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.
Sorted. Thanks mate.
This is for my friend Scottc. and his wee pussy cats. Scott loves the technical aspect of music. As I do. Listen to this Scott.
Clever, eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItSJ_woWnmk
Scottc, Funny Funny show. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012gpr4
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 1, 2018 at 00:08
From ‘Rangers TV’, I mean the BBC. Seems some naughty people are out to unsettle the Ibrox club’s hottest player. Here’s a clue Mr Murty, look south of the equator for the culprit in chief, and up a level for the puppeteer! The last line is a peach
Morelos ‘confused’ by big money China offerRangers manager Graeme Murty wants “confused” striker Alfredo Morelos to stay and fulfil his potential at Ibrox following interest from China.The 21-year-old Colombian is wanted by Beijing Renhe just six months after arriving in Glasgow from HJK Helsinki.
But Murty confirmed that he has no intention of losing his top scorer.“He is confused at the minute because there are figures being bandied about which would turn anyone’s head,” said Murty.“It’s almost designed to confuse and unsettle.”
================================
Morelos may well end up an £8m player in future years, however this story is in my view utter fantasy. It would appear not once did any media outlet attempt to contact any of the three Chinese clubs they were quoting. Every time a bampot showed how he couldn’t sign for one club they just moved onto another. As I also read given the rules on Chinese transfers it would have cost a buying club £16m in total as some money has to go to a common fund and there is also tax to be paid. A quote appeared online last night allegedly from the owner of the latest club mentioned stating he did not know where the rumours are coming from. We could help him with that!
However, as I’ve said before their PR works in terms of who they need to believe it. As it stands this morning it is now an accepted fact that:
1. Morelos was the subject of an £8M bid.
2. Rangers are well off enough to reject that bid.
3. Morelos will be sold for a far higher figure in the summer.
For me you can’t go from a reported £1.2m fee to £8m by only scoring against mostly bottom six clubs. In that case there are many players worth that fee. You have to prove yourself in Europe and at International level as well. Leigh Griffiths has had half Morelos game time but is only three goals behind him. Griffiths also has Champions League and International goals on his record. Would any Scottish journalist contest Griffiths is worth £8m? I doubt it. On the Morelos basis would they have said Motherwell should have got £8m for Louis Moult? I doubt it. They are utterly shameful.
The PR from Ibrox just gets nuttier, and if we were daft enough to ever believe anything that emanates from them, then we must surely all be just as confused as Morelos reportedly is at this moment. I’ve repeated the short article here:
“Morelos ‘confused’ by big money China offer
Rangers manager Graeme Murty wants “confused” striker Alfredo Morelos to stay and fulfil his potential at Ibrox following interest from China.The 21-year-old Colombian is wanted by Beijing Renhe just six months after arriving in Glasgow from HJK Helsinki.But Murty confirmed that he has no intention of losing his top scorer.“He is confused at the minute because there are figures being bandied about which would turn anyone’s head,” said Murty.“It’s almost designed to confuse and unsettle.”
So, basically, what the Ibrox PR machine expects people to believe is:
1) At least one, but it could have been two, or maybe three, Chinese football clubs were offering silly money for TRFC’s top scorer, with 12 goals in half a season in Scottish football.
2) The name of that club changed as facts on Chinese football were uncovered.
3) No member of the SMSM contacted the clubs mentioned to check out the story.
4) TRFC’s finances were in such good health they didn’t need to accept an offer that reached as high as £8m.
5) That a Chinese football club, prepared to spend £8m on a player, wouldn’t look to achieve maximum publicity in their own press, and that that could be kept out of our own media.
And now they expect us to believe:
6) That Morelos is confused and upset by it all (this may, in fact, be the nearest thing to the truth that’s been said).
7) That Morelos’ agent didn’t know anything about it (or if he did, he wasn’t keeping his client in the loop).
8) That, despite the story apparently coming from Ibrox sources, that someone is trying to undermine TRFC!
In my opinion, the aim of this part of the TRFC PR campaign was/is to:
1) Alert potential buyers (if there are actually any) to the availability/existence of Morelos, particularly potential buyers in the English Championship. It might also have been hoped that this ‘news’ would have been covered more widely in England and created interest in more of TRFC’s players.
2) Give the impression that TRFC have a very valuable player that they are keen to hold on to.
3) Give the impression the financial reality at Ibrox is not reflected in their accounts.
4) End it with a ‘TRFC are the victims of some fiendish plot’ story.
What they have managed to do though, is:
1) Show that the temporary manager is just as gullible as he already appeared.
2) Thoroughly embarrass any member of the SMSM who so readily accepted this story without question, particularly if they don’t now point out how ludicrous it was, assuming any of the Scottish media have the self awareness to be embarrassed.
3) Raised the question of why did they consider this story necessary!
Lastly, this story isn’t at an end, for the Chinese window still has the rest of this month to go. I wonder, though, if the PR machine will continue to ‘undermine’ Morelos/TRFC with ever increasing ‘offers’, or if they think it’s all over, and that none of us will be aware that it isn’t!
sannoffymesssoitizzFebruary 1, 2018 at 00:36
I’d read a tweet from Barnsley FC before I made that post on the subject, but couldn’t find it later on (I was at work, only had my tablet and a dodgy wifi connection, with occasional things like ‘work’ to do
), so decided that maybe it had been a spoof, so posted no more
In the end it didn’t matter, and, thankfully, TRFC don’t need a replacement for Morelos who can now be de-confused by the SMSM
Poor lad, one minute being led to believe he’s worth £75K a week, the next he’s warming a bench in Fraserburgh!
I note my post yesterday re the possible reaction of the Celtic minded on the site Versus others on the site to certain posts gathered an almost even balance of thumbs up / Thumbs down
WOTTPI
JANUARY 31, 2018 at 10:18
51 Thumbs up 53 Thumps Down
Which I would like to think proves the argument I put forward.
When I was originally posting I was going to stick in a PS saying ‘careful how you vote as it will either prove or disprove my argument’. However I chose not to, just to see how the unsolicited votes would go.
As an olive branch can I say, while I still think taking all the best talent to Celtic is not always to the benefit of Scottish football in general, fair play to the Hoops for paying what is reported to be a club record transfer to Dundee for Hendry. Clearly a good bit of business for both parties, done on the quiet and professionally with little or no nonsense.
Like many others, I recently enjoyed the TV documentary on Third Lanark.
I knew that the club had gone out of business in 1967 but hadn’t been aware that a reformed Third Lanark had returned to play at Cathkin Park in 1996 as an amateur club.
Which begs the question, if a football club is an immortal and metaphysical construct, capable of being owned just like any other business, as claimed by our football authorities, when can we expect those football authorities to confer Third Lanark’s 1903/04 league title and 1889 and 1905 Scottish Cup triumphs to the reformed club? If a club is indeed immortal and incorporeal, then surely a short period in abeyance makes no difference to the survival of the club?
After all, Third Lanark seem to satisfy all the qualifying conditions that allowed The Rangers Football Club (formerly Sevco) to be bestowed with all the titles and trophies of its defunct predecessor.
Gretna 2008 play their home Lowland League matches at Raydale Park, in the same colours and in front of largely the same supporters as their predecessor club, which died the death of liquidation in 2008. The new club has not had the audacity to demand to be treated as the old club and wouldn’t have the temerity to pretend it could somehow ‘purchase’ its intangible history.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t believe either the current Third Lanark or Gretna 2008 are entitled to claim the history of their predecessor clubs, whose bankruptcy resulted in their demise. I’d just love for the football authorities to explain in detail what sets Rangers apart from those two clubs, preferably without using the phrases, money money money, hey presto, or abracadabra!
A good article on E TIMS on what Regan hasn’t done.
http://etims.net/?p=12446
BBC reporting SFA Board considering his performance on the issues E Tims raise.
His departure for whatever reason should remove a barrier to correcting wrongs and open the door for supporter input on fairer governance.
AULDHEIDFEBRUARY 1, 2018 at 10:35
A good article on E TIMS on what Regan hasn’t done.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
I am no fan of Regan.
But fair play to him, he has played a blinder to get close enough with enough of the club heads like Petrie, Milne, Lawwell etc. to be bullet proof*.
Bullet proof* that is until the inner sanctum of club chairmen maybe need a scapegoat one day and then he’ll be given a gold starred package, in time honoured fashion, in conjunction with his non disclosure agreement.
He’ll never resign and I don’t think he’ll ever be sacked.
However I don’t and can’t believe the SFA and their governance of our game is unfit for purpose because of Mr Regan.
He’s just the over-remunerated chairmen’s puppet and they all control him from behind the safety and anonymity of the SFA’s labyrinthine committee structures.
Our chairmen don’t want change.
They pay lip service (at best) to fan involvement and views.
And despite fan revenues still being the largest item on most income sheets simply see us as revenue fodder.
Great analyses upthehoops February 1, 2018 at 07:24 and Allyjambo February 1, 2018 at 09:44
Andrew Smith is getting unwarranted pelters from fans for his in today’s Scotsman for a headline and first paragraph that is most likely to have been written by a sub-editor or editor.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/graeme-murty-i-have-final-say-on-alfredo-morelos-future-1-4679314#comments-area
The salient point of his article is in my opinion as follows (my emphasis in bold type)”
“The Ibrox manager cast doubt on suggestions that Chinese club Beijing Renhe had made a £7 million offer for the striker, with the window in that country not closing for another month. Morelos was left on the bench for last night’s fourth-round tie, but Murty said this had nothing to do with the speculation over his future. However, he conceded the striker had been affected by suggestions a ten-fold salary increase was waiting for him in China were Rangers to allow him to move on only six months after he arrived in Scotland in a £1.5m deal from HJK Helsinki.
“It would take me okaying it for him to be sold,” said the Rangers manager. “So if he’s sold, it means I’ve okayed it. Other than that, he won’t be going anywhere. He is confused at the minute because there are figures being bandied around that would turn anyone’s head. How real they are, I’m not sure. It’s almost designed to confuse and unsettle.
sannoffymesssoitizzFebruary 1, 2018 at 12:55
“It would take me okaying it for him to be sold,” said the Rangers manager. “So if he’s sold, it means I’ve okayed it. Other than that, he won’t be going anywhere. He is confused at the minute because there are figures being bandied around that would turn anyone’s head. How real they are, I’m not sure. It’s almost designed to confuse and unsettle.
________________________________________________________
Hmm.. its almost as if they want him to go. Confident in the belief that the new loanees will get the goals Morelos scores and more but will be far cheaper.
Its very unfair on the player that he has to be made part of a PSYOP operation to get rid of him. I hope Fraser at the PFA is keeping an eye on this one.
sannoffymesssoitizzFebruary 1, 2018 at 12:55
It would appear the TRFC PR machine just couldn’t stop itself from using the same tactics, on behalf of a fictitious Chinese club, that they use on any club their club is trying to pressure into a sale on the ‘wait for the first payment of a deal on the never, never’!
The thing is, and I know most of us will already have an answer, the SMSM should be asking the question why? Why are TRFC using this, so obvious, PR tactic, and what do they hope to gain by it? They don’t have to actually approach a director of the club, they should be able to put an article together that makes a pretty good attempt at an answer, or string of answers, and start to make the bears think. They should also be asking why neither the SFA nor the SPFL is asking the same questions – directly of TRFC.
I suspect, though, that the inferred narrative, inferred because most likely no one will spell it out, will be that some hack made it all up, just to sell his newspaper, and an over-zealous media just went along with it. TRFC, Morelos and Murty will all be the victims. Of course, a duped media were just as much the victims as anybody else, though also guilty for their continued acceptance of Level5 p*sh.
There is a far bigger story for the SMSM in the search for the answer to ‘Why?’ than ever there was in the notion that a Chinese club really did fancy buying Morelos!
Bogs Dollox February 1, 2018 at 13:26 I agree.
This psychological abuse of an employee is likely to breech employment law passed to protect employees from bullying and harassment by employers.
PFA Scotland should be in touch with the player / his agent and use it’s international contacts to establish
1. what truth – if any – was there of interest from any Chinese Super League club(s)
2. if not, from whom the story originated
3. what steps the employer has / will be made to ensure that no other employee is subjected to this abuse
Murty has set himself and his players against the strategy employed by King and Traynor. Which way will the smsm jump, with their team or with the PR? Is this enough to give them the excuse and the backbone to stand up to future attempts to make fools of them? It’s a pity Murty didn’t make these observations a week or two ago, then we would know. Do they have long enough memories to remember this at the next transfer window?
BBC now reporting that source close to the Peepils Republic of China club says they did not make any offer.
How long before we see the headlines (a la Barton, Mackay, Miller & O’Halloran) telling us Morelos is training with the U20’s because of a poor attitude, unsettled mind, lack of commitment etc etc?
Gone in a few months time to a Championship side or following Pedro to Mexico on a free agent/mutual agreement type deal.
Tick Tock!!
Helpumoot February 1, 2018 at 14:31
BBC now reporting that source close to the Peepils Republic of China club says they did not make any offer.
—————————————————–
Why just a source close to the club and not the club itself? Surely BBC Scotland could simply have looked up its telephone number on the Internet – or would poor Kheredine have had to contact too many Chinese clubs to quash the rumour? Anyway, it is nice and convenient for him to let the lie prosper and only break the news after our transfer window has slammed shut. The whole of the SMSM could have done so in 5 minutes flat had they wanted to. These shameless hacks can now happily move on to another PR exclusive knowing that their blushes have been spared and with a good job done for King.
China Syndrome well and truly in operation now. Kheridine sends out retraction – “despite what I was told from China”
https://twitter.com/bbckheredine/status/959081429417283584
I note that BBC Scotland’s Andy Murray correspondent has now retracted his earlier Tweet re Beijing Renhe’s bid (or, as he writes, ‘bids’) of squillions for Morelos.
‘@BBCKheredine 35 minutes ago
An apology to @RangersFC : despite what I was told from China, there was indeed a multi-million euro bid, indeed bids, from Beijing Renhe for striker Alfredo Morelos, with varying options for how it would have been structured. This retracts, and corrects my previous tweet.’
Incidentally, Mr. Murty, you’ll have to accept that your players will be unsettled by other clubs’ interest, particularly when it’s heavily featured in the media.
You’ve proved it to be a reasonably successful way to conduct business yourself, haven’t you?
Just to finish, a couple of Chinese proverbs:
‘To tell only half the truth is to give life to a new lie.’
‘One man tells a lie, dozens repeat it as the truth.’
JJ @ 15.50
Have you ever seen anything as pathetic as that retraction from @BBCKheridine – he obviously wandered off piste & got his knuckles rapped for straying dangerously close to the truth behind this farce – stick to tennis , son .
‘New balls, please!’ Tweets BBC Scotland’s tennis correspondent…
So Regan has resigned at long last.
I suppose the treatment of Morelos is a further indication of how TRFC regards its staff. Must be an awful working atmosphere ?
It would seem reasonable that Morelos didn’t know in advance about what was really going on – and was used simply as a ‘tool’ to generate some wildly positive PR.
I’m sure he and his agent know now exactly what happened – and I wouldn’t be happy at all if I was in Morelos’ position.
And the other squad players can see what happened, and make their own opinions.
A dignified club?
This unsettling / confusing PR fantasy is not exactly going to engender harmony in the dressing room either.
Oh well, nevermind.
When you think of the things that have happened and Stewart Regan has hung on without a blush whatever has triggered his resignation must be a belter.
Unless the BBC report of his resignation is retracted…
EJ@16.26
Re Regan resignation
Wonder if Compliance Officer’s findings have anything to do with this ?
From Phil prior to @bbckheredine’s recant.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/02/01/opening-a-window-on-sevco/
No doubt as a professional sports journalist (
) Kheredine will be able to confirm what actual documentation from Beijing Rhene convinced him that they had received “several bids for Morelos”?
NAEGREETIN FEBRUARY 1, 2018 at
16:31EJ@16.26
Re Regan resignation
Wonder if Compliance Officer’s findings have anything to do with this ?
=================
I was thinking along those lines too.
EASYJAMBO
FEBRUARY 1, 2018 at 16:26
So Regan has resigned at long last.
=========================
Surprisingly, I just feel “Meh”.
Now watch Regan get pelters for everything in the SMSM – including ‘his‘ mismanagement of RFC/TRFC, etc.
Nobody else – and no other clubs – were to blame…at all.
However, Regan’s removal is a small step in the right direction for Scottish football.
Scapegoat or scoundrel?
Both.
I wonder if the bookies will take a bet on a certain Andrew Dickson replacing Mr. Regan?
Some may say he’s the perfect fit…
Easyjambo et al
Re: Regan’s resignation: It’s not the monkey we should concern ourselves with it’s the organ grinders who remain in situ, so I don’t take much comfort of this mouthpiece moving on. He will do so with a nice payoff and non-disclosure undertaking – much to the relief of the present incumbents. We will still have El Presidente, Bryson & Co to maintain the thin Blue line. No doubt a very ‘careful’ selection process for a new CE is underway as I type.
JINGSO.JIMSIE
FEBRUARY 1, 2018 at 16:43
I wonder if the bookies will take a bet on a certain Andrew Dickson replacing Mr. Regan.
Some may say he’s the perfect fit…
===============================
That’s NOT funny JJ…and don’t give the blazers any ideas.
Mibbees Gordon “I know nothing about anything” Smith is available for a return?
I said at the time of the South American friendly announcements that they were so stupid that he HAD to be throwing himself under a bus. When DOES the Compliance Officer publish his report on the SFA/SPL/SPFL/RFC Corruption and collusion in 2011/2012?
With one of the main reasons for the existence of the SFA, the Scottish football team, managerless and in disarray, what sort of a man, who lays claim to have been devoted to the business concern he ran, would leave of his own volition leaving this mess behind? Regardless of the fact it’s unlikely he’d be much help, his ilk don’t like to leave under a cloud of much publicised failure. Interestingly, too, there’s no mention of him taking up a position elsewhere, nor any reason, at all, given for his decision to leave. There can be little doubt he’s been given no choice other than to go.
I do hope, and suspect, it’s because of what the Compliance Officer has uncovered, and it’s something that cannot remain hidden, even if Regan is not fingered, rather than just his total ineptitude in sourcing a new manager (though, that will most likely be what’s put out).
Hopefully, Stuart Regan has found his own Armageddon!
Yesterdays news.
New Blog Please.
Oh, sorry, should have said, I hope Doncaster follows soon.
What’s Levein on about?
Last night foul count – Hearts 21; Celtic 9
Don’t CFC players need protecting from his?
Reagan’s ….. ahem….”resignation” (sic) 😉
This good advice from Phil should not be forgotten?https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/01/23/why-it-is-too-late-to-be-concerned-about-stewart-regan-at-the-sfa/
Why now?
What f@%k up are the SFA trying to distract us from now!?
Agreed BECT67. Disgraceful comments. If the compliance officer wasn’t so busy with the UEFA, he might have found himself in trouble.
I wonder if he found some of the fouls (as opposed to the tackle on Cochrane) on the young Kieran Tierney to be ‘annoying’ too.
On Regan we all know how the smsm will report this, Scotland national side results,Michael O Neil failure ,Hampden issue blah blah. The irony is I will wager that the fans of Govan club will voice their opinion on how Regan punished their old club blah blah and should have been sacked. I very much doubt his involvement on how he really handled RFC will be reported at all. Some say truth will prevail, I will have to wait and see. Sad to say not much faith that it will because of the way one club ( and it,s power as an institution) can influence on how things get reported in our game. This is Scotland for you.
Re Regan’s resignation, could it be that he’s been told by King that TRFC/RFC are going to have an admin/insolvency event and he’s thought ” F@-k that! I’m off!” ?
Seven of the biggest Stewart Regan gaffes as SFA chief executive finally quits
From the referee strike to failing to appoint Michael O’Neill, Regan’s reign was littered with blunders.
By Record Sport Online 17:03, 1 FEB 2018 Updated17:10, 1 FEB 2018https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/seven-biggest-stewart-regan-gaffes-11954141?utm_source=google_news&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=google_news&utm_content=sitemap
Stewart Regan has quit as SFA chief executive after almost 8 years at the head of our game.
His reign has been littered with controversy and blunders and, after failure to appoint Michael O’Neill as national team boss, Regan has walked.
After sacking Gordon Strachan following another failed qualifying campaign, the SFA’s public pursuit of the Northern Ireland boss ended in embarrassment.
It seems to have been the final straw as a Record Sport Online poll revealed 91 per cent of fans wanted Regan out the door.
The support have been granted their wish, but as the beleaguered chief departs, we take a look back at some of his biggest gaffes since replacing Gordon Smith in 2010.
In 2010, for the first time ever, referees in Scotland went on strike – on Regan’s watch.
The background to the dispute centred on refs’ perceptions that the SFA were not doing enough to protect them from undue criticism and questions over their integrity from clubs, leading to fears for their safety as controversial decisions were debated by media and fans.
Regan was forced to call in refs from overseas to ensure fixtures could go ahead.
It was the first sticking point in Regan’s tenure as CEO.
Speaking after SPL clubs had voted 10-1 in majority of refusing Rangers’ application to re-join the league, Regan caused a stir by suggesting there would be “social unrest” if Rangers disappeared from the Scottish leagues.
He said: “Without Rangers there is social unrest – there is a big problem for Scottish society.
“I think if you look at the huge fan base Rangers have in this country, to contemplate a situation where those fans don’t have a team to support, where those fans are effectively left without a game to follow.
“I just think that could lead to all sorts of issues and all sorts of problems for the game.”
The infamous five-way agreement between the SFA, SPL, SFL, Oldco Rangers and Newco Rangers included a proposal to place Rangers in the First Division back in the summer of 2012.
Of course, this was also on the back of a commission set up to probe the Ibrox club and potentially strip them of five league titles and various cups won between 2000 and 2011.
Regan was left embarrassed as Lord Nimmo Smith ruled that Rangers would not be stripped of any titles in March 2013.
Our own Keith Jackson called for Regan to lose his job when Nimmo Smith published his findings when he wrote: “Time after time he has been frozen by his own panic.
“Now, in the cold light of day, some of the decisions he made in the heated frenzy of it all appear to be quite shameful. Like when he, as head of the big house, endorsed strong arm tactics in an attempt to force Rangers to accept the stripping of titles as part of a hamfisted five way agreement that would have seen Ally McCoist’s side shoehorned into the First Division.
“Even at the time that reflected terribly on Regan.”
As far as appointments for the national side go, Levein was up there as one of the worst. Failed qualification attempts, not to forget the shambolic 4-6-0 formation deployed in the Czech Republic, tarnished his image as Scotland boss.
Despite this happening early on his spell as head of the national team, Levein lasted three years and the SFA, in particular Regan, were criticised for how long they stuck with the now Hearts manager.
Regan has overseen a plan to change Scottish football from the bottom up – but it’s stop-start nature has hampered any positive consequences that could have arrived.
Mark Wotte arrived as Performance Director in 2011 but left just three years later after deeming that he had implemented most of the recommendations put forward by Henry McLeish.
Brian McClair arrived to replace him but left his post last July 16, having been unable to find any consensus with the clubs – prompting former Scotland defender Willie Miller to describe the SFA’s development strategy as “in tatters”.
Since then, Malky Mackay has been in the job but was ready to ditch it to become Scotland manager in the wake of Gordon Strachan’s dismissal – only to be publicly humiliated by Regan after his only game as stand-in boss, by being told there was no chance of him getting the gig permanently.
Regan decided that the Northern Ireland manager was his ONLY choice to replace Strachan, but waited more than 100 days before sitting down with O’Neill.
In that time, potential candidates David Moyes and Paul Lambert landed English Premier League jobs, and when he finally met O’Neill, he was given a knock-back, leaving the country back at square one.
Having put all his eggs in one basket, then dropping it, calls for Regan’s head were growing.
Arranging matches in Peru and Mexico at the end of a gruelling season, without consulting clubs or the Players’ Union – who are threatening boycott talks – was seen by many as the final straw. As things stand, we go into those games – and a double header against Costa Rica and Hungary next month with no manager.
And no chief executive.
Re: Regan’s resignation
jumped ship, and will not now have to answer any awkward questions.
the compliance officer report must be out soon, and the DCK takeover panel case would have made his position untenable:.A nice resignation instead of A sacking looks better on a CV.
————
Edit.. good timing with Auldheids Blog
THE UNGRATEFUL DEAD
FEBRUARY 1, 2018 at 17:44
Re Regan’s resignation, could it be that he’s been told by King that TRFC/RFC are going to have an admin/insolvency event and he’s thought ” F@-k that! I’m off!” ?
===========================
Mibbees Regan was informed by a high profile PR firm that the English FA ‘were in for him’, the CEO gig was his for the taking – unless another FA came in with a higher offer of course – and he would be raking in millions a year ?
Or more likely, Regan was invited to do walking away – with a rather large bag of swag, [i.e. Scottish football’s money] – and having signed a gagging order ?
Kheredine’s retraction was grovelling. Would a phone call from Traynor do that? More likely a call from the senior people at the BBC who got rid of Jim Spence I would have thought.
On Regan’s departure and the Compliance Officer’s Report, IIRC Rod Petrie Chaired the Licensing Committee and is currently SFA Vice President and Board member. He will likely have a role to play in appointing Regan’s successor.
Andrew Dickson, “Rangers” Secretary then, now, and forever is down the corridor at the SPFL.
My Hibee pals tell me relations have deteriorated between the Hibs fans’ groups and Petrie and his Board at Easter Road. Are there any Hibees on here who can confirm that? Any chance a pincer movement might get rid of him too?
Dickson, I fear, could survive a nuclear winter, but you never know.
Just on the Hibs angle I hear Leanne Dempster being mentioned. There’s tangled webs and then there’s this!
you could imagine the statement:
”…the board met today and decided we’d go with a time proven, tactical, strategic sh!tebag to continue our, ahem, good work. However on further discussion we decided unanimously that Rod was just a p!sstake too far…”
‘Stewart Regan said: “I have devoted my time in Scotland to modernising, ‘protecting’, developing and promoting the game….” ‘
______________
There is another view, Mr Regan.
And that is that, far from protecting the game, you allowed yourself to be persuaded, and to persuade others, to abandon the very notion of Sporting Integrity in order to create a lying myth that Craig Whyte’s cheating club survived liquidation intact and remained the Glasgow Rangers of 1872.
There is a further view: that you may have previously tried to slip vital monies to the struggling RFC of 1872 by concealing the truth of the debt situation of that club from UEFA.
You go, therefore, not with my blessing and thanks for any good you did, but with (metaphorically) the imprint of my boot on your a.se, and imprecations ringing in your ears for contemptuously trying to play us like mugs, ready to swallow the ridiculous line that SevcoScotland/TRFC Ltd are in fact RFC(IL).
Had you followed the right path, Scottish national football might still have been pi.h ( more than you are responsible for the lack of national success) but the club game would at least be honest.
As it is, we simply cannot trust anything coming from our game’s governance body.
Your going does not mean that the Augean stables at Mt Florida have been totally cleansed of sh.t.
No, there are others there who are a disgrace to themselves as betrayers of the trust reposed in them.
They will, hopefully, be hunted out in the fullness of time, if shame and guilt don’t force them to put a halter round their necks!
Re Regan
We were warned by members of Yorkshire CC on his appointment to the SFA that he was useless & a slippery sod – they were right . On tonight’s BBC Scotland @ 6.30 they announced among the several problems faced during his tenure , he had to oversee “the liquidation of the holding company of Rangers FC” – say no more !
With respect, your statistics illustrate part of Levein’s point (and one I’ve made on here several times) that referees rarely award fouls against Brown, and instances of him being booked or red carded are rarer than hens teeth, relative to the offences he commits.
Try watching the incident again (ideally without green goggles on) where Brown assaults 16 year-old Cochrane at the start of the move which ultimately resulted in a Celtic goal. How can it conceivably not be a foul if Brown only wins the ball by virtue of charging into and falling on top of the youngster? And let’s not forget the likelihood that a seething Brown was seeking revenge after being embarrassingly bossed by Cochrane in Hearts 4-0 thumping of Celtic a few short weeks ago.
I’m honest enough to admit it didn’t change the result and the better team won on the day, but it’s clear that in addition to the positive attributes Brown undoubtedly has, a thuggish element is never far from the surface, an element that referees seem conspicuously and frustratingly blind to.
John ClarkFebruary 1, 2018 at 19:32
______________
There is another view, Mr Regan.
__________________________
Correct, John.
Gordon Smith resigned 19 Apr 2010; Regan took over 28/7/2010.
Knowing his lack of experience of the Scottish scene, who briefed Regan on the circumstances? What were his “instructions”? Who were his mentors during these times?
Can’t help thinking Regan has been forced to walk to protect the SFA from the forthcoming Compliance Officers report. With him gone they will plead there is little they can do. I forecast they will admit to ‘Administrative errors’ by Regan, but say Whyte lied to them. Meanwhile Dickson, Johnston, Murray, Murray and King will remain untouchable because of who, or more likely what, they are. I would not be at all surprised to see Dickson succeed Regan. He would have the full support of the media for a start.
naegreetin February 1, 2018 at 19:45
Hmmmmm…. ahem….. erm…as we all know this holding company is not being liquidated by BDO.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07380537
John ClarkFebruary 1, 2018 at 19:32
————-
John, this may be an appropriate time to remind us of the conversation you had with Regan at the meeting in Edinburgh.
UTH @ 19.56
Spot on !
BECT67FEBRUARY 1, 2018 at 17:24
Celtic 2 bookings (40% ) for their 9 fouls (30%) – so one bad one per 4.5 tackles from a supposed silky team when the opposition only had the ball 35% of the time
Hearts 3 bookings (60%) for their 21 fouls (70%), so one bad one per 7 tackles from a lesser team having to chase and hassle superior opponents who held onto the ball for 65% of the game.
Who is the dirtier team?
Highlander February 1, 2018 at 19:46
=====================
I had intended to avoid commenting on the issue, but in the wake of the coverage it has received, I will.
The challenge on Cochrane was relatively mild, at least compared to the late lunge at Djoum, for which he was shown a yellow card, but I suspect would have been red, had it not been Broony.
Conveniently, the BBC highlights failed to include that challenge. Similarly missing, was that Levein’s comment that players should be protected from Scott Brown, was concluded with a smile, which I took to be a bit tongue in cheek and mischievous. It seems our media are more intent on creating issues where none exist, rather than investigating those that do.
Normally when chief execs resign they serve a notice period and often a hand over period too.
It will be interesting to find out the detail they tell us about this particular “resignation” and what transpires.
Stuff like his compensation package and the length of his handover
etc.
It will also be interesting to see who the new SFA kingmaker will be in the pursuit of a new Directors Puppet
Stewart was sacrificed now I think because someone has to take the blame for the catalogue of stuff that Resolution 12 has compiled and the fact that the right questions have been asked.
I actually thought they’d try to ride this one out but maybe the fact that Peter Lawwell is back at the SFA had something to do with the need for a way forward.
The Resolution 12 guys had cleverly put their own chairman beteeen a rock and a hard place and I think he was a major player in this sudden “resignation and in whatever happens going forward.
I don’t believe there is any appetite for real change or increased transparency however and the cabal of inner circle chairmen have had plenty time to get their ducks in a row.
Look for some early and fast “wins” and a few hollow “let’s move on” sermons and MSM feeds.
However if I’m wrong and the chairmen really were blind- sighted today then all they have to do is pick up the phone to Frame PR and get the Darren man who “used to be The SFA back in the day”.
Plus ca change.
MACFURGLYFEBRUARY 1, 2018 at 20:00
6
0 Rate This
John ClarkFebruary 1, 2018 at 19:32————-John, this may be an appropriate time to remind us of the conversation you had with Regan at the meeting in Edinburgh.
MACFURGLYFEBRUARY 1, 2018 at 20:00
—
part 2
Yes it’s a strange one. Why resign with immediate effect? Why not work out a month or a 3 month notice period?
It sounds like he was pushed, and if so, why?
If not, it seems like the pressure is too much for him. Again, why?
There’s more to come in this saga.
Regarding Regan’s departure: what the CO should be finding is that in 2011, under Regan, the SFA were either negligent in awarding the licence or lied to by RFC but then complicit in covering up any negligence when it became clear in Aug 2011 overdue tax existed.
Regan presided over the process and his public utterances published on SFM show either he did not understand the SFA’s licensing responsibility as the licensor or he was attempting to mislead the public when questioned on the matter.
All of which is a reason for him to resign and whilst the public message is his failure to secure SFA business objectives few can doubt when presented with the evidence he is a DIDDY and that his ongoing presence can no longer be tolerated.
Given he is implicated either on grounds of negligence or complicity his removal should make it easier for the CO to do his job free of any personal pressure Regan might want to bring to bear on the CO investigation.
It is not the end but it could be the beginning of the end especially if the yoke of campaigning for fair governance is taken up by the wide football supporting community in Scotland.
On Dickson. He sat on 3 of the 4 Licencing Committee meetings in 2011. The minutes of that meeting will show his role. Did he take a back seat because it was Rangers or did he volunteer what he knew of the De Boer and Flo ebts RFC denied having in the files Dickson was responsible for in 2005 when HMRC asked questions.
Add in his FTT testimony and LNS testimony and it is clear he is a major player in the ebt story..
Nae chance.
I look forward to Aulheid’s next work and the much hoped for fallout…
is Doncaster False, Artificial, Narcisistic, Nasty and Yellow?
Now a title? Think dammit!
A tweet from The Clumpany in reply to Jim White. I think it’s rather good
Sevco got the bargain of the century. Went into the window without an £8m player, and came out of it with one! All without spending an additional penny!
___________________________
Jim WhiteVerified account @JimWhiteGood Morning from Talksport towers. After £430m was spent in January, who is your bargain of the window?And are you happy with your team’s transfer dealings? Let me know from 10am on @talkSPORT1:14 AM – 1 Feb 2018
jimboFebruary 1, 2018 at 21:04
Yes it’s a strange one. Why resign with immediate effect? Why not work out a month or a 3 month notice period?It sounds like he was pushed, and if so, why?If not, it seems like the pressure is too much for him. Again, why?There’s more to come in this saga.
___________________
I think there is definitely more to come, Jimbo. The question is, though, will it come into the light of day? Or even through the light of SFA transparency?
Smugas, AJ,
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 1, 2018 at 21:23
0
0 Rate This
jimboFebruary 1, 2018 at 21:04 Yes it’s a strange one. Why resign with immediate effect? Why not work out a month or a 3 month notice period?It sounds like he was pushed, and if so, why?If not, it seems like the pressure is too much for him. Again, why?There’s more to come in this saga.___________________
I think there is definitely more to come, Jimbo. The question is, though, will it come into the light of day? Or even through the light of SFA transparency?
——————–
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/28708884
The Scottish FA has appointed Glasgow-based lawyer Tony McGlennan as its new compliance officer.
McGlennan will replace incumbent Vincent Lunny after a handover period next month.
———-
Yes very strange indeed when you see that even the compliance officer had a handover period.
AJ, I think Auldheid answered my question. But as you say will it come to light?
I don’t think it pertains to Hampden, nor the Scotland Manager’s job or even the jaunt to sunnier climes. To a man like Regan they are just a shrug of the shoulders.
WOTTPI
interesting way to look at it – I think quite a few more of those 21 fouls should have been yellow if the referee was being consistent.
Easyjambo
i think there are plenty of players who have avoided red for tackles like Brown’s on Djoum. How many of the 21 fouls by Hearts did the BBC conveniently miss? 21 by my count. There were a couple of bad tackles on Tierney and the foul on Ajer near the end should have been a booking as well. Lafferty should have had two yellows long before he scored.
Having said all that, my issue is the Hearts manager making the statement he did after the game. He should be hauled in by the compliance officer, mischievous smile or not. He knew what he was doing with those comments.
If anyone needs protection, it is the 11 clubs below Hearts in the fair play table. Does Levein know you don’t get a trophy for being top of that league?
Are you watching Bordersdon, you may well have been right.
Just sent the following complaint to the BBC, following tonight’s Reporting Scotland. I don’t expect to get a satisfactory reply, but at least it felt good getting it off my chest.
Bill you are not alone regards thinking this is mainly a Celtic site but supporters of other clubs need to comment otherwise a good site will disappear.
Big Pink your not helping by letting Celtic match comment pass.
I did intend to post this the other day, as something came to mind.While looking for something else, i came across it again, well half of it
NCLBhoy February 1, 2018 at 21:38
====================
Your reply is why I tend to avoid discussing games or decisions within games. It all becomes very subjective and open to whataboutery.
I was more concerned at the coverage and profile given by the media to the remarks made by Levein, then Rogers inevitable response. I think we can both agree that all managers will do and say whatever is required to look after the interests of their own players.