Any organisation’s plan for a top-down review of development would ordinarily be welcome news. Self evaluation, or even better independent evaluation is an ongoing process amongst professionals, individually and collectively alike. In the case of the SFA however a healthy scepticism is required. We are after all dealing with people who are the poster boys for self-interest and short-termism.
The SFA had previously commissioned a thorough review of the game (decades ago) by Rinus Michels, the inventor of “Total Football” and his report was largely ignored, partly because it implied criticism of the then current regime, and partly because it would cost money. A “Total Shambles”.
Henry McLeish also famously recommended (again after being commissioned to do so by the SFA) a more balanced approach to governance between the SFA and SPFL. This would have required a blazer or two having less say in the running of the game – and was therefore ignored.
Mark Wotte, the prominent Dutch coach hired as performance director at Hampden also suggested during his tenure that, in order to improve technique, more ball time should be provided for players in games.
He recommended seven a side competitions as the norm for u-15s (less players – more participation).
To accommodate this, club infrastructures would have required expensive upgrading, and coaches in clubs, not responsive to new ideas lobbied hard for the status quo.
The upshot is that we carried on with the same eleven-a-side games where many players hardly got a kick.
And in this classic Einsteinean definition of insanity, no overall improvements were to be found in the national team’s fortunes.
No wonder Wotte fled the scene in 2014 after three years.
Of course the details are debatable and subjective, but experience tells us;
Anything that
a) costs money or
b) upsets old boys’ networks
has a tendency to be hidden out of sight.
The recent “announcement” is merely a reaction to a couple of poor results, caused in part by inaction in the wake of previous reports’ recommendations.
An increasing number of observers of our game refer to an inferior mindset amongst players in Scotland, that we accept losing as the norm.
Hardly surprising that such a mindset is prevalent amongst professionals.
They must despair at the chronic self-interest, ineptitude and fecklessness of the “leaders” of our sport – an organisation that appointed Gordon Smith as CE (think about that for a minute) based on who his pals were, where McGregor and Petrie can become senior officers – “because it’s his turn!” – despite being unqualified squares in a round ball game, and where fairy-tales take precedence over reality.
As long as the blazers have a seat on the SFA bus, nothing will change.
JC / eJ, as our 'SFM legal eagles', with your extensive knowledge of the legal proceedings around the RFC/TRFC saga…
There is, IMO, a rather explosive blog today on the JJ site.
I don't know if this content has been discussed before, but…
would either of you be able to corroborate this content – or even, what is your opinion on the content?
It just doesn't read true because it is SO damming of the Scottish criminal legal system and the Police, and on multiple levels.
StevieBC 11th September 2019 at 13:10
JC / eJ, as our 'SFM legal eagles', with your extensive knowledge of the legal proceedings around the RFC/TRFC saga…
There is, IMO, a rather explosive blog today on the JJ site.
I don't know if this content has been discussed before, but…
would either of you be able to corroborate this content – or even, what is your opinion on the content?
It just doesn't read true because it is SO damming of the Scottish criminal legal system and the Police, and on multiple levels.
===============================
I have already read David Whitehouse's submission to a Scottish Government inquiry into the operation of the COPFS. It dates from October 2016.
Sadly the "inquiry" failed to publish DW's submission on the Scottish Government's website, unlike those of others, including one from DW's colleague David Grier, whose submission was from a different viewpoint and tame in comparison.
https://www.parliament.scot/help/101143.aspx
DW's submission certainly doesn't miss its target(s), and I would like to hear those allegations with supporting evidence to be aired in open court.
Whether of not that happens will, in part, be dependent on the outcome of the current appeals to the Inner House of the Court of Session into the immunity of COPFS officials.
JJ has posted DW's submission previously, but I would guess that he has only repeated it today because of me posting about yesterday's proceedings in Whitehouse's and Clark's appeals.
In keeping with his previous blogs, JJ takes no cognisance of legal proceedings that are ongoing and thus risks both fairness and contempt of the court processes. I think he is wrong to approach the legal issues as he does.
Edit: JC is having IT issues with commenting on the blog at present, so we will have to do without his input for the time being.
StevieBC 11th September 2019 at 13:10
JC / eJ, as our 'SFM legal eagles', with your extensive knowledge of the legal proceedings around the RFC/TRFC saga… There is, IMO, a rather explosive blog today on the JJ site. I don't know if this content has been discussed before, but…
—————————————————————–
Appointing PC Bungle to lead the investigation was certainly a faux pas by the high heid-yins Stevie, or………..
A master-stroke in how to cover up a billion quid nicked from the bank……………….But that would be on another level.
That would obviously mean there is a lot more silk, involved in the general make-up of the so called "fabric of society", that needs protecting, than you would think.
Could those inept buffoons at the SFA really control the media?….Really?
Think about it……
JC & I were again in court for the second day of the appeals of Whitehouse and Clark at the Court of Session.
The start of proceedings was delayed until 10:30, to allow Lord Carloway to deliver the Inner House's decision on the proroguing of parliament.
We were fortunate enough to be in court to hear that judgement. In addition to the usual legal teams, there were a number of Journalists, MPs, other legal bods and members of the public present.
Indeed, Douglas Fairlie QC representing Paul Clark was sitting immediately behind me. As soon and Lord Carloway said the word "unlawful", all I heard from Fairlie was "wow!". It was a response shared by many others in the court.
Getting back to today's appeal proceedings, we were subjected to another full day of dry legal argument from Gerry Moynihan QC for the Lord Advocate, with many references to historic case law, with some going back as far as 1579.
I have previously cautioned on reading too much into legal submissions until you hear both sides. Yesterday, I felt that Roddy Dunlop hadn't been wholly effective in getting his arguments across. Today I felt that Gerry Moynihan fared just as badly, if not worse.
This time it was Lord Carloway who asked the difficult questions that Moynihan struggled to answer.
At one point Lord Carloway commented that he was surprised that no-one had challenged whether or not Lord Guthrie had made an error in law when making his the decision in the Hester case. He added that he felt that Lord Guthrie's decision in that case was based on "thin air" or at least a "rarefied atmoshpere". The suggestion was that Lord Guthrie had conflated criminal proceedings with civil proceedings.
That intervention seemed to put Moynihan on the back foot for a while and it seemed as if he was doing Dunlop's work for him, asking about alternatives to Hester, e.g. immunity except for "malicious prosecutions", immunity for actions done in "good faith", or that the Lord Advocate's liability would be met by the "state".
Moynihan's submission improved in content during the afternoon, although not in listenability as JC dropped off at one point and was only woken by his notepad falling from his grasp. He finished his defence of the Lord Advocate's immunity in common law in mid afternoon.
Unfortunately he wasn't finished for the day.
I should have pointed out earlier that there are actually two appeals on the go following on from Lord Malcolm's immunity decisions back in September last year. Firstly, DW and PC were appealing the decision that the Lord Advocate had immunity in common law as confirmed by Lord Malcolm, but conversely, the Lord Advocate was appealing Lord Malcolm's decision that he had no such immunity for breaches of Articles 5 & 8 of the European Human Rights act and that those claims could proceed to proof.
Moynihan droned on for the rest of the day in support of the Lord Advocate's appeal finishing his submission (hopefully) just after 4pm. Doulgas Fairlie will respond in defence of Lord Malcolm's Human Rights decisions tomorrow morning, then I believe that Roddy Dunlop will get a final opportunity to respond to Moynihan's submission, before the Inner House judges set about making their decision (which could easily go one way or the other, as we experience first thing this morning)
A big "thank you" to the court correspondents .
From BBC Scotland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49652921
SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster insisted that every club in Scotland is "continuing to make every effort to make football as affordable as possible".
Not from where I'm standing .
BP your blog is spot on: I think even the most generous of the long suffering Tartan Army members would acknowledge that material change for the better is just not going to happen under the SFA.
We know that whatever the SFA grass roots strategy is/was – it's not really been working for 20, 30, ? years. We can see the evidence on our own club pitches – and subsequently in the national team.
But whether it's grass roots, or club level, or national level or refereeing, or administration, or communication, leadership, or Customer Service… etc.
…the SFA has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that as an organisation, it simply doesn't have the answers.
Tinkering here and there is pointless: a totally new, professionally run and independent governing body is long overdue. To state the bleedin' obvious.
But, the clubs won't effect radical change at Hampden until they feel the financial pain, and/or the SFA is facing a financial crisis.
Further, paltry crowds at Hampden might help…
Short, sharp and on the mark Big Pink.
The self serving institution that is the SFA isn't just managing the decline in Scottish Football it is actually exacerbating it with its archaic structures, dearth of talent and ingrained habit of trying to replicate the past.
The world and the football world have left us behind but the SFA has not embraced meaningful change and those in control are more interested their own positions than the health of the game.
The constant failure to treat fans as bona fide stakeholders is for me the SFA's biggest failing.
Supporters Direct are funded by The SFA and are a joke and The Scottish Football Supporters Association are seen as a threat and constantly cold shouldered.
Maxwell and Petrie are simply not the people to bring the fundamental and strategic changes our game needs.
Neither are visionaries nor leaders.
But you can be sure they will do everything they can to protect their own share of the gravy train that comes from being a senior blazer at the SFA.
I remember Barry Hearn being invited to speak at an SFA meeting in 2014.
He was unpaid.
He did his research.
And he called it just about right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30324888
Plus ca change.
JC & I were back at the Court of Session for the third day of the appeals hearing between Clark/Whitehouse and the Lord Advocate. Unfortunately, I could only attend the morning session due to other commitments.
Gerry Moynihan completed his submission on behalf of the Lord Advocate in the first half hour, taking the court through a series of historical references about the development of immunity granted to those serving working in legal and judicial positions. They started in 1579 and went through 1797, 1864, 1906 and onto 1961. It was interesting enough, but what is being questioned is the relevance and weight that should be given to these precedents in 2019.
Douglas Fairlie representing Paul Clark indicated that he would adopt the arguments expressed by Roddy Dunlop earlier in proceedings in respect of the Lord Advocate's immunity in common law and that he would mainly respond to the arguments put by Gerry Moynihan about the Article 8 (humans rights) legislation.
However, he firstly provided a quick and, I thought, effective rebuttal of Moynihan's arguments on some of points raised about immunity in common law.
He went on to provide a pretty robust rebuttal of Moynihan's arguments about Article 8, then provided his own justification for the engagement and a breach of Article 8 in the current case. In doing so he made reference to the media frenzy outside Glasgow Sheriff Court when Clark and the others first appeared on petition, that being the result of his well publicised involvement in "the Administration and sale of assets of Rangers Football Club".
I left court shortly afterwards, just before the lunch break. I don't think Fairlie had a lot more to say and would finish early in the afternoon session, before Dunlop had his chance to respond to the main part of Moynihan's submissions on the common law element of the appeal. I expect that the hearing would conclude this afternoon, but I will have to wait for confirmation from JC. I think that it will be several weeks before we get a decision, given the volume of information the the judges will have to consider.
Edit: I mentioned to David Whitehouse about JJ’s latest blog. He didn’t appear overly concerned and said that he knew he had published the same information a while ago.
Can't argue with what's been written by BP, but I think there's been two other events in the last thirty of years which have damaged the development of home-grown players. I refer to Freedom of Movement as enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 & the Jean-Marc Bosman case in the ECJ in 1995.
Scottish football embraced freedom of movement to the detriment of local, homegrown players. I'm sure everyone reading this post who supports or follows a specific Scottish team will have a tale or two of the numerous 'furrin diddies' signed because they were exotic & fashionable (and probably available on a 'Bosman'!), rather than they were better footballers than boys who had been locally trained & coached through the ranks. This happened not just in the top tier, but down the leagues as well.
Please don't construe my comments as anti-European or racist: I'm neither. Scottish professional football, from top to bottom, chose short-term-contract imports over homegrown youth for the wrong reasons in too many cases. Perhaps most of two Scottish footballing generations have been lost to date in many clubs’ rush to sign someone who’s played a few games in Ligue Un as a free-agent in preference to someone homegrown.
I don't think it was a soundly-thought-out financial decision for many clubs either; it was simply 'keeping up with the Joneses' & being 'on trend'…
BP – A very topical blog and valid questions about the ability of the SFA to govern the development of the game.
As someone who watches pro-youth football from U11 upwards almost every weekend, I don't believe that there are any significant problems with the coaching and development of kids up to U16 as Scotland is pretty competitive with other countries in those age groups given the size of our gene pool.
We used to play 7 a side at U11 and U12 then jump straight to 11 a side. Now it progresses through 7, 8 and 9 before going to 11 a side, each step with commensurate increases in goal and pitch dimensions. I think that is the right approach in adapting to the youngsters' physical and mental development.
I don't believe that the SFA's performance schools or indeed the bigger clubs' own performance schools really add much to the outcomes (preparing players for first team football) though.
The biggest problem is translating success at the younger age groups into comparable success at the top tier clubs and international football. I therefore believe that the problem lies more in the coaching and development of players in the 16-19 age brackets
We are all aware of strategies developed in other countries, e.g. Netherlands, Germany and most recently Belgium. The common element in the strategies of those countries is the willingness of all clubs and the national team to adopt the same systems and styles of play.
Scotland has a multitude of approaches, mainly as a result of the disparity in the wealth between clubs and access to recruitment and other resources. I can't see either Celtic or Rangers agreeing to adopt a common strategy for the common good anytime soon. That is illustrated by the recent decisions of some of the bigger clubs to withdraw from the Development and Reserve Leagues. There is far too much self interest. There is also evidence of the bigger clubs stockpiling youth players to the detriment of other clubs.
Going back to the coaching aspects, I recently spoke to a former Hearts youth coach who had attended sessions with one of the Belgian coaches who had helped implement their new strategy. The Belgian had watched a number of pro youth games in preparation for the event. His main point was on the need to adopt common systems of play at all levels. However, and perhaps more pointedly, he was critical of the in game communication between coaches and players, sometimes with two coaches giving different messages. He thought that all it did was confuse players and stop them playing their natural game and using their own intelligence, press, squeeze, first ball, second ball, hold, time, turn, one-on-one et al ……… and that's before the parents offered their advice.
That said, I know that Hearts youth coaches are encouraged not to coach excessively during play, to enable the players to think and learn for themselves. The coaching is done during the week and adjustments during games are only made at natural breaks and at half time. That is most definitely not the case with most of the other pro youth clubs.
I don't have a ready made solution to Scotland's ills but, based on the experience of other countries, we ware unlikely to progress as a small country without a common strategy across all clubs.
Am I being received? If my machine continues to behave itself I'll try to get my Court report done tomorrow.
There was a nice little jest from Lord Carloway today. When Mr Dunlop QC was discussing 'malicious prosecution' he referred to to a situation in which someone might be bringing a prosecution against someone out of a deep loathing for that person.
Lord Carloway suggested that it would be all right to prosecute someone for whom one felt a deep loathing as long as it wasn't done out of malice. [Chuckles all round]
Hope this post gets 'posted'
John Clark 12th September 2019 at 20:52
Am I being received? If my machine continues to behave itself I'll try to get my Court report done tomorrow.
There was a nice little jest from Lord Carloway today. When Mr Dunlop QC was discussing 'malicious prosecution' he referred to to a situation in which someone might be bringing a prosecution against someone out of a deep loathing for that person.
Lord Carloway suggested that it would be all right to prosecute someone for whom one felt a deep loathing as long as it wasn't done out of malice. [Chuckles all round]
Hope this post gets 'posted'
=========================
He also made a quip about a "minister of state lying" as an example of breaching Article 8 when Fairlie was taking about the Georgian case.
I was pretty sure that he was thinking of someone nearer to home with his example.
I don't know enough about what Belgium etc did to really argue with you EJ, but I can't understand this claim/statement that we can only improve if we implement a common strategy across all clubs. If every team chose or was forced to play the same style – be that 4-3-3, say, or a high pressing style etc etc – surely the competition in the league and among managers/tacticians would be very much lessened. Every club or manager has their own tactics (sometimes based on budget) e.g. Livi are imo quite long ball; St Johnstone will sit in and hit on the counter etc etc. Are you/the Belgian guys saying they can't do that anymore? That would mean the buying power of Celtic would mean their players, being better/more expensive would win more often than they do already, does it not? I know that the Scottish league and international team is anything but perfect so I might be arguing against myself here because if Livi improved at a Scotland-wide preferred style, that might help them and the Scottish national team, but I really don't see that happening elsewhere. In Spain – a competitive league and succesful international team – all teams don't play the same way. Hell, even their top 3 of Barca, Real and Atleti each has a very different style. In Germany, which is one of the countries that claims to have reset, Bayern and Dortmund don't play the same. Without knowing the Belgian league very well, I imagine that teams play different styles. For every passing, probing team in the EPL a la City, there's a fast counter attacking team like Liverpool or a defensively-strong yet creative Spurs. I can absolutely understand a club insisting on a preferred formation throughout all age groups, or even a country with their chosen elites at all age groups doing the same (as with England, I think), but this suggested panacea that Belgium, Germany etc made everyone adopt the same style is untrue imo. I think perhaps it's just within the National teams set-ups, rather than across the whole competitive league.
nawlite 12th September 2019 at 21:58
———————————————
I think the Belgian model was based on a 4-3-3 which was adapted to a 4-5-1 when a more defensive shape was required. I believe that all clubs and national sides agreed to play that way. It may have changed to cope with individual circumstances, but I believe that the basic model has been maintained.
Players based outside Belgium (most of their squad) will obviously play in the style of their home clubs, but they know what formation they will be asked to play if selected for their national team.
Obviously not all teams will play identically on a player v player basis. Each team will have its own more or less skilful players, those with and without pace, dominant defenders etc., so each game will play out and look different, but the basic system will be maintained, e.g. a dominant 4-3-3 formation may find its opposition adopting a more defensive 4-5-1 shape.
The benefit is viewed as having their home developed players always knowing what is expected of them when they play a particular role and also what they can expect from their team mates, no matter what age group they play in, or on progression to their first team or into the international sphere.
Off to Crewe for a funeral but will respond to some of the excellent points made re development when I get back on Sat.
A Comment lifted from a Guardian article on Scotland's demise in international football;
"ChrisGordon
Apparently there is a dodgy scam E Mail doing the rounds at the moment.
It promises two free tickets for Scotland's next home game.
Don't open it.
It contains two free tickets for Scotland's next home game."
=====
We all know that nothing will improve with the self serving SFA and all its cronies , An empty Hampden on international days is the only real weapon we have as our cowardly clubs have no stomach for it ……………Cmon the Tartan Army you hold all the aces
easyJambo 12th September 2019 at 17:12
I don't have a ready made solution to Scotland's ills but, based on the experience of other countries, we ware unlikely to progress as a small country without a common strategy across all clubs.
===========================
Any 'common strategy' would need buy in from fans who buy season tickets,who in my view are entitled to buy one with a view to investing in what is best for their club, not the long term future of the international team with the possibility things could get even more mediocre for their club in the interim period. Also in my view there is zero chance of any common strategy without first a complete root and branch reform of every aspect of the SFA, which needs to be rid of the bias and nepotism which runs from top to bottom, as well as a Refereeing appointments system which ignores the laws on diversity and inclusion, with the same close knit fraternal influences moving into the Referee supervisor system.
I have often opined on matters such as strict liability that Scotland as nation would be unable to apply such a system fairly across the board. This is because old prejudices and unhealthy media influence would in my view be factors in its application, just like they are in the current disciplinary processes. Any attempts to develop a common strategy for player development under the current shambles of the SFA would be subject to the same influences.
Maybe I just look at things too simply. Most people thought Stevie Clark was the right man for the job. He has not had a great start to say the least but much time was wasted under the nepotism inspired appointment of Alex McLeish, who was clearly well past his sell by date. Clark's power is in his organisation and the likely play off opponents for Scotland will not in my view be unbeatable, especially with Clark having had more time. Sometimes you just need the right Manager. Ask Kilmarnock fans.
I am currently residing in Belgium and have done for over 11 years , I was in Germany before this for 5 years and had a season ticket for FC Twente Enschede in the Eredivisie as I preferred Dutch football to German . The infrastructure in the NL and Germany is excellent and has contributed to their high levels of success over the years , Belgium in comparison despite the success of its national team has invested little at grassroots level . Sometimes nations just hit a purple patch due to a handful of decent players. I have always thought the Belgians were over rated and carried by Hazard and Courtois in particular . The quality of the Belgian league is slightly better than the SPL overall but I believe Celtic would win it if in that competition. The one similarity to Scottish football came at my local club RAEC Mons who declared bankruptcy in 2015 and whose assets were sold and returned to the lower leagues as RAQ-Mons….. if only they had a spare holding company , an incubator and some spare succulent I could still be watching the original club*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.E.C._Mons
News just in from @Chris-Jack89 that Mark Allen has left his role as Director of football at Ibrox. Is this the start of an exodus before the shtf.
TRFC do like a Friday evening statement, don't they?
I suspect that Allen's position became very difficult when he failed to sell any or all of Morelos, Tavernier, Grezda or Foderingham in the last transfer window.
I also wonder how much input (if any) he had into the signing of Kent & whether that was the final straw?
Good point JJ @20.59 If he was told to sign Kent for the reported 7m then his position and judgement are being undermined, he must also question why those same funds weren't made available to him earlier for players HE actually wanted . It's now stated he is leaving for family reasons and to explore new opportunities which is a standard excuse given . I would be surprised if he hasn't had some payoff even if it's for a non disclosure agreement deal.
Timtim 13th September 2019 at 21:31
'.. I would be surprised if he hasn't had some payoff even if it's for a non disclosure agreement deal.'
+++++++++++++++
One of the many problems that RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd have is that their very existence is predicated on untruth.
Charles Green did not buy the Rangers of 1872, but founded a new club entirely.
The football club whose shares were bought by investors in RIFC on the basis of the IPO prospectus was the new club which was admittted to the SFA in 2012, not the 'the most successful club in the world' ,as the Prospectus implied.
I mentioned months ago that I had written to the CEO of the Financial Conduct Authority about my belief that they had failed in their statutory duty when they approved the prospectus issued on behalf of the IPO made by RIFC.
Not having received any acknowledgement from the CEO, I wrote to the Chairman. Not having received any acknowledgement from him I sent a reminder using Royal Mail tracking.
I got a letter back from the 'Customer Contact Centre' dated 6 September and received by me on , I think, on Tuesday 10th.
This letter said that they could not find my letters, and could I send a copy of what I sent.
I emailed on Thursday all the letters I had written to them.
I await a reply.
And in the interests of absolute truth, I have to say that I had put a partially wrong postcode on the envelope of both my initial letter and reminder, so perhaps the delay is my fault
But whatever the reply, at least the CEO and the Chairman know that RIFC plc is the holding company of a football club created in 2012, and not of 'the most successful football club in the world'.
And I wonder: has there been any action taken against a lawyer that was publicly outed as having lied to the Court?
How would you or I find out, against that protective , selfserving barrier that the legal profession has set up?
Isn't there some journalist out there prepared to ask?
It's a simple enough question: what happens when a company secretary who is a lawyer, is said by a judge to have been economical with the truth in Court?
We have a Court that has said that the feckin Prime Minister lied!
And there's not cheep in the 'papers' about a relatively insignificant wee company secretary of a lawyer having lied in Court!
Aye, man, it fair makes you wonder.
Timtim@20.24
The resignation of Mark Allen is significant especially in the light of Wes Foderingham deciding to just wait out his contract.
Res12
https://thecelticstar.com/resolution-12-dramatic-returns-at-hamilton-v-celtic-match-shareholder-signatures-in-bus-park/
I've just been told that Mark Allan 'Warburtoned' himself as he's expected to be announced as Manchester United's Sporting Director (Edwin Van Der Saar having declined the post) sometime next week.
Watch this space, I think, on that one!
Finloch 12th September 2019 at 14:22
But you can be sure they will do everything they can to protect their own share of the gravy train that comes from being a senior blazer at the SFA.
…………..
Good post.
And in that part is what is wrong with the whole of scottish football,protecting their own part of the Gravy train.
In 2012 and before part of that gravy train looked to be heading to the buffers, when that happens the wagons are circled to protect the carriage.
Lies and dammed lies are produced to protect ones easy life. Even if it damages the game they are men’t to protect. With the mindset if i do a favour here, it does not matter if it goes wrong as someone will do me a favour down the line.
What we need is a clear out.
And what we need is transparency of who does what, how much they are costing the game, what they do for their money, how many freebies do they get, what they have done on a monthly basis to improve our game. And a low down of expenses by each individual.
But as we know these things will never happen as no one in authority wants to upset the gravy train.
finnmccool 11th September 2019 at 01:15
We all know the importance of the message regarding sporting integrity. But without other content to engage Scottish football fans, this message will never get across.
Where are the League tables? Where are the links to match reports, fan websites, relevant news stories, the SFA financials, the SPFL website? Just for a start. I could go on. And on.
If you build it, they will come. As Confucius said.
…………………
Here is a link to how the ibrox saga was reported (and some not reported) at the time.(2012 to still updating)A lot of scrolling back, but my God some of the things you forget.If the SFM can use it, very happy to oblige, if it is of any use to readers.
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/media?lang=en
……………
Hope it works.
I said the other day that I would try to get my kind of Court report of the Whitehouse & Clark damages cases done yesterday. Fat chance of that, I now realise. The kind of notebook I generally use is the kind styled 'shorthand reporters notebook' .There are about 25 lines on a page. My barely legible scribbles from the start of the hearing at 10.30 on Tuesday until conclusion at 4.00 pm on Friday cover 65 pages.
If I tell you that my notes are not only very hard to read, but are so scant as to require a great effort to make sure that I have properly understood what I was recording.(you think at the time that a couple of words or phrases will bring back to memory a whole elaborate five minute disquisition!)
I began earlier today to type up my notes as from the beginning. I have reached only page 8 of my notes!
eJ's excellent summary took us up to lunchtime on Thursday. I think that I should just have followed on from then, and leave the earlier days for later.
I'll do that. But not tonight, except to say that Mr Fairlie referred to averments having been made about an email from a fiscal to others of the Lord Advocate's staff.
He said "The terms of that email ..there is a quote from that email: "we are confident about Whyte, Withey and Grier…" This could be taken " Mr Fairlie said, "as an acknowledgement that they would be confident in time [about other 'suspects'] And six days later there were arrests.!.. . This, I suggest, suggests that there was an improper purpose without probable cause"
John Clark 14th September 2019 at 00:46
"Not having received any acknowledgement from the CEO, I wrote to the Chairman."
++++++++++
Just for fun, here is what I wrote:
3/08/19
Mr C Randell CBE,
Chairman,
The Financial Conduct Authority,
12 Endeavour Square,
London E1 1JNDear Mr Randell,
I have read the “Financial Conduct Authority Annual Report 2018/19 for year ended 31.3.19”
I note that in your foreword to that report you remark that “Change is here to stay for all of us, so the FCA must change too.”
May I suggest one simple, inexpensive change that you might consider bringing about?
It is a change that you can effect in about five minutes of your time!
It requires nothing other than that you ask your CEO, Mr Bailey,
-to respond to my letter to him dated 25th June; or at least acknowledge receipt of the reminder I sent to him which he received ( good old Post Office tracking!) on 30th July! and
-to put in place a simple administrative mechanism that will ensure that letters from folk who take the time and trouble to write to the FCA are at least acknowledged!
It's such a pain,as well as being the mark of a rude indifference,when an individual or a company or a public body does not acknowledge receipt of a piece of correspondence from any quarter.
When that piece of correspondence is alleging some serious fault on the part the organisation to which one has written one's suspicions are aroused that the organisation is unwilling to consider the allegation, wishes not to open any can of worms and hopes by simply ignoring the allegation that it will somehow just go away.
I hope that as well as securing for me an acknowledgement from your CEO you will have a wee look into the matter raised in my letter to him.
Yours sincerely,
—
That , I confess, was probably unfair, if Mr Bailey did not in fact receive my letter and reminder because I had put a partially wrong postcode on the envelope.
And what I am really saying here, I think, is that the whole SDM/Rangers saga has made me ultra suspicious of anything and everything that any organisation says.
I am ready now from the off to assume that 'organisations' of any kind will lie; that spokespersons and PR people will always be ready to lie, if occasion demands.
I believe that the SFA has lied, and continues to lie. I believe that the BBC shares in that lie. And, of course, I believe that the SMSM happily propagates a particular lie.
And in a way that was foreign to me in a previous existence, I am ready now to challenge anyone who is or may be a lying bast.rd.
In which connection I read with some amusement that the big Murray development plan for Gogarburn near Edinburgh airport is facing difficulties.
There is the Royal Bank man stripped of his knighthood, and calls for that (to me,irritating) Boycott to be stripped of his.
And there's SDM.
Enough said.
JohnClark@00.08
At the risk of causing your blood pressure to go through the roof I wonder if you noticed the publication of Theresa May’s honours list as departing PM? The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police received an honour as well as a businessman who until fairly recently was being investigated by the Met over allegations of serious fraud. What a coincidence eh?
There's a decent article by Gordon Waddell in today's Sunday Mail which relates to the subject of this blog.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-grassroots-review-power-scottish-20064153
I agree with some parts of the article and disagree with others, but there is certainly a debate to be had.
https://twitter.com/roadto2022/status/1170790354695540736?s=21
It’s 2 years away but the marketing is starting in earnest. Since it’s quiet like.
I have to admit I love a good conspiracy theory, especially when at a loose end on a Sunday night, awaiting the delights a new working week brings. So it has not escaped my notice that some theories on Mark Allen's surprise departure from Ibrox are emerging on social media. Most of them relate to the transfer of Ryan Kent, and range from Allen being overruled as he knew Kent is injury prone and has a bad attitude, to Liverpool reporting Rangers as they have not paid the first tranche of the fee. I am happy to accept 99.9% of this could be rabble rousing, made up p*sh, but the suddenness and timing of Allen's departure I believe does allow us to think there may be more to it than meets the eye. Rangers official statement on Friday night was never going to be questioned by a compliant media, who also guaranteed Allen sugar coated coverage for his entire time in Scotland. So when it is announced on a Friday night that he has left a job where he was not subject to any critical analysis whatsoever you do have to wonder what the real reason was.
upthehoops 15th September 2019 at 19:48
I have to admit I love a good conspiracy theory, especially when at a loose end on a Sunday night,
So it has not escaped my notice that some theories on Mark Allen’s surprise departure from Ibrox are emerging on social media.
………………….
The bigger surprise that i have not seen asked is will he be replaced?
Down ibrox way they like a good comparison and a link to some name that they have no hope of getting over the ibrox threshold.So far no link to anyone, very strange as this gets the smsm free reign to link the ibrox club to anyone and everyone and fills the back pages.
@ Cluster One 15th September 2019 at 20:43:
I'm struggling to think of a RRM (ex-player or manager of RFC/TRFC, as it may be time for the Boards of RIFC & TRFC to 'circle the wagons') who would be qualified to be (or would want the position of) DoF at Ibrox.
Level Sinko may also be scratching its singular head over that conundrum, hence the lack of speculation in the media.
Possibly this will be another example of how the Group Chairman is not an asset, but a liability…
I was trying to access the SFA financial accounts to do a bit of analysis. Was too tight to pay for access online, but got some key highlighlights off Duedil.
I simply couldn't find the published accounts anywhere on the SFA site for The Scottish Football Association Ltd.
However, the SFA does provide a very limited view on their financials in their "Annual Review" segment of their website.
This Review is almost exclusively focused on footballing performance rather financial.
Anyway, point is that perhaps this latest 'grassroots review' is simply a convenient time to announce some high profile cost cutting at the SFA?
The SFA accounts show that total revenue is relatively flat in recent years at c.£37M, whilst making a c.[£0.5M] loss in the last financial year to 31/12/18.
[Interestingly, the accounts were submitted to Companies House in June – around the time that Petrie was publicly confirmed as the new President. Lots on the SFA website about his appointment but nothing about financial loss.]
In the SFA's "Annual Review" for 2018, there are a couple of graphics covering financials for the year to 31/12/18.
For expenditure there is a % breakdown – but no actuals.
But a large slice of the – literally – Pie Chart displayed…
is 24% of SFA expenditure for "Staff Costs".
Which equates to a ball park of c.£9M of c.£37M income being spent on salaries, pension costs, etc.
[And of course, these staff costs wouldn't include travel costs, hotel costs, per diem, etc. for any free-loading blazers attending e.g. away fixtures around the world.]
Also, the staff headcount actually INCREASED at Hampden last year – slightly – to a total of 196 people.
Now, with supposedly only 32K attending Hampden for the Russia game and only 20K for the Belgium game, the SFA must be expecting historically low numbers for their next home games.
They can't put all their eggs in one basket and pray that Clarke – somehow – achieves qualification via the Play Offs in March.
They have to start cost cutting, IMO.
In fact, they probably should have started cost cutting long before now anyway.
Mibbees the SMSM could find the CEO Maxwell, an ask him;
– is the SFA expected to make a bigger loss this year?
– has the SFA taken on even more staff this year?
– what is the SFA doing to manage overhead costs, when total income is flat or declining ?
– could some of the 24% of expenditure on 'Staff Costs' be better used for grass roots level development?
etc.
[I am pretty sure there will be a few other pertinent questions to be easily gleaned from the accounts lodged at Companies House.]
EJ
The Belgian model seems to have paid dividends with the national squad, but not in terms of club successes in Europe. Could be coincidental either way of course, but at least they have a structure.
I don’t believe there is any congenital lack of talent in Scottish schools though, so the question needs to be asked, “why do countries of comparable size almost invariably outperform us at club and international level?”
Street football is in decline because other pursuits are becoming more popular with kids – and anxious parents. The authorities need to address that in a marketing sense, and also deal with the lack of ball time available to kids who are serious about their game.
As EJ says, they haven’t followed through sufficiently on the latter point. Goes without saying that they have a marketing crisis when it is apparent to anyone that the game in Scotland is in the hands of amateurs. Kinda puts prospective professionals off.
UTH
I thin there is an element of wishful thinking on Twitter and elsewhere on the Kent issue.
I don't think there is any good reason why TRFC wouldn't have paid the first instalment of the Kent transfer.
In fact the loud whispers we heard alleged that the 6m or so was the total value of the deal over the four years of the contract. That would make the fee £2m – £3.5m depending on the add-on triggers being exercised. So a less arduous task to pay LFC than one might think (if true).
For sure though, the financial stability of TRFC is a tenuous one – and although I am still of the opinion that admin is extremely unlikely, they may only be one drama away from a crisis.
In the interests of accuracy / pedantry…
I couldn't edit my post above in time, but;
the 'c.£37M SFA revenue in recent years', is the rounded, average annual total over the 3 years to 31/12/18.
Just to give some very brief account of how Mr Fairlie continued last Thursday:
Thursday 12th September: (following on from eJ's report on the earlier part of the morning)
Mr Fairlie QC for Mr Clark:
asked for recall of the Lord Ordinary's decision and substitute proof [ed: a Proof hearing?]
said he aligned himself with Mr Dunlop's presentation of the Whitehouse case (unless something new emerged with which he disagreed), and said he would leave it to Mr Dunlop to address the common law position while he, Fairlie, proposed to address the Article 8 issue.
The background to the Clark case was the seizure of documents which the police had been told were subject to legal professional privilege. There had been months of discussion between the Crown office and the legal advisers of Duff and Phelps. By November of 2014 no consensus had been reached,
In a meeting in November, the Crown said Clark would be arrested. At no time had the Crown intimated that Clark and Whitehouse were suspects.
In the Lord Ordinary's summary judgment it is recorded that “the decision to place him[Clark] on the first Petition was to serve the ulterior and improper purpose of… and the second Petition was served to gain time”
Averments were made about an email from a Fiscal to others of the Lord Advocate's staff. A quote from that email is: “ .we are confident about Whyte, Withey and Grier…” This could be taken as an acknowledgement that they would be confident in time”. Only six days later the arrests were made, suggesting an ' improper purpose without probable cause.'
The concerns expressed by Mr Moynihan [QC for the Lord Advocate] appear to have no relevance to 'improper purpose without proper basis', and there is no concern about the 'chilling effect' unless there was an 'improper purpose which equates to 'malice'-all that the Lord Advocate needs to do is to tell his deputes and officials NOT to act maliciously! [ed: “ In a legal context, a 'chilling effect' is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction']
In relation to Article 8, Mr Fairlie handed up a copy of the Guide to Article 8, which he referred to.It is not binding, of course, but it gives an up-to-date summary on protection of 'individual reputations'
Mr Fairlie then discussed several European Court judgments –Denizov v Ukraine,Jishkariani v Georgia. These address issues such as unfounded allegations of criminal conduct, the degree of seriousness of damage to reputation depending on the 'status' of person making the allegation [eg, if a Minister of state makes an allegation , that is serious. How much more serious if allegations are made in formal Court documents, the hypothesis being that the charges are without foundation?
Mr Fairlie noting that Mr Moynihan accepted that 'reputation' fell within Article 8, but not where there were criminal allegations, and expressed his surprise, because it suggested that a section of society cannot get the benefit of the Convention , such that a 'lay-about' [ed: a word used by Mr Moynihan] could not get the benefit of Convention rights. No examples were cited: and secondly, it ignores that Article 8 is routinely used in domestic courts in defamation cases.
If the European Court recognises that unfounded accusations are capable of being included in Article 8 then the impact on reputation is a consequence where there is a serious negative effect on private life, for example, financial consequences for family, business relationships and the individual's reputation.
Mr Clark falls into this consequencew-based situation.
[ All along, of course, each of the judges asked searching questions [ ed: they know their stuff!] For example, among many questions asked,Lady Dorrian asked about 'Facebook' defamation ; and whether the Icelandic case was relevant,and Lord Carloway referred to Denizov and asked what if you don't have a professional reputation?, and whether allegations have to be unfounded to meet the Article 8 criteria.
Mr Fairlie made answer to all questions by reference to the cases cited and the 'guide'.
Mr Fairlie also mentioned that the Gilberg (?) exception in Article 8 is not relevant in this case. The exception is where one's own actions (in committing crime) have given rise to the damages claim: in this case the allegations were made for ''improper purpose and without probable cause'
After some more rather abstruse (to me) questions (e.g from Lady Paton about whether there was any dove-tailing between common law and the Convention), questions that Mr Fairlie fielded well, Mr Fairlie finished .
After lunch, he did not need to continue,and Mr Dunlop began his response to Mr Moynihan's arguments on common law.
Jingso.Jimsie 16th September 2019 at 11:08
12 6 Rate This
@ Cluster One 15th September 2019 at 20:43:
I’m struggling to think of a RRM (ex-player or manager of RFC/TRFC, as it may be time for the Boards of RIFC & TRFC to ‘circle the wagons’) who would be qualified to be (or would want the position of) DoF at Ibrox.
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/mark-allen-appointed-dof/
“He is a man of vision who has achieved great success with Manchester City’s Academy. He has excellent contacts in football but also the business world and he will be a great asset to Rangers.
“We said we would not rush into an appointment as we wanted the right candidate and we feel Mark is the best man for the job. We look forward to working with him closely in the years ahead in what will be an important role at the Club.”
……………………
Big shoes to fill whoever gets the gig and there first job will be to try and offload a few at ibrox.Maybe they are just taking their time not to rush into an appointment as they want the right candidate. Who would take it though?
If anyone is looking for some light reading before the start of tomorrow's Supreme Court (with a bench of 11) I can recommend the Note which has been lodged on behalf of the successful party at the Court of Session.
It can be found on the Twitter account of Jo Maugham QC: @jolyonmaugham although there's a link on James Doleman's Twitter account.
You might think they would just point at the unanimous 68 page Opinion of the Inner House but you'd be wrong.
I say light reading; it runs to 92 pages and apart from a couple of typos it doesn't miss and hit the wall. Parts of it wouldn't sound out of place if read in a Mel Gibson Braveheart voice.
John Clark and EasyJambo can only dream of being supplied with background papers like this.
LUGOSI 16th September 2019 at 22:31
John Clark and EasyJambo can only dream of being supplied with background papers like this.
——————————————————-
I've already read it. The submissions seem to jump from the Inner House decision and its validity to a fairly substantial discussion on Scotland's constitutional history and back again to the current case.
However you are right, it would be great if we could see all the papers in advance of a hearing. That way we would at least have an idea about what the QCs are talking about.
Sad to hear of the death of one of the most mercurial players ever to
pull on a Hearts strip.
RIP Bobby Prentice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOeu2PHoreU
…..and lets hope Jim Jeffries makes a complete recovery from his heart attack.
HS
Higgy’s Shoes
Both Bobby and Jim great Hearts people – and real characters in a game sadly bereft of them these days. RIP Bobby, and get well soon Jim.
To my disapointment I was able to watch only about half-an-hour of today's Supreme Court businessdue to other things supervening-like Mrc C' 'aquafit' session at the Commonwealth pool (and my wee leisurely 1000 metre old man's breaststroke in the slow lane), and the prearranged visit to the Dominion cinema to see 'Downton Abbey at the 4.00 pm showing.
The relative informality of the Court tends to make one forget just how serious a business it is that is being deliberated upon-who controls the country, the government of the day, or Parliament? Fascinating stuff!
And far removed from the question of who runs Scottish Football- a governance body acting in truth and integrity, or a new club created in untruth and allowed to continue in untruth by an unprincipled body of men who have soiled themselves and Scottish Football by their lies and cowardice?
One trivial thing I noticed in the Court proceedings today , and also last week in the Court of Session, was the use of the word 'electronic' by Counsel when referring to non-paper 'documents' that they wished the judge(s) to look at.
Perhaps eJ might keep me right, but up until last week's hearings, I think that Counsel and the Bench just used the word 'digital' to distinguish betwen the 'electronic' record ( most of the judges I've seen use whatever they're called- I-pads or whatever, only two that I have seen still depend on folders of paper documents); so you would hear Counsel say something like 'in Volume I, page 10, my Lord, digital ,xyz'.
I wonder whether at some UK level an understanding had been reached that the word 'electronic' rather than 'digital' should be used as standard terminology?
Of course, it is a little known fact that I have been known to nod off in the Court of Session, and maybe the use of 'electronic' has been the vogue for some time and I haven't noticed!
Given that to me 'digital' conjures up long ago images and sounds of hospital beds and plastic gloves being snapped on , I'm rather glad if its use in Courts has been discontinued!
Higgy's Shoes 17th September 2019 at 12:51
'.. RIP Bobby Prentice. ..'
+++++++++++++++
I've just watched that wonderful clip, and called Mrs C in from whatever she is watching on TV to see it.
Wasn't that kind of dribbling skill, leaving defenders for dead, what most of us as kids ( well, of my generation anyway)would have wished to possess? The other guys that won the tackles and got the ball free to you to allow you to run were absolutely necessary, of course.
But the thrill of it all, as you cut your way through lumpen challenges, and avoided being scythed down and being able to get your shot in! Nothing to beat it!
Or so I am told, I myself never having really been anywhere near achieving anything like that level of skill. (Well, okay, okay, okay! I was never even sure of being picked for the second eleven even in primary school!)
But that wee clip epitomises what the sport of football is all about. (including suspect refereeing decisions!)
John Clark 17th September 2019 at 22:32
I think that "electronic" and "digital" are interchangeable in the terms of court documents. We saw that last week when Lady Paton and Lord Brodie used paper copies, while Lords Carloway & Menzies and Lady Dorrian used their electronic/digital versions.
The problem arises when the documents being referenced by the QC are numbered differently from those of the judges.
I think the judges electronic/digital versions were numerically 68 pages out of sync with the QCs in Tuesday's proceedings at the Supreme Court.
My one takeaway from yesterday's Supreme Court hearing was what should have been a routine undertaking given by Senior Counsel on behalf of his client to the Court turned out to be not so routine.
Lord Keen, representing the Government headed by Boris Johnson, felt obliged to give such an undertaking.
My first thought was that if you were confident that the matter was non-justiciable you would never get on to the substance matter of what the undertaking concerned so what's the relevance of the undertaking?
Lord Keen gave the Supreme Court, on behalf of his client, HMG in general and Boris Johnson specifically, that in the event of the advice given to The Queen being found to be unlawful (or in the Scottish case being confirmed as unlawful) Lord Keen's client would do …
What they/he undertook to the Supreme Court that they/he would do was, at best, vague and, at worst, meaningless.
Lord Keen's undertaking, on behalf of HMG/PM was no more specific than they/he "would address the consequences"; "respond by all necessary means" and "take the necessary steps to comply".
Call me sceptical and/ or cynical (and you'd be correct; twice) but this undertaking strikes me as being less than magnanimous. In fact it sounds a lot like the answers given when the question is asked if Boris Johnson is going to comply with the Act of Parliament passed last week:-Of course (but he's not going to do what the Act tells him he has to do).
Anyone who has been paying any attention to Boris Johnson knows that he is more than capable of 'addressing the consequences; responding by all necessary means and taking the necessary steps to comply' by acting in a manner which might even be worse than his current actings.
This undertaking is not one I would place any reliance on and it was no surprise that it was not one that the Supreme Court accepted with alacrity.
If we're looking for parallels the leading authority on undertakings to the Court is surely Dave (or is it David?) King. It will be recalled that in one of the early skirmishes between Sports Direct and King/The Rangers a case was discontinued on the basis of an undertaking by King/The Rangers that they would comply with their contractual obligations. For all I know they could have undertaken 'to address the consequences; respond by all necessary means and take the necessary steps to comply'. We all know how that turned out. This early skirmish predated the Elite On-Line Shops In Glasgow And Belfast Portacabin In Copland Road bit of compliance with contractual obligations.
The wording of the undertaking which is being worked on by Lord Keen with Lord Panick QC and Aidan O'Neill QC should be enlightening. If it's along the lines of previous Johnson/King stances it'll be "Bad Things. We're Against Them."
I see that the BBC coverage of the Supreme Court includes commentaries from the great and the good.
The BBC have just shown the Tweets of the undoubtedly great and good James Doleman, Court Reporter.
He may not be great enough or good enough for The People but he'll do for the BBC and he'll do for me.
Very sad news to hear of the passing away of Fernando Ricksen. He showed great courage against a horrible disease right to the very end.
May he rest in peace.
https://twitter.com/BroganRoganTrev/status/1174292404167467013
update from BDO regards that holding company in liquidation
Timtim 18th September 2019 at 13:59
https://twitter.com/BroganRoganTrev/status/1174292404167467013
update from BDO regards that holding company in liquidation
================================
I can't see any update via that link since the report to creditors on 10 June 2019.
HMRC's agreement to drop the "penalties" claim was contained in that June report. Ongoing discussions with Henderson & Jones was also noted in that report
There was an update of sorts in early August, which was discussed on here, with the satisfaction of the Floating Charge that was formerly held by Lloyds and allegedly assigned to Wavetower (TRFCG Ltd).
That discussion led me to believe that an arrangement had been agreed between BDO and Henderson & Jones, although I have no idea about the material terms of that arrangement or deal or settlement
The next creditors update is not due until early December.
sorry EJ , I thought the update was only made publicly available after creditors had been issued with it first , so dismissed the June date .
Quote from O'Neill QC: "the mother of Parliaments being shut down by the Father of Lies" in his closing speech at the Supreme Court , a few minutes ago.
I see Ann Budge's statement regard craigie went down like a lead balloon with the Hearts fans that's a pity I was optimistic she would bring something different to football,but the bland patronising statement seems to show she is the same as the rest ,cares not a jot about the fans .
theredpill 18th September 2019 at 21:58
I see Ann Budge's statement regard craigie went down like a lead balloon with the Hearts fans that's a pity I was optimistic she would bring something different to football,but the bland patronising statement seems to show she is the same as the rest ,cares not a jot about the fans .
==============================
Oh she does care ……….. but only if you fall into a particular category and agree with her..
"I address to all genuine Hearts Supporters"
I don't think I qualify as being genuine enough. Mainly because I don't believe that Hearts needed a DOF role, far less CL as first team coach.
Looking at Hearts fans' reaction to the statement, I think many would find it patronising and misses the point of deteriorating performances for a much longer period than the 5 games that she refers to in the statement.
easyJambo 18th September 2019 at 22:21
'.. I don't believe that Hearts needed a DOF role..'
++++++++++++++
eJ, I have only the vaguest notion of what a Director of Football is, or what his 'powers' are.
Isn't CL merely an employee? As 'sackable' at the Board's pleasure as Caldwell today or indeed any football manager?
Or does being a 'director of football' give him the status and voting power of a Board member holding a significant number of shares?
John Clark 18th September 2019 at 23:54
easyJambo 18th September 2019 at 22:21
'.. I don't believe that Hearts needed a DOF role..'
++++++++++++++
eJ, I have only the vaguest notion of what a Director of Football is, or what his 'powers' are.
Isn't CL merely an employee? As 'sackable' at the Board's pleasure as Caldwell today or indeed any football manager?
Or does being a 'director of football' give him the status and voting power of a Board member holding a significant number of shares?
================================
The role of a DOF varies from club to club. As we saw with Mark Allan at TRFC he had responsibilities for recruitment, scouting, and some elements of the academy and that was it.
At Hearts, CL has responsibilities for recruitment, the academy, coaching, scouting, succession planning for the 1st team coach and an overarching view on the style of play adopted at all levels. As befits his title Ann Budge appointed him to the HMFC Board, although he is not a shareholder. All that occurred before he became 1st team coach in succession to Ian Cathro after he was sacked after 9 months in charge, finishing 5th in the league, and having a poor start to the new season.
CL has seen Hearts finish 6th in each of his two seasons in charge, his saving grace being reaching a cup final last season, albeit with the aid of the easiest draw imaginable. Hearts currently is on a run without a league victory since March, that equals the worst in its long history. That is why there are protests. It's not just a 5 game run this season
His removal as an employee (first team coach) should be no different to any other club's non performing manager, assuming he was paid off for the remainder of his 3 year contract that he signed when he became 1st team coach. His removal as a director would probably follow voluntarily It could of course be forced, with a motion to a GM or AGM, if he chose to hang on.
Alan Brazil has said on radio that there is a major problem at the top at Ibrox with owner in big trouble , would all come out soon. All the recent fluffing up of their players even though the transfer window has closed could be indicative of a desperate need to increase the assets for any potential sale. Mark Allen may be speaking about the situation privately and it is leaking. The failure to offload Morelos or Tavernier for Dembele money and Ashleys claim may be the tipping point. If the accounts show a bigger loss than last year and all the soft loans tapped out it's difficult to see a way out of this. Certain bloggers have already alluded to Kings wealth being a fraction of what people think. I don't think an admin event would be a great shock to most on here but it really would leave serious questions of the SFA who allowed this charlatan back. As for our MSM it will be interesting to watch them squirm.
JC 18th September 16:06pm.
Quote from O'Neill QC: "the mother of Parliaments being shut down by the Father of Lies" in his closing speech at the Supreme Court , a few minutes ago.
————————————————————————
John,
My post recently RE: QC describing the buffoon as being "characterised by incontinent mendacity"
This was the same guy. Aiden O'Neil QC.
HS
Another cracking quote:
This time from from todays Gruniaad
Referring to last nights PSG v Real Madrid match:
"Thomas Meunier and Juan Bernat capered through the open savannah that archaeologists believe was once populated by the Real Madrid midfield"
HS
Timtim 19th September 2019 at 09:15
Alan Brazil has said on radio that there is a major problem at the top at Ibrox with owner in big trouble…
Mark Allen may be speaking about the situation privately and it is leaking…
but it really would leave serious questions of the SFA who allowed this charlatan back…
=========
Another one of life's great mysteries: how the hell does TRFC manage to keep bumbling along, when it's financial health has been on life support virtually since birth?!
If/when TRFC finally hits the buffers, the SFA will try to be as understanding / accommodating to the Ibrox club, as they were in 2012.
The only difference this time though, IMO, is that the Hampden blazers will launch a significant PR campaign this time to try and justify their decisions.
In 2012 there was just silence and secrecy from both the SFA and SPL. Fans’ queries – and surveys – were simply ignored.
This time they could play at engaging clubs and fans more publicly – but still push through their preferred actions, regardless, for the benefit of another Ibrox club.
The SMSM will fill their columns with misinformation and blatant lies via obedient compliance with copy/paste instructions.
The SFA has shown over the decades how stupid it is as an organisation – so why should we expect a different response to the next Ibrox crisis?
Higgy's Shoes 19th September 2019 at 12:57
"Thomas Meunier and Juan Bernat capered through the open savannah that archaeologists believe was once populated by the Real Madrid midfield"
++++++++++++++++++++++
That quote is worthy of the late Cyril Horne and Ian Archer.
As for Aidan (I think that is the spelling) O'Neill QC I had the pleasure of sitting a few feet from him when he delivered the 'incontinent mendacity' observation.
StevieBC@13.22
Seems to me that there is very large direct bill about to come through the letterbox at Ibrox.
The way Brazil is talking it sounds like an unknown matter and the Ashley situation is already in the mainstream so could be more issues in Sth Africa that really do render him impecunious . He specifically points the finger at King so is unlikely to be the Wavetower issue as that would affect all shareholders and is more specific to Green.King knew exactly what he was doing by failing to get a Nomad and leaving his actions free of scrutiny , we will just have to wait and see what skullduggery he has been up to this time.
Timtim 19th September 2019 at 16:48
The way Brazil is talking it sounds like an unknown matter and the Ashley situation is already in the mainstream so could be more issues in Sth Africa that really do render him impecunious . He specifically points the finger at King so is unlikely to be the Wavetower issue as that would affect all shareholders and is more specific to Green.King knew exactly what he was doing by failing to get a Nomad and leaving his actions free of scrutiny , we will just have to wait and see what skullduggery he has been up to this time.
==========================
I've had a look at the last set of accounts for Sebata Holdings (the new name for Micromega Holdings) for the full year to the end of March 2019. As far as we know, King's business investments in SA are predominantly held in that company.
King's family trust (Laird Investments) owns 63.3% of the shares in Sebata.
At today's share price and exchange rate, the company is worth £26m
The valuation of Laird's investment is therefore around £16.5m.
The company made a net profit of £8.5m in the year to March 2019.
However, they made a dividend payment of £18.7m. The resources to pay the apparently excessive dividend appear to have come from the sale of the NOSA subsidiary which realised £33.7m in April 2018, with a reported profit on disposal of £16.5m. Laird would have received £10.4m from the special dividend payment as a result.
We know from the TOP machinations that King funded the "confirmation of funds" from that special dividend payment.
In summary, King's SA investment is diminishing in value year on year, although he should still have more than £10m in liquid funds from the special dividend (before tax that is
).
The fact that New Oasis (King) has written off £8.5m of loans in RIFC in exchange for shares of questionable value in the last 12 months leaves his residual wealth relatively limited when compared to his purported spending via TRFC.
EJ @ 20.55 very interesting figures , there have been whispers that a certain %age of Kings shares and loans were provided by Park Sr possibly to avoid those pesky Sth African complexities when moving money out of that country with promises made to repay when the sun started to shine . Dave King certainly has a lot more money than I do but it seems to fall far short of what we are led to believe . With his personal guarantee to the auditors to fund the shortfall personally last year there may be problems this time around. Park Sr may just be wondering if he will ever see his cash again.
Another €570,000 in Rangers coffers following their win tonight.
Celtic will receive €190,000 for their draw.
https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/news/newsid=2616279.html
Timtim 19th September 2019 at 09:15
40 4 Rate This
Alan Brazil has said on radio that there is a major problem at the top at Ibrox with owner in big trouble , would all come out soon.
Timtim 19th September 2019 at 16:48
11 1 Rate This
The way Brazil is talking it sounds like an unknown matter and the Ashley situation is already in the mainstream
………………..
If not the Ashley situation how would Alan Brazil be privy to what is going on with king? and the goings on behind ibrox doors.
If Mr Brazil has said there may be trouble ahead, has he been told to leak this news?
Karma would be very naughty, if…
King was to declare personal bankruptcy in South Africa!
And the bears would be rendered speechless too…
[Zero proof, just wishful thinking.
]