John Clark Meets “The SFA”

Avatar By

I think the poor standard of refereeing in football is …

Comment on John Clark Meets “The SFA” by Reiver.

I think the poor standard of refereeing in football is magnified by current version of the rules. To many decisions a referee has to make now have a large subjective area of uncertainty.
Simplify the rules so that there can be no doubt to any decision. Hand ball, don’t have the ref consider whether it was deliberate or the arm was in an unnatural position. Hand ball, ball touches hand a straight foul no excuses. Unfair? Maybe, but under those conditions decisions WILL even out over a game never mind a season. Offside, drop the “not interfering with play” and the decisions are straight forward. Obstruction, not given if the ball is being ushered out for a goal kick. Why?
The rules nowadays have too many grey areas and it is that that leads to claims of bias aimed at a referee and leaves the players frustrated.

Our problems aren’t really with the refs but the administrators.


Reiver Also Commented

John Clark Meets “The SFA”
Thanks NTDeal, the more people that will spread the word, and not just sign, the better.

The events at Liverpool this week while being a great success for fan power has probably set the petition cause back a bit.
For a number of years dissatisfied fans have been on forums saying “we should do this” or “we should do that” but throughout those years nobody DID “this” or “that”, instead nothing was done. I speak from experience on this as I was one of  those bitchin’. My own preference was a boycott of a first half at every game in Scotland on a single weekend. We know why our favourite solution never happened. It’s because someone has to organise it and make themselves visible doing it. Scottish football is not the safest place to do this as we all know. The Liverpool fans were in a safer place to do this and their target, the board, was non-hostile so it would probably be an easy protest for the fan groups to organise. AND they succeeded.
What I am trying to say is, you have been landed with a petition as a means of fighting because to start with it offered anonymity. Sure there are more effective actions but no-one has stepped up to front them. This is our only option!.
That is not to say that it is a poor option. Sure, if the petition were got together and we just sent it to the SFA/SPFL then nothing would happen. But that is not my intention. With enough signatures the intention is to go to the secretary for sport Shona Robinson, UEFA, Ladbrokes, the Minister for Sport at Westminster Tracey Crouch and the non-MSM press. We would list the misdemeanours that we have proof of and point out to these agencies that we are not a couple of disgruntled fans pursuing this. But to do that we would need FAR more signatures than we have at present and not after waiting two or three years to get them, Action is required NOW!.
Stop looking at this as the worst way of going forward unless you are prepared to step up immediately and front the better way.
This is all that is available to you. If you care step up now and get friends and associates to step up also. Use your Facebook and Twitter accounts to spread the word.

John Clark Meets “The SFA”
Good man bogey, Ta.
The address business is strange but I suppose they are trying to count out bogus signatures. A vain attempt if you ask me.

John Clark Meets “The SFA”
Let me respond to a few of the posts,
Who am I? Well , an Edinburgh born and bred incomer to the Scottish Borders, my spiritual home. Retired IT professional in his late sixties. almost old enough to have seen his team,Hibs, win the Scottish Cup.
And that, at this stage, is about as much as I wish to divulge. Why? Because of the same reason that some are reticent to sign the petition, it makes you a target. Signing the petition though can be totally anonymous as the site accepts nom de plumes. You will only be allowed to sign once though unless you monkey around with your cookies(that isn’t innuendo).
My trust has to be as much in the signatories as theirs in me because, if the petition were to start taking off, then someone has to front the actions and I guess that would be me. The first communications with UEFA, SFA, SPFL and the clubs was only informing them that a petition was under way so no name was given. At the 5000 mark that has to change. Any volunteers? 02
The other point the comes up regularly is that a petition is not the way, that a protest or boycott is what is needed. I have seen this suggested numerous times through the last few years but it is always a case of wishing that someone else organises it. There again I understand why. It is as before, someone has to put themselves out on the firing line and that can be pretty dodgy as we have seen. This cause is seen by the Ibrox faithful as a cover for anti-Rangers haters to take it out on them. This despite the fact that, had this been done five years ago, most of what they have been through would not have happened.
I am not the step forward kind of a guy so when I eventually decided to do something then the petition was the most likely to provide anonymity until it could be seen that there were enough getting involved to warrant taking a risk. Things like boycotts can easily be pinned on to the actions of the petition if enough support is forthcoming. Call a boycott and, if the response is the same as has been for the petition, then you have undermined your goal. There would be no point in calling another one any time closely following the first. In the same way, there will be no point in starting another petition in the foreseeable future.
All I can say is look on the petition as a rallying point where the reticent, like myself, can make there voices heard. If we get enough signatures it can be used as a lever with UEFA, the non-Scots media and the politicians.
At the very worst it is better than nothing and that, despite the internet gripes, is all that was on offer.
Support the petition.

Recent Comments by Reiver

Comment Moderation Thread
I have always claimed that our only possibility of success is spreading the word as too few actually are aware that there is a problem. To that end I still consider it acceptable to use any method to attempt to get even one extra person to attempt to find a means to target a bigger audience than the closed community that frequent blogs. That is a sign of how seriously I view this matter.
Lack of humility was not an issue, it is more a surplus of frustration. I know that what I do in my attempts are amateurish and relatively ineffective but I do try. My resignation(?) from the site referred to the amount of time I spent discussing issues repeatedly and fruitlessly. Time that was non-productive and consuming. It was to free myself from the feeling of wasting my time that I decided to remove myself from the discussions on here. I do find now though that, when there are announcements to be made that would further the cause, that to be totally blocked is a disadvantage. For instance, the report that the Sports Integrity Initiative have written in the SFA has cleared the legal hurdles and will be put up on their site shortly. To be effective we need as many people reading it and discussing it as possible and so I need an outlet.
This report has come at great cost to the reporter. When I first contacted him I insisted on anonymity and he agreed as long as he could stick to the principles of the site of being open and the reporters could be easily contacted on a personal basis. Anyone visiting the site just now will see that it is under-going a relaunch. The timing of this is a result of advice he has received from his legal team regarding the reporters’ safety. The site will look different but more importantly all information that may be used to identify the reporters and their families will have been removed. The basic tenet of how that site was envisage has had to be binned because of the lack of integrity in Scottish football. Needless to say I compare that sacrifice to the inactivity of those of sites like SFM and JohnJames and cannot help but be depressed.

Comment Moderation Thread
I find it pretty poor that a site whose stated intention is to hold the SFA to account cannot itself take constructive criticism from its posters. I have had all my posts blocked since using the term “couch potato”, and subsequent argument as to why it was appropriate, in an attempt to move those who only want to talk about others taking action into being proactive themselves. In the last 24 hours posts have been put up with suggestions as to what others should do to make a difference so nothing has changed.
I would like it explained to me how SFM are meeting their stated aim when they gag those prepared to act against the SFA as a means to not upsetting those that would rather just live the fantasy that something will turn up that will fix the problem. The BTC would force change, Mike Ashley’s court cases were going to blow it all open, then the trials against Whyte et al, then the failure to pay back Mike’s £5M and now it is TRFC’s rumoured failure to pay tax that will have HMRC exposing everything. Many, many words written about this that have done nothing to “hold the SFA to account” so it must surely cause those that run SFM to question whether the site is meeting its goal.
Or is the site just a place for individuals to be funded by contributions to enable them to live their dreams of having their own internet TV and radio slots?

Actually Reiver, your posts became ineligible for posting when you resigned rather spectacularly from SFM – and explained it was because the preponderance on SFM of the afforementioned couch-potatoes.
Should we infer that you intend to un-resign? If so, a wee bit of humility might be in order given your valedictory invective.

Staying On The Problem
Bordersdon and Tayred 1330 – 1500

The points that you make encapsulate the reason I no longer contribute on a regular basis. I know that it is difficult for fans to see their own team’s actions with an independent eye but to keep a site like this on course it is an imperative quality. Should contributors feel that there is a bias or leaning that conflicts with the aims of the site that appeals to so many then the moderators, should they fail to agree, should take advice. The intent of this site is so intrinsic to the solving of the problems of Scottish football that to fail to see that there is a tone to the site that deters supporters of clubs other than Celtic is to remove the independence of the site and to weaken its strength.
BP, Tris. You have reacted to my earlier comments by censoring me but my comments were made with the hope that we could backtrack on the increasing Celtic orientated comment on here. This is the perfect example.
For Celtic, the highest earning club in our leagues, to reject the fixture list to fill their coffers more is not an issue that can be answered by whitabootery. It matters not whether other clubs would jump at the chance to play glamour friendlies for cash, the point is, does it sit well with a properly run league set up? Should we be condoning this for ANY club.
The response to this issue is clearly divided between the Celtic supporters who jump to the defence of their club and all other supporters who see it as an affront to the integrity of our leagues. To support the Celtic fans’ view on here is adding to the belief that the site is not independent.
This is not a criticism or condemnation of SFM but rather an appeal to get it back on track. We need an independent platform to confront the risk to our game so please do not censor this post. If you feel that my view is unfair then why not open up another thread that allows discussion on SFM’s (im)partiality. I think you will find that opinion divides into two camps, Celtic supporters and all other supporters. If you are not willing then to step back from the drift towards a CFC site then fair enough, you condemn the site to being just another Celtic outlet.
On the glamour invite games. My view is that if it is so attractive to ANY club then let them play it but concede the game they were scheduled to play as a 3-0 loss.

.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
There seems a requirement on here that explicit proof is required from me regarding my earlier comments. This typifies the mindset that implicit comments can be made by them but, unless we can prove the intent, then the rest of us have no right to draw out and comment on the implications that run through the thread.
I never analyse TU/TD and never use the feature but a trend can be indicative. This site claims to be open to all but, if the trend occurs through actions of TRFC supporters, this claim is not true. There are others who have defined the problems in Scottish football as not being because of one club and it is then that the “ownership” of the site really becomes apparent. The thread becomes defensive, we must be wrong as CFC can do no wrong. The list of self serving actions that do nothing for Scottish football is almost equally shared by CFC AND TRFC with the involvement of the SFA being the separating feature. It is this that I thought this site’s sole purpose was. A site that gave equal opportunity to supporters of ALL clubs, not just supporters who desist from voicing their observations regarding CFC. But it appears I was wrong.
I have spent time here in the hope that others would be prepared to join me in my actions to achieve a change in the governance of our sport and to return the integrity that it has so sadly, and increasingly, lacked over the past two decades. Alas, it would seem that site is occupied by, with the exception of those in the Res12 group, only [removed]. In the short time I have been on this site thousands of words have been written but the actions have been pitifully few.
I have posted every action I have taken and every response I have received not because I look for approval or praise but because I hope to let others see that an ordinary guy can act anonymously and hopefully make a difference. To make real difference though it requires a number of individuals to act but it seems there is not the appetite here. To gripe and moan is never enough. Never enough, that is, to have the right to claim to have been part of any success. 
My actions started as a solo effort and now appears to be destined remain that way. I think that perhaps it is now time to remove myself from here and continue alone. I will, with the approval of BP and Tris, keep my username current in the hope that anyone who is prepared to join me and act can PM me and perhaps we can coordinate our actions.
In the meantime I shall return to my US holiday and hope that, by the time I return to the UK I shall have good news from SII or my MSP. If not, it is back to my phone calls and emails. So watch out Leeanne cos you are first on my list21

.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
Nowhere in the ticket allocation discussion do I see it involving football governance. It is easy for any of us on any site to justify what we write by relying on our own backgrounds. The ones we see most, because of the numbers involved is the- TRFC fans singing offensive(to Celtic supporters) songs because they claim that the fans at Parkhead are showing support for a country that wishes to take control over part of the UK. The other cheek of the butt is the singing of “Irish” songs whose very origin is in the intent to have united Ireland. Now, I may have an opinion on that but I do not see  a football stadium as th place to discuss it, even if it was done in a polite manner.
We live in a society where we refrain from using legitimate words not because we intend to use them to offend but because those that they describe feel offended. Songs at grounds should be no different.
But I go off subject. As I said to Tris attention needs to be paid to the response to my post and to his reply where it would appear I have reasonable support. This not from a strange subculture with weird ideas but from posters exactly like yourself so if you find yourself dismissing them then you need to stand back and have a calm look at your own position in this.
Yes, compared to most other sites you are correct and that is what my posts are attempting to maintain. As I said we need to guard against a drift away from neutrality and that is hard. A drift is what a number of us perceive. With the importance of Res 12 in all this there has ben a tendency to perceive it as a Celtic thing with a number of posters writing with a timbre that gave the impression that they hoped it would succeed so it would put another feather in their club’s cap. These same posters view the fight to be over because Res12 appears to have had an unsuccessful conclusion. That is despite the fact there are other actions ongoing where, in my opunion, success is more likely. That is where the feeling that we are on a Celtic orientated site comes from.

About the author