.

And that’s not good enough.


So thanks Ali I’m going to combine these three things from your hour along with two personal career experiences and review Mr Lawwell and his company’s reaction to the bona fide Resolution 12 raised by some of his shareholders a few years ago.

(My career experiences were as the head of a small, and treated as unimportant, company that was part of a worldwide group of companies run (badly) out of the US; and my time as head of a trade association that had two very dominant and troublesome members).


My Five Insights to review Resolution 12 are.

  1. Some people think  “made up news is fine” and feed us all with it all the time.
  2. Don’t expect real discussions or debates about anything in your club. No two way dialogues, except from those about money once a year.
  3. “Made up Truths” become gospel not to be challenged.
  4. The people running the club know they are smarter and more important than any of their minority or remote stakeholders.
  5. All decisions that really matter in football or indeed in any business are pre-agreed and never discussed in the open.

So now to what I think of Resolution 12.

My starting point is to say this. It is wrong to see or to discuss Mr Lawwell and Resolution 12 as being about the awarding of a license – or the boardroom processes since The Requisitioners first raised it.

Sadly, I’d suggest Requisition 12 was history before it was even raised.

In the late Murray days at Ibrox and in the early Whyte ownership period there had been rumours, and I’m certain deep and meaningful business discussions between the heads of the SFA and SPL and their key committee members.

You can be sure that the SFA, SPL, Celtic and others were all watching the post Murray Rangers situation closely, and the new regime at Ibrox and related financial stuff would have been the talk of the exclusive football steamies.

Despite what some Celtic fans believe, the reality has always been that while Rangers may have dominated (just) all things SFA and SPL, nothing was ever done without the knowledge of and input from the green side of the Old Firm business model.

Sadly, I’d suggest Requisition 12 was history before it was even raised.

Scotland’s unique, idiosyncratic, religio-political old firm business model was not just about driving the individual Glasgow teams to their leviathan duopoly in Scottish football. We all knew (because we were told so) that it was also the commercial bedrock of the business that is Scottish Football.

And yes, for a while David Murray thought his club was bigger than the Old Firm, but he and his ego had moved on when all this stuff happened.

Put simply, Regan who was quite new, was convinced at the time – and still is absolutely certain – that the SFA and Scottish Football needed a dominant Celtic and Rangers, and he also personally needed and needs the support of their CEO’s.

Doncaster too was convinced that the SPL needed Celtic and Rangers arch rivalry with all it entails, delivering TV monies and maximizing his bonuses. He too also personally required and requires the support of the Old Firm CEO’s.

Lawwell the astute numbers man, under a constant watchful eye from Dublin, needed Rangers to ensure his business plan did not develop un-fillable black holes.

And yes, for a while David Murray thought his club was bigger than the Old Firm, but he and his ego had moved on when all this stuff happened.

Importantly, Peter was also one of a small influential football group who effectively controlled the actions of Regan and Doncaster. Nothing strategic would ever have been done by either of them without his involvement and input. That doesn’t mean he necessarily knew all the detail about  Craig’s UEFA license shenanigans but he’d have had his suspicions.

And you know something, – at a squeeze I think he and Desmond might have thought keeping a Rangers team alive (for its future dependable revenue streams) was maybe even worth one season’s lost Champions League status.

There is no doubt in my mind that in 2011 Peter and the Celtic Board were worried but supportive of and committed to keeping the Rangers company alive.

Looking back I don’t know when Lawwell and Desmond actually discovered de facto that Rangers should not have been awarded the license.

Was it before it was awarded?

Was it after by which time it was too late anyway?

Those would be two good questions to ask them.

I’d suggest that by the time they knew for sure it was too late, but I could be wrong.

Anyway history shows that pretty quickly after McCoist failed in Europe, Lawwell committed his club to the complex and complicated secret Five-Way Agreement and all it entailed.

Celtic were senior signed-up members of the attempt to help protect and leverage the future blue revenue streams into the SPL then the SPL 2 then the bottom level.

It was all about the blue pound.

It was all about the blue pound into the future.

It was all about the blue pound into the future being central in the business model at Celtic that needed (then and now) a blue pound generating Rangers.

We all know now that compromise was somehow reached ahead of the Brechin cup tie in the summer of 2012.

Many – in fact most of –  Scottish football fans were glad that football had once again broken out, having become fed up with all the politics, and were glad to return to talking about players and stuff.

Football gossip is after all more comfortable than finding out we’d all been cheated for years.

Not all fans were ready to “Move-on” however.

Some, like many of us on this site and others like it wanted to dig deeper and examine just what happened and who did what.

Some wanted Celtic as the most wronged club to do and say more about Sporting Integrity.

Some wanted to rub their old rivals into the dirt.

Some wanted a full and frank review because they believed that without Sporting Integrity we would make the same mistakes in the future.

I’d be one of these fans.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Celtic shareholders who pieced together the jigsaw that led to Resolution 12, correctly identified that their club were illegally denied a place in the Champions League and denied substantial revenues.

Fair play to them.

If  I was a Celtic shareholder I personally would have wanted to know why my board had not pursued these significant revenues that were due to my company.

It was and is a big deal.

No it was and is a huge deal.

It remains an open sore and everyone involved seems to have ducked any blame.

I applaud those Requisitioner Shareholders for how they have gone about the process, and I have a huge respect for everything they have done on behalf of Celtic and fans of all Scottish clubs.

However in my opinion it was always doomed to failure because of the simple fact that their own club, having been an integral part of the whole murky “Armageddon” process, had already moved on into the new world they had helped to forge, and did not and could not look back.

So Resolution 12 was treated politely but cleverly by the club in the finest traditions of Sir Humphrey.

They did not want to fight their shareholders corner then and I’d suggest still don’t – and wont.


So going back to my five points earlier.


  1. Mr Lawwell et al did not want to establish the real truth, which they already knew. Hey had already signed up to what had been reported, moved the club on and spent his personal bonuses along the way no doubt.
  2. Mr Lawwell et al did not want a real debate because he and his small team had already done what they believed at the time to be right for the club they were paid to manage.
    Nothing more to say.
    And yes he could mumble agreement that Sporting Integrity is important when cornered but between us chaps it wouldn’t ever have filled the yawning gaps in the stands at Celtic Park without a Rangers counterbalance.
  3. Rangers are now back and the Old Firm is once again dominating Scottish Football.
    The truth at Celtic Park is we need each other and season book sales and TV revenues are up proving my point all along.
  4. We tolerate the intellectual end of our support, just, but they are hard work and you’d think they own the club.
    We even quite enjoy some of their stuff sometimes as long as its not too political but  we have a business to run and quite frankly sometimes they just don’t get it. They should realise the SFA and the SPFL are there to do a job for us and we keep them on a short enough leash.
  5. We will always be grateful to Fergus for what he did. We benefited at the time from the fan’s money and now run a very successful shareholder liaison programme. Once a year we have an AGM and try to manage the reality of running a business while having to hear from people who would prefer us to regress to what we were in the 1880s. Shareholders are fine but this club is a business and must be run as such.


My Five Insights sum up the position and stance of the Celtic Board.

I don’t know what will happen to Resolution 12.

The club never wanted it because they are a business and see the world differently from the group of fans who see themselves as the Celtic soul.

I applaud these Celtic fans.

Celtic does not deserve you.

About the author


Finloch author

Finloch has been a member of SFM since it's inception. A Hearts fan, he also penned the blog, Look Back to Look Forward

1,353 Comments so far


upthehoopsPosted on10:39 pm - Aug 23, 2016

PADDY MALARKEYAUGUST 23, 2016 at 21:01 
Just noticed that our game v Ross Cty has been brought forward to the Friday night at 19.45.  On December 23rd . In Dingwall . Who said that the SPFL have no consideration for the fans ?


If ever evidence was needed that paying fans don’t matter this is it. 

View Comment


nawlitePosted on10:40 pm - Aug 23, 2016

Paddy Malarkey, that scheduling is ridiculous. Get onto the club; the SFA; the hotlines; anywhere to complain and try to get that changed. Unbelievable.

View Comment


goosygoosyPosted on10:51 pm - Aug 23, 2016

UPTHEHOOPSAUGUST 23, 2016 at 22:17  EASYJAMBOAUGUST 23, 2016 at 21:49  Hello ………….. Celtic fans ………….. if you are reading this you can come out from behind the couch now
It was painful EJ, very painful. Now it’s joyous.

Celtic fans got pain for 90 mins
MSM got joy for 90 mins
Celtic fans now have joy to end of season
MSM  now have pain to end of season

View Comment


John ClarkPosted on11:22 pm - Aug 23, 2016

Off topic, I suppose, but can I say that just as a wee pick-me-up this afternoon,I dragged Mrc C over to the Oriam national sports centre on the Heriot-Watt campus,which eJ waxed eloquent about.

It really is worth a visit. Enterprising sports supporters’ clubs within daily travel distance should think about organising a trip to have a dekko, if the centre gets round to making that an organised thingy.

We had the pleasure of watching the Hearts v Hibs u/20s very entertaining game, and of having a juice at half-time at a table (in the ‘bistro kitchen’) adjacent to the table where Mrs Budge and her Director of Football and Neilson and two personages whose names I couldn’t quite place were having a chat.

We arrived just as Hibs scored their  first goal, and left at 2-2, some short time before time-up, so I don’t know the final result. But I thoroughly , thoroughly, enjoyed the football I saw.
And so did Mrs C.

And so did something like 450-odd folk.

A very nice experience.

View Comment


StevieBCPosted on12:55 am - Aug 24, 2016

Without wanting to get all political, an ‘objective’ observation;

The fund raising instigated by the Celtic fans reaffirms that football can be about much more than just a game.

Regardless of whether the CFC board agrees or disagrees with the sentiment, they are benefiting from the global coverage of the brand.

It would be a classy gesture if CFC decided to match the total raised for charities.

Well, they’ve just hit the GBP20M+ jackpot, and could mibbees buy some browny points from the fans – some of whom could be deeply unimpressed with how CFC has dealt with Resolution 12, and sundry other RFC/TRFC related matters.

Just a thought.

View Comment


easyJamboPosted on12:59 am - Aug 24, 2016

John Clark August 23, 2016 at 23:22
I don’t know how I missed you then. I was seated just on the other side of halfway from Ann Budge and her board colleagues, next to a couple of Evening News journalists, who I know reasonably well from talking to them at other games

The match finished 2-2 which was the right result for the occasion of the first game there, and was a fair reflection of the play. I thought both sides were pretty poor defensively though, as I have definitely seen Hearts play better than that.  I think the official attendance was 402 plus another 100 or so players, coaches, scouts, press and other campus staff.

As I said in my earlier post, the National Performance Centre is a great facility, and should prove to be beneficial to a range of Scottish sports. 

It was suggested to me that the SFA has yet to sign off the facilities as yet, as they have reservations about public access, should they want to hold training sessions behind “closed doors”. One to watch perhaps.

View Comment


ZilchPosted on1:26 am - Aug 24, 2016

Not been around much lately, so just read Finloch’s fine blog post above tonight. Have to say it resonated with me as a Celtic fan who is struggling with the current situation re Res12 and related matters…

I recently took my wee boy to his first football match at Parkhead. Got an offer of season book tickets for a pre-season friendly. So we went together, showed him the statues of Jock Stein, Jinky and Billy. Told him the history of where we came from, what I think the club stands for – at least amongst us fans. Introduced him to the community we come from. All the time I was thinking of my own Dad bringing me there and how this had been our club, our identity, part of our family – for generations.

But all the time I was left with the feeling that there were two clubs. The club me and my fellow fans support and the corporate identity – the football business that does not appear to share the community values that I believe are broadly common within our support base.

In this schizophrenic attitude to club and company we have more in common with the Rangers support than we are probably comfortable acknowledging.

I want to share Celtic with my wee boy. I want to be able to share the highs and the lows of what happens on the pitch, what happens in the stands – I want both of us to be part of that community. That community is where we come from.

The failure of my club to stand up against the cheating that has plagued our sport and its apparent indifference to the assault on sporting integrity is a source of real grief. I thought we were bigger than that. I still think WE, the supporters, ARE bigger than that.

The Res 12 guys carry the torch for our community and represent our best – unwilling, possibly unable, to meekly accept the corruption and venality of the sport as it is currently run. They give me hope that my faith in my own community is not misplaced, even if the business that is my club has not lived up to the standards we expect in these matters.

The next sentence could have started with a ‘But’. But it needs more than that. It needs an ‘And’. It needs an ‘And’ because what comes next is additional and is not in anyway intended as a mitigation or a negation of my club’s failure to act.

The additional element that really strikes me about Finloch’s post, is that it could be written about any of our clubs.

Celtic are one of the members of the SFA, and have ultimately got one vote. Certainly they carry some sort of influence due to their size and financial weight, and presumably as a result, they have places on important boards within the game, so the situation is not one of purely equals. However, when it comes down to it, Celtic have a vote that is the same as any other member of the association.

They also have a historically fractious relationship with the southside neighbours that is certainly subject to grossly dangerous MSM attention and has the capacity to result in injury and death on the streets of Glasgow and beyond – so some element of due caution is certainly warranted in these kinds of dealings.

Do they hide behind this for their own ends? Possibly.

Public safety concerns and MSM bias / abuse notwithstanding, I find it increasingly hard to accept that Celtic have not happily gone along with the 5 way agreement, and all of the other aspects of this omnishambles. Whether willing or otherwise, their silence on the issues is more damning by the day.

Like many other Celtic fans, there is an ember of hope in me that they will turn around and reveal some Balderick-style cunning plan, some long game that they have been playing, that will assuage these fears. But as more time passes my fears grow ever stronger that they are, in fact, complicit in the shady deals that have dragged our game down.

And the same is true for all of the rest of the clubs. ALL of them.

Where were the voices for sporting integrity when it was being shunted out the door on the back of threats of armageddon and disaster? Leaving aside noble exceptions such as Turnbull Hutton, where were they? Where was YOUR club? Cowering with the rest of the sheep, or like dogs waiting to be fed scraps from the table?

It is not a pretty thought.

I have always baulked at the suggestion of an Old Firm. I maintain that if there was such an aspect to the old days of our sport, it was always tilted in favour of one club.

However, our failure to act in these recent times, to publicly state our insistence on sporting integrity over business advantage – that calls into serious question our previous denial of the Old Firm.

This is painful to have to admit, but how else can we rationalise the current situation?

It is clear to me that the Old Firm was a cancer that devoured the sport (ultimately devoured Rangers), and there is every possibility that it will do so again in the future.

What I don’t understand is why it was tolerated by the rest of the association clubs?

Without the other clubs, the Old Firm has nowhere to go? Never did have anywhere to go. So why was it allowed to operate in the way it did?

This is a serious question. If we can’t answer it looking backwards, how can it be stopped from happening again in the future?

Why did / do the other clubs tolerate the operation of the Old Firm?

There are some pretty dark potential answers to this.

For example, it might point to longtime societal problems in Scotland – think religion and sectarianism for a start. Does the dark stain of sectarianism run more deeply and widely than is commonly acknowledged? Was there a tacit acceptance that there needed to be a dominant, Establishment club with all of the baggage that goes with that?

Or is it simply the cut and thrust of a dog-eat-dog environment where beggar thy neighbour means more than sporting integrity?

I would suggest that neither of these are very appealing options – are there other explanations that reduce the burden of shared guilt? I am struggling to see them…

I need to reiterate: my club, the club that I claim as my own, the club of generations of my family – my club appears at this stage to be complicit in the corruption that has afflicted our sport. Given its relative influence in the administration of the game, it is at least as guilty and probably more so than other clubs in the association. Additionally, the rest of our clubs are guilty and complicit in similar, though not necessarily exactly equivalent, degrees.

Going forward, it is not enough to wearily complain of ‘both cheeks’ etc. Just as we need to look at how our club is being run in the east end of Glasgow and support attempts to influence it as the Res 12 guys have demonstrated, so do fans of other clubs across the country.

View Comment


upthehoopsPosted on7:04 am - Aug 24, 2016

JOHN CLARKAUGUST 23, 2016 at 23:22


Sounds good John. Sometimes I get a tad jealous of all you wealthy retired folk 22

View Comment


Mark CPosted on7:53 am - Aug 24, 2016

WOTTPIAUGUST 23, 2016 at 14:46Glad it is not just me that is lost in the fug.
The Uefa letter still has some funny stuff in there and fails to answer all the questions.It seems to me there are three strands in the letter
It says, in relation to not getting a Euro Licence :-1) as a consequence of decisions taken in 2012;2) as well as the administration of club;3) and the events that followed (including the newclub/company being ineligible to apply for a licence in the next three years)
Does anyone have any idea what Item 1 is referring to as it seems to be separate from the other ‘events/measures’ that are more related to items 2 & 3.
Item 2 seems clear cut in that admin  resulted in the club having outstanding social taxes so any application would have been quashed from the start.
Item 3 appears to to state that the new club/company would have needed the three year period before gaining a licence. However, the mentioning of being in the fourth division muddies the water being that we know a SC win would still allow Euro Qualification.
Why was this mentioned as if it were somehow significant? If the new/club needed three years then it shouldn’t have mattered what division or league they were playing in or what cups they won?
______________________________________________________________________________________________Have to agree with this and would actually go 1 stage further.  To your 3rd point, if it was UEFAs belief that it truly was a new Club (lets leave the Company part aside just now) why mention them at all ?  If they see them as a completely new club unconnected to the old version then there is no need to bring them into the letter or the equation.  They UEFA should simply have stated they were was no need for any investigation as no action can be taken against the old club who are no longer in existence.By inserting the /company part, and by even bringing up the “fourth tier” they are acknowledging in their mind that the clubs are connected.  By then clearly displaying their full history along with current results on their website is further evidence that their narrative is based on a connection.I know a lot of people want to believe this is evidence but WOTTPI is spot on in that it actually brings up more questions of UEFA and is in no way definitive.

View Comment


helpmaboabPosted on8:11 am - Aug 24, 2016

Excellent piece Zilch.

View Comment


helpmaboabPosted on8:12 am - Aug 24, 2016

Well said Zilch

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on8:37 am - Aug 24, 2016

Mark C
If you check out this article http://etims.net/?p=9642 it might help clear the fog.
What was strange was that the NEW club/company information was unsolicited. Completely.
So your puzzlement at its inclusion is no greater than anyone elses including the Res12 guys.
Nevertheless it is there in black and white and after reading the article at the link you will see that UEFA put protecting the integrity of their competitions against the very attempt used in Scotland to dump debt and carry on as if that were normal with no heed to creditors.Not for nothing do UEFA call their regulations Financial FAIR Play.
What is just as puzzling are the steps after the original letter was issued to remove the clarity it contained which unsurprisingly starts to create the very fog you refer to.
However why not write to the SFA and ask them if the copy of UEFA’S response they have contains the information that UEFA see the applicant  from Ibrox who next applies for a licence on sporting merit as “new” in whatever form they exist under Article 12 and if the SFA view the SFA  Membership in the same light as UEFA do. 
You are as likely to get a response as STV and the Herald are likely to comment on why they put out duff gen and confirm what UEFA’s position is.

View Comment


tayredPosted on8:43 am - Aug 24, 2016

Great result for Celtic last night, lots of squeaky bums second half I’d wager! A post earlier got me thinking again about an old subject that crops up every now and again. 

BERRTYAUGUST 23, 2016 at 21:54 One thing that Rodgers can take from tonights game is that he now knows what he needs to spend the champions league cash on.  A right back, 2 more good centre backs and a midfielder that can put his foot on the ball and slow things down.  

So while last night was undoubtedly good for Celtic, for the profile of Scottish football etc, is it necessarily a good thing for the state of Scottish football per se? CFC will deservedly have a healthy amount of additional money in their pot to spend on players, players that yes you will need in the Champions League proper. My fear is the impact of that on the league, surely this will simply increase the divide between top and everyone else (especially if you add moneys from the “joker” game 09 ). 25 million I’ve heard mentioned? How many multiples is that of the money spent on players by the rest of the leagues in Scotland? Presumably this is a scenario repeated in many countries across Europe?
No, I don’t profess to know what the solution is. Its certainly not anything specific to point at CFC about, its more the general point that while the sums of money aren’t huge in EPL terms, in smaller leagues it is enough to pretty much destroy domestic competition. Maybe the big Euro league is the only solution, let the huge clubs funded by billionaires/Sky/BT go and sell their souls. The rest – well lets get back to proper competition amongst those remaining clubs that hopefully haven’t lost all concept of community, sport and development of the common good rather than this Thatcherite self-preservation which seems to me to be a path to complete ruin.
When is the draw for the league stages??

View Comment


Mark CPosted on8:50 am - Aug 24, 2016

Auldheid, i understand what you are saying and I have read the article, but i dont think its for the SFA/Herald or STV to answer if im being honest.

UEFA are the ones who need to explain why they brought the new club/company into the equation.  Why even mention them ?  Mentioning the new club is the same as mentioning Aberdeen or Hearts or East Stirling in the reply about the Old Club if in their opinion there is no connection.

Actually, when you think about it, its professionally unacceptable to bring another business or club into something which is nothing to do with them.  This of course assumes UEFAs view really is that they are a New Club.  And then we have full circle.

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on8:52 am - Aug 24, 2016

Rules aside the reason UEFA brought it into the equation is simple.  They do not want to investigate the issue which is all Res12 asked them to do.
The SFA directed Res12 to the UEFA licensing body and not the investigatory wing so the assumption is that SFA did not want an investigation either.
The original letter to UEFA was 27 May. The fanfare at the SFA AGM on 1st June, where Regan made a statement on Res12 that took those interested in it and attending the AGM by surprise,  suggests a bit of setting up closure on the issue but like the Spanish Inquisition no one expected the new club/company reference in the UEFA response.
Skullduggery abounds.

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on9:24 am - Aug 24, 2016

As explained it was to justify not investigating, completely misinterpreting the aim of Res12, which was to investigate SFA handling of the licence granting and monitoring process..
This will be made clear in responding to the whole letter.

View Comment


Mark CPosted on9:26 am - Aug 24, 2016

AULDHEIDAUGUST 24, 2016 at 08:52
MarcRules aside the reason UEFA brought it into the equation is simple.  They do not want to investigate the issue which is all Res12 asked them to do.


Sorry Auldheid, i dont think im making myself clear on this and probably causing more confusion myself.  🙁 

I get that they dont want to investigate it and that they probably want to make their life easy by fobbing the Resolution 12 guys off to some extent but UEFA could have achieved this by simply stating there is nothing they can do now because Rangers dont exist anymore and that any findings from an investigation would be rendered pointless because they cant take any action against a club that doesnt exist.
If this truly is their view of the matter then that would have been that.  Instead, rather than clear things up as some think they have, they have actually muddied the waters by using the wording new club/company and compounded that by keeping the full history of the club mixed with current up to date results on their website.

View Comment


goosygoosyPosted on9:28 am - Aug 24, 2016

Champions League: Zadok The Priest for Celtic instead of another death march By Tom English
Absolutely brilliant example of how Celtic qualifying for CL Group Stage is hurting the MSM

Carry on hurting

View Comment


sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on9:59 am - Aug 24, 2016

I think it’s a good point that you make.

Do Auldheid and/or the Res 12 guys intend to ask EUFA why they did not reply

“simply stating there is nothing they can do now because Rangers don’t exist anymore and that any findings from an investigation would be rendered pointless because they cant take any action against a club that doesn’t exist.”

View Comment


wottpiPosted on10:36 am - Aug 24, 2016

MARK CAUGUST 24, 2016 at 09:26

Glad someone else is asking the same questions.

Uefa, like the SFA and SPFL, appear to be falling over themselves with the use of ambiguous language and terms that we all have to think about and come up with our own interpretations.

As has been intimated all that was needed to be said was that

1) The whole licencing/fair play system has been bedding in over the last few years and following regular reviews all national associations have been told (as evidenced by some of the Uefa documentation posted on this site a few months back) to tighten things up and, as such, we feel no retrospective investigation of the SFA is required as improved monitoring processes are in place.
2)  The Rangers Football Club that applied for the 2011/2012 licence no longer exist, having been liquidated,  and therefore cannot be punished retrospectively.
3) Given our need for a club to have a legal identity, The Rangers Football Club playing out of Ibrox currently is a new club in the eyes of Uefa and this will be reflected in our records and in any future co-coefficients should said club qualify for a Uefa competition and obtain the required licence. 


View Comment


Bill1903Posted on10:38 am - Aug 24, 2016

goosygoosyAugust 24, 2016 at 09:28  Absolutely brilliant example of how Celtic qualifying for CL Group Stage is hurting the MSM
Carry on hurting
I thought it was a fair enough article by Tom English. Don’t really think he’s one of the hacks crying into their cornflakes this morning.
Apart from Celtic getting to the promised land of the group stages its not been a great European campaign for our clubs. Defeats to teams from Malta, Gibraltar, Luxembourg and Israel. I wonder if anyone in power will mention this?

View Comment


wottpiPosted on10:45 am - Aug 24, 2016

Having got over the squeeky bums I trust all Hoops fans are happy this morning.

Despite the reservations about what it may mean for other clubs IMHO it is always good to have our league represented in European competition beyond the torturous qualifiers. 

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on11:06 am - Aug 24, 2016

Yup. That was the reaction when the reply came in.

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on11:10 am - Aug 24, 2016

That response could have been given in 2014 and you have to wonder why it wasn’t. 
Stupidity? Incompetence? Arrogance?
Of course that would have smacked of accountability having to reply in a meaningful way….

View Comment


John ClarkPosted on11:22 am - Aug 24, 2016

Well, Court duty discharged at 9.00 this morning.

The short Hearing re disclosure and restraint order v CW has been continued for a further week- scheduled to re-commence on Thursday 1st September.

Reporting restrictions not mentioned, but I think they apply.

View Comment


wottpiPosted on11:23 am - Aug 24, 2016

AULDHEIDAUGUST 24, 2016 at 11:10

As with many other walks of life it often comes down to people trying to make things complicated to justify their existence (and salary) as some form of all knowing expert or guru.

We, the little people and paying fans,  are clearly not clever enough to understand such weighty matters.

Football is a simple game made complicated by idiots who most probably got no further in sport than having a kick about in the school playground.

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on11:30 am - Aug 24, 2016

That would make it about new club stuff which is not what Res12 is about. Something on those lines would be more approprate in a response.

View Comment

Caveat Emptor

Caveat EmptorPosted on11:58 am - Aug 24, 2016

Just a thought on Champions League windfalls. Figures of £25-30m being bandied about, signing targets identified, ticket package prices, glamour clubs coming to call. All great stuff.
However, as I understand it, apart from gate receipts, the moolah is not paid out until the conclusion of the competition. Imagine then if TRFC had qualified. If, as I am sure, they remain a company with unaudited accounts, no bank credit facilities and an expected shortfall in operating capital, how on earth could they now embark upon the expected transfer splurge that would allow them to compete?
I would expect that finance could be obtained with such gilt edged security as Champions League income on the horizon (in about 9 months time!) but at what cost. Usurious interest rates would surely accompany any monies loaned, with guarantees sought as to surety of the business retaining (or obtaining) its standing until such time as the loans were scheduled to be repaid. Lenders would also require a studious look at current cash flow projections, directors remuneration, alternative income streams and any anticipated ‘unusual’ expenditure within the current financial period.
Dave King made the ridiculous statement that Celtic would face a challenge as to how they would ‘recycle’ their wealth. Surely a greater challenge would exist for TRFC to access such a windfall. Just saying!!

View Comment


SmugasPosted on12:51 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Caveat Emptor

Wouldn’t get too hung up on it to be honest.  Debt bears (no pun intended 21) no relation to success on the field and success on the field bears no relation to the relative size and popularity of a given club, according to our game’s visionary leaders.

In other news apparently all the wee boys and girls wearing Madrid and Barcelona tops is because they like paella. 

View Comment


HomunculusPosted on1:37 pm - Aug 24, 2016

“Dave King made the ridiculous statement that Celtic would face a challenge as to how they would ‘recycle’ their wealth. Surely a greater challenge would exist for TRFC to access such a windfall. Just saying!!”

It is very charitable of the Chairman of the holding company which holds the shares in Rangers FC Ltd to express his concern over how Celtic will be able to spend any surplus funds they may earn. Can I suggest that whilst his concerns will be very much appreciated by the Celtic shareholders and board they will not have much bother in finding places for that money to go.

For example clearing short and long term debt and by doing so minimising the costs of borrowing, though to be fair at the rates of interest they are paying just now that probably wouldn’t be a priority. Improving the infrastructure of the club and ensuring that all of the maintenance of the facilities is up to date. Realistically that’s probably being done already, they do seem to be a reasonably well run business with experienced people in key positions making the important decisions.

So improve the playing squad and increase the salary budget to allow for the higher wages of the improved squad might be a way to go.  That would probably bring a better chance of success and keep the supporters happy. Whilst at the same time keeping a cash surplus to cover for times when the business actually runs at a loss. Medium to long term planning I believe they call that.

There you go Dave, thanks very much for the concern but I’m sure the Celtic shareholders and board are more than happy to deal with this horrendous situation they find themselves in.

View Comment


StevieBCPosted on3:10 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Re: rumoured Euro Super League.
I just hope that the media talk is just a negotiating ploy rolled out by the big clubs to rattle UEFA – before they demand more cash from UEFA for competing / winning the CL & Europa cups etc.

However, IMO a closed super league is a logical extension to the changes made by UEFA to the European Cup back in 1992.
Having a group stage, and opening up the tournament for non-champions was simply to maximise cash.
Today, the big Euro clubs are big businesses and have attracted e.g. American, Middle Eastern and Chinese investors.
The big clubs would be comfortable – I am sure – with competing in a closed shop for the big boys.
Just think of all the TV money they could share ?!

Looks like UEFA is b*ggered.
Refuse what the big boys want and they walk away and do their own thing – even if they are kicked out of UEFA. 
UEFA is then marginalised, with their top tournament becoming irrelevant to the TV companies.

Guessing that UEFA will roll over, give a bigger slice of the pie to the big boys – and the Champions of ‘small’ leagues like Scotland will find it even more difficult to qualify for the group stages – if at all.

And if I’m not mistaken: who was a major proposer to UEFA for the original change to the European Cup format in ’92 ?
IIRC, it was a now defunct club called Rangers – and the proposal was championed by none other than Campbell Ogilvie !

Another damning legacy of the ex-SFA President.  11

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on3:39 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Caveat Emptor 
The UEFA money is paid out in two tranches in December and June so not quite so long for a bridging loan to cover from August.
In 2011 for example RFC were paid around €5m by UEFA in mid June which was then used to pay the balance owed to The Austrian club for Jelavic’s transfer, a player whose goals earned a qualifying place in the 2011 competition.
Had that not been paid RFC would have faced sanctions from UEFA in 2012 subject of course to the recent UEFA caveat.
The balance of that €5m went to clear other current NI/VAT debt but left nothing to clear the wee tax bill supposed to be in dispute.

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on3:45 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Caveat Emptor.
To clarify.
The €5m was the balance from the 2010/11 competition 

View Comment


nawlitePosted on3:55 pm - Aug 24, 2016

StevieBC, UEFA obviously cherish the money they make on the back of the big clubs, hence their continuing to make the CL all about those big clubs for fear of them walking away with all that TV and sponsorship cash. I know a lot of people say UEFA should let them walk away as that would at least let UEFA run a fairer CL for the rest. I can’t see UEFA doing that because of the desire to hold onto the money but to be honest, I hate the money side of it so much that I’d be glad now to see UEFA go further in their concessions to those big clubs. I’d be happy for UEFA to set up a closed league for those big clubs i.e. the top 4 from each of the big (TV audience) leagues – that would allow UEFA to keep some of the money such a league would attract while still allowing the big clubs to make even more money as they would never have to play a Ludogrets, Sporting or PSV ever again.
The remaining clubs would obviously lose out on CL money, but competing in the new (lower budget) CL would still attract TV money and sponsors, but not to such an extent where it would kill competitiveness in the tournament. The lesser amounts for doing well in the reduced CL would perhaps also not impact as much on individual smaller leagues’ competitiveness either.
For the likes of Celtic, Ajax etc perhaps reaching the reduced CL more often would offset the loss of the riches currently earned but only in, say 1 in 3 years. With the big clubs remaining part of UEFA, something like the international champions cup (how bad was that?) could be revamped to mean those clubs winning their small championship could enter a knockout cup competition involving the big league clubs.
I’m sick of it and something needs done.

View Comment


wottpiPosted on3:57 pm - Aug 24, 2016

STEVIEBCAUGUST 24, 2016 at 15:10

Have been saying similar for decades and believe it is just a matter of time.
However all is not lost for Celtic (for it is they who are the only ones in Scotland in prime position).

My feeling is that any league would have to have a wider appeal than the big four of England, Germany, Spain and Italy.

Pick your teams from those leagues and you are left with a lot of unhappy bunnies who will feel hard done by and not take any interest in supporting or even watching their old rivals.

Big teams from smaller leagues such a Celtic, Ajax, Porto, Legia and the likes still have something to offer in terms of game day attendance, atmosphere and marketing opportunities. They may even garner some support from the disenfranchised in the big four in the hope the chosen ones get their comeuppance!!

If the NFL can run with 32 teams over two divisions there is no reason why a similar format could be used for a franchise based Euro Super league.

View Comment


StevieBCPosted on3:59 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Whilst we lament the lack of world-class Scottish players over the last 2 or 3 decades, just came across this gem.
And which SPL team is looking for a right back…?  14


View Comment


easyJamboPosted on4:36 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Auldheid August 24, 2016 at 15:39 
Caveat Emptor  The UEFA money is paid out in two tranches in December and June so not quite so long for a bridging loan to cover from August. In 2011 for example RFC were paid around €5m by UEFA in mid June which was then used to pay the balance owed to The Austrian club for Jelavic’s transfer, a player whose goals earned a qualifying place in the 2011 competition. Had that not been paid RFC would have faced sanctions from UEFA in 2012 subject of course to the recent UEFA caveat. The balance of that €5m went to clear other current NI/VAT debt but left nothing to clear the wee tax bill supposed to be in dispute.
I don’t know if you are referencing the same RFC cashflow projection as me (Jul 2011 – Jun 2012), but from that document it looks like there were three tranches paid in the previous season 2010/11, just over £6M in October 2010, £5M in December 2010 and £5M in Jun 2011.

I’ve also had a look at the CL and EL distributions for season 2010/11.  RFC received €18,526,000 from their CL involvement and €724,972 from their EL involvement.

I won’t attach the document as the projections could be relevant to the remaining charges against Craig Whyte in the criminal case.  

View Comment


upthehoopsPosted on6:29 pm - Aug 24, 2016

HOMUNCULUSAUGUST 24, 2016 at 13:37  
“Dave King made the ridiculous statement that Celtic would face a challenge as to how they would ‘recycle’ their wealth. Surely a greater challenge would exist for TRFC to access such a windfall. Just saying!!”


King also said at the time that ‘Celtic are not competitive in Europe, Rangers will be’.  It seems that making cheap shots via a compliant media is not restricted to Joey Barton.  Of course, if the media actually challenged them on their statements they might think twice about making them.  I expect more trash in the coming days. 

View Comment


shugPosted on7:49 pm - Aug 24, 2016

EJ being the go to numbers guy do you know if is correct the the rangers wont get any of the windfall to scottish clubs because of Celtic qualification in the CL as it would be teams in the spfl from last year who will benefit so Dundee united would be the ones to benefit rather than them.

View Comment


easyJamboPosted on8:26 pm - Aug 24, 2016

shug August 24, 2016 at 19:49
I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to that one. My assumption would be that the current Premiership clubs would benefit.

There is an assumption that this £200k + per club is all extra money. It’s not.  Solidarity payments have been paid in previous seasons, albeit at a lower level (half?) when the Scottish champions failed to make the group stages.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:34 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Celtic’s progression to Champions League Groups ensured that the Premiership will receive £2.75m to be equally shared by remaining members.Everyone gets about  £250k  or there abouts.
My questions are these.
Has the LNS fine been paid to the SFA?
Would UEFA pay out to a club this money  if it had an outstanding fine not paid to that clubs governing body?
Will the SFA inform UEFA about any unpaid fines not recieved by a club just before UEFA pays out on two or three tranches?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:39 pm - Aug 24, 2016

UPTHEHOOPSAUGUST 24, 2016 at 18:29
King also said TRFC fans had to outspend celtic fans, just how is that going to happen now?
if the media actually challenged them on their statements they might think twice about making them. I expect more trash in the coming days. me also.

View Comment


shugPosted on8:45 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Just been reading a wee bit about the Solidarity payment
( However, as this money is intended for youth development or local community projects, each club must have a youth development programme that complies with the requirements stipulated in the national club licensing manual accredited by UEFA.Any exception to this rule is subject to the approval of UEFA, to whom the leagues/associations must provide detailed information on the payments made ) seems to be a good use for that money.

View Comment


StevieBCPosted on8:52 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Just a curious point…

On the TRFC website, the Board members are listed, as expected.
But no photos of them are included, and no bio’s either, [it says “Biography to follow” against each director].
Yet the page appears to have been last updated on 30th March, 2015 !

An incomplete / dated web page like that would not exactly encourage potential ‘investors’, IMO.

It’s as if the directors are reluctant to show their faces, or share their backgrounds…  22


View Comment


AllyjamboPosted on9:13 pm - Aug 24, 2016

STEVIEBCAUGUST 24, 2016 at 20:52 
Just a curious point…
On the TRFC website, the Board members are listed, as expected.But no photos of them are included, and no bio’s either, [it says “Biography to follow” against each director].Yet the page appears to have been last updated on 30th March, 2015 !
An incomplete / dated web page like that would not exactly encourage potential ‘investors’, IMO.
It’s as if the directors are reluctant to show their faces, or share their backgrounds…  


Could it just be the case that they don’t want to make it too obvious who the club chairman is…or rather, isn’t?

NB Couldn’t access the link you gave, so I’m assuming that King is not included as chairman or director.

View Comment


StevieBCPosted on9:17 pm - Aug 24, 2016

AJ, from the link;

“Dave King
Chairman and Director | Appointed 18 May 2015”

View Comment


tonyPosted on9:35 pm - Aug 24, 2016


https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/officers DAVE KING NOT ON THIS LIST OF THE FOOTBALL CLUB BUT ON THIS ONE FOR THE COMPANY https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/officers i take he failed fpp but smsm never mention it 

View Comment


cmontheshirePosted on9:49 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Was just about to make the same comment, Stevie.
Seems to me that the wiki page ‘Ownership of Rangers FC’ has DCK nowhere near the Board of The Rangers Football Club’ but, rather, chairing the RIFC plc board.
Of course, King ACTS as if he is the Chair of the RFC board and gets away with it. He knows damn well that he cannot officially be a director of the football side of things but just does his shape-shifting, mind meld stuff to present as chair of either or both entities to suit his particular whim and need. Another untruth.
The tale of the simultaneous death, re-birth and  resurrection and continuity of this magical club,is, seemingly a wonder to behold…… a wonder affirmed by Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. Someone with appropriate access to editing wiki pages should go through this ‘Ownership of Rangers FC’ and other such pages with a large redaction pen and Tippex, as their inaccuracies just perpetuate the myth that all is acceptable and well in the aftermath of the fraud that has been perpetrated on us all.
These are pages that are well-thumbed by lots of people and, as we know, Wikipedia is always accurate, so the info is Gospel…..not!….. but believed all the same.
I haven’t posted for a long while, recent neck surgery and two new  knees to follow…. all the praying I did when younger! Just like to thank all of you for the truly remarkable gift of the time you all give to keep the torch of truth lit and, of course, the knowledge you impart to the simple ‘numpties’ like me. Oh yes!… and the smiles your efforts bring to our days.

View Comment


AllyjamboPosted on10:13 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Can I just try this out for size?

There has been some consternation over the fact that the UEFA letter to the Resolution 12 guys doesn’t catagorically state that RFC no longer exists. Personally, I see nothing to be concerned about, it says it all that UEFA consider TRFC  to be a new club/company but:-

Mr Treviso appears to be a lawyerly type, someone we might expect to be somewhat circumspect when dealing with matters like this, and he certainly is in the way he mentions neither club by name – as far as we know from the un-redacted text. Now, I am no expert, but could Mr Treviso be covering himself/UEFA by not stating RFC no longer exists, in case it might be considered that they legally still do – as a club/company in liquidation, but no longer under his jurisdiction?

I am sure someone at UEFA would have contacted the SFA about the enquiry and could have been told that they, the R12 guys, were looking to have TRFC held responsible or, at least, put in difficulty over the matter. Wishing to avoid getting involved in this, Mr Treviso has headed that problem off at the pass (for UEFA) by making it clear that there is no way a new club/company could be held responsible for the misdemeanours of a club that occurred before it existed. This is unlikely to be what the SFA wanted, but maybe he doesn’t like clubs that flaunt FFP (his baby), and FAs that don’t stop them from making a mockery of the system. Maybe he just misunderstood what the SFA wanted.

Now, of course, I am very much speculating here in that scenario, but I am not speculating when I say that UEFA were not asked to adjudicate on RFC’s existence and there can be no reason to expect them to state that RFC no longer exists, none whatsoever! I’d suggest, with a fair chance of being correct, that he’s not concerned about RFC (he more or less says that by stating they are not investigating them), that club is not a problem to him anymore, but he is concerned enough to point out that the new club/company is free of responsibility of any wrongdoing in the granting of a European licence in 2011!

Looking at it another way, according to UEFA, the club/company that entered the fourth tier of Scottish football in 2012 is not the club/company that was granted a European licence in 2011, therefor they are not Rangers! Whether or not Rangers FC still exists is of no consequence to UEFA, they no longer play football in a member country! And as they no longer play football in Scotland, does it matter to us if they still exist (most likely in a filing cabinet at BDO)?

View Comment


HomunculusPosted on10:15 pm - Aug 24, 2016

Like I said earlier ” … the Chairman of the holding company which holds the shares in Rangers FC Ltd … ”

No matter how many times the SMSM describe King as the Chairman of Rangers or the owner of Rangers neither is true.

He holds precisely 0 shares in The Rangers FC Ltd (the club) and does not sit on it’s board. Probably just as well because he isn’t fit and proper by any stretch of the imagination.

He doesn’t actually hold any shares in the holding company either if truth be told New Oasis Asset Ltd hold under 15% of the shares in Rangers International PLC. King is that PLC’s Chairman. 

Just more smoke and mirrors I’m afraid.

King controls a Ltd Co which owns decent number of shares in a PLC which holds all of the shares of a Ltd Co. 

View Comment


AllyjamboPosted on10:20 pm - Aug 24, 2016

STEVIEBCAUGUST 24, 2016 at 21:17 
AJ, from the link;
“Dave KingChairman and Director | Appointed 18 May 2015”

Which is strange, as the SFA won a court case on the grounds that King was not chairman, or a director, of TRFC! Surely Mike Ashley’s lawyers didn’t miss this!

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on12:39 am - Aug 25, 2016

ZILCHAUGUST 24, 2016 at 01:26

I missed your excellent post on the meaning we can give to Celtic’s reluctance to leave it to the requisitioners to run with   Res12 which is that  the Celtic we thought we were following reflected the principles that make them attractive to a principled support.
Their failure to act on that princpiled basis has been made clear at a personal level and more than one prominent blogger has expressed disappointment at Celtic’s attitude as the Res12 journey has unfolded.
I hope that by AGM time there will be enough information out there that will demand a response that will remind Celtic where the  ethical  heart of the support lies and they ignore it at their peril, for when results don’t go well it is the belief that Celtic stand for what is right that keeps a  good  portion of the support supporting.

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on12:53 am - Aug 25, 2016

Ally Jambo
I reckon UEFA know in August 2011 what really went on, a  deliberate attempt to circumvent the fair play rules that were UEFA’s flagship in 2011, in order to get access to a competition the rules were intended to prevent and the new club info was a big FU to the SFA.
The rest of the response raises a number of questions on which clarification will be sought.
I can see why SFA were keen to shut down Res12 given what else UEFA said in their response.

View Comment


AuldheidPosted on1:06 am - Aug 25, 2016

Easy Jambo
Cheers. Just think the difference a CL part payment would have made to RFC’s chances of survival if it came as early as October 2011.
In 2008 when SDM made the decision to spend his way out of a hole rather than divert transfer income and wage savings to provide contingency cover against the BTC bill dropping through the Ibrox lettebox , he set in train the absolute survival dependence on CL money in the spring of 2008  that saw honest mistakes abound to such a degree the term has become part of the lexicon of Scottish Football.

View Comment


theredpillPosted on6:16 am - Aug 25, 2016

I don’t normally read this rag but I thought it might be of interest,it’s regards the euro to pound exchange

View Comment


upthehoopsPosted on7:15 am - Aug 25, 2016

Every trailer I see for the new BBC Scotland documentary seems to be somehow celebrating Graeme Souness. It is no coincidence this programme is being released 30 years on from when he first entered Scottish football.  The key thing is though without the support of the then Scottish owned Bank of Scotland his so called ‘revolution’ would not have got off the ground.  I have seen no indication yet this programme wishes to examine why that bank supported Rangers to the extent it did, though it certainly covers them being prepared to pull the plug on Celtic.  That was a period of Scottish football which showed the Scottish establishment at its absolute worst in my opinion.  It says so much that the media, who were part of it, clearly hanker for those days to return. 

View Comment


wottpiPosted on9:33 am - Aug 25, 2016

UPTHEHOOPSAUGUST 25, 2016 at 07:15

UTH, at the end of the day, despite your distrust of the BBC,  you are just going to have to make a brew, get a plate of biscuits and grin and bear it.
We can all guess what the programme may or may not say from the trailers but full comment can only be made once it is broadcast and we all see what areas it covers and in how much depth.

View Comment


AllyjamboPosted on10:09 am - Aug 25, 2016

AULDHEIDAUGUST 25, 2016 at 00:53 
Ally JamboI reckon UEFA know in August 2011 what really went on, a  deliberate attempt to circumvent the fair play rules that were UEFA’s flagship in 2011, in order to get access to a competition the rules were intended to prevent and the new club info was a big FU to the SFA.The rest of the response raises a number of questions on which clarification will be sought.I can see why SFA were keen to shut down Res12 given what else UEFA said in their response.

Heartwarming news, Aulheid.

The fact that Mr Treviso volunteered this information, that flies in the face of the deniers and avoiders of the truth at Hampden, instantly suggested to me that they, UEFA, were not 100% behind a member association’s actions. It is completely understandable that the letter was couched in the way it was, avoiding saying RFC no longer exists, for I am sure UEFA, or perhaps just Mr Treviso, is looking to give the SFA the opportunity to correct their error (in allowing a new club to act as a 140 year old club) by making the true position clear, themselves. It is not his fault that the SMSM are a bunch of cowards, afraid to take up the journalists dream they have just been handed, and have not forced Regan’s hand.

It is extremely unlikely that an organisation the size of UEFA will be completely devoid of honourable men, or women, even at the high level of Andrea Treviso, a concept alien to the likes of Regan, and Doncaster, 

View Comment


StevieBCPosted on2:59 pm - Aug 25, 2016

TRISIDIUMAUGUST 27, 2016 at 03:35 

two donors asked for a refund of their donation – both citing our lack of condemnation of the Celtic fans’ appeal for Palestine

You and the mods must be exasperated !

I don’t think we need to add anything else, as the informed Bampots would appreciate that this ‘demand’ says more about those individuals than the management of this site.

If you PM me I will make another donation to the value refunded, [as long as it’s not more than 10 bob, and SFM accepts gingies, (I know)]. 

Keep up the good work.  16

View Comment


AllyjamboPosted on3:00 pm - Aug 25, 2016


Do you think there might be some value in the Resolution 12 guys contacting the Guardian and offering them a story based on the letter they’ve received from UEFA, perhaps with an offer of first dibs on whatever else turns up with the, as yet, unpublished text? I know there is likely to be some animosity there, but, perhaps, the Guardian just might feel a sense of regret at what happened and be interested in publishing a killer story and, at the same time, making up somewhat for their previous poor show.

At some point, surely, one newspaper must find the story irresistable, regardless of whatever smoke and mirrors an ever more discredited organisation like the SFA sends their way! 

View Comment


AllyjamboPosted on3:13 pm - Aug 25, 2016

STEVIEBCAUGUST 25, 2016 at 14:59 
TRISIDIUMAUGUST 27, 2016 at 03:35 …two donors asked for a refund of their donation – both citing our lack of condemnation of the Celtic fans’ appeal for Palestine…=====================You and the mods must be exasperated !
I don’t think we need to add anything else, as the informed Bampots would appreciate that this ‘demand’ says more about those individuals than the management of this site.
If you PM me I will make another donation to the value refunded, [as long as it’s not more than 10 bob, and SFM accepts gingies, (I know)]. 
Keep up the good work.  

Read your post and decided to raid my Down the Back of the Sofa Bank account to scrape a few more bawbees together for the blog.

View Comment


jimboPosted on3:36 pm - Aug 25, 2016

It’s certainly going to be interesting how BBC Scotland’s ‘Scotland’s Game’ handle the collapse of Rangers and the emergence of the new club.  Given the BBC’s editorial policy on the continuity myth, the lexicon is going to be hilarious.

View Comment


StevieBCPosted on3:47 pm - Aug 25, 2016

AUGUST 25, 2016 at 15:36 
It’s certainly going to be interesting how BBC Scotland’s ‘Scotland’s Game’ handle the collapse of Rangers and the emergence of the new club.  Given the BBC’s editorial policy on the continuity myth, the lexicon is going to be hilarious.

If I was a betting man, I would stake my house on the informed Bampots being utterly underwhelmed by this BBC offering.

View Comment


jimboPosted on3:54 pm - Aug 25, 2016

Stevie, I tend to agree, I don’t think it will be up there with ‘The men who sold the jerseys’ Just a re-run of old clips from their archive.

View Comment


tayredPosted on4:04 pm - Aug 25, 2016

In anticipation, heres the BBC “how to make a complaint” page folks:


View Comment


theredpillPosted on4:06 pm - Aug 25, 2016

Christ I probably sold more copies of the Evening Times myself in the 60s .
Aberdeen Evening Express: 27,441 copies per day (-11.3% vs Jan-Jun 2015)Dundee Courier: 41,243 (-8.5%)Dundee Evening Telegraph: 16,354 (-9.5%)Edinburgh Evening News: 20,235 (-14.1%)Glasgow Evening Times: 25,679 (-14.3%)The Herald: 30,402 (-11.6%)Scotland On Sunday: 19,059 (-21.1%)The Scotsman: 20,304 (-14.6%)Sunday Herald: 21,613 (-25.5%)

View Comment


wottpiPosted on4:07 pm - Aug 25, 2016

 Re Celtic & Palestine Flags
I wasn’t aware our job , as a site, was to condone or condemn anything. I thought it was to ask questions, stimulate debate and seek answers and the truth.

Individuals may take a stand one way or another but that has nothing to do with the site as a whole.

The Mods do a fine job in keeping good order and the Celtic / Palestine issue has, IMHO,  been dealt with in a sensible manner as far as I can see.

From my point of view, while I appreciate there may be good intentions behind such actions,  the waving of non-football related flags and aligning to political causes at matches always has the chance of backfiring down the line anyway.

For example I noted the other day there were declassified papers released from the vaults that said the Israelis were selling weapons to Argentina for use against British Troops during the Falklands War.

My guess is there are some sore heads on the south side of the second city of the Empire trying to come to terms with that one!! 

View Comment


tayredPosted on4:30 pm - Aug 25, 2016

Ok, I’ll risk ridicule – StevieBC – fits a gingie???

View Comment


StevieBCPosted on4:44 pm - Aug 25, 2016

TAYREDAUGUST 25, 2016 at 16:30 
Ok, I’ll risk ridicule – StevieBC – fits a gingie???
Dearie me !

A ‘gingie’ is Glasgow / West of Scotland [?]  parlance for what was a refundable, empty ginger bottle.
However, they are no longer refundable, I believe.

Guessing there was another term used in the north east ?

View Comment

Kid Gloves

Kid GlovesPosted on4:46 pm - Aug 25, 2016

As excited as I am that Celtic have qualified for the Champions League I can’t help but feel total disgust for the greed of the clubs from the big 4 leagues. This is NOT sport in any fair sense of the word. 

Yes, there will always be income inequality as some clubs are naturally bigger than others and that will never change but the way the big 4 lock out competition completely distorts the finances of the game and is helping, in my opinion, to kill it as a spectacle.

I’m sick watching the same teams who use their financial muscle to hoover up all of the best players play each other season after season. Sick of it.

The population of Europe is listed at 743m. I believe this includes states such as Russia and Turkey who are not officially in Europe as such but play in UEFA competitions. The population of the big 4 is around 256m and the rest around 484m. I would be more than happy to tell the so-called big 4 to eff off and have the remaining half a billion people can watch some pretty competitive sport.

We could maybe even call it the European Cup…

View Comment


ZilchPosted on5:32 pm - Aug 25, 2016

AuldheidAugust 25, 2016 at 00:39

Thank you again for all that you guys are doing to represent the interests of the supporters to our board. We are lucky to have people like this in our midst.

On the Celtic fans being delighted to be in the next round of the Champions League…

I wonder what Jock Stein would have made of headlines and comments from players and staff about being delighted to be in the next round because it would bring a cash windfall?

A “cash windfall”? Really?

Does anyone think that guys like him or Shankly were in it for the “cash windfall”?

I want to be in a competition that I have some propsect of winning. At the moment we are just fodder to make up the numbers and provide willing punters to part with cash.

Sure we will create a spectacle at Parkhead and we will be flattered / patronised about how passionate our fans are etc.

But nobody expects us to have any chance of winning it. Nobody expects us to get past the next stage even. We might scrape through once in a blue moon, but the odds are heavily stacked against us.

Yes there are going to be some great European nights, but I don’t think they are really like the old ones where we were on a more or less level playing field and 11 guys from a Scottish team could reasonably expect to mix it up with 11 guys from a Spanish, German or Italian team, even an English one.

Yeah, yeah, cry me a river say the guys who are looking at that cash windfall and recognising the overwhelming advantage that it gives Celtic over other teams in the domestic league.

You are right. The Champions League is destroying the domestic game both here and abroad.

As a fan, I would MUCH rather play in a competitive domestic league, and be competititve in a European tournament too.

I obviously want my team to do well in every competition it enters and I am frankly not that excited about being in the CL where we can expect to get severe doings from teams who spend more on one player than we do on our entire squad.

Sound familiar? Ironic eh?

It really is simple. We need to return our competitions to ideals of sporting integrity.

You win the league, you get into the European Cup. You only get into the European cup if you win your league. Domestic cups get you entry into secondary Euro competitions. 

If only we had an association of our clubs that was prepared to stand up and defend these principles. If only we could get organised with similarly disadvantaged nations across the continent? If only they could tell UEFA / FIFA that they were prepared to walk off en masse unless the game stopped being rigged in favour of the already rich.

It is a bit like the Old Firm argument – the big leagues need others to play against in the CL. They need OUR money to pump into THEIR coffers. 

If they want to waltz off to form a closed super league – let them! It is already a stale product and this would only make it duller. We could do better working with the Dutch, Portuguese, French etc.

Scotland can’t act alone on this. But we could make an effort to form a broad alliance with other nations to challenge the hegemony.

What we need are people at the SFA who value the sport and its integrity more than the backhanders and the corporate hospitality.

Which brings us back to the whole point of this blog.

The status quo is no good for ANY of our teams. We need a clear out at the top and a complete overhaul of our administration.

View Comment


tamjartmarquezPosted on5:41 pm - Aug 25, 2016

ZILCHAUGUST 25, 2016 at 17:32
Well said, about sums it up for me.04

View Comment


helpmaboabPosted on6:08 pm - Aug 25, 2016

I would have to say if the site takes a position that it is anti Palestinian support,I will take off.

View Comment


tamjartmarquezPosted on6:26 pm - Aug 25, 2016

How many EBT recipients will be rolled out to give their opinion on ‘Scotland’s Game’? Souness, McLeish and Walter(is he one), any more? 

View Comment


shugPosted on6:32 pm - Aug 25, 2016

Oh my they def got a nightmare group nil points I think.

View Comment

Comments are closed.