Is Stewart Regan, Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Football Association a DIDDY?
Disingenuous: Incompetent: Dishonest: Duped? You decide.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Scottish Football Monitor sorority/fraternity jury, who want an honest game, honestly governed, are invited to pass judgement on Stewart Regan, the CEO of the SFA.
The main stream media are finally asking questions of Regan’s performance in that role, but based on a rather shallow (by comparison to what he has presided over) single issue of the recruitment of a national team coach, and not his character.
Maybe we can help the three monkeys media men (you know who they are) push for change at the SFA. How? By highlighting for them the appropriate response to Regan’s performance on the basis of what follows if he really is a DIDDY.
Disingenuous is defined as:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Evidence of such can be found in the written exchanges with the SFA that Celtic initiated on 27th July, and continued on 18 August, 21 August, 4th September and 7th September 2017; and published on the Celtic web site with SFA agreement at http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/SFA_Correspondence.pdf
This from the SFA letter of 18th August 2017:
Comment: the statements are not alleged, they are a matter of court record and if untrue represent perjury.
…. And then this from subsequent SFA letter of 4th September 2017
Both paras give the impression that the SFA were unaware that Rangers had accepted the liability without question before 31st March 2011. Yet the SFA’s attention was drawn to this fact in July 2015 by lawyers acting on behalf of Celtic shareholders as follows:
- Our information in respect of this £2.8M in unpaid tax is that Rangers PLC had been alerted in November 2010 by HMRC that they would be pursuing payment of this exact sum.
- From that date onwards, the Directors of Rangers PLC should have known there was a potential liability to HMRC for back taxes specifically relating to payments made to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer. These sums became an accepted liability in March 2011.
- Matters had been brought to a head on 23 February 2011 when HMRC presented Rangers with a written case for payment of back tax owed in respect of Flo and De Boer. As your department may well be aware, that case for payment involved hitherto undisclosed side letters which were found to be an adjunct to their declared and disclosed contracts of employment.
- Those contracts of employment were, of course, disclosed to the Scottish Football authorities (including the SFA) as part of the necessary compliance procedures followed by all clubs and demanded by both the SFA and UEFA.
- Additionally when replying to the initial enquiries by HMRC in 2005 regarding these alleged side letters and ancillary agreements, the then Group Tax Manager of Murray International Holdings (MIH) acting for Rangers PLC on tax matters, apparently advised HMRC that no such agreements or side letters existed.
- It ultimately proved that these representations to HMRC were completely untrue and without foundation. The tax Inspectors concerned in turn saw these false misrepresentations as being an attempt to simply hide the true financial position and an attempt to avoid paying the taxes which were lawfully due on the contracts of the players concerned.
- As mentioned earlier, Rangers PLC accepted liability on 21st March 2011 for unpaid tax having taken legal advice on the matter.
- In turn, HMRC then chose to formally pursue payment of the back taxes and penalties in relation to these two players, all in terms of HMRC’s debt recovery procedures under what is known as regulation 80.
- Prior to 31st March 2011, there was clear knowledge within Rangers Football Club of the liability to make payment for these back taxes and, as can be seen from the attached documentation, by 20th May 2011 HMRC had served formal assessments and demands on Rangers PLC for the sums concerned.
The impression given by Regan’s reply to Celtic is that the first time the SFA were aware there might be an issue on granting was in June 2017 as result of testimony at the Craig Whyte trial. This is clearly not the case and the only explanation that would clear Regan of being disingenuous is a that he was incompetent as in not knowing what the SFA already had in their possession, however a bit more on being disingenuous before looking at incompetency.
The above extract of the exchange of 4th September where Regan mentions Celtic being satisfied on the UEFA Licence 2011 issue was challenged by Celtic on 7th September 2017 as follows:
“on the matter of the Licensing Decision in 2011 it is not accurate to describe Celtic as having been “satisfied” at any stage. Like everyone else we were in a position of responding on the basis of information available to us. In correspondence, Celtic raised continuing concerns as did a number of Celtic shareholders.”
In dealing with the Celtic shareholders the SFA and Regan appeared keen to welcome from the early days of correspondence that only the process after granting i.e. the monitoring phase of June and September was being questioned and not the granting itself. That was the case initially but as new information emerged in respect of what UEFA judged to be an overdue payable, upheld by the Court of Arbitration on Sport in 2013, focus swung back in 2016 to the significance of what the SFA had been told by the Res 12 lawyer in July 2015. However the emphasis the SFA put on shareholders accepting the grant was in order was puzzling at the time. The suspicion since is that the SFA did not want the circumstances around the granting investigated and the SFA and Regan were being disingenuous in their attempts to keep that aspect under wraps. especially when their defence of not acting as required in 2011 was based around when the SFA responsibilities on granting ended and UEFA’s on monitoring began. (for more on that read the Incompetence charge)
In response to a separate point in Regan’s letter of 18th August about the QC advice on there not being a rule in place at the time to use to sanction Rangers or the limited sanctions available to a Judicial Panel, Peter Lawwell responded on 21st August to Regan’s disingenuousness as follows:
” In your letter you refer to advice from Senior Counsel that;
‘there was very little chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any compliant regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would be very limited in their scope.’
As I said in my last letter Celtic considers that this misses the point. The fact that disciplinary sanctions may not be secured is in our view not a reason for Scottish football to ignore the opportunity to review and possibly learn lessons from the events in question.”
Although they didn’t refer to it in that reply of 21st August, Celtic could have pointed out the following catch all rule in existence in 2011 (and presumably earlier) under Article 5 in SFA handbook.
5. Obligations and duties of Members (where all members shall)
5.1 Observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play.
This Article could have been used to demonstrate sporting dishonesty by Rangers FC. However by recognising this Regan would be on a collision course with an issue that he wanted to avoid at all costs;
whom to sanction? Rangers FC? The Rangers FC? Those currently at The Rangers FC who were officials or on the Board of Rangers FC in 2011?
Consequently, the SFA chose to hide behind QC advice – but to protect whom? Not the integrity of the game. Here is a suggestion to restore it:
That the Rangers FC admit that the trophies won in the EBT years were won as a result of clear wrongdoing (the wrongdoing Regan was so desperate to say never occurred – see later), and that The Rangers give them up. Surrendering them is not being defeated, it is simply the right thing to do for the game AND for Rangers to restore some integrity to themselves.
If they want to lay claim to their history, lay claim to all of it, just be honourable and act with dignity and we can all move on.
In summary then, Regan is being disingenuous by pretending to know a lot less than he does – and on that note the case of disingenuousness ends.
Incompetence: is defined as;
lack of ability to do something successfully or as it should be done:
Whilst a CEO would not be expected to know the minutiae of any process, he would be expected to seek such information before going public to defend the SFA’s position.
On 23 October 2013, Stewart Regan had an interview with Richard Gordon on BBC Sportsound. Excerpts from it can be heard at http://www.bbc.com/sport/scotland/24685973 . Interestingly or strangely, the following excerpt regarding the lines of responsibility between the SFA and UEFA fell on the BBC cutting room floor.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9YktGc0kwWjJCY1E/view?usp=sharing
In it Regan is saying that the 31st March is a key date and AFTER that date, the SFA having granted the licence on evidence provided to the SFA (now under Compliance Officer investigation) have no more responsibility in the matter. Richard Gordon asks Regan to confirm that after 31st March there is no other course of action the SFA could have taken. To which Regan answers “Correct”.
This understanding however does not stand up when compared to the information supplied to the Res 12 Lawyer on 8th June 2016 by Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing and so ultimate authority on the matter.
That letter (more famous for its new club/company designation of the current incumbents at Ibrox), confirmed that the UEFA Licence was not granted until the 19th April 2011, so Regan was wrong on his dates, but even more significantly UEFA stated that the list of clubs granted a licence was not submitted to them until 26th May 2011.
This raises the obvious question (though not so obviously to Regan);
” how can UEFA start monitoring until they know who to monitor?”
More significantly, and one for the SFA Compliance chap to consider, should the licence have been granted, irrespective of what “evidence” the SFA Licensing Committee acted on in March 2011 , when it was obvious from a HMRC Letter of 20th May 2011 to Rangers, that HMRC were pursuing payment of a tax liability which could no longer by dint of being pursued, be described as “potential” which was the justification for granting at 31st March/19th April?
Here ends the case of incompetence.
Dishonesty;
lack of honesty or integrity: defined as disposition to defraud or deceive.
The line between incompetence and dishonesty is a thin one and so difficult to judge, however some discernment is possible from observation over time.
On 29 March 2012 Stewart Regan was interviewed by Alex Thomson of Channel Four news, a transcript of which with comments can be found on a previous SFM blog of 8th March 2015 at
https://www.sfm.scot/did-stewart-regan-ken-then-wit-we-ken-noo/
It is a long article, but two points emerge from it.
Stewart Regan bases his defence of SFA inaction on the fact that at the time of the interview no wrongdoing had occurred . Regan emphasises this rather a lot. Had he been an honest man, he would have confessed that this defence fell when the Supreme Court ruled that wrong doing in respect of Rangers’ use of EBTs had occurred.
This extract from Regan’s letter of 4th September 2017 beggars belief in light of his position on wrongdoing during interview with Alex Thomson.
” The reality is that the final decision in “The Big Tax Case” signalled closure for many involved in the game. It is hard to believe that a “wide review” no matter how well intentioned and how wide ranging could ever bring closure in the minds of every Scottish football fan and stakeholder.”
How on earth did the Supreme Court decision signal closure to Regan given his emphasis on no wrong doing?
Had Regan (in response to Celtic in August and September 2017) acknowledged that wrongdoing had taken place, then that at least would have been honest, but the defence of not acting was on the grounds that admitting dishonesty would be raking over old coals. An honest man would have accepted that the situation had changed, and some form of enquiry was necessary, but instead Regan fell back on unpublished advice from a QC.
The second point is a new one. Regan was asked by Alex Thomson in March 2012
AT: But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?
SR: Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition
AT: I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?
SR: No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,
AT: Never?
At time of interview in March 2012 this was true but 2 months later on 25th May 2012 the issue of a Judicial review WAS raised by Celtic
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/celtic-still-pressing-sfa-for-inquiry-8p25q8wbb
for the same reasons that Regan had ignored in 2011 as the LNS Commissioning proceeded apace and Regan continued to ignore in the 2017 correspondence. An honest man would have recognised that his truth to Thomson in March was no longer true in May 2012 and acted. He didn’t.
These do not appear to be acts of an honest man, rather they appear to represent the behaviour of a man who is being dishonest with himself; although perhaps Regan was simply duped?
Duped is defined as;
“ If a person dupes you, they trick you into doing something or into believing something which is not true.”
In his e mail of 7th December to Ali Russell, then Rangers CEO , after a discussion on the 6th December 2011 with Andrew Dickson, Rangers Football Administrator and SFA License Committee member in 2011, Regan set out the basis on which the SFA granted a UEFA License in 2011.
This was a letter from Ranger’s auditors Grant Thornton describing the wee tax liability of £2.8m as a potential one with the implication that it was subject to dispute, an implication carried into the Interim Accounts of 1st April 2011 signed by Rangers FC Chairman Alistair Johnson.
The true status of the liability and the veracity of statements made that justified the UEFA License being granted are under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer.
However Regan’s belief that the liability was disputed and therefore hadn’t crystalized, is supported more or less by his Tweets at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9NG5CNXcwLW9RZjQ/view?usp=sharing
The case that Regan was duped is a plausible one, at least up to 2015, but I would contend that the SFA responses to Res 12 lawyers after July 2015 suggest that whilst the SFA may have been duped initially, they subsequently appeared more concerned with keeping events beyond public scrutiny (like the effect on the licence issue of HMRC sending in Sheriff’s Officers to collect a £2.8m tax liability in August 2011).
At this point, based on the foregoing –
You the SFM jury are asked to decide: Is Stewart Regan a DIDDY?
Copy paste this link for GUILTY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejizOV-IQEM
And this for NOT GUILTY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwXGdgFZmNk
The Sin of Omission by Margaret Sangster ends:
And it’s not the things you do, dear,
It’s the things you leave undone,
Which gives you a bit of heartache
At the setting of the sun.
WOTTPIFEBRUARY 19, 2018 at 20:51
3
1 Rate This
It looks l Iike the BBC Sportsounds producers agree with Highlander and called out Rodgers re his comments about St Johnstone players while playing earlier clips of him saying that such is just not the done thing and managers should not make critical comment about other teams and players.
Take of the green tinted goggles and apply the standards and forensic skills of this site.
If we are happy to trawl through the archives to highlight hypocrisy in the MSM or down Govan way, then the same can be applied to any other person within the Scottish game.
————–
I wonder if the BBC Sportsounds producers have ever interviewed Mr king then played earlier clips of him saying he would have a Nomad within days.Or about his overinvestment etc.
Phenomenal voice he has there Jimbo. Couldn’t care less the content – my family were never particularly religious even though they were born into a Protestant family. I’m more athiest leaning to Buddhism so I can appreciate it for the music without caring about the meaning. Went to an opera in Europe a few years ago thinking I was going to hate it and now absolutely love it!
Can we please have a separate blog/forum for Jimbo’s off topic posts? I thought a music related one had already been established. I would prefer the main blog remained focussed on football related matters.
wottpiFebruary 19, 2018 at 20:51
‘…While I am in full agreement with what he said in this particular matter re StJ BR has been shown to be a hypocrite…’
________
When I read BR’s comments I thought three things in quick succession:
first, that he might somehow have mistakenly thought that ST J had been beaten by TRFC Ltd and was ready to imply that they had lain down to them (in a way that they did not v Celtic)
secondly,that if that was so he would be both wrong and ,unwisely, unwarrantedly, stepping into unsoundly-based controversy,
and thirdly, that he was indeed not so much directly complimenting St J as expressing ( as I think probably most of us did) his bafflement at that phenomenon which bookies hate so much and which football quite often throws up, namely, how and why a team that has lost to a number of its broad equals can produce the goods against two (generally reckoned to be )superior clubs!
Such is the speed of thought, of course, that all three of those thoughts were virtually simultaneous.
The fourth thought was, of course, that he did not intend to be insulting to St J, but asking the question that Wright must have been asking!
The fact that there has been a steady increase in recent seasons in the number of managers who are unable to refrain from passing any kind of comment whether good or bad on the other team ought to be of concern to the SPFL ( who do still have a CEO) as well as to the leaderless SFA!
I personally wish that they would talk to the press only about how their own team performed and, perhaps, how decisions for or against them might have influenced their team, if there were any disputable decisions.
But, of course, there is always room for sportsmanship. Of which Derek McInnes’ words about Hibs was a perhaps surprising example!
Melbournedee
There is a vehicle for OT posts. Sadly because it is a different format, they can’t be moved there.
Jimbo, please observe. ?
sannoffymesssoitizzFebruary 19, 2018 at 16:52
‘…Newcastle United ‘abused tax system’, HMRC alleges .’
____________________
Relative to the £zillions owed in tax by international companies, I suppose even the millions still owed by the liquidated Rangers, and the possible millions owed by EPL clubs ,are small beer.
But I do hope that HMRC is prepared to put in enough of an effort in staff commitment, lay and legal, to nail every single club which might have operated, or may still be operating, as tax-cheatingly as RFC (IL) did.
Not so much for the sake of clawing back the taxes due (plus, we would hope, hefty penalties) but for the sake of ensuring that those of our football clubs whose owners may be enriching themselves by tax fiddles/money-laundering operations/bribery/corruption and what-not, are caught, prosecuted successfully and jailed appropriately, so that the sport of football ceases to be seen as a business attractive to the swinish scum who are into grand scale tax fiddles/money-laundering/bribery/corruption and what-not.
The trouble is, that HMRC can do only what our legislators have empowered them to do.
And Parliament ( in this context, the UK Parliament) is very sympathetic to the rich and powerful -the very people who most do not want to pay tax and will hold a gun to politicians’ heads, or suggest a seat on the board when they step down from public office.
ThIs the greatest song ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPrf-svWUAQ
sannoffymesssoitizzFebruary 19, 2018 at 16:52‘…
‘..Newcastle United ‘abused tax system’, HMRC alleges .’
____________________
Relative to the £zillions owed in tax by international companies, I suppose even the millions still owed by the liquidated Rangers, and the possible millions owed by EPL clubs ,are small beer.
But I do hope that HMRC is prepared to put in enough of an effort in staff commitment, lay and legal, to nail every single club which might have operated, or may still be operating, as tax-cheatingly as RFC (IL) did.
Not so much for the sake of clawing back the taxes due (plus, we would hope, hefty penalties) but for the sake of ensuring that those of our football clubs whose owners may be enriching themselves by tax fiddles/money-laundering operations/bribery/corruption and what-not, are caught, prosecuted successfully and jailed appropriately, so that the sport of football ceases to be seen as a business attractive to those who are into grand scale tax fiddles/money-laundering/bribery/corruption and what-not.
The trouble is, that HMRC can do only what our legislators have empowered them to do.
And Parliament ( in this context, the UK Parliament) is very sympathetic to the rich and powerful -the very people who most do not want to pay tax and will hold a gun to politicians’ heads, or suggest a seat on the board when they step down from public office.
I don’t belong here. I ve always known it.
I was one of those who found (and still finds) Levein’s comments unacceptable. I don’t see how Rodgers’ comments fit in the same bracket.
Levein has claimed other players need protection from an opposition player and then goes on to accuse him of deliberately getting booked. I think his attempt to draw additional referee attention to an opposition player (their most influential) is outrageous. I am not surprised to find the compliance officer conspicuous by his absence though.
I may be wrong, but I read Rodgers’ comments as praising St Johnstone’s performances against both old firm teams and saying that if they played that way every week they would not find themselves in their current league position.
The BBC article states that Rodgers has accused the St Johnstone players of cheating their manager despite him not actually saying that at all. Very emotive language for a broadcaster afraid to call out actual cheating as cheating.
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 19, 2018 at 22:0
I think it might have been a mixture of things about the game, rather than St Johnstone’s performance , which wasn’t too much better than recent outings . He picked the team from the pool , minded of an EL game on Thursday , and picked a team he thought would still win . He was wrong . Could have been the balance of the team , tactics chosen, ability of the players to play to his system , lack of cohesion , individuals under – performing , inability to change tactics , poor substitutions , lots of stuff . He was perplexed . He’d done everything he thought was necessary to get three points . He was wrong . I think his only other option was to blame his players , but then to say summat like – ” but the boys know we’ve a really big game this Thursday . We’ll regroup and get back to where we want to be- where we need to be . Listen , I’ve got faith in this group of players . As I say, well regroup and be ready for the next challenge “. Or , “How did Thistle manage to lose ? “.
I don’t care how much you all hate me. I love DBD he’s a good bear. not enough of them on here. So I post ott stuff now and again? so what?
jimboFebruary 19, 2018 at 23:49
‘..So I post ott stuff now and again? so what?’
___________
Well, jimbo, your OT stuff is too particularly related to your own club and your allegiance to that club.
There is not a poster on here ( I would imagine) who is not a supporter of a club.
But that support, and championing of that support, is not why they post on this blog.( Most of them probably post on their own club supporters’ blogs on topics related immediately to their clubs)
No, they post on here not about their allegiance to their club, but about the cheating by RFC(IL) and the (alleged) connivance over many years of the SFA in that cheating, and are watchful of the possibility of further connivance in any kind of financial cheating by the new club.
Amusing little OT stuff is fair enough.
But when it begins to annoy people, time to call a halt.
Or (horror of horrors) lay oneself open to charges of providing aid and comfort to the malefactors in their desire that we should , brothers all, ‘move on’!
Tak tent, jimbo, lest you be regarded as an inadvertent troll!
Highlander
To answer Auldheid’s point, I’ve just covered what I think was Rodgers’ motivation. I genuinely believe Levein was 100% accurate in his assessment of Scott Brown. I’ve said on here many times, Brown has some positive attributes, but for me they are outweighed by a congenital thuggishness that seems inexplicably invisible to Scottish referees and Celtic fans, yet blatantly obvious to those of us who support clubs who regularly come up against it.
I guess Levein’s motivation in mentioning Brown is similar to my own. You know you’re right,
===========================
I framed my question in the way I did to bring out a general point.
Regardless of how much you think you know, you don’t actually know. None of us, unless we are mind readers can know the motivations of anyone. So we make them up to align with an already held view and then judge correspondingly.
Fair enough, but we should always entertain the possibility we have another’s motives wrong and if there is a positive alternative to a negative judgment it should not be sacrificed on an altar of certainty.
My response H is the same as in the exchange between Ewan Murray on Twitter.
Ewan Murray Verified account @mrewanmurray 4h4 hours agoMore
Really? “Why do they try against some clubs and not others” is basically the claim.
Auldheid†@Auldheid
Replying to @mrewanmurray @robertthomson55 and 2 others
Alternatively ” if St J played as consistently well as they did against us and Rangers, they wouldn’t be where they are.” A statement of fact given 4 pts from the 2 games mentioned. Why make more of it than that? What r your motives?
No answer from Ewan but like all of us the meaning he gives to anything is conditioned by an already held perspective perhaps strongly held.
Now I don’t know BR’s motive any more than you do, I thought it was the Manager’s Union at play with BR supporting Tommy Wright and BR’s defence of Cathro may subconsciously have influenced me in that way.
So am I looking through green glasses or trying to be a fair witness and not a judge? And what colour of glasses are you wearing?
Stranger in a Strange Land.
http://dlkphotography.com/fair-witness/stranger-in-a-strange-land
A fair witness is a fictional profession invented for the novel. A fair witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what he or she sees and hears, making no extrapolations or assumptions. A photographic memory is a prerequisite for the job, although this may be attainable with suitable training.
In Heinlein’s society, a fair witness is an absolutely reputable source of information. By custom, a fair witness acting professionally, generally wearing distinctive white robes, is never addressed directly, and is never acknowledged by anyone present.
A fair witness is prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. For example, a character in the book is asked to describe the color of a house seen in the distance. The character responds, “It’s white on this side”; whereupon it is explained that one would not assume knowledge of the color of the other sides of the house without being able to see them. Furthermore, after observing another side of the house one should not then assume that any previously seen side was still the same color as last reported, even if only minutes before.
NCLBhoy February 19, 2018 at 23:07
paddy malarkey February 19, 2018 at 23:33
=========================
t’was always thus. All managers will find reasons to deflect any criticism away from themselves and their players after a poor performance.
It was the ref’s fault, It was the poor state of the pitch. We had played X games in Y days. Sometimes it’s more personal, criticism of the opposition’s tactics, they parked the bus. Maybe its a opposition manager putting pressure on referees. Perhaps an injury to a key player as a result of a questionable challenge.
We have all heard the cliched complaints from all managers. Brendan Rodgers is no different from Craig Levein or Neil Lennon or Tommy Wright or Derek McInnes in that regard. They will all defend their players and their clubs.
Fans are no different. They see nothing wrong in what their club or manager says or does. It’s always someone else getting it wrong. The usual defence is whataboutery. What about that challenge? Why did we not get a penalty? What about that incident 25 years ago?
It’s tiresome, but it’s football. I’m sure there will be some incident or comment that someone will take offence to, during the next round of fixtures. Get over it, you need to move on.
Edit: Oh sh*t, did I really say that we need to move on
paddy malarkeyFebruary 19, 2018 at 23:33 (Edit)
When I saw the line up before the game I posted that BR was taking a risk but with the points differential and rivals taking points off each other I could understand why.
My main concern was how lightweight we were and that a physical St J side would make a game of it, (just as Killie did.)
St J did and I find it hard to believe that BR did not think the same, but decided the risk worth taking in terms of not just match fitness but giving the likes of Musanda and Miller a taste of the way “football” is played in Scotland. Musonda will have learned more from that 90 minutes than he would from a stroll in the park and Miller will know he needs to bulk up and Edouarde will know he needs to shield the ball and fight hard for it to keep possession.
So whilst supporters will say he got it wrong I’m not so sure BR thinks he did, unless of course I’m a better judge of how match is going to turn out than he is.
It follows if he didn’t think he got it wrong, then he had no need try and deflect from the performance, would be looking for the positives from it and his observation re St J was factual with no intent to belittle and if you listen to Tommy Wright at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1eDj6wMvXg he himself refers to inconsistency.
JC, Bp I’m sorry. I will behave.
Scottish clubs in talks over a secret document proposing a radical revamp of the SFA by the 2020/21 season
* The plans include streamlining or even sidelining the national body
* The patience of some clubs exhausted following a period of turmoil
* That culminated in the departure of chief executive Stewart Regan
By Hugh Macdonald For The Scottish Daily Mail
Published: 01:24, 20 February 2018 | Updated: 01:27, 20 February
2018http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5411083/Top-clubs-talks-radical-revamp-SFA.html#ixzz57cR5zPUq
Scotland’s top clubs are in talks over a secret document proposing a radical revamp of the SFA by season 2020/21.
Sportsmail can reveal that the plans include streamlining or even sidelining the national body, with the patience of some clubs exhausted following a period of turmoil that culminated in the departure of chief executive Stewart Regan.
‘We are standing at the crossroads for Scottish football,’ one club chairman said.
He believes the SFA could be swallowed up by a new Scottish football body and added: ‘Decisions must be made in the short term for medium and long-term benefit.
‘The SFA can regain some control by the appointment of a very strong, outstanding chief executive but the more likely scenario is that it loses its power to the clubs.’ Sportsmail has seen the document and can reveal that one scenario being contemplated is to allow the SFA to control the international squad, minor football and administration.
Clubs would take over matters of governance, promotion and sponsorship.
Those seeking change want a revamped Scottish body in place before a new television deal is negotiated.
One executive revealed: ‘The eyes are on the 2020/21 season.$B!G(B The proposals have been put in a discussion paper and have been the subject of informal talks among leading figures who are seeking change after becoming dismayed by a series of crises.
‘Many of these were prompted by the SFA (or) actually caused by them,’ said one chairman speaking under the condition of anonymity.
Clubs have been irritated in varying degrees by Project Brave, the summer tour of South America and the failed search for a new head coach for the national team, with Michael O’Neill’s refusal seeming to leave the SFA with no Plan B until Alex McLeish was appointed last week.
However, the dissatisfaction runs deeper and has longer-standing roots.
Peter Lawwell, chief executive of Celtic, talked of ‘significant’ problems at the SFA in a recent interview with the BBC.
Rangers are believed to hold the view that the SFA needs to be streamlined at least.
However, the move for change stretches beyond Glasgow.
Stewart Milne, in a recent interview with Sportsmail, stressed the need to bring substantial additional monies into Scottish football, saying that the alternative would be a widening of the gulf between the Scottish game and the Championship in England.
Roy MacGregor, chairman of Ross County, also said earlier this month that the SFA and SPFL should merge.
There is also a general consensus against the SPFL and the SFA having separate marketing departments when one such body might be more efficient in terms of maximising income.
The main points of debate between the top clubs fall broadly into two options.
The first is to revamp both the SPFL and the SFA. The second is to scrap both authorities with one body formed, with independent aid and advice, to run the professional game.
Future of the Scottish FA up in the air with clubs debating between a revamp or scrapping the national governing body altogether
* There’s a groundswell of dissatisfaction with the governance of Scottish football
* Clubs plotting to revamp SFA and SPFL or scrap them both altogether
* There are plans to boost TV revenue by striking deal with single broadcaster
* Stewart Regan was the first blood spilled as he left his post as SFA chief
By Hugh Mcdonald For The Scottish Daily Mail
Published: 01:36, 20 February 2018 | Updated: 01:36, 20 February 2018
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5411105/Future-Scottish-FA-air.html#ixzz57cbF5pUT
Change or die. It is the imperative that faces every beleaguered life form. It is one that must be faced by the Scottish Football Association as clubs seek to back strong comments with stronger action.
A groundswell of dissatisfaction with the governance of Scottish football has become a tidal wave that seeks to wash away archaic practices and inefficient leadership.
Stewart Regan was the first blood spilled as he left his post as SFA chief executive in the wake of a series of failures that culminated in the botched attempt to lure Michael O’Neill from Northern Ireland as head coach of Scotland.
Ironically, many of the leaders of the top clubs in Scotland were sympathetic over the O’Neill rebuff, knowing through experience that first-choice candidates can often say no.
However, the dissatisfaction with the SFA has deeper, long-standing causes. The implementation of Project Brave, the tour of South America in the summer, the absence of sponsorship have all infuriated clubs.
An SFA insider has told Sportsmail that Regan had lost the confidence of many long before any rebuffed approach to O’Neill.
A chief executive who came in under a reformist banner was unable to carry clubs with him and was under pressure on a multitude of fronts from the handling of the financial meltdown at Rangers to the development of young players, the perceived paucity of revenue from TV and sponsorship deals and lack of a coherent strategy to deal with any of these.
‘He was weakened through time,’ he said of the ill-fated chief executive. ‘He lost direction, focus and the trust of clubs.’ Representatives of top clubs are now scrutinising a discussion document that aims to revolutionise the game in Scotland. The talks are at an early stage and such is their sensitivity that all comments were made by clubs to Sportsmail under the condition of anonymity.
However, Sportsmail can reveal that two options are being considered.
The first is to revamp both the SFA and the SPFL.
The role of the chief executive would be redefined giving him or her the capacity to build a new organisation and take an innovative approach to the issues facing the game.
There is a mood among some club leaders to target a candidate from outside the football world but others believe there are viable applicants within the game.
The chief executive would also be charged with developing a long-term plan in conjunction with the SPFL and a broadcast partner; restructuring and streamlining the organisation in line with its future role; and aligning its broadcast properties with the SPFL to secure one, long-term broadcast partner to maximise the value of Scottish football rights.
These aims address concerns by some clubs that the SFA is ‘bloated’ and ‘inefficient’.
The dissatisfaction with TV deals has also been rising dramatically. SPFL clubs know that the £5billion deal negotiated recently by the EPL is that of another world but they are worried about how the gulf with Championship clubs in England is widening.
They believe there is more to be negotiated from broadcasters and that a long-term exclusive deal may be more appealing to a broadcaster than the current arrangement that sees Scottish football shown live by Sky, BT Sport and the BBC.
Option one also includes a revamp of the SPFL. This would be radical. All key elements of the game would be reviewed including league structure, organisation and form of all competitions, youth development and administration.
This ‘new approach’ and changed structures would be used to build a case to increase the value of TV deals and the attractiveness to sponsors.
One club chairman said: ‘We simply have to improve revenue streams. Scottish football simply has not been good enough at breaking money in. That has to change and soon.’ The second option is to scrap both the SFA and the SPFL and replace them with one organisation. This option is bolstered by the belief by many in the game that a mutual distrust between the organisations has hampered progress.
One proposal is that the new body would be headed by an independent chairperson with a board comprising a chief executive and representatives of senior clubs and those from further down the scale.
The body would deal with international commitments, domestic football and the governance, regulation and development of the game at all levels.
So how can either of those two options – or, indeed, any change – be brought about?
The big clubs will have to come to some sort of agreement that they can sell to the others. If a broad strategy is agreed, there is a will to bring in an independent person to lead a working group that can lead and define the project with a timescale of 18-24 months.
‘Our eyes are on the 2020/2021 season,’ said one chairman.
The need for change is made more urgent because of the quickly shifting sands of European football.
Peter Lawwell, chief executive of Celtic, told the BBC last week that ‘transformational’ money could come to Scottish clubs from a Europa League revamp from 2024.
Clubs want to be in the position to profit from any opportunity, particularly in Europe where there is exposure to more lucrative deals in TV and marketing.
‘We have to get our house in order quickly. I would be in favour of one voice, one organisation and one defined route forward,’ said one chairman.
All club representatives contacted by Sportsmail admitted that the road ahead would not be straightforward.
‘There will be bumps and collisions,’ said one. ‘But we must not shrink from that and see it as an excuse to back away from reform.
‘We are discussing options. The status quo is not one of them.’
JIMBO
“I don’t belong here. I’ve always known it.”
I don’t believe that’s true and I’m sure many other contributors on here agree.
Keep well our friend on the naughty step. 🙂
Cyberhugsandcuddles emogi/emoticon
I think that we should all commend Michael Stewart for persistently questioning the timing of the BBC Sportsound producers’ bizarre decision to discuss whether other clubs are mounting a title challenge when Celtic had just increased their lead from 8 to 9 points.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05yqc32
Whataboutery and convoluted arguments don’t change the facts.
Rodgers is on record saying it’s wrong for managers to talk about another club’s players.
In response to a question he goes on, at length, effectively saying St J players need to have a look at themselves.
If the man wants to stick to his own rules for “the managers club” then when asked questions that may require him to be critical of others all he has to say is.
“You will have to ask Tommy about that. I am here to talk about Celtic – Next question”.
It really is that simple.
On the Rodgers post-match thing, I’m very much in EJ’s camp. Managers always attempt to handle pressers, often entailing some deflection. Curiously, Stuart Cosgrove was of the opinion that Rodgers was merely paraphrasing Tommy Wright’s, and showing a bit of solidarity. So no rush to take offence there.
Either way, Rodgers would have been happier imo talking about that than his own team selection and performance.
CELTIC MUST PROTECT DEMOCRACY WITHIN A NEW SFADate: 12th February 2018 at 7:40pm by: James Forrest
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/02/blogs/celtic-must-protect-democracy-within-a-new-sfa-nothing-is-more-important-than-that/
The debate has started on what the new structure of Scottish football should be, and as usual there are voices raised that say the big clubs should hold all the cards.
This is sheer nonsense.
If Celtic are going to be leaders in the game it will be because other clubs wanted us to take that role. It will not be because we are the biggest club in the land.
Democracy is important. The idea that those who run the “smaller clubs” are not fit to be involved in deciding its future is already being adopted by all the usual voices. Their version of leadership would have wrecked our sport. They must never again decide its future.
Democracy is vital to a reformed SFA. It protects the game.
The scandals that hit Ibrox and Hampden would never have happened had the game been in the hands of people who saw it as being about more than two clubs. The attitudes that almost sunk us were born in the idea that the two Glasgow clubs were “too big to fail” – although I often wonder what would have happened had it been us who failed and not them.
The idea that those two clubs – really just one of them back then – ought to hold all the influence directly led to the grubby deal that almost wrecked the game, and would have had these “smaller club” not saved it. They did the right thing back then and I think they will continue to do the right thing if allowed the opportunity. They will usually think of the greater good.
Scottish football is not about two clubs or a handful at the top. Those who mock the SFA for the fact Alan McRae is from one of the clubs has missed the point; his rise was nothing to do with the clubs, he was a product of the old “blazer” system that rewarded “service” and assured that only a handful of people could ever be elected to high office in the association. That system is at an end.
The previous President was Ogilvie; a product of two top flight clubs, and nobody has to be reminded of the mess he made when he reached the top job.
A representative of a “big club” is just as likely to make a mess of things as someone from a smaller team, and there is a greater risk of them putting their own club first.
Celtic is right to want a wholescale reform of the game, but if our club attempts to go down the road of creating another self-interested cabal, whether involving only the top flight clubs or by creating an even smaller group than that which runs everything we should be calling bullshit on it.
That’s the kind of thinking that caused this mess in the first place.
No reform will be legitimate unless it includes input and influence from the smaller clubs and I know there are a lot of our own fans, including some of the bloggers, who do not believe that.
It should not dissuade those of us who do from saying so.
Their issue with real democracy is that our club will have to leave something on the table, and whilst we should be highly resistant to those who want to impose handicaps on us for our success, we ought to be willing to make certain sacrifices for the greater good.
We have nothing to fear from financial fair play, full transparency, robust regulations and open processes. We have no reason to be concerned by reforms which promote an equitable distribution of power.
Any scenario which concentrates power in fewer hands would be disastrous. Because things change, and you never know who those hands will belong to in the future.
What are other fan groups saying about restructuring of Scottish football governance?
JC, I personally thought this site was supposed to be focussed on Scottish football in general, not just the goings on at Rangers? If, as you seem to suggest, the site is solely set up to look at Rangers then perhaps the title Scottish Football Monitor is misleading? Here was me thinking all were welcome, and any debate on Scottish football would be encouraged. So when posters post in relation to their own club like Jimbo without an agenda against Rangers they are warned off? A bit of fun or off topic discussions every now and again surely doesn’t do any harm?
With regards the manager comments, it really annoys me how much the media and fans get on the backs of managers who speak their mind. This perma-offended stance we all take when ANY manager of an opposition team speaks out is getting beyond a joke. Rodgers said absolutely nothing wrong by pointing out what he did. Neither do I think Levein was in the wrong for his comments on Brown. Almost every game a manager is criticised for speaking his mind whether it be injuries, referees, luck. Its part and parcel of the game. Yet not a week goes by when the managers are not berated for their opinion – look back earlier this season and Pedro criticised the ref against Hibs at Ibrox and the Hibs fans were outraged. A few months later Lennon criticises a ref at their ground and Rangers fans are outraged. We need to stop being so bloody sensitive as fans.
Anyway, keep fighting the fight Jimbo! (and bring on the thumbsdowners
)
sannoffymesssoitizz
February 20, 2018 at 05:48
I think that we should all commend Michael Stewart for persistently questioning the timing of the BBC Sportsound producers’ bizarre decision to discuss whether other clubs are mounting a title challenge when Celtic had just increased their lead from 8 to 9 points.
========================================
Super Scoreboard was funny last night.
Gordon (presenter) said that it was strange to be so disparaging about Celtic when they had actually extended their lead over the weekend.
Derek Johnston replied, in a somewhat surprised manner, that Rangers had gone from 11 point behind to just 9, in a tone which suggested the lead was now smaller.
Gordon responded that Celtic had been 8 points ahead of the second team at the start of the weekend and on Sunday evening were 9 points ahead of the second team. They had extended their lead at the top of the table.
Things were quiet for a few seconds then they moved on to something else
When does extending your lead at the top become your lead reducing. When you are Derek Johnston presumably.
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 20, 2018 at 01:21
EJ , I don’t have a dog in this fight . I don’t think BR is a particularly outstanding manager . I also don’t understand the need for post-match pressers with managers – listening to Archie is the aural equivalent of watching paint dry . The media are looking for a bone of controversy they can chew on , and keeps them away from doing their proper job . They can point to the storm on social media as justification for their pot-stirring – look , the fans are over it like a rash so it must be pertinent . Television companies have commentators/summarisers at the games . Let’s just have their views . People attending the matches don’t see or hear the stuff anyway , unless it’s shoved in their faces later , and the game’s meant to be about them .
Homunculus
Earlier this morning I started to listen to last night’s SSB podcast on http://podbay.fm/show/307483087
My computer crashed soon after Derek Johnstone started talking.
I was so grateful.
Had the clubs amalgam had the balls to do what they supposedly propose (Daily Mail) in 2012 I would have had a degree of sympathy. This proposal has all the hallmarks of the posse finally riding out of town satisfied at a job well done.
My view is that managers should talk about their own club and team’s performance. However all of them are guilty of doing the opposite from time to time. Unfortunatley we rarely if ever get to see / hear the question they are responding to. Neither do we get to see / hear the questions they reply “you better talk to the other manager about that.”
Interviews are edited to give answers with no context and to remove the parts where they refuse to answer at all.
We see / hear snippets as chosen by the broadcaster / publisher.
Where I think Levein crossed the line with his comment along the line of “Scottish football needs protected from Scott Brown”. It is personal and inflamatory.
If the Celtic manager had said “Scottish football needs protected from Keith Lasley” I would decry him for exactly the same reason. It is entirely different from “The Motherwell team were very aggressive today and the referee should have taken action sooner”.
Singling out one player, not just for their performance that day, but to say that they are an actual threat to other players (in games he probably didn’t even see) is nonsense. It is supporter behaviour, not that of a Manager.
For supporters of teams other than Celtic. How often do you see Scott Brown play, other than when he is playing your own team. You having an opinion on his general discipline and expressing it is entirely different from a top division manager doing it on TV.
The SFA cocked-up. They made a complete mess of the new Scotland manager appointment. Of all the cock-ups the SFA have been involved in over the years, though, it’s one that any FA could make, and many have done and continue to do so. The boards of every member club have all done the same, too.
Yet this one has sparked the sacking of the SFA’s CEO and brought calls for draconian changes at the top of our game.
The thing is, it was a genuine cock-up; not planned, nor part of a cover-up of a number of great wrongs perpetrated by one club, followed by the forcing into the league of a replacement club and all the lies that the SFA, despite never actually supporting in words, have supported in their actions and allowance of the lies to persist.
They have continually failed Scottish football, and even the supporters of the two clubs they have given most undeserving help to, by allowing a continuous march of charlatans up the ‘marble staircase’ without exercising proper governance.
Still, the final straw was the type of cock-up that every, honest, FA makes from time to time, not the participation in the cheating (the cover-up at least, with at least one member of the SFA’s higher echelon a participant, and beneficiary, of that cheating) of the whole of Scottish football.
The whole of Scottish football knew the men at the head of our game were bad ‘uns, but they waited until an honest mistake was made before taking the action that should have been taken years ago when it became clear that a great wrong had been acted upon Scottish football, and the SFA actively covered it up and expensively downplayed it.
And our MSM only allude to the true examples of incompetence, and worse, at the SFA in abstract terms, without actually mentioning what they were, when reporting on this latest turn of events.
paddy malarkeyFebruary 20, 2018 at 09:49
EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 20, 2018 at 01:21EJ , I don’t have a dog in this fight . I don’t think BR is a particularly outstanding manager . I also don’t understand the need for post-match pressers with managers – listening to Archie is the aural equivalent of watching paint dry . The media are looking for a bone of controversy they can chew on , and keeps them away from doing their proper job . They can point to the storm on social media as justification for their pot-stirring – look , the fans are over it like a rash so it must be pertinent . Television companies have commentators/summarisers at the games . Let’s just have their views . People attending the matches don’t see or hear the stuff anyway , unless it’s shoved in their faces later , and the game’s meant to be about them .
__________________
I’m afraid these pressers are all part of the media deals, and also what the sponsors want. It is also easy for the ‘reporters’, as they just have to record what’s said and write it up later, rather than to actually fill the column inches with their own descriptions of the game they’ve just watched. Why the clubs have to give up stand space to match reporters is beyond me, when they seem more interested in what managers have to say than the game itself.
The managers, themselves, are caught at their most vulnerable point having just watched their team either play poorly, and so are looking for a door to kick, or well, and are still ‘high’ and unguarded in what they say.
Personally, regardless of what match it is, I usually turn the game on just before kick-off time, and switch over as soon as it’s finished, for I cannot stand the utter sh*te the vast majority of pundits spout and find the studio ‘balance’ quite ludicrous.
The pressers, and before and after match pundits’ comments, are, of course, a cliché collectors dream!
DarkbeforedawnFebruary 20, 2018 at 08:44
‘…JC, I personally thought this site was supposed to be focussed on Scottish football in general, not just the goings on at Rangers? ‘
_____________
There is one single fact, Dbd, that you seem to overlook: and that is that ‘Scottish football in general’ has been perverted, and is living a lie.
We have a governance body which
permits a new club to claim sporting honours and titles which it did not earn, (thus being allowed in effect to lie to the football world and falsely capitalise on the merits of a club that went out of existence 6 years ago)
and a Governance body which is strongly suspected both of complicity in the cheating over many years by David Murray’s club (now happily deceased in consequence of that cheating) and of conspiracy to slide £millions to that club by the illicit granting of a UEFA competitions licence to which that club was not entitled.
Any return to ‘ordinary’ discussion of everyday football matters has, in my view, always to be seen as being heavily overshadowed by the belief that it might be all wind and p.ss and meaningless because the sport has almost been destroyed by Lies.
Just as some sports were almost killed by drug-using competitors, the monstrous perversion of Truth in our Sport and the grave suspicions attaching to our Governance body are in danger of killing our game.
It is the dearest wish of the baddies that we should all shut up about the cheating and move on, and normalise things and leave the baddies in peace to enjoy their ill-gotten gains.
I resist that.
And I expect others with a genuine desire for a return to Integrity in Scottish Football to do the same.
If the question can be asked ” What is football without the fans ?”still more can the question be asked “What is football without Integrity?”
Why, what else but a rigged mockery of sport, out of which chancers can make money at the expense of the gullible?
Wright responds to RodgersTommy Wright has quashed a potential war of words with Brendan Rodgers by insisting he agrees with the Celtic manager. Rodgers criticised St Johnstone’s players in the wake of the 0-0 draw at Celtic Park, saying they only play in the bigger games. Wright, though, says he took the comments of his fellow Northern Irishman as a compliment. (Daily Record)
Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/rumour-mill-celtic-can-win-europa-league-hearts-loanee-eyes-permanent-deal-plans-to-revamp-sfa-1-4692340
Sannyofmessi
A very interesting article by Hugh McDonald.
At last new thinking, some of which reflects my own on structure and how to go about creating it.
My preference was two bodies with SFA as a provider of services to the SPFL to an agreed standard that could be measured and so managed.
However even if it were a single body, that could work if an internal market was set up on the same service provider customer basis.
What is welcome is that the problem is being recognised and a CEO with the right skills can then be recruited to bring about the necessary changes.
Change management is a skill within itself and I think it is more likely a prospective CEO who loves and understands football will exist outside the game than in it, but as long as the mix is right with emphasis on change skills it will not matter.
Sannyofmessi.
Wright and Rogers. Manager’s Union.
GIRUY Ewan Cameron and Kenny McIntyre.
SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZFEBRUARY 20, 2018 at 11:46
AULDHEIDFEBRUARY 20, 2018 at 12:13
IMHO I think we may have to see how things pan out on the paly -paly NI managers club.
As I have said earlier I don’t think Rodgers said anything that anyone else, including Wright was thinking.
However the St J players may not take to kindly to their manager publicly siding with another clubs manager in criticizing their performance levels.
These things are usually kept within the dressing room. Wright may need to be very canny on this one to keep his players onside as opposed to on the slide.
JC, at no time have I said those subjects should not be discussed. I just thought the site was more than a single issue site, open to all. And when Jimbo gets ostracised for wanting to support his club when it doesn’t meet the agenda you wish I think is limiting the potential appeal to such a site. Recent discussions on the Scotland Manager, the media’s covering of outrageous transfers stories, the ineptitude of Scotland referees, and the controversies over managers speaking their own minds are just a few examples of topics that are related to Scottish Football without necessarily to Rangers. It’s those such issues I choose to come onto the site to discuss. And I think from time to time it’s nice to have off topic posts that serve as light relief.
“AuldheidFebruary 20, 2018 at 12:13
Sannyofmessi. Wright and Rogers. Manager’s Union. GIRUY Ewan Cameron and Kenny McIntyre.”
BR praised St Mirren last year after the cup game, he stated they were the toughest opponents he had played so far in the season, they attacked him for that in fact they went into meltdown and brought in Kris Voyd etc and had a full debate about how can he state a championship team has provided the toughest test, absoloute joke of a show. i heard his comments re St Johnstone and i also heard them praising Sevco to the hilt about title challenge, not a mention of Aberdeen or Hibs. Who is Tam McManus when he is at home i don’t even think he made it onto a panini sticker.
I see Tommy Wright has taken what Brendan Rodgers as being acceptable.
Like I said, my reading of the comments were “If you played like that every week you would win more games” was if anything a positive note. Perhaps one Tommy Wright made himself after the game.
The opposition manager echoing the sentiment would surely not be offensive. Not if the team’s own manager was like minded.
So, something out of nothing really.
Darkbeforedawn
February 20, 2018 at 12:44
===================================
I agree with a lot of that. However I do think really off topic stuff should be kept to a minimum.
I know this is a blog, with a comments section, rather than a forum. However most forums have different sections for different subjects. Most have a “Lounge” for people discussing whatever they want. That is where the “What’s your favourite type of cheese” stuff is usually kept.
There will be other areas, but the central one, the raison d’etre is normally moderated fairly strictly in my experience.
It’s really down to what the administrators want and what is important to them.
HomunculusFebruary 20, 2018 at 13:01
Like I said, my reading of the comments were “If you played like that every week you would win more games” was if anything a positive note. Perhaps one Tommy Wright made himself after the game.
————————————————————-
Wonder if Pep said something like that to the Wigan manager last night? Would Wigan have pulled out a win against lesser opposition. It’s a funny old game.
Saints are not the first and will not be the last team to play above themselves against Celtic (or TRFC). I wish to feck we could do it!!
WOTTPI
Sorry but I think players have a responsibility to be honest with themselves, so unless they think Tommy Wright is out of order in an observation that provokes some introspection in them then they should be doing just that.
Not going in the bloody huff.
If they do they should be chased not enabled by silence.
BLUFEBRUARY 19, 2018 at 15:38
Bogs DolloxFebruary 19, 2018 at 14:40AllyjamboFebruary 19, 2018 at 14:08++++++++++++++++++++++++++++A while back there was a big stooshie about alleged shenanigans at Dunfermline that broke in the press and wasreported to the compliance officer at the SFA. Since then, nothing.Any one know what it was about?Statement from Dunfermline at link. An admission that people in glass houses shouldn’t be lobbing bricks at others who’ve had insolvency events, it seems. I’d have copied the statement in full but Dunfermline have protected it for copyright reasons: https://www.dafc.co.ukstory.php?t=Chairman`s_Statement&ID=10114
==================
I see JJ has picked up on this in his blog today. The Board statement appears to be addressing a different matter and that certain people have access to info of more serious wrongdoing but choose to sit on if.
Developing story?
DarkbeforedawnFebruary 20, 2018 at 12:44
‘…And when Jimbo gets ostracised for wanting to support his club when it doesn’t meet the agenda you wish .
__________
My concern is two-fold, Dbd: first,that this blog be kept from being perceived as a ‘Celtic yah-boo ‘ forum and thus being dismissed out of hand (as the SMSM chaps and chapesses pretend to do), and secondly, while agreeing that the occasional OT subject is useful and possibly necessary from to time, (particularly the ones that raise a smile) too many from the one source , particularly any that might conceivably be seen as ‘Celtic’ flag-waving, or suspiciously like GIRUY-uppery , might encourage a sense of drift into ‘normality’ and weaken the focus on the dastardly deeds of the ‘baddies’.
Homunculus’ post describes my attitude.
And, of course, I have no influence over what the Mods might do: and certainly would not want anyone to be ostracised, least of all jimbo!
Two quick comments.
I don’t know whether, it being topical, Dunfermline lay down to the old Rangers club in the 6-1 match of 2003. Nonetheless, to accuse Derek Stillie of being an Orange Lodge band member, as proof, is out of……er…..order.
And regarding the controversy of clubs commenting on players from other teams, the worst recent example I can recall is that of Celtic a few years ago, producing an article on their official site attempting to sway the SFA into taking action against an opposition player to stop him from being able to take part in a Final match.
Bogs Dollox, I haven’t read the JohnJames stuff but there was clearly a lot of concern about the former owner of DAFC, banker and David Murray associate George Masterton. Lots to speculate on there, the structure of the various companies and trust established by Masterton were dodgy. The statement from the current Chairman that I referred to earlier, was a call to distance the club from all of that, and move forward as best they could. This followed a Chris Sutton-style public call to revisit the 6-1 game.
BLU FEBRUARY 19, 2018 at 15:38
Bogs DolloxFebruary 20, 2018 at 14:22
‘..Developing story?’
___________________
I vaguely remember this was a statement put out by DAFC in justification of their refusal to do what some of their fans(and others) wanted them to do in the matter of the final outcome of the Big Tax case.
I remember in particular that the statement finished with
“..and it is disappointing that everyone cannot focus their energy into looking forward rather than trying to constantly undermine the credibility of our game.”
That was last August.
Now, it strikes me that a club chairman who believes that calling for Truth undermines the credibility of our game while mass cheating over a decade, (possibly connived at by those who should have prevented it) does not, poses more of a threat to our game.
With that kind of readiness to ‘move on’ and refuse to examine the dirt, and the nature and depth of the dirt, under the SFA board-room carpet, the credibility of our game as a clean sport is very much open to question.
SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
FEBRUARY 20, 2018 at 04:53
“Scottish clubs in talks over a secret document proposing a radical revamp of the SFA by the 2020/21 season…”
========================
A few queries jump out at this SMSM ‘briefing’ ;
1) “…secret…” Why?
Whatever new set-up is in place has to start with transparency, IMO.
2) “…20/21…” Why not earlier? Who decided this timeframe ?
Is it just a useful ploy to calm the fans who are seriously p!ssed off with the McLeish appointment?
And just kick the can down the road a couple more years ?
If it’s all secret, then nobody outside the SFA/SPFL and the clubs can criticise the timetable or contents of suggested changes.
3) No mention of the paying customers: the fans of Scottish football ? [As per]
The same 41 clubs who created and supported an incompetent / corrupt SFA & SPFL in the first place – actually believe that they now have all the answers to address fans’ concerns ?
B*llox!
With all the mutterings of a new set-up for Scottish Football Governance, my initial reaction was, at last! we might be getting somewhere. However, having read what has so far been reported as being said, it appears those pushing for change are only doing it for one reason.
££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
Sadly, the clubs, (possibly Celtic apart) all want to move on, rather than clean up the mess left behind over the last 6 years or so. The more they pretend the big lie/cheating issue will go away, the longer it will take them to take the game forward in any meaningful way.
Before they go re-vamping or completely restructuring the game’s governance, they need to get raking over those pesky coals. Correct the mistakes of the past, with suitable punishments and make crystal-clear provisions to avoid them happening again.
I won’t hold my breath though, so until then, I remain out……
FWIW my tuppence-worth on BR’s comments on St J players. I don’t think he should have been drawn in to such comments and was disappointed to read them, although, as has been done, it is possible to draw some positives from his words.
However, this should not be compared with the bitter ramblings from Levein, which were completely out of order, but not unusual for this character. There was nothing in his slating of Brown which could possibly be taken as positive.
John ClarkFebruary 20, 2018 at 15:05
John, I don’t think that the current Board are cut from the same cloth as Masterton and Yorkston – they’re dealing with the reality of to trying to revive a club that nearly died due to the actions of others.
Wishing to bring closure – and peace and light – to the B Rodgers aprés-match comments on the Fake Saints… 🙂
BR said something similar not that long ago about the REAL Saints, after a match at Parkhead in which Jack Ross’s young team went in at HT in a winning position (though, yes, they eventually succumbed)…
No Real Saints fans were hurt in the production of his words. We knew our team and our club and we could see better days were ahead.
The Real Saints have indeed gone on to better things and have continued to improve since Rodgers words were cast in the Paisley direction.
It’s only fitba.
Aye, like the vast majority of boards around the country, they are attempting to keep their heads above the water.
Any time I’ve raised the issue of past cheating with people who run various senior clubs, they respond in the following ways:
a) “It’s a Celtic/Rangers issue”
or
b) “I don’t know anything about it”
or
c) “We can’t afford to get involved, we’d lose out on funding if we did.”
And reason ‘c’ is that most often put forward. Boards have it in their collective minds that the trickle down of television and sponsorship cash would stop if Celtic and ‘Rangers’ couldn’t provide the attraction of four games against each other at least per season to be televised live , and the imagined competitiveness which brings in bookies’ money.
DBD, JC, Thanks for your support but I was out of order. I’m a typical Catholic who when things are bad I turn to Mary. But I shoudnt have posted my songs to her on here. It is about football. I love this site so much, It’s like family. But I overstood the mark. Never forget I love you all. No matter which team you support. I’m going to take a rest.
bluFebruary 20, 2018 at 15:48
‘…John, I don’t think that the current Board are cut from the same cloth as Masterton and Yorkston ‘
__________
I appreciate that fact, blu, and the statement would have been fine , and reflected a degree of credit on the DAFC board for its frankness about their own difficulties ( about which I have to say I’m not at all knowledgeable ) . The last sentence was , perhaps, understandable in all the circumstances , but gave a kind of wrong impression.
DAFC, banker and David Murray associate George Masterton
Reading these names again reminded me.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/compare-and-contrast-administration-for-dunfermline-13-and-rangers-12-a-quick-solution/#more-3391
So , we have the first CL qualifying round on July 10/11 , Europa League first round qualifier on July 12 , the League Cup group stages starting July 14 , the World Cup Final on July 15 , and SPFL fixtures beginning on August 4 . No rest for the wicked .
BLUFEBRUARY 20, 2018 at 15:48
John ClarkFebruary 20, 2018 at 15:05
John, I don’t think that the current Board are cut from the same cloth as Masterton and Yorkston – they’re dealing with the reality of to trying to revive a club that nearly died due to the actions of others.
____________
There may well be a large disconnect between the current board and those involved in darker times at Dunfermline, but that does not excuse their call to ‘look forward ‘ rather than to re-examine the ‘mistakes’ of the past.
If those running all of our football clubs were paying attention, they’d realise that the game can’t move forward until the wrongs of the past are properly addressed, and every effort is made to correct those so obvious wrongs.
GAVIN Masterton.
That is what you get when you cut and paste without checking
🙁
Don’t normaly go to the ot blog but posted a song i like for jimbo incase he is feeling down
Did Mr Murray not actually put Mr Calderwood in the position of manager of Dunfermilne FC.? Strange to say the least, but anything goes with old RFC in Scotland.
Cluster one. Thanks my friend. My heart is honestly breaking. I love this site so much. But I’m an idiot. Jean Brodie is a star.
I’m only going to try and talk about football from now on. For what its worth.
I would miss the ‘Thumbsdowners’
Welcome back Jimbo.
Try to be as compassionate towards yourself as you are to others.
Cyber hugs and cuddles.
They keep me grounded. (TDs)
Cluster, I can’t see your post on the muzak forum ?
Valentines?, that was the word on the street, the perma-tanned Calderwood also claimed as much ( I was also told by someone very much close to the action that he was indeed pencilled in for the Ibrox job but his media performances weren’t deemed suitable of a brown brogue wearer).
Jimbo, posted a couple of music vids on your forum for your delectation my friend. Not just random numbers, songs with meaning and feeling. Give ’em a listen and let yourself hear the song.
Have to say that Paddy’s choice preceding mine is a belter!
I cant help it. Please listen to this guy. It’s all about love.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09r4qdm
Especially the bit at the end. It will break your heart.
OH God those songs were brilliant. Paddy, see the handsome drummer in the first clip? That’s what I looked like 50 years ago!
One more over there for you Jimbo, a little more up to date but no less relevant.
Just in support of my views on Managers’ comments, I heard Neil Warnock on Talksport this morning being critical of Pep Guardiola’s conduct with regard to the match officials at the Wigan cup tie. Warnock suggested that Pep is favoured by the football authorties, who would readily sanction him and other managers for similar conduct.
Substitute other managers or players names and you will get the gist of my view that this type of reaction is widespread across the game, and does not single out specific clubs, managers or players to the exclusion of any others.
On a quiet evening, here’s a refereeing question. At the recent Celtic Hibs game, Charly Musonda was running at the Hibs defence. He attempted to chip the ball through the defence to an on-running Moussa Dembele but the ball hits a Hibs defender on the arm (no penalty given) and the ball is cleared. There was no replay of the incident on the Live broadcast so I guess most people missed what was going on off the ball.
Just as Musonda went to make the pass, Dembele runs past his marker to intercept the pass. However, the chasing marker shoves Dembele in the back to push him into an offside position. Had the pass from Musonda got through and Dembele buried it, what does the referee give? (Obviously I mean a normal referee, not a Scottish one.)
Thank God EJ came back on. I’ve been on the drink since Saturday. Feeling very down. But after tomorrow I will be fine. I’m going to ask EJ what’s happening with the youth football. I thought Celtic had it all sewn up. But AJ told me they are a bunch of scoundrels.
So, I’m off to my kip. Good night EJ & AJ Sannoff, Causy.old BP. Tris. Take care.
Oh and DBD. 
And JC, Auldheid, Homunculus, Up The Hoops, Cluster One, there is so many. Please fotgive me if I’vs missed you out. Oh and Paddy my best mate.
And Shug, Realshocks, Misterlightbulb
First of all, it’s not easy interpreting such a complex and simultaneous series of events for any match officials.
If the assistant referee had not seen the push they would probably have raised their flag to indicate that a Celtic player was in an offside position. Ideally the assistant referee should have made eye contact with the referee before raising their flag but that’s not easy if they were some distance apart such as when play was on the opposite side of the field of play from the assistant.
If the referee had clearly seen that a push by an opponent had put the Celtic player into an offside position they should allow play to continue until either a the ball ceases to be “in play” by crossing the bye line, including the goal line or is saved.
If saved then the referee could either allow play to continue or award a direct free kick to the attacking team.
If the ball had crossed the goal line then the referee has the choice of either awarding a goal or an offside decision. Ideally the referee should consult their assistant referee before giving an offside decision.
All of the above options are subject to the referee’s pre match instructions to their assistants
DBD posted you a song mate on my music forum. Please listen.