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.
CLUSTER ONEJANUARY 22, 2018 at 19:48
O’Neill turns down Scotland job.When the No1 choice turns down the job, the next best option is to go for the under 20s coach.Scot Gemmill please step forward. (Is he still the u20s coach?)(well it’s all the rage these days) the statement will go something like“It is a genuine privilege for me to be made manager. It’s a huge honour to be asked to do so and I will continue to give everything I have to ensure we have a positive campaign.We cannot let our fans down. They have been incredible. and I would like to thank everyone for their backing.”
—————–
Now that the SMSM are running with Scot Gemmill the new 6/4 favourite for Scotland manager’s job can i claim the above as an exclusive?
CLUSTER ONEJANUARY 29, 2018 at 18:22
Are you sure some blogger didn’t post that 3 days later, thereby making it their exclusive ? Is that not how it works ?
As (I like to think) a decent Rangers fan, and a regular poster on fans sites I would like to say there are many many fans like me who would like to see this kicked out of football. Before every away match there are threads of decent supporters asking that the fans behave as singing these songs are only hurting the club. There were threads as recently as Sunday morning asking why the IRA should be relevant in a song in this day and age. Unfortunately the decent fans, of which the majority are, are shot down as ‘easily offrndrd’ And nonsense like ‘they can’t silence us’. I think there needs to be better policing in the game (not just Rangers, as I know the majority on here think) and more repercussions in terms of banning fans from the stadium if they are caught (say a three game ban for first offenders).
PADDY MALARKEYJANUARY 29, 2018 at 18:35
Maybe the SMSM look in on SFM for their exclusives too
—
This one i am passing off as my own
DARKBEFOREDAWN
i’m a celtic fan,i don’t sing ira songs,those songs as much as i don’t want to hear them have not been deemed illegal,there is a world of diifference in wading in fenian blood and wearing a broad black brimmer
And yet another piece of class from the footballing authorities . Rangers v Celtic – 12.00 -March 11th . Mothers Day . Bet somebody else gets the blame .
Tony, it was actually Rangers fans I was meaning! The same fans who criticize Celtic for singing about it. Whether illegal or not I don’t believe it belongs in modern day Scotland. Likewise the billy boys
DARKBEFOREDAWN
apologies if missread,while i agree on the songs,it is worthwhile noting that only one is illegal yet not enforced,hence why fans of other clubs will sing what they want,anyway back to what we do best on here,keeping an eye on the sfa
CLUSTER ONEJANUARY 29, 2018 at 18:42
Only joking , mate . I don’t buy SMSM output ,but I doubt they’d be competent enough to find it so quickly . They can’t seem to find there *rse with both hands on a good day .
I see strict liability being discussed again. I will repeat what I have always said and that is that Scotland is not ready for this. People with the power to make decisions have already shown they are incapable of treating every club equally. Likewise those not in power but with influence. Strict liability would be no different in my view, and like on field disciplinary matters much would depend on what the media chose to highlight and ignore. I suspect some clubs vote against it for that very reason.
So the SS.TRFC is steaming on regardless of the Captain’s impecunity.I presume the officers must once again have had a whip round and managed to meet the crews allowance, but could it be black tot day? Forgive the navy parlance but there must surely have been some agent/signing on expenses to have been met up front and I don’t see the wage bill going down as players sit tight and seemingly no big money offers come in for their players.Can the fans organisation,Club1872,lend money to TRFC? I thought that their charter limited them to buying shares in TRFC.
Ernie, I imagine that like a lot of your support your heart will be ruling your head on a new stadium. If I was an Aberdeen supporter I think I would be excited about this. Just think a brand new 20 thousand seater stadium with much improved training facilities. Something to be proud of. Would meet standards to hold internationals.
It’s seven miles out. That might suit some of your support. I’m sure local bus companies will come to the rescue for a modest fare. As for a dip in attendances I think it could have the opposite effect! Celtic attendances rose significantly when we redeveloped the stadium. There was a waiting list for season tickets.
One problem, I think is it’s not in a built up area like Pittodrie. No local hostelries within walking distance.
Easy! Build two massive match day pubs within the ground. One for Home, one for Away. Make a fortune! Entertainment venues have did it for a century or more.
PADDY MALARKEY
JANUARY 29, 2018 at 16:23
Wrt the pitch invasion, what was to stop the Police and stewards keeping the miscreants on the pitch and leading them off in handcuffs ? Apart from cowardice ? It would have taken 10 minutes and it would never happen again .
================================
Public order and safety.
The Police have to risk assess what would happen if they did what you say. They have to look at the likelihood of things happening and the ramifications if they do. They have to look at how many Officers are there and what would happen if the rest of the support started to intervene. How many would get hurt, what levels of violence would they expect etc.
The Police take the view that the best thing for public safety is to control the situation as best they can, then deal with it later using things like CCTV.
I know quite a lot of uniformed Policemen. I can’t think of one who I would call a coward. Certainly not insofar as confrontation and the threat of physical violence is concerned.
HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 29, 2018 at 20:26
I reckon that Police Scotland would have had a complete ,in-depth risk assessment and the match commander would have the resources required to deal with any contingencies . They had manpower available to stop and search busses en route to the ground . My brother is a recently retired police inspector an I have no doubts about his (their)personal bravery (he did the London riots and G8), but as a force they leave a lot to be desired . He will happily regale you with tales of how he was prevented from doing what he saw as his duty to uphold the law by senior officers for various reasons, including “presentation”-it wouldnae look good on the telly .Are you advocating doing nothing about field invasions, as well as offensive chanting/singing ?The TRFC player involved is on record as saying-
“I thought I died!” Cummings laughed. “Honestly, I didn’t think I was going to get up, I was praying for the coppers to come and get them off of me.
Imagine a player from the opposition team getting the same treatment from TRFC (or other fans ).
Nobody should be allowed onto the pitch from the stands, and should not be allowed to return there if they do .
Welcome to Scotland Charles the Fifth. Home of the Stuarts. (And a few famous Celtic players).
Charlie Tully
Charlie Gallagher
Charlie Nicholas
Charlie Mulgrew
Charly Musonda
Everyone at TSFM wishes you well.
No offence Jimbo, but no they don’t.
Since Celtic are at home to Hearts tomorrow night, I personally hope he suffers a minor and short term injury, perhaps along the lines of injuring his foot by dropping his wallet on it.
Highlander!!! I thought we were friends.
You could have felt happy for me tonight.
Jimbo, we are friends. I only want his injury to last until after the match so he can’t play.
And to think of all the nice things I said about your new stand. The appointment of Ian Cathro (I didn’t know how he would turn out!) Anyway I will forgive you if he scores against you tomorrow night.
ps A name like Highlander – you would think you might have some Jacobite DNA in you!
Talking about my mixed Jacobite and Irish ancestory I feel goaded into posting this even although I should post it on the music forum, needs must. Highlander needs to remember the Stuarts. And all the Charlies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc6rd2Y2cVo
I think the police action/inaction re pitch incursions has been covered before on here. There was a fair chance that arrests under the circumstances which developed yesterday could easily have escalated to the point where the game would have been abandoned. CCTV will now come into play and of course the compliance officer will be all over it like a rash. Won’t he?
P.S. I note from earlier that Clyde SSB managed to skilfully avoid making a big deal about it.
Level 5 quite possibly heavily at work in today’s rags. Apparently Rangers are so well off they can reject bids of £6m for Morelos from an ‘unknown’ Chinese club.
£7m in the headline I read…???
Raking over the old coals this surfaced from the due diligence carried out for Craig Whyte in 2011 before he purchased RFC.
Not a lot has changed in the TRFC business model, sights have been set a little lower but how does that policy of EL cash dependency impact on rivals for an EL place?
——————-
” Historically, the Club’s cost base has been set up such that profitability is only possible with UCL participation. With UCL participation, the Club made an operating profit in FY08 and FY10 of £641k and £5m respectively, however without UCL participation, the Club made an operating loss of £17m in FY09.Were the Club not to have the benefit of revenues arising from UCL participation, we estimate that this would have resulted in operating losses of £14m in FY10.Due to the fact that UCL participation is not guaranteed and that it will be even harder to achieve next season due to changes in Scotland’s UEFA coefficient ranking, we consider it prudent to run the business on the assumption of non participation in the UCL going forward.The Club has been reducing its level of overhead costs over the 3 years to FY10, however these levels still appear to be too high to sustain the business at a breakeven level assuming no UCL participation.The summary projections we have seen show that the Directors have a cost reduction plan in place, where first team player salaries are assumed to decrease to £15m (from an expected £17.8m for FY11) and overhead costs are to decrease by £1.5m from FY12 onwards. The cost reduction plan is intended to lead to the Club operating at breakeven, assuming a minimum of UEL participation. [We have not seen the detailed projections and recommend that further discussions take place with the Directors as to how these proposed cost reductions are to be achieved.]With player wages being the largest single Club expense, we recommend that the scope to further reduce player wages is investigated. This is largely dependent on the length and nature of current player contracts and the balance of minimising player costs with having a competitive playing squad capable of finishing in the top 2 of the SPL.”
—————
The only difference now is that Europa League money is required to make the books balance and with more places available that is likely to happen, but the moral hazard to Scottish football that the SFA CGAF about is what happens in say the games after the cut off and competition for an EL place is tight and not qualifying means a club going into the grubber? We all saw what happened in 2010/11 season with honest mistakes followed by the UEFA Licence fiasco to meet the very business model RFC were being advised to abandon in 2011.
Incorrigible and stupid and a hazard to our game those in charge are happy to risk and one that Celtic have to consider in their planning (which is maybe a reason they got Brendan)
Apparently the £7m offer turned down for Morelos was yet more PR fabrication from a certain portly spinmeister. Surely there must be a law that protects the gullible from swallowing such guff!
Richard Wilson@timomouse
Just to confirm that this is utter BS – The Record link him to Guangzhou. There are Two Guangzhous in the CSL and BOTH are already at their limit of 4 non-Chinese players in the squad. Neither could buy Morelos.
twitter.com/record_sport/status/958232614296608769 …
AuldheidJanuary 30, 2018 at 09:06
‘……We all saw what happened in 2010/11 season with honest mistakes followed by the UEFA Licence fiasco..’
_________
The mention of UEFA licence, Auldheid, brings us back to the question of why the hell the Compliance Officer is dragging his feet on his ‘investigation’?
The idea has been put into my head that he’s been ordered to stay schtum until after 31st March, when it would be too late to alter this year’s licensing decisions, were the findings to be what we know they ought to be.
We have to remember that he is to report to the SFA, not to the world, his investigation not being in any sense an open, independent, public review.
John ClarkJanuary 30, 2018 at 10:58 (Edit)
AuldheidJanuary 30, 2018 at 09:06‘……We all saw what happened in 2010/11 season with honest mistakes followed by the UEFA Licence fiasco..’_________The mention of UEFA licence, Auldheid, brings us back to the question of why the hell the Compliance Officer is dragging his feet on his ‘investigation’? The idea has been put into my head that he’s been ordered to stay schtum until after 31st March, when it would be too late to alter this year’s licensing decisions, were the findings to be what we know they ought to be. We have to remember that he is to report to the SFA, not to the world, his investigation not being in any sense an open, independent, public review.
==================
It is taking a while JC but the Compliance Officer only gathers the evidence (and some might be reluctant to provide it) checks if there has been a breach in regulations, this time UEFA FFP, and makes a case for a Judicial Panel to make a decision on. The Decision the JP made on Craig Whyte in 2012 (that never looked at his non payment of the wee tax liability – now why was that?) was made public, so there is precedent especially as part of the breach covers the period SDM was the major shareholder.
The Judicial Panel Protocol ,that to be fair (but also recognise karma) to Regan who was instrumental in setting up, is on line at
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/judicial-panel-protocol/
Fill yer boots everyone but you’ll love this bit JC.
————————-
2. Founding Principles
2.1 The “Founding Principles” in this Section 2 shall underlie the interpretation and application of this Protocol. In the event of a conflict between a particular provision of the Protocol and the Founding Principles, the particular provision of the Protocol will prevail.
2.2 Principle 1 – Economic and expeditious justice. The objective of the Protocol is to secure the Determination of disciplinary proceedings arising in respect of Association Football and that Decisions are made economically and expeditiously in a fair manner. Tribunals appointed from the Judicial Panel may impose reasonable procedural requirements on Parties to ensure that matters are dealt with economically and expeditiously.
and perhaps less relevant but takes away any excuse to prevaricate further.
2.3 Principle 2 – Decision making in a civil and footballing context. Whilst adhering to the general principles of fairness, and where appropriate, with consideration of underlying principles of law, those submitting to this Protocol acknowledge that these provisions relate to the Determination of matters arising from any breach of the Articles and/or the Disciplinary Rules, which govern the operation of Association Football in Scotland in a civil context, and that Tribunals may make appropriate Determinations in that civil and footballing context.
———————
On your point on the next licence, I think the days of a nod and a wink being good enough for UEFA are gone. Seemingly the last approval for TRFC raised eyebrows at UEFA that were lowered because of Progres. Grant Russell ex STV, would understand why eyebrows were raised.
Proper club licensing is the key to all the issues we debate. A process that is appropriate and relevant to Scotland that takes into account protection of ALL clubs AND the tribal nature of the game here where apparently its ok to misrepresent the truth and cover it up , is what is needed.
It clearly has not existed in the past and a recommendation of a proper JP would be to set up such a trust restoring domestic club licensing system.
Its not rocket science but is apparently beyond the intellect of our media to cover.
HighlanderJanuary 30, 2018 at 10:42
Apparently the £7m offer turned down for Morelos was yet more PR fabrication from a certain portly spinmeister. Surely there must be a law that protects the gullible from swallowing such guff!Richard Wilson@timomouseJust to confirm that this is utter BS – The Record link him to Guangzhou. There are Two Guangzhous in the CSL and BOTH are already at their limit of 4 non-Chinese players in the squad. Neither could buy Morelos.
____________________-
Yet again, an internet bampot shows the SMSM how their job should be done! Well done Richard Wilson (timomouse).
Of course, it also shows just how bad a PR firm Level5 must be, undeniably worse than amateurish, as has been evidenced by RW, for there can be little doubt that this story has emanated from their fatuous fiction factory.
It’s not only the many deadbeat players that TRFC have signed up that have cost them millions, and put them into their loss making status, their choice of outside ‘help’ has been worse than poor throughout their short history. They really must hold the world record for off-field own goals scored, with most of them having been scored by the man brought in, at great cost, to stop them happening
jimboJanuary 29, 2018 at 20:20
Ernie, I imagine that like a lot of your support your heart will be ruling your head on a new stadium. If I was an Aberdeen supporter….
__________________________________________
Jimbo. Good counterpoints to Ernie’s post.
Access to the new stadium is a big point for me. My Dons-supporting pal says Aberdeen FC has a massive out of town support. I can’t vouch for the numbers. But now it is an easy walk (max 30 mins) fae Aberdeen Railway Station & Bus Terminus to Pittodrie. Pittodrie is also on existing King St bus routes, with stops a couple hundred metres fae the stadium.
Have to say that “massive match day pubs” at the location can’t be as good as a last minute pint at the Pittodrie Bar, or a slow couple and a bite of lunch at the Prince of Wales. Even fae the Prince there is plenty time to walk up to Pittodrie after lunch for kick-off. [Other hostelries are available].
When I moved to the NE I started going to Aberdeen games pretty regularly and I never once failed to get a parking space around the beach area or surrounding streets.
I would have liked to see the existing Pittodrie site used but I’m now and I see the merits of the new stadium. Management and players will surely have a fine facility; and I hope it has public facilities too so that there is life around the stadium on non-match days. Westhill must have more than adequate parking for the anticipated crowd, and proper control over parking. Every “football” stadium in the USA can manage parking professionally.
I don’t know what the commercial issues are around Pittodrie re-development but I’ve no doubt a great deal of money to be made by the owners of the site.
Moving “out of town” will have big challenges. There will be no excuse for the Club or Planners saying “Oh, we didn’t think of that”; all access and ticketing issues need to be thought through in detail now, with a proper risk assessment; no good when there are queues somewhere in Aberdeen for buses to Westhill, and an international game about to start.
To be and to feel successful, Aberdeen FC needs:
consistently winning team with some good signings (I remember Charlie Nicholas filled Pittodrie on his debut match);
committed manager and staff (we’ve had our ups and downs);
financial probity (transparency is key);
supporter involvement (some good community elements are in place).
Just a few thoughts from me
Between the £6m for Barrie McKay and the £7m for Morelos it’s difficult to see why Rangers can’t balance the books.
For Heaven’s sake start taking some of these offers and everything will be fine.
With regards to the number of foreign players allowed, I believe it is 5 with only 3 playing in any one game (according to wikipedia).
Dunno bout the thumbs down for Darkbeforeday – cursory look by me shows the same as he wrote.
its clearly BS of the highest order that they’d knock back £7m but actual facts are facts regardless of the deliverer…
Edit: 2018
However, the number of foreign players is reduced from five to four per CSL team in the same time while the total number is reduced from seven to six in the season.[4] The number of foreign players on-field in one match must be no more than the number of U-23 domestic players.
… but thumbsdowners never said that….
Apropos of absolutely nothing.
A trip down memory lane.
Pittodrie next?
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/12-lost-scottish-football-grounds-1-4676510
ernieJanuary 29, 2018 at 17:58
Aberdeen Council approve planning permission for new AFC stadium 32 votes to 9. I personally would prefer to see us remain at Pittodrie or even in the city but nevertheless I hope it goes well. I also hope the AFC fans and public keep a cynical eye on proceedings and remember that this is our local team, the current owners are merely that: current owners. A popular view up here is that this out of town move may result in decreased crowds so it will be interesting to see what happens. A way to go yet though.
—————————————————————–
I tend to agree with you Ernie about the location of the proposed new stadium. Seven miles from town is a long way and I would much rather, if we had to move from Pittodrie (and I’m not sure all the options were fully examined) I would have liked it to be more central. Training facilities could easily have been located on an out of town site. There has always been noises that one of the current owners may have a vested interest but I guess time will tell on that one.
We are where we are however (or maybe not) but there are a lot of unhappy fans as well as unhappy residents of the new site. To me the bigger questions are about why, as the only SPL team in the area we have so few ST holders and such low average attendances at home games. Our away support is fantastic. Relative success in the last few years have improved things a little but surely we can do better.
For talking sake say Celtic’s new signing plays tonight and scores the winning goal and members to the Green Brigade invade the pitch. How would the smsm report it ?
The Green Brigade doesn’t have a history of pitch invasion and I don’t think they’ll organise one just to make a point. For talking sake though, if you were a member of the SMSM, how would you report such an event?
valentinesclownJanuary 30, 2018 at 14:31
For talking sake say Celtic’s new signing plays tonight and scores the winning goal and members to the Green Brigade invade the pitch. How would the smsm report it ?
——————————————————————-
Is this the signing the smsm reported that Celtic beat Real Madrid for his signature? Aye well!
And while I’m on, what about these derisory offers from Celtic for players. Pot kettle and that. And Celtic do have the dosh!
“Naughty Bhoys”
I’m starting to warm to Traynor!
Switched on my PC in the office just now and had a right good chortle at the ‘GBP 7 million offer – and REJECTION’ for a TFC player.
Sooperb!
Traynor’s not even trying now, is he?
Does he have overdue invoices with TRFC…and he’s now just taking the p!ss out of the Ibrox club/company?
And it’s further proof – if ever it was needed – that the DR simply doesn’t look at the nonsense it is told to copy/paste.
Come on Bordersdon, we paid you decent money for Jonny Hayes. And gave you Ryan Christie on loan. Be fair!
Celtic reportedly offered twenty times the £10,000 Motherwell paid 8 months ago and of course they know Celtic have plenty of money so no harm in asking.
I think Mr Milne will take as much notice of Aberdeen fans regarding the new stadium as he did of their objections to cheating !!
He will tell them to move on ?
jimboJanuary 30, 2018 at 14:57
Come on Bordersdon, we paid you decent money for Jonny Hayes. And gave you Ryan Christie on loan. Be fair!
——————————————————-
Jimbo. You paid what was eventually agreed for one of our best players who still had decent time on his contract (JH) and I don’t believe you “gave” us Ryan Christie. No idea what the financial arrangements are on the loan but it is an agreement that benefits all. AFC get a good player, albeit he can’t play against CFC, Ryan gets game time and Celtic arguably get a better player back (if they want him?).
I was referring to the bids for the ‘Well goalie and The Dundee CH. Arguably no different tactics than used by TRFC.
Thanks BordersDon. Most of my posts get thumbs down despite in many cases me agreeing with the majority on here. I think it’s purely down to who I support sadly.
Bordersdon, I agree with you re. JH it was a fair price. Also RC it suits all concerned. I just don’t think we are skinflints. I refer you to Gerrybhoy’s post above. As an opening offer of 20x what Motherwell paid for him in the summer seems fair to me.
Besides, being compared with TRFC in any shape or form especially in finance matters will always rankle with me.
BORDERSDON
he was a £10,000 keeper,although i wouldn’t sign him i think 10x your value is ok,at least it wasn’t £10,000 the noo and £90,000 spread over 3 years,i’d rather take boruc on loan till may
While the Morelos story appears to be just made up mince, just like mine (I’m in the process of making spaghetti bolognese for tea), it should serve to remind us all that Rangers are actually just one big transfer away from balancing the books. They just need to get lucky with one bargain basement signing, who turns out to be decent, and it could transform their finances.
Easyjambo, I would argue we could have been there had we had a bit more common sense in the transfer market instead of going for marquee signings. Imagine if since 2016 we had not bought any of:
O’Halloran
Dodoo
Kranjar
Barton
Sendoros
Pena
Hererra
Cardosa
Rossiter
Alves
All the above were bought when we could barely afford them, were paid huge wages and delivered the sum of FA to the team.
If transfer fees are to believed that cost Rangers the best part of £7m and I would hate to think what in wages.
EASYJAMBOJANUARY 30, 2018 at 17:0
While the Morelos story appears to be just made up mince, just like mine (I’m in the process of making spaghetti bolognese for tea), it should serve to remind us all that Rangers are actually just one big transfer away from balancing the books. They just need to get lucky with one bargain basement signing, who turns out to be decent, and it could transform their finances.
___________
While for most other club’s the same outcome would lead to them reporting a healthy profit for the year with zero debt, and a credit balance in the bank. TRFC’s problem is that it has to be a windfall of these fanciful proportions, while just about every other club can benefit nicely from a more realistic windfall sale. TRFC have the added problem that their supporters would not be happy if the bulk of the fee was not used to win the league!
Sadly this is very much true. If at least 75% of it was not reinvested straight back into the first team squad there would be an uproar.
ALLYJAMBO
that’s the problem mate,they still think they are rangers 1872
EJ, Talking about mince, there is a great butchers not too far from Tynecastle. Bains, Stenhouse Cross. They sell the best pies sausage rolls bridies I ever tasted. Used to go there often at lunchtime when I worked nearby. Often queued out the door at lunchtime but not long to wait.
Hampden & Murrayfield still in the frame for the National stadium post 2020.
Charly Musonda Junior (21) mag zich komend anderhalf jaar op huurbasis bewijzen bij Celtic. Hij arriveerde gisteren in Glasgow voor zijn medische testen en tekende nadien zijn contract. Celtic betaalt bijna 6 miljoen euro aan Chelsea, huursom plus anderhalf jaar loon (3,5 miljoen euro). Musonda verdiende op Stamford Bridge al 45.000 euro per week.
jimbo January 30, 2018 at 17:43
EJ, Talking about mince, there is a great butchers not too far from Tynecastle. Bains, Stenhouse Cross. They sell the best pies sausage rolls bridies I ever tasted. Used to go there often at lunchtime when I worked nearby. Often queued out the door at lunchtime but not long to wait.
========================
I know the place, but have never used it. The best pies I’ve come across were from a butchers not too far away in Carrick Knowe, but I think he retired a few years ago.
AllyjamboJanuary 30, 2018 at 17:22
EASYJAMBOJANUARY 30, 2018 at 17:0″ it could transform their finances.” ___________
“supporters would not be happy if the bulk of the fee was not used to win the league!”
___________________________________________________________________
EJ, AJ.
I feel we should be mindful of the days of Green, when £70M reportedly found it way into various pockets.
There are those who have recently loaned money and will wish to get “their money” back; who and how, I don’t know. Swap loans for equity? What does that get you?
EASYJAMBO
JANUARY 30, 2018 at 17:56
Hampden & Murrayfield still in the frame for the National stadium post 2020…
================================
So, the Press Release confirms that the SFA has decided not to make a decision?
“…the Board also received supplementary information drawn from a spectrum of other key stakeholders, including the SFA membership…”
As a key stakeholder, were the paying punters asked for their views on the preferred stadium option[s]?
[I only seem to remember an online blog or newspaper poll, which IIRC, had 90+% respondents NOT wanting to retain Hampden.]
There are many comments on here about poor standards of reporting. Most criticism is aimed at newspapers and BBC Scotland. For some reason STV doesn’t seem to feature. Maybe that’s because apart from virtually never showing any football, what it does have on is invariably English despite its name.
Tonight it lead with the Hampden story but when it came to its Sport Section the football part was all about Morelos and his value to “Rangers”. Absolutely no mention of any transfer activity both, Celtic and Aberdeen want or maybe need a Goalkeeper before tomorrow night’s deadline and Hibs are waiting on International clearance to play new loan signing Kamberi tomorrow against Motherwell. No mention either of the fact that there is a Premier League match and 2 Cup replays on tonight. Poor, poor fare from STV.
Sorry Ballyargus, but STV did feature the Motherwell manager on CFC’s bid for his goalkeeper & also mentioned that CFC played HoMFC tonight. No mention of the Cup replays, though.
Murty’s presser was the highlight of course. The Auchenhowie Kool-Aid must be up there with the Lee Wallace breakfast as ‘top of the range’. Shouty Sheelagh’s interrogation of ‘Murts’ should be used as an example on journalism courses…
Good point Ballyargus, STV never come to mind when I think of football and the media. They are a non event.
BTW does STV news not split between West & East Scotland at some point? Or something like that? Perhaps different coverage.
AllyjamboJanuary 30, 2018 at 17:22 EASYJAMBOJANUARY 30, 2018 at 17:0While the Morelos story appears to be just made up mince,
—————————————————–
Like the Dembele ones then? £20M etc.
easyJamboJanuary 30, 2018 at 17:56
‘..Hampden & Murrayfield still in the frame for the National stadium post 2020.’
________
Is it just me, or, prescinding entirely from the arguments for or against the merits or demerits of a move from Hampden,does anyone else think that as a ‘Press Statement’, the SFA’s statement is piss poor?
Clearly whoever wrote it could not see the idiocy of stating that a meeting to “consider a comprehensive [my bold] Options Review report” went on to demonstrate that the review was anything but ‘comprehensive’!
They appear to have neither the savvy to avoid making a b-lls of things nor the humility and honesty to admit to having made a b-lls of things, nor the grace to apologise accordingly for their lack of awareness ,or contemptuous disregard of, the depth of public feeling (as expressed by football supporters and by Glasgow city Council) on the subject of moving from Hampden.
It is as though, as a business, the SFA thinks they are unique among businesses in not having to pay heed to their customers.
Quite extraordinary!
I tell you, if the SFA was not as I believe it to be, I would be pitching for the job as their PR man!
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 30, 2018 at 15:22
. Aye right!
Thanks BordersDon. Most of my posts get thumbs down despite in many cases me agreeing with the majority on here. I think it’s purely down to who I support sadly.
————————————————————-
We will always get pelters on here from some posters if we dare to say anything remotely critical of Celtic. It’s no a Cellic site tho
I wouldn’t bother about thumbs down if I were you. If I bothered I would have left the site ages ago. I usually find it quite funny. As soon as you mention TDs you will get loads. I suppose there is some humour in it.
For the few who take it seriously, you have got to remember they don’t have the wherewithal to actually post a counter argument. Regardless of which team you support. I should know!! Ha Ha (No smileys available on Edit!)
Bordersdon what’s your problem?
Celtic have generated more money from the Champions League for Aberdeen than the SPFL through TV deals over the last 5/6 years – every post you make has a dig at Celtic fans.
Why don’t you contact your board or the football authorities about all this anger you have?
JOHN CLARK wrote, JANUARY 30, 2018 at 21:52
I’m thinking the SFA deem their press release as ‘comprehensive’ because they’ve dealt, in their eyes, with the thorny problem of two clubs making submissions concerning issues for 2020 which they might see as detracting from the support these same two clubs are seeking re proposals for changes in the leagues commencing in less than six months time.
Then there is plenty of time to review the National Stadium problem.
But I might be a cynic.
TONY!!!
Just seen your wee picture thing on UTube. Four Leaf Clover.
Lovely football song. FOOTBALL SONG.
bordersdonJanuary 30, 2018 at 22:06
‘…We will always get pelters on here from some posters if we dare to say anything remotely critical of Celtic. ‘
____________
I think an analysis of comments made on this blog would show that the only posts that get anything like ‘pelters’ are those that seem to be in some way trying to give aid and comfort to SDM’s dead team and to the ‘new’ TRFC Ltd and the Big Lie generally.
I will say, though, that in recent times, I have noted some posts that put me in mind of particular, partisan blogs of a ‘whataboutery’ nature.
I don’t like those posts . They are a distraction.
In my opinion, this is not a blog for partisanship , or support or discussion of or on behalf of particular football club allegiances.
It is about emphasising and keeping in mind the necessity of digging out the truth about the lies and deceit of one particular football club owner-a deceit from which all of Scottish Football suffered, and continues to suffer from, arising from the vain, empty claims and boasts of a 5-and-a-bit-year old club, supported by a bent and deceitful ‘Governance’ body.
Anyone who appears to be even implicitly defending that deceit has , in my view, no place on this blog.
Nor has anyone whose aim is to deflect the truth seekers.
SDM cheated us. CW followed. RFC died in consequence.
The SFA threw sporting integrity out of the window by failing to deal properly with that whole dirty mess.
This blog (I believe) is not about petty point,”whataboutery”- scoring, but in seeing that that the guilty are brought to book.
And, basically, is about football truth.
Unjust, unfair, disproportioned attacks on any football club are properly to be challenged.
And this blog has, I believe, a great record of posters being ready to acknowledge ,after some research, that they got facts wrong, or made unwarranted assumptions.
And most of us ,I think, can smell sh.te, and if it is our own, have the grace to acknowledge it.
Remember: the ‘enemy’, in the context of this blog (as I understand it) is the SFA, and the insidious nexus of connections that allowed that governance body to believe that sporting integrity had to be sacrificed in order to save a cheating club, and that they could get away with it!
They have not, of course.
And they will not, simply cannot, get away with it
.
And! they know it.
I read a reply from Auldheid today on CQN about Celtic’s actions and intent over the events of the past decade or so regarding Rangers, TRFC, the SFA.
He has to do that a lot. He is asked to explain Celtic’s actions or inactions about everything. As if he could fully do that – for various reasons.
As a standard bearer for Res. 12 etc. I think, if I may paraphrase, he has sometimes found it a bit wearisome? was it worth it all?
I found it a bit thought provoking. The same goes for JC, EJ and many others on here.
Not really sure what my final point is but it’s something along the lines of, for all the faults on the blogs and other hurdles, don’t be disheartened. We need you folk. Your day will come. Remember RTC, he was gutted after the FTTT. But he was right in the end.
Bordersdon
It really is very tiresome when the old chestnut ‘Celtic site’ gets rolled out.
If you define a Celtic site as one where the majority of posters are Celtic fans, there are days when that would be correct.
If you are suggesting that the site editorial is Celtic-facing, then you are factually incorrect.
I don’t know what point you seek to make with the ‘aye right’ remark either, and if you feel that level of contempt for us all, what do you hope to achieve by taking part?
Tris and I have been helping to run this site for over six years, always trying to make it as inclusive as possible, making it as non-partisan as possible. It is really frustrating to hear that one of the guys (who has for a good number of those years taken advantage of the platform) display so little respect for the rest of us.
This not a Celtic site, and to be honest, I can’t be bothered trying to persuade you of that since you appear hell-bent on shoehorning your own preconceptions into what we do.
Apologies to the rest of you for the rant, but I am heartily sick of this pish.
GERRYBHOY67JANUARY 30, 2018 at 22:35
Celtic have generated more money from the Champions League for Aberdeen than the SPFL through TV deals over the last 5/6 years
——————————————–
OK ok we are really really grateful honest.
I can understand Big Pinks frustration with some other clubs fans views of this site but not a lot you can do without over the top moderation.
I come on here to read the likes of Auldheid and the Hearts chaps input. I just ignore the obvious Celtic minded pish.
There will be nobody happier than me if the truth comes out and Murray,Ogilvie etc are held responsible for their actions.
From just a quick look on the web to get a general idea (feel free to correct/ignore) I think the CL solidarity payments for the last 6 seasons are maybe £1.5m, £0.04m, £0.04m, £0.4m, £1.8m and £4m.
I’m really not an arithmetic/maths person…. but this would give a total of £7.78m to be distributed amoungst the other top flight clubs over that timescale. So rounding up that would be about £1.3m per season, over each of the last 6 seasons, split 11 ways.
Celtics involvement in the CL over 5/6 years would have be worth circa £0.12m annually to each club. Welcome, for sure, but worth more than TV deals over an equivalent period?
GERRYBHOY, are my figures way off?! I couldn’t find anything for the broadcast deals what were your figures?
BP I fully accept that the site editorial is NOT Celtic-facing and don’t have a problem with the majority of posters being Celtic supporters. It is when some posters use the site as they would a Celtic site I get riled. Some are eager to soak up every rumour, however outrageous, from every dubious source of the impending implosion of TRFC for example. Personally I hope they do implode but have opined here before that I don’t believe they will and I’m not sure that the fixation with the issue by some posters on here does the site’s credibility any good.
As JC says: “Remember: the ‘enemy’, in the context of this blog (as I understand it) is the SFA, and the insidious nexus of connections that allowed that governance body to believe that sporting integrity had to be sacrificed in order to save a cheating club, and that they could get away with it!”
I can second BILL1903’s comment that “There will be nobody happier than me if the truth comes out and Murray,Ogilvie etc are held responsible for their actions.”
Sorry if my lack of clarity upset you in the wee hours!
Bill1903, in one sentence you confirm what my old granda told me way back in the 1960’s. He told me that there are only two types of football supporters in Scotland, Celtic supporters and anti-Celtic supporters.
“I just ignore the obvious Celtic minded pish”
There you go, no mention of the obvious Rangers or Sevco minded pish. Does that quantum of pish sit alright with you? Certainly sounds so.
And don’t bother answering because your opinion means nought to me.
From STV report (March 2017):