Regular posters and contributors to the SFM may remember that in October last year I wrote to Mr McRae, President of the SFA.
I posted the text of my letter on 28th October http://www.sfmonitor.org/whose-assets-are-they-anyway/?cid=20786
I had not received a reply or acknowledgement by 12th December, so I sent a reminder. I received a reply to that reminder, dated 16 December 2015, in which Mr McRae apologised for not having responded to my previous letter, and invited me to come and see him. We arranged that I should visit him at Hampden on 19 January 2016 at 2.00 p.m.
Following the meeting, I wrote a summary of the conversation. I emailed that summary to Mr Darryl Broadfoot, Head of Communications, asking him to check whether my recollections were accurate, because I was my intention to post the summary on SFM.
I have not had a reply and I think I have waited a fair enough time, so, here is the summary of an approximately 45 minute conversation.
I should first make it clear that Mr McRae said that he had no recollection of airing any of the views recorded in my letter as attributed to him. I should also say that I made it clear that while I contribute to SFM, I was not there as ‘officially representing’ SFM, although what I would say broadly reflected the view of many.
“Note of informal meeting between me, and Alan McRae, President of the SFA, with Darryl Broadfoot, Press Officer, at Hampden park, 2.00 pm Tuesday, 19th January.
Background: I had written to Mr McRae in October 2015, to ask whether Mr McRae had really (as had been reported to me) aired the following opinions:
- that Rangers FC were not Liquidated
- that Rangers FC were put down to the third Division
- that Rangers FC were bought by Charles Green and that the team currently playing out of Ibrox Stadium and calling itself The Rangers Football Club Ltd is one and the same as the club known as Rangers Football Club, which is currently in Liquidation.
Mr McRae, through Mr Broadfoot, went through the points one by one.
On point one, there was no difficulty in agreeing that RFC had been Liquidated. That was accepted as a matter of fact.
On point two, I argued that;
- Mr Green’s new club had had to apply for league and SFA membership, and were therefore admitted as a new club to Scottish Football and allowed into SFL Third Division.
- They had as an emergency measure been granted conditional membership, and had had to seek the Administrators’ and Football Authorities’ agreement to the use of certain RFC (IL) players who had decided to sign on with the new club in order to play their first game as a new club.
- They were ‘put in ‘the Third Division as a new club, not as an existing club being relegated.
Mr McRae, through Mr Broadfoot, argued that ‘put in’ and ‘admitted to’ are pretty much the same thing, and that the legal advice obtained was that Mr Green’s new club was not a new club, and the Authorities were stuck with that.
I referred to the 5-way Agreement, and made the point that two entities other than league or SFA representatives were signatories to that agreement: RFC (IL) and Mr Green’s new club. The two could not be one.
Mr Broadfoot said that was a matter of opinion.
I said that it was rather a matter of fact.
Likewise, on the third point, there was disagreement.
Mr Broadfoot, for Mr McRae, argued that Charles Green bought the club (and Mr McRae personally added ‘and the “goodwill”’).
I pointed out that Mr Green had NOT bought the club out of Administration, as had happened with other clubs, but merely had bought the assets of a former club that was NOT able to bought out of administration and was consequently Liquidated.
Mr Broadfoot said that Celtic and Rangers supporters might continue to disagree but that could only be expected.
I pointed out that this was not at all a Celtic-Rangers supporters’ issue, and that the Scottish Football Monitor, for instance, represented the views of supporters of many clubs. I further made the point that many sports administrative bodies had come under the spotlight in current times and people were naturally concerned that the governance of football should be above suspicion: and that substantial numbers feel that the Football Authorities have been at fault, in permitting a new club to claim to be an old club and pretend to the honours and titles etc etc.
Reference was made in the passing to some allegations that had been made that certain evidence relating to the Discounted Option Scheme had been withheld from the LNS commission, which occasioned Lord Nimmo Smith to be misled; and to the apparent negligent performance of the SFA administration under the previous President, who, both on account of his personal knowledge of the use of the DOS by Sir David Murray, and as a subsequent recipient of an EBT, might reasonably have been expected to ensure a thorough and diligent examination of the information provided by clubs about payments to players.
Mr Broadfoot ruled out discussion of the first of these matters because ‘there was no evidence’, and the second matter was also ruled out because, he asserted, the previous president is a man of the highest integrity.
I replied that work was in hand to provide evidence, and that the question of negligent performance of duties was not a question of ‘personal integrity’.
Mr Broadfoot opined that the future would show whether Scottish Football supporters were really concerned about the old club/new club debate, if huge numbers turned their backs on the game.
I replied that a sport based on a false proposition, on what could be seen as a lie, no matter on what pragmatic reasons, would certainly wither if and when people thought the sport could be rigged.
As the meeting drew to a close, I was asked if, coming from Edinburgh, I was a Hibs or Hearts supporter, or perhaps a Celtic supporter? And whether I was going to tonight’s (Celtic were playing that evening at home) game?
I replied that as my name suggests, I was of Irish extraction and perhaps conclusions could be drawn from that. Also that I would not be going to tonight’s game, and that my interest in the present matter was rather more academic and objective than partisan.
The meeting ended cordially at about 2.45.pm “
I think I can say that Mr Broadfoot, opening the meeting, explained that
“for the purposes of this meeting, I am the SFA.”
Mr McRae’s personal contribution to the conversation was therefore very little more than mentioned above, Mr Broadfoot doing most of the talking.
I will say further that I spoke to BP, and consulted one or two other posters before I went to the meeting, in order to make sure that my general understanding both of the principal events of the ‘saga’ and of the thrust of most of SFM’s contributors, who are drawn from supporters of many clubs, was sufficiently sound.
I give it as my opinion that I may have been invited to a personal meeting only because it might have been thought in some quarters that I was in possession of an electronic recording of what I told Mr McRae that he was reported as having said.
And, finally, I declare here that my note of the meeting was written within two hours of the meeting, and reflects the substance of the conversation. It is exactly the note I sent by email to Broadfoot, except that I corrected a typo in the spelling of Darryll (I had ‘Caryll’), have omitted my own surname, and changed references to myself from the third person to the first person.
Well done, JC.
Regrettable that the president had to have such a mouthy upstart of a minder. He was the SFA?? Regrettable also that they showed no change in their defensiveness and duplicity regarding a new club being an old club when it seems to suit their purposes. Also quite regrettable they attempted to pidgeon hole you as a partisan fan rather than someone with a genuine interest in finding that seemingly obscure but fundamental ‘integrity particle’ which has been mooted as being somehow important in the scheme of things.
IMHO there’s more chance of the Higgs Boson popping in for tea with the SFA president than for the SFA president and the member clubs finding their basic integrity particles.
Great work though Mr C, lets hope it leads to something positive.
John that deserves a “Wow Just Wow!” plus several chapeaux!
Your summary is excellent and looks like you presented your points very well.
Whilst their responses might have underwhelmed you, IMO you provided something which the
SFA can’t ignore…and should make them worried.
Whilst you JC represented the ‘average but informed’ punter and the Internet Bampots – you projected
yourself as someone who simply doesn’t believe the media – or the SFA.
And you are more than able to find out the truth from other sources.
Your meeting just might have made more of an impact than you think!
Good job JC.
John Clark at 12:03
Very cogent summary. Well done!
I have been an avid reader of this blog since inception, and have very rarely posted. I suspect there are thousands of others who fully support the indefatigable search for truth displayed daily on this site. John Clark, James Doleman, Neepheid, Goosy Goosy and so many others – I salute you.
IniquitousIV
Good job JC.
It might be worth remembering that Sevco Scotland were admitted to the SFL on the 13th July 2012 and by dint of that SFL membership were automatically conferred membership of the SFA on the same date.
Sevco’s Ramsden Cup tie with Brechin on the 29th July only took place because of the club’s existing membership of the SFL.
RFC remained a member of the SPL (and therefore the SFA) until 3rd August 2012.
The SFA were only able to transfer the full SFA membership on the 3rd August because RFC retained its membership of the SPL until that date.
Between 13th July and 3rd of August 2012 the SFA had two distinct member clubs calling themselves Rangers.
That seems to me to be fact – not opinion.
Based on these facts, I do wonder where the SFA sourced legal advice that states these two member clubs are one and the same?
Oh dear…
With that rare meeting / interview you secured with the new SFA President, John Clark…
…you’ve only gone and scooped the entire sports SMSM !
You bad Internet Bampot! 🙂
John Clark 26th January 2016 at 12:03 am
============================
Well done John and thanks for sharing. The very fact that Broadfoot was sent to represent the SFA and the answers you tell us he gave only cements my view of how unfit for purpose the organisation is. I honesty believe there is a case for Government intervention, except four years ago showed us the Government aims for Scottish football are the same as the SFA’s. One club matters, the rest of the clubs are simply there to give that club someone to lord it over more often than not. Make no mistake, for many of those in power that is Scottish football Utopia in a nutshell.
It’s all very depressing. I’m sure all the fans of Gretna and Third Lanark will fully agree with me.
John Clark @ 12:03
Sterling work, John.
I have always believed as a matter of fact that a rectum and a penis were two separate objects. The two could not be be one.
However, having now read the contributions of Mr Broadfoot to your conversation, perhaps this is merely a matter of opinion.
John Clark 26th January 2016 at 12:03 am
Wonderful initiative and a seminal piece John.
Scottish Football now has its own Toom Tabard.
Alan Macrae our president who seems to be so constrained by those who facilitated his empty figurehead status that he has to hide behind his minder.
And jointly they and theirs continue to pedal their own view of the world that justifies everything they have collectively done in the past.
Because in their minds it was for the good of their game.
And if they keep saying it and it keeps getting repeated ad nauseum in their tame main stream press then it will become the truth.
One real telling insight is they had obviously pre-judged you as someone driven by getting more for their own club rather than the future of our game.
A new blog! And such an important one. Again it reminds us that the custodian of the nation’s game is constantly trying to belittle fans’ opinion by implying this is all about partisanship. It ain’t. It’s about having rules and applying those rules fairly and equally to all.
As to Mr Broadfoot’s assertion that the previous president is a man of the highest integrity – his comment ‘there was no evidence’ might cut both ways.
I think that the small talk at the end of the meeting is as sure an indication you will get that at the very top, Scottish football is viewed very fixedly through the OF prism.
It also betrays a level of pettiness (at best) and a desperation to pigeonhole others to serve an outdated narrative.
The Spartacus moment is up there with the best of them though 🙂 – a study in unselfconsciousness
Superb JC & I suspect many like me would have wanted to inflict serious physical damage on Mr Broadfoot, who is clearly taking on Malcolm Tucker delusions in his current role?
What must be like to be ensconced in the bunker, while all around you events are taking place, leaving the SFA looking more & more like an utterly, inept, decrepit relic of the past……where an old order clings bitterly to power,hoping that the barbarians at the gate, will all just go away?
What does it say about the structure of Scottish Football and our individual clubs who give succour and support to this outdated & outmoded institution that in the 21st century, we have a man like Mr McCrae at the helm?
What other industry(other than the BBC & local Council politics perhaps) would such a set of individuals be allowed a leading role in shaping & administering the professional game?
And why do we, as supporters of individual clubs, allow this monstrosity to continue, amid bellicose support from their “pals” the Scottish mainstream media?
We need a revolution, we need this entire structure & everything it supports, to be swept clean. Ideally, put Ann Budge & Leeanne Dempster in charge initially & then let’s have some semblance of real democracy, by putting fans of ALL clubs in positions of power?
Change can’t come quick enough….
It has been made obvious (in past correspondence with Darryl) that the SFA’s Director of Communications will do no such thing (communicate) when Campbell Ogilvy, LNS,DOS, and Wee Tax Case come into the conversation. []
Well done JC
I speak for the SFA was the comment, and IMO the SFA speak for one club and that interview cements my opinion. Really asking or trying to find out if you were a Celtic fan sums them up. Cowards all of them cowards trying to maintain the same club mantra, shocking and sadly believable approach from them. Not for me,sorry cowards the club at Ibrox is a new club and your approach sums up why you are not fit for purpose.
John,
I doubt any of us could possibly get across sufficiently our admiration for what you’ve done. We all know the efforts you’ve put in as our court reporter and the hours and energy you’ve used up in ensuring we never forget the part played by those considered to be the custodians of our sport. They were, and continue to be, despicable people. Businessmen, with businessmen’s morals, not custodians.
I have to say that as a one time insatiable reader of Cold War novels, I immediately got a mental picture of a small man behind a desk (a high level functionary) with a larger, smooth as silk, man standing by his side, the obvious power in the room. The functionary, who you, Bernard Sampson, had come to see, would say very little, while the man standing next to him would talk for, well, the whole of the Soviet Union, while in reality it was the Secret Police!
It is, in fact, a rather sad picture, where the man who sought office, and was voted in to do a job maintaining the integrity of that office (whatever the body might be), and to be the figurehead that promotes the public image of the body, should be content to allow another, lesser, functionary to protect him from his own words, and his own integrity!
To me, Mr McRae was either afraid of who you might be, or the SFA were afraid of what he might tell you! Darryl Broadfoot was the SFA’s minder. Why would the president of the SFA need a minder? Is he so incompetent he can’t be trusted to discuss football governance with a member of the public without causing the SFA some embarrassment? Have our football clubs voted into power a man incapable of holding a one to one conversation with a member of the public; does he always have a minder, even when talking to an SFA member, – officially – in private?
There is an even more sinister side to the ‘Darryl’ factor, and that is, he was there to intimidate you, two against one; the practiced PR man, well versed in not answering questions and happy to lie, all in the best interest of Scottish football, of course.
I think, John, that you have had an experience of an LNS Enquiry style interview, where a figurehead (McRae) is used to give the meeting an air of authority and integrity, while a PR exercise was carried out with the intention of bamboozling you, or, at the very least, ensuring your questions remain unanswered.
The thing is, we are all aware of this, we can see through it all, and the fact that they have to use this disgusting tactic just proves the weakness of their position. If they had nothing to hide, if they were prepared to give truthful answers, then there would have been no minder, just a free and frank exchange between two men of integrity.
Of course, that planning, the orchestration, it failed. It failed, but not because you weren’t open to their argument (if they had been prepared to argue their position). It failed because they had to use this tactic, they had no defence for their actions! After all this time, they haven’t been able to come up with anything plausible to explain what they have done.
Again, well done, John, it surely wasn’t easy to sit there knowing you were being treated with such disrespect. Must be comforting, though, to know that the picture you have drawn, from their public utterances, of these men, was, and is, extremely accurate.
John,
Thank you. All that needs saying really.
But of course I’ll ruin it by offering my thoughts, obviously!
1/ I love the “two can be one” statement. It should surprise me. It doesn’t. Gutted you didn’t throw in a loose “I take you are referring to everything apart from liabilities Darryl” for good measure
2/ Re OC/NC you need to watch it doesn’t become the tail wagging the dog. As said many times on here I suspect you simply won’t get the definitive answer you’re looking for. Rather you, in interviews like this, Auldheids sterling Res 12 efforts etc are just going to make them look more and more ridiculous. In fact (hopefully) more and more responsible and complicit, but it would appear that unless the clubs force the issue that they will go down fighting for what they appear to consider “the cause.” ((And I am neither inferring nor assuming what that cause might be – lets just assume its “the good of football” in their eyes and leave it at that)).
3/ Instead, the simple extraction I take from Broadfoot’s responses are that getting one half back (in his eyes) is more important than any preparation for another liquidation event (a point not specific to Rangers* incidentally). I personally don’t see that the actions of the last 4 years have done anything to shift clubs away from excessive gearing and risk taking. In fact what I see (given that much of Rangers actual experiences as matters played out were down to their own (in)actions) is actually the removal of the threat that going bust is a bad thing! Nae debt, lots of trophies. Whats not to like?
4/ Finally, once again as a battle hardened nor’eastener the OF prism that BP refers to historically is hardly a surprise. The clear inference from DB with, apparently and disappointingly, no counter conjecture from AM, is that it is the firm reinstallation of that same prism that is our only model, plan and dream. Actually, scratch model from that. A model usually has demonstrable figures backing it up.
Golf anyone?
Well done John Clark and at least some kudos to McRae for having the meeting.
Sadly, your report of the enscounter reminds me of something I heard recently from Gyles Brandreth with regard to his time as an MP.
Brandreth was appointed to a junior minsterial role as a Lord of the Treasury. The more he got into the job, the more doors opened in terms of where the power was behind the country’s financial and economic decisions. As each door opened Brandreth expected to encounter people who really had their finger on the pulse and knew what was going on. The further up the tree he traveled, the more knowledge and expertise he thought he would find.
However, at the end of the day, he likens his opening of the final door in the chain of command to Toto and Dorothy pulling back the curtain in Oz to reveal someone pulling levers and flicking switches with no real handle on the matters in which they were supposed to be in control of.
Like any great wizard it really is a case of employing misdirection, smoke and mirrors when it come to the SFA.
JC, does Daryll Broadfoot have any resemblance to the lovely Debbie McGee?
From the Rolls of Court of Session I see that ‘P 1266/15 Pet: MASH Holdings Ltd for orders under Section 996 re Rangers’ is a Starred motion before Lord Tyre between 9.00 a.m and 9.30 a.m tomorrow.
Section 996 is Section 996 of the Companies Act 2006, which is about asking the Court to tell a company to do something that it should have done or to stop doing something it shouldn’t be doing, or not to amend its Articles, and one or two other things.
I have probably missed a beat or two, but I can’t say I was aware that MASH were petitioning in this vein? Is this a new move, or have I been asleep?
I will attend Court tomorrow to try to find out what in particular MASH are looking for.
Sorry, just as a follow up;
Now call me a cynic but would any lender to any football club be working on that same “legal advice”? By the way Mr bank yer loan and yer repayment source are two completely different and entirely separate things. Good luck with that business plan.
I only copy in this line to show my utter disdain for it. So only Old Firmers consider there to be a difference between Administration and Liquidation, to everyone else they’re just kinda the same thing ok. Yeah right – that’ll be why there are different rules in football and indeed laws of the land to cover them then yes? I still cannot believe there are no phoenix implications!
See my point above. I am personally not too hung up on the OC/NC thing. I am very hung up on the “club shedding debt to win trophies” thing particularly at my own clubs expense. Yes expense Darryl. Very. Mr Broadfoot seems to be holding the door open to the shedding possibility and it is not clear to me why. Actually its very clear to me why, but that’s a different matter.
Thanks again John
quite astonishing comment from Broadfoot (not for the first time…..)
“Mr Broadfoot opined that the future would show whether Scottish Football supporters were really concerned about the old club/new club debate, if huge numbers turned their backs on the game.”
Well, there you have it folks…. Direct from the SFA spokesman! The only way to settle this debate is to damage your club and leave the game in droves!
It’s what they want!
Last one, I promise.
Surely the answer is “a pair of …..” Which just goes to prove that apparently two can indeed be one!!!
John, just on the Mash thing – is this not Ashley protesting about his voting rights being removed prior to the dilution vote?
sorry, forgot to say chapeau to JC, sterling work sir!
John the belief is tomorrow is about RIFC attempting to prevent SD exercising its right to vote as a shreholder. This may or may not be about the defeated motion at the agm or the rumour that some votes were not counted anyway. Word is that the discarded votes were the Easdales and their proxys.
Well done JC. I can’t commend your effort enough, you have done us all a great service.
It appears that for Daryll “I am the SFA” Broadfoot there is no hope and this is sort of blank denial of reality is now to be expected I think – his only objective seems to be to maintain “face” for himself and the SFA now at all costs. I think to backtrack or change tack now would be personally disastrous for those involved, so they simply cannot admit the truth and must deny reality whenever it is presented to them.
While those of us looking at their actions with a critical eye can see quite clearly how delinquent this organisation has become, they will still cling on safe in the knowledge that many fans will not look hard enough, the media will leave them in peace and the Scottish Government will not get involved.
For me the most interesting comment was the Daryll’s assertion that they have legal advice that the new Rangers club are the same as the old club and that the SFA cannot challenge that.
I’d love to see Daryll try to back that up with evidence, but I’m sure he won’t…..
As to the assertion Ogilvie is of the highest integrity that doesn’t quite stand up to the evidence available in as much as if he were of genuinely high integrity then he would welcome being questioned and have the opportunity to openly share the full truth of his knowledge of these affairs. To do anything else is less than displaying the highest integrity I’m afraid.
As for the attempt to define this is a Celtic vs Rangers matter and paint JC as a Celtic fan, just to fit their own myopic agenda.. well I think it perfectly encapsulates exactly why the SFA are in their current quagmire.
They appear to have no respect for the truth, no respect for the meaning of words, no respect for football fans, no respect for clubs outwith their “old firm”.
They appear to be utterly shackled to this old glasgow rivalry and I can see no way for Scottish Football to possible be successful in any of its stated aims with this small minded mentality endemic within the organisation that is supposed to lead the game into the future.
The SFA is utterly unfit for purpose.
We certainly should waste no further time on the likes of Broadfoot or Reagan.
McRae is running out of chances to show himself as a leader, to fight for honest transparent dealings with fans, clubs and media.
In fact I’d go as far to say that if no one in the SFA can step forward and start to clean out the stables then the stench will become unbearable and the inevitable consequence will be the end of the SFA- they will be sidelined or replaced sooner or later if they continue down this path.
I for one hope the new federation of clubs that takes its place recruit all new people and the organisation is based away from Glasgow, perhaps in Stirling hopefully this might allow a bit more fresh air to flow through the offices.
Fully endorse those comments Matty. Just on the Ogilvie bit. Someone with true integrity right at the start – and there are several examples in history – would have said “I am not conflicted (whether true or not), but I can understand why people would perceive me to be conflicted, and that perception is damaging enough” and promptly exited stage left. None of this stepping out for a moment nonsense.
Not to do so suggested naivete of the highest order, and that description is the most generous I could think of given what I believe to be the reality. Man the lifeboats? He was the bl**dy lifeboat!
Thank you so much John! Many’s the time I’ve wanted to turn my back on “this thing” and Scottish Football sickened as I am with the SMSM and the tacit compliance of the 41 Then I read one of your posts and I know I can’t give up! You’re an inspiration John and a thorn in their side!
Excellent post JC
I read this earlier this morning and have just done so again,and I know if I continue to read this my head will fall off from the rest of my body with the amount of shaking in disbelief that the incumbent that claims to be the organ grinder and his pet monkey are trying to peddle,well now we know that Mr McRae is the puppet we all thought and his strings are being pulled by others,please go now and save yourself and family from further disgrace,as for Mr Broadfoot,he has just confirmed what we all believed that the SFA is being run by a bunch of incompetent morons that have been allowed to shape an organisation ,so corrupt,so dysfunctional that a large dose of Preperation H would not be able to shift,sad but that’s what the directors of all clubs in Scotland accept as the people to run our game,shame on you all.
What a great article JC and the comments which followed reflect this site perfectly.
I honestly don’t know how you kept your cool, to present them with those cold hard and truthful facts and be given those non replies and defences must have been difficult. But at least it is now another episode in the archives of their corruption.
A poster mentioned above that the SMSM & the SFA seem to think that if they keep repeating things often enough it will be accepted as truth. Not while we have folk like JC, Auldheid, Allyjambo, Easyjambo and many others to remind us on a daily basis. The SFA live in the past where they think their utterances are law and that is the end of it. The SMSM live in the past too when they thinks their opinion is the only one that counts. They are out of date, their time is coming. They are well aware that the bampots are not going to go away but they don’t know how to deal with it.
I also agree that you have usurped the MSM here (apart from Alex Thomo). To go to the heart of the establishment and ask the right questions even although the answers were pathetic.
Well done JC.
Smugas 26th January 2016 at 10:45 am
tykebhoy 26th January 2016 at 10:48 am
_______
Thanks, chaps. I had kind of forgotten that business!
Well done JC!
The ‘I am the SFA’ bit reminds me of Charlie Green telling Craig Whyte ‘You are Sevco.’
How petty that you had to be investigated for ‘Timminess’ as if that somehow makes your work/concerns more or less valid. No way will I accept it was a wee bit of small talk, banter if you like. We’re dealing with some parcel of brogues here. Brilliant John!
JC
You are forgiven. You have kinda been busy!
John Clark, first of all, thank you for sharing your SFA meeting with us – well done! Could I make some observations on your ‘Papal audience’?
I recall the various discussions on SFM in October of last year as a result of the alleged pronouncements of the incoming SFA President. They gave many of us some concern as they came in quotes. I believe this was your reason for seeking clarification with McRae. It is strange that he now has no recollection of expressing such views in the media.
McRae is an experienced businessman and must have more than just a fleeting knowledge of Scottish football to have put himself forward for President of the SFA. The fact he was elected shows how highly regarded he must be by the member clubs. To have had an informal meeting with a mere fan in the lion’s den should have been meat and drink to him. Why then was it necessary for McRae to hide behind an SFA employee during this encounter? Was he afraid that he would be made to look a fool if he regurgitated the party line? Is McRae not able to think for himself and engage in reasonable debate on matters that are paramount to his organisation? You ask for a chat with the Godfather and you get stuck with Tom Hagen.
I’m sure that as part of his roll as SFA press officer, Broadfoot monitors the social media aspect of Scottish football. He would no doubt have been aware of your postings on SFM prior to your meeting with McRae and I’m convinced he was present in case you ambushed El Presidente. How unprofessional was it for your hosts to attempt to raise the subject of any team allegiance on your part. I rather suspect your appropriate response left them both rather embarrassed.
What you have now demonstrated, John, is that the Scottish football authorities have battened down the hatches and are prepared to tough it out in the face of all opposition to their corruption and deceit. Only time will tell, but the Big Tax Case verdict should give us an indication of the skulduggery still to come.
I would encourage everyone to raise this subject matter of John’s excellent post with their clubs, supporters associations, fan forums and of course link back to the source here.
This needs a wide audience and the sooner all senior clubs in Scotland understand that a significant body of fans are very unhappy with this sort of attitude the better.
We all deserve much better than this.
please check
https://exposingtherhats.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/sfm-meet-the-sfa-sfas-notes/
its clearly breaching (c) laws, wordpress t&cs and you can have the phantom identified, closedown and sued for that.
Clearly this site being read closely by some people who don’t understand the law.
J.C. What can I say that has not gone before so I add my thanks to sterling effort seeking clarity.
You couldn’t mark them with a blowtorch!
Methinks you have been over in the ‘far’ East too long – Broadfoots’ closing remark in trying to reduce your effort as a partisan mission was worthy of a Glesga Kiss or at the very least a kick in the erse!
“I am the SFA”.
“You are Sevco”!
Does anyone else see a similarity here? A similarity of mind-set, perhaps? A similarity of style?
We know what kind of man said the second quote. He, at least, used it to give comfort to a man who was undoubtedly of the same mind-set. Darryl Broadfoot, on the other hand, was not looking to give comfort to a member of the public, he was looking to establish power. I presume he was also trying to establish that he spoke for the SFA (which might have been a more acceptable thing to say) and it’s members. I wonder if any members are happy that he should say this, to anyone, and will they take action, even privately, to let him know he doesn’t speak for them, if they are people, that is, who do not like a functionary to assume he can speak for them, whether or not they agree with his stance?
One thing, both McRae and Broadfoot agreed Rangers FC had been liquidated, so they don’t buy into any legal continuation theory. I take it from John’s report that there was no claim, from either, that it was only the company that is being liquidated, perhaps John could clarify? Taking that to it’s logical conclusion, they must be continuing with the stance, put forward by Regan (and remains, as far as I am aware, the only publicl statement on the matter from the SFA), that it was up to the supporters of RFC to decide on the matter, which means they (the SFA) buy into the ethereal properties of a football club.
One other thing (sorry
), the claim was made that ‘…and that the legal advice obtained was that Mr Green’s new club was not a new club, and the Authorities were stuck with that.’
I think I can safely say, that if that were true, a transcript of that advice would have been published years ago. That had the SFA told Mr Green that they had this legal advice, he would not only have shouted it from the rooftops, he would have insisted the SFA publish it. Clearly, if they want us all to ‘move on’, then publishing a definitive answer to the OC/NC debate is the only way to achieve that. That the SFA’s legal advice was not published can only logically lead to the certainty that neither they, nor anyone at TRFC, want it to be published!
Further, as we have seen in matters like LNS and the Pinsent Manson investigation, lawyers can come up with whatever it is they are commissioned to produce! All they need are parameters in which to work! Obviously this only works where there is no opposing ‘interested’ party, and would not stand up in a court of law.
Yet again JC, sincere thanks for all your efforts on behalf of Scottish football.
Note to Daryl, not just the two clubs you’re clearly obsessed with from Glasgow.
What you have described here JC is probably one of the finest examples of an organisation
which is completely out of touch with its customer base. Everyone knew this but it’s good to
have confirmation!
Finally you say the meeting ended ‘cordially’. Chapeau for this!
I, like many others I’m sure, would struggle with cordiality, given
the nature of your conversation with this pair of buffoons!
gerrybhoy67 26th January 2016 at 12:00 pm # J.C. What can I say that has not gone before so I add my thanks to sterling effort seeking clarity. You couldn’t mark them with a blowtorch! Methinks you have been over in the ‘far’ East too long – Broadfoots’ closing remark in trying to reduce your effort as a partisan mission was worthy of a Glesga Kiss or at the very least a kick in the erse
____________________
I think John has delivered both in a typically SFM way
Take that
and that
, you lickspittles
which paper will be first to run with this story….?
well done jc.
Excellent JC. It would now seem that we have a president who cannot be trusted to meet with a member of the general public for fear of divulging information that the SFA need kept under wraps. Or maybe he just hasn’t been told what his opinion is regarding this clusterckuf. Any way, Darryl, the SFA Rottweiler was deployed to ensure JC did not get to talk directly to the person who had agreed to meet him in the first place. The contempt for fans and the general public that he and his SFA cronies hold could not be clearer. This cannot go on much longer before the game in Scotland is beyond repair if it has not already reached that tipping point.
is there a recording of it – or is it jc contemporaneous notes
hidden pen microphone (oh the irony) and we have a film we could market and sell SFM – da movie.
I can only join in with everyone else by thanking JC for this truly unbelievable development.
I never thought we’d see the day those fools in the Bunker would allow a mere mortal ( even one such as John!) into the inner sanctum for tea and a chat.
Couple of points.
Good to see Mr SFA hiding behind the ‘legal advice’ they were given re the ”Club’.
Never thought legal advice came in such a black and white fashion. Surely a good advisor would leave themselves some wriggle room?
Still, I’m sure Mr Ashley will enjoy testing the extent of their legal advice in the near future.
Finally, John, I do have to commend Mr SFA and his mate for their good natured banter at the end.
Things have at least improved since the bad old days when they cut out the banter and would simply have asked you which school you went to.
‘Nil Sine Labore’ was never more merited than it is today, John. Well done!
I’m sorry to go over the ground again.
AJ purports that the SFA believe, or at least desperately want us to believe, that the ethereal club thingy (one especially) is immortal. Let there be no doubt that it is separate to the liabilities of the company for sure whilst the assets (I thought Macrae’s interruption re the ‘goodwill’ seemed telling) seem to strangely float on the tide between the two depending on who’s in court on any given day and what they may or may not have recorded!
Whether or not that is the case, legal advice, wishful thinking or criminal plea aside it is not the key point going forward, albeit I accept that it’s clarification is a core value on which the game should be built going forwards. It is the implication, the practical ramifications of the OC/NC debate that is key, not the actual answer itself. If clubs are indeed immortal then great. I’m all for it. Let every investor know that and lets all move on accordingly. And they will. Sharpish.
Great work, JC. Having had personal experience of how Darryl retreats from a conversation once the questions turn difficult, I have to say I’m amazed that they even allowed such a meeting.
The only thing I can think of is that Mr MacRae invited you in off his own back, which might mean he is a decent, fan-focussed individual rather than just another lickspittle as we fear. If, subsequently, the Omerta-holders within the SFA found out, that could explain Darryl’s attendance in case his Chairman went off script.
From your meeting with him, how was Mr MacRae’s demeanour? Did he appear comfortable with Darryl’s deflections and his own (enforced?) silence?
I stress I do not know Mr MacRae or his viewpoint on Rangers, but I struggle to understand otherwise how the meeting came to take place at all given our collective experience of the SFA in the past! Can anyone come up with another reason why they would allow it? It is just so out of character that I’d really like to know why they did it.
In any event, is there a way we can all use your minutes to embarrass Mr MacRae and/or Darryl into providing further information? Could people cherrypick comments e.g. ‘two distinct signatories to 5WA’ and ask for clarification as to how that could be a matter of opinion? I plan to.
Finally, I tried googling for the quotes that prompted your letter in the first place and can’t find anything. Does anyone have a link or have the quotes saved?
John Clark
Well done sir.
Ally Jambo.
The reference to legal advice on being the same club is very interesting. I suppose context is all, but if the advice is correct why did SFA tell Charles Green he was not entitled to a transfer fee or compensation for the departure of players like Naismith and McGregor? If the same club had continued to be the same club their registration with the SFA would have remained showing they were contracted to RFC.
I have wondered if say McCulloch’s SFA registration changed to reflect the fact he was contracted to a different employer.
If I were supporter of TRFC I would be looking into this because the value of those fees would come in very useful right now.
The report at
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-lose-out-in-6m-compensation-1565475#ibi5H6qZFM5PUFCd.97
suggests the legalities were investigated and a decision reached on the basis that
“The tribunal has agreed with the players. They agree newco shouldn’t be allowed to take on the arbitration of oldco and, as such, the players were entitled to leave as free agents.”
Read more at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-lose-out-in-6m-compensation-1565475#dMxGDfexCFzSvAVV.99
Can any legal chaps expand on the arbitration point?
Test
Thinking about the legal advice comment from Daryll.
Does anyone else think perhaps SFM could follow this up on everyone’s behalf and ask exactly what legal advice was given, from who and in what context?
A copy of the advice would be even better but at the very least some context and a summary of what advice was given would surely only strengthen the SFA’s case.
And they are quite sure about their version of the facts, why not take the opportunity to prove their point and put the debate to bed once and for all.
And of course, clear up (some small degree of) the stench in the process.
They want us all to move on, so surely they can just provide clear, unambiguous statements of facts with evidence or sources as appropriate?
If they can’t or won’t do that then the SFA’s assertion of same clubness isn’t worth a damn.
am sure Mike Ashley and his troops will be looking to expose SFA about their legal advice!!!!!
Also if they have legal advice that its same club, then next admin is 25pts….
my first post has 13 ups and 1 (rangers fan – hi there phantoml5 ) down vote.
twitter is going nuts over this article, is there anyway to monitor it….
BigPink : could a vistor counter be added so we know how many times article being read….? Does wordpress support these options……
Matty Roth,
We could ask the question, but I’m fairly sure you’ll find the answer is “But, but LNS n’that…”
In my previous post I meant to reference the point subsequently made by TBK that “Broadfoot opined that the future would show whether Scottish Football supporters were really concerned about the old club/new club debate, if huge numbers turned their backs on the game” – that the only way for custodians of our national sport, a membership organisation, to gauge their paying customers’ views was to active damaged their members interests by, in effect, forcing possibly “huge numbers” of paying customers to leave.
If that really was the SFA speaking, it is clearly not fit for purpose; if it wasn’t, the Director of Communications seems incapable of communicating effectively, and is therefore clearly not fit for purpose….
I suspect Darryl made up the “legal advice” comment on the spot as a short term device to deflect from the argument. No way that wouldn’t have come out 🙂
One get-out would be to say he meant LNS’s advice, which of course is not legal advice per se but might help to save face.
Be interesting to see if he “restates” in a way that might suggest JC has misunderstood.
I think the earlier comment about McCrae going off-piste in inviting John to Hampden is correct. It would have had klaxons (see what I did there?
) going off in the executive toilets. Daryl was probably imposed on McCrae for the meeting.
Ultimately they are between a rock and a hard place. They had probably hoped that John C couldn’t handle the tone or level of conversation (that arrogance wrt fans is present at almost every football club I have experience of) but ironically, it was the “pro” who ended up mis-speaking.
He cannot confirm that “legal advice” remark, nor can he easily retract it.
Before John went along to the meeting, we had an inkling that errors had been made at Hampden in agreeing to the meeting in the first place. I thought the best way they could have handled it would be for an off the record mano a mano between Mr McCrae and JC emphasising the political pragmatism required of the SFA’s in this matter.
Instead, they went in with a heavy hand which betrayed a disresect for Mr McCrae’s abilities and an arrogance positon in respect of the fans.
I think they bit off more than a douce mouthful – thus the mis-speaking 🙂
Let’s be clear here. From John’s recollection of the events, written (I can verify) within a couple of hours of the meeting, there is no room for doubt that Darryl Broadfoot told us that for the purposes of that meeting, he was the SFA. Since he refused to discuss certain items of John’s agenda it is a fair assumption that when he did discuss matters, he was speaking for the SFA.
Therefore, as “the SFA”, DB told us unequivocally that according to the SFA, Rangers are a new club.
As a consequence of JC’s visit then, the SFA have for the first time departed from their Great Equivocator role and told it like (they think) it is.
I think that is big news. I wonder how many people will jump on that in the media?
Perhaps accompanied by a flypast of RAF Pork Squadron
dj7
Around 10 000 people have read the article here so far. I think it has been cut’n’pasted on a few places too 🙂 …
… so that’s 5 010 000 🙂
If that was the answer, then better we hear it.
And of course giving them the opportunity to justify themselves to fans of football clubs across Scotland is only fair.
BigPink does exposingtherhats site have permission to re-publish article from this site in its entirety?
Its a fellow wordpress site and without explicit permission breaches your copyright, if you raised complaint to wordpress that site could be shutdown and their owner exposed and legal action started – looks like open and shut case, and you would probably win you legal fees as well.. ask for nice donation to charity of your choice…..
Nicely done, JC. You have confirmed just how clueless and out of touch the SFA are. They seem to view this as a Celtic/Rangers issue and that is laughable.
I wonder if any of our MSM has ever considered asking the president of the SFA some questions? Then again he doesn’t appear to be very talkative. Given Darryll Broadfoots ‘Spartacus’ moment, and continuing on the film theme, can I suggest we call this incident ‘Mr Clark goes to Hampden?’. JC seems a decent Jimmy Stewart type.
Maybe on any future SFM merchandise we could have the words ‘for the purposes of this meeting, I am the SFA.’ I think it would be appropriate on a mug.
Brilliant JC.
You have finally got the SFA to peep out the Bunker
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Re the notes of your SFA meeting with Alan McRae and Darryl Broadfoot
With the honourable exception of Turnbull Hutton (R.I.P.)
This is the first time I have seen a trustworthy account of how the SFA respond when confronted with their corrupt behaviour in recent years
I`ll just focus on why there were 3 people and not two people at the meeting
You requested the meeting in a personal capacity and not as a representative of SFM. Nevertheless DB was not only in attendance but told you in the presence of the SFA President that he (i.e. Darryl Broadfoot) was “The SFA”.
This was a humiliating statement to make in front of Alan McRae. It implies he was only there to add prestige and gravitas to a more able storyteller
It rather suggests
Either
SFA President Alan McRae has no authority to meet one to one with a social media blogger
Or
SFA President Alan McRae has the authority but is unable or not deemed capable of handling the meeting on his own.
Which begs another question?
What does Darryl Broadfoot bring to the meeting that Alan McRae doesn`t?
IMO
Darryl is well versed in story telling where it suits the purpose he is instructed to achieve
His profession call it spin.
If their arm is twisted they might call it stretching the truth
But
Ordinary people…….. Including their own family
call it lying
……………….deliberate pre-planned lying
We can therefore deduce that
Alan McRae was not trusted to spin the party line(i.e. tell lies)
But
Darryl Broadfoot was trusted to spin the party line(i.e. tell lies)
Which tells us
Alan McRae is probably a nice guy who would prefer to tell the truth all of the time. He probably wanted a one to one meeting because he thought answering questions honestly with the occasional “Can`t comment on that” was perfectly acceptable.
Whereas
Darryl Broadfoot probably believes any dealings with the MSM and social media must be controlled to ensure the message is consistent and in line with SFA policy
It doesn’t matter if the message is truth or lies or a mixture of both.
It doesn’t matter if it’s legal or illegal, ethical or unethical
As long as it’s consistent and fits the preferred narrative
It`s just a story after all
The answers given to JCs questions suggest that the SFA party line is to defend corrupt behaviour rather than deal with the consequences of admitting they were corrupt
The presence of DB suggests they view fan views of their corruption as a PR issue that warrants a PR solution
One good thing may have come from the meeting
By saying very little, Alan McRae reserved the right to disagree outside the meeting .
Lets hope he does
As I read it, the implication is that the SFA received their “legal advice” in connection with the 5WA, and the admission of Sevco to Scottish football.
The LNS decision was published in February 2013, that’s over 6 months after the 5WA, which was negotiated at the end of July 2012. So whatever legal advice informed the 5WA, it wasn’t the contents of the LNS decision.
I don’t doubt that the SFA did obtain legal advice as to the club’s staus, in connection with the 5WA. What is the problem with them publishing it?
incredibleadamspark
i wonder if these days mr stewart would see harvey as a giant squirrel
Many bloggers are scared to have counters on their site as no-one reading them.
if 10,000 reads already in one day… and exposing site got response already within 1 hour of it appearing….
sfm is going thru the roof, look at twitter with icerocket….. twitter search for “sfm sfa” 1000s of hits
BP, you say “Therefore, as “the SFA”, DB told us unequivocally that according to the SFA, Rangers are a new club”.
From JC’s article, I’m not seeing that quite as clearly as you are. Can you point out the words that you think prove that DB, speaking for the SFA, tells us unequivocally that TRFC* are a new club? Thanks.
In this meeting with JC, Broadfoot, and to a lesser extent, McRae have shown themselves to be of the same ilk as Dave King. Their ‘legal advice’ is so similar to King’s ‘North of £20m’ in that only those who want to believe, will, while the rest of us will wait to see the evidence before scrutinising it.
There can be no doubt that there is no written advice stating that the two clubs are legally one, because, setting aside the fact that there is no basis in law for it, if it existed it would have been published long ago. It’s a bit like the Louvre in Paris saying ‘we have a previously undiscovered DaVinci painting, but we’re not letting anyone see it!’ Not only would there be no point in telling the world they have it, they would be preventing anyone examining it to declare it genuine! The art world would not believe, even this august body, without sight of what they claim to have.
Go on Darryl, make me look a right fool, publish that legal advice!
Tony, I’d watch that movie! Seems like loads of Jimmy Stewart films can be applied to the Rangers situation. What about ‘The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance’ and the quote ‘This is the West (coast of Scotland?), Sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.’
dj7 26th January 2016 at 2:03 pm # Many bloggers are scared to have counters on their site as no-one reading them. if 10,000 reads already in one day… and exposing site got response already within 1 hour of it appearing….
sfm is going thru the roof, look at twitter with icerocket….. twitter search for “sfm sfa” 1000s of hits
__________________________________
John Clark,
I doubt you ever thought it might happen, and with your lack of internetery thingummijiggery I’m not sure you’ll understand what it means…but it looks like YOU’RE GOING VIRAAAAAL
JJ’S take on JC’s post
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/mcraebroadfoot-state-that-rangers-are-the-same-club/
Mibbes we should ask Messers Broadfoot and McCrae how to make the rest of their member clubs immortal so we can take any financial anxiety out of the equation and get back to the fitba’. Great read, JC . One question, though . What kind of biscuits were provided ? I base a lot of my judgements on the catering – shallow, I know, but a simple and useful evaluation tool.
have to say that Broadfoot has left himself in the position where, should the various cases regards illegal and fraudulent purchase of “assets” (and by his extension the “Club”) be found in favour of the prosecution and go against those accused …….. It would open a raft of questions regards the legal entitlement of membership, player registrations and a host of other rule breaches….. that being the result, I believe he will be seeking the finest “legal advice” to disassociate himself (The SFA) from those comments.
Can’t have it both ways…….!
incredibleadamspark
i think we are in the middle of that movie already
Indeed we are, Tony. What about Vertigo? Jimmy Stewart plays Scottie Fergusson who watches the woman he loves die only to see her improbably come back to life later on. We later discover that an elaborate crime has been committed.
Apologies, I’m amusing myself now….
PHILS LATEST
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/checking-in-and-chequeing-out/#more-7275
incredibleadamspark
haha re-write holywood movies
I would imagine Broadwood will argue that since McCrae is a recent appointment he would not be au fait with the skulduggery at the time whereas he is an expert in it.
What were those biscuits, we demand to know those biscuits!
Smugas
orange clubs
Jimbo
Equally, I have a suspicion that their view pre meeting was that Macrae should not be held particularly responsible for the comments attributed to him (I understand this was JC’s initial thrust for the query) given that they may not have, technically speaking, in a round about way, kind of, for the absence of doubt, with the fullness of time and the benefit of hindsight, have initially been presented in a fashion of, liberally speaking, been what Daryll wanted him to say, as opposed to what Mr Macrae hadn’t been allowed to say.
Tony
Bandits