John Clark Meets “The SFA”
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.
John Clark author
1,392 Comments so far
AllyjamboPosted on3:03 pm - Jan 26, 2016
I have a feeling, that if Darryl Broadfoot has a sense of self-awareness, he will be wishing he’d phoned in sick on the morning of JC’s interview. I suspect, though, that he will be viewed at Hampden as having served his purpose, that of keeping the heat off Alan McRae, as well as, when required, the other office holders at the SFA.
Proof, I suppose, that you don’t have to be good at what you’re employed to do, to be useful to your masters!
View Comment
Rubicon1Posted on3:06 pm - Jan 26, 2016
John Clark, you are a hero!
I recently had a chat with a friend who has had close and recent contact with the SFA. He told me their wish is that BDO’s appeal on the Big Tax Case is allowed, thereby dragging matters out even further. They believe this delay will help their tactic of encouraging the ‘Let’s put all this behind us for the sake of Scottish football and move on’ theme. Sadly, my friend believes this theme is gaining ground across many club representatives. Stewart Milne’s recent comments reflect this.
Let’s hope the pending court cases derail this tactic. I’m afraid I’m not optimistic.
My pal added that he was astounded at the lack of rudimentary corporate governance within the SFA. Seems they have learnt little.
Corrupt officialPosted on3:17 pm - Jan 26, 2016
John Clark Kent. My admiration and respect knows no bounds !
Your “informal meeting” with Mr McRae was an immense achievement to even get to that level, and it seems clear to me that discussions took place prior to its arrangement. Discussions which were not about the topics you wished to discuss, but about how to ambush that discussion.
You may well have been there in a position of Joe Bloggs, concerned fitba fan, but it was with such fear and trepidation that McRae creaked open the bunker door, that he still felt the need to sit behind bullet proof glass, in the form of Broadmooth. They must consider you a fearful adversary.
I will be writing my club to enquire if it is their view, that Broadmooth is indeed “The SFA”, and if they endorse, as a member of this association, the comments put forward by this unelected official .
Further, I will be enquiring if it is also their view 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.”. Or if it is their view, that fans should play an important part in ensuring that governance failures are taken to task by fans, with the support of their club of preference, and if they would be prepared to offer such support in having those concerns addressed to an open and satisfactory conclusion.
This can easily be achieved, by the requesting and granting, of the SFA, access to the legal advice they say they have obtained, and a thorough explanation as to when, and why, they considered it necessary to seek such advice. Do this, and then indeed it would be fair to say it is for individual fans, or en masse, to either continue or desist. It is crucial that any decision taken by the fans is from a knowledgeable standpoint, or is this “advice” again to be considered another “secret”
It is inconceivable to me, that it would appear that the governing body is not only prepared to gamble on the future of our game, but is prepared to do so in such a “Take it or leave it” fashion. I find it astonishing that given the conditions this meeting was held under, that such a cowardly man as McRae can hold office, when the post requires a man who is prepared to go about the business he was elected to do, without fear, or favour.
Well done again John, for inflicting another great big riddy on this inept (dis)organisation.
tonyPosted on3:19 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Rubicon1
thereby dragging matters out even further
i’d have thought that would have the opposite affect,as in,nobody will move on as long as it’s ongoing in court
Rubicon1Posted on3:26 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Tony,
They’re relying on most people, not us Bampots, getting bored. With the passing of time the issue loses heat. We need fans from all clubs to resist this. My recent chat with a St Johnstone fan wasn’t encouraging. He knew little of the detail we take for granted. His main beef was ticket prices. Only one man, I know, but we do face a challenge in mobilising support.
AllyjamboPosted on3:37 pm - Jan 26, 2016
tony 26th January 2016 at 3:19 pm # Rubicon1 thereby dragging matters out even further i’d have thought that would have the opposite affect,as in,nobody will move on as long as it’s ongoing in court
_____________________________
That is such a good point. It also points to the disdain football governors hold we supporters in, that they think something as huge as this conglomeration of misdeeds can be swept under the carpet and forgotten, merely because they don’t have the will, nor ability, to sort it.
I’ve got news for them, until the last of their faces has disappeared from Scottish football, every time we see them, we will remember! The first ‘moving on’, should be them, from the game we all love. Even if events in court should force them to do what they should have done from the outset, we will only be able to ‘move on’ after they’ve all gone.
View Comment
tonyPosted on3:40 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Rubicon1
understand that,but like 2012 when required i think fans will stand up
SmugasPosted on3:41 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Broadfoot KPI’s
1/ Deflect heat away from Ogilvie. Tick
2/ Deflect/Mask heat away from Macrae. Tick (although I have a suspicion that he may be having a wee tet a tet with AM real soon, if not already).
3/ Convert Heat to OF centric fan ribaldry. Tick although questionable delivery. Must try harder. Too blatant.
4/ Consider Heat from non OF fanbase. Call Bluff. Tick to be confirmed.
View Comment
jimboPosted on3:42 pm - Jan 26, 2016
I’m beginning to warm to the idea of a major petition to the SFA. I wouldn’t know how to word it but there are plenty who would. These petitions often get press coverage (I know!) and if it garnered the support of 20k + supporters from all clubs, could they ignore it? I’d rather that than ‘turn my back on the game’. Just a thought.
View Comment
vansenPosted on4:04 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Bit late but really great stuff JC.
So there we have it, Rangers are the same club. The SFA have confirmed that they are legally the same club. Except they are not. Yet they are. But not.
In the aftermath of the CVA vote, it was very clear that Rangers were dead. The press admitted it. Former players admitted it. Giant blazing headlines mourning the passing of the club. Then the narrative took hold and we are where we are. It is as clear as day to me that this narrative has taken hold because of SFA assistance, not despite it.
JC’s notes confirm that the SFA are wedded to Rangers, to one club above all. Trust, long gone, has been trodden on again just for good measure. i guess the forthcoming criminal trials, and Ashley’s review of King’s fit and proper person (!) test will perhaps reveal more of why they have done so much to harm Scottish football.
View Comment
bordersdonPosted on4:13 pm - Jan 26, 2016
How many club chairmen and or CEO will have read the JC report? More importantly how many will do or say anything?
Sadly I think the SFA will be prepared to “sit out” the whole thing unless pressure is put on them by the clubs (who are the SFA). I fear there is not a will within the clubs. Any of them!!
I repeat THE CLUBS ARE THE SFA so pressure needs to be put on them. What pressure will they bow to?
erniePosted on4:21 pm - Jan 26, 2016
I have never met Ogilvie or Donald Trump but I see they have the same expectation of their supporters.
“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
Unfortunately they are right, they can do what they want.
AllyjamboPosted on4:25 pm - Jan 26, 2016
vansen 26th January 2016 at 4:04 pm # Bit late but really great stuff JC.
So there we have it, Rangers are the same club. The SFA have confirmed that they are legally the same club. Except they are not. Yet they are. But not.
In the aftermath of the CVA vote, it was very clear that Rangers were dead. The press admitted it. Former players admitted it. Giant blazing headlines mourning the passing of the club. Then the narrative took hold and we are where we are. It is as clear as day to me that this narrative has taken hold because of SFA assistance, not despite it.
JC’s notes confirm that the SFA are wedded to Rangers, to one club above all. Trust, long gone, has been trodden on again just for good measure. i guess the forthcoming criminal trials, and Ashley’s review of King’s fit and proper person (!) test will perhaps reveal more of why they have done so much to harm Scottish football.
_______________________________
Unless my memory is letting me down, there was absolutely no doubt, from any quarter, including the SFA, that Rangers were dead, until a man, now Universally recognised as a charlatan and liar, and despised by the bears as a liar, amongst other heinous things, changed his own stance and told them a lie that has become recognised, by those that wish it true, as the only non-lie he told them!
I find it strange how people will take the word of a man they know, categorically, to be a liar! Of course, it doesn’t help that we have a media that steadfastly ignores that unwanted glitch to the ‘same club’ notion. They have also failed to point this anomaly out to their readers!
No one, absolutely no one, made any attempt to put forward an argument for the continuation of a liquidated club, until a lying spiv, with a massive vested interest, and no legal education, invented a dodgy scenario he claimed meant liquidated Rangers lived on. His defence, of course, in a criminal case is now stating he didn’t buy the club, just a basket of assets!
Interestingly, whatever legal point Green’s counsel is trying to make, should it go unchallenged, or be upheld if disputed, regardless of the verdict, it blows the same club claim asunder!
View Comment
sixtaesevenPosted on4:34 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Biscuits?Wagon wheels (recently fallen off).
Joking apart, a fantastic piece of journalism from John Clark!
It will be totally ignored by the SMSM, but the bampots are taking heed and spreading the word.
Ideally, Alan McRae might be forced into a situation where he is asked to endorse the statements made by the SFA (aka DB).
neepheidPosted on4:35 pm - Jan 26, 2016
I can understand why the SFA are keen for the Big Tax Case appeal to go to the Supreme Court. Because if it doesn’t, and the case is once and for all final, then they will immediately come under huge pressure to revisit the LNS decision, and do something about the tainted titles and cups.
That is something they want to avoid at all costs. For so long as the appeal route is open, they can still hope and pray for a favourable (to them) result, and in any event, another year or two will have passed, which they believe will lower the pressure even if the CoS judgement is upheld.
Even just the wait for a ruling on whether an appeal can proceed has already given the SFA an extra 4 months breathing space. There is a hearing scheduled on 24 February at the CoS for BDO to make their case for an appeal. By the time a decision is announced after that hearing, it will have been 4 months from the original judgement. If the appeal goes ahead, I doubt that a decision will be issued in less than 18 months from then- it could even take longer.
Two more years without a final resolution is a bleak prospect. My hope is that the CoS stick to their guns and refuse leave to appeal. However I fear the worst.
Maybe the best hope is Resolution 12. That seems to me to stand on its own merits, regardless of the BTC outcome. I’ve not heard much about Resolution 12 for a while. Any news, Auldheid?
Corrupt officialPosted on4:36 pm - Jan 26, 2016
It looks like Wanyama may be heading to Ibrox, as Southampton will only consider “Stupid bids” 
Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:43 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Titfer doffed to JC. Your back must be sore from all those congratulatory pats you’re getting.
It’s more than disappointing to realise that the President of the SFA can’t (or isn’t allowed to) speak freely on matters of public interest that fall within his purview, but needs an interlocutor* to speak on his behalf.
What’s particularly galling is that Mr. McRae isn’t a newcomer to the SFA hierarchy; he’s been there since 2007. Unless he’s particularly dense, he must have some insight/knowledge on the topic he was to discuss. If he’s known to go ‘off piste’ & need a minder, why was he elected President?
(Incidentally, the SFA website still shows RC Ogilvie as President. ‘The unseen hand’ pulling the strings?)
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?page=2561
*One of the meanings of ‘interlocutor’ which came up as I was checking was ‘the master of ceremonies in a minstrel show’. After JC’s experience, it’s not too far off Darryl’s role (in my opinion, of course).
View Comment
Big PinkPosted on4:49 pm - Jan 26, 2016
On the subject of Mr Ogilvie’s integrity, I do think that the notion that he is a “very nice man” has somehow been conflated with “he’s a very truthful man” and “a very intelligent man”.
Personally I do not think that he is a bad man. I do not know him personally, but I have acquaintances and former colleague who will tell you that he is a very amiable man.
I do think however that if the quotes attributed to him by Mr. Chic Young (another very nice man) are correct, then truthfulness appears to have been a victim of conflicts of interest on Mr Ogilvie’s part.
When asked by Mr. Young about EBTs, he is alleged to have replied that he was not a recipient of the Trusts. When it became apparent that he had in fact received an EBT, he allegedly told Mr. Young that the quantum was “barely enough for a good night out!”
When it transpired that the quantum was in fact around £90,000 the information flow dried up.
Given the toxic nature of the initialism, it is little wonder that Mr. Ogilvie would deny being a recipient or seek to minimise the size of the loan. No harm done after all – and nobody else’s business he may have thought.
Many of us may take the same attitude, but I am sure we would all have to admit that deliberately misleading Mr. Young and the BBC would have our integrity called into question.
That is the very nature of conflict of interest. He knew in the current climate that an EBT would reflect badly on him. It was in his interest to maintain the veneer of propriety and distance himself from it. It was in our interests, as the paying (admission to football matches) and tax-paying public to know of it.
I really do not believe that he is an inherently dishonest man. I think he was caught up in something which ultimately reflected badly on him. He is no devil, but neither is he a saint.
Of course his integrity can be questioned, and it appears (with the caveat that Mr. Young reported his conversations with Mr. Ogilvie accurately) that it is demonstrably not of the utmost variety.
View Comment
Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:54 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Big Pink 26th January 2016 at 4:49 pm
=========================
Wasn’t there some hoo-hah about transferring shares into his wife’s name when he should have disposed of them?
View Comment
AllyjamboPosted on4:56 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Big Pink 26th January 2016 at 4:49 pm
Also.
A man of integrity would not have transferred his Rangers shares to his wife’s name when he took up a position at Hearts, he would have, as required, sold them to a non-related party. Nice to think those shares ended up as worthless as…the notion of his integrity, perhaps?
View Comment
Corrupt officialPosted on5:30 pm - Jan 26, 2016
So there we have it. Ogilvie was conflicted, Ogilvie lied, Ogilvie transferred shares contrary to SFA rules, and I believe doubtful he would pass their own fit and proper person guidelines with respect to company directors and clubs suffering an insolvency event. He is also in receipt of payments of which the legal position, as it stands, is a big No-No, but possibly subject to appeal.
He hasn’t exactly set the integrity bar very high…. At least nothing a 20 stone man on a space hopper couldn’t easily hurdle, and would find limboing under more of a challenge.
easyJamboPosted on5:31 pm - Jan 26, 2016
I too would like to put on record my thanks to JC for managing to arrange such an interview. My only regret was that JC had invited me along to accompany him, but I was forced to pull out due to illness.
I also had a number of questions for Mr McCrae re governance (election of SFA office bearers, FPP and FFP) and his immediate predecessor which leaves me frustrated at an opportunity missed. I would also have liked the opportunity to make some follow up questions to Mr Broadfoot with regard to his observations about fans turning their backs on the game (as they threatened to do in 2012 had the Newco been admitted to the SPL) and to further examine the integrity of Mr Ogilvie in relation to the LNS commission and during his time at Hearts.
I also had other questions that I wanted to put on the table (although not expecting to be answered) re the potential fall-out from the Fraudco trial and any revelations made in court which could show the SFA being complicit in the perpetration of a fraud, or officials compromised by Charlotte Fakes material, or disclosure of the full contents of the Pinsent Mason report.
View Comment
AuldheidPosted on5:31 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Ally Jambo
The legal advice will depend on context I imagine.
The LNS Decision as Neepheid points out post dates the shenanagins in June 2012 when 5 way was signed.
However what form did that advice take and in what context was it made?
Remember the SFA wanted football debts paid and CG could have said “only if we are a continuation of RFC.”
Football wanted it both ways and has become more bent than a CurlyWurly as a result.
tonyPosted on5:37 pm - Jan 26, 2016
JJ giving it both barrels
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/scottish-football-governance/
jockybhoyPosted on5:42 pm - Jan 26, 2016
A view from the other side of The Wall
A couple of stories have been floated by the SMSM (Scottish MainStream Media for recent discoverers of this site) in an effort to show that New Gers are a force to be reckoned with: their players are highly sought after and their coach is a man who can spin international gold out of journeyman straw: Rumpleswarburton if you will… Thought I’d give a little local colour from an expat Jock.
“Wes Foderingham tipped to play for England”
Clearly Foderingham was a talented young keeper – his U-16, U-17 and U-19 caps can attest to that… but he never appeared at u-21 level. He never appeared for his two premiership clubs (Fulham and Palace) and his contract wasn’t renewed by Swindon after 3 years there, which is why he was available for free. It would be a hell of a journey past Joe Hart (who is still only 28), “Big” Fraser Forster & Burnley’s Tom Heaton (1,2,3 for England’s last game). Then you have current U-21 starlet, Butland, who has impressed at Stoke (having rejected a move to Chelsea in order and is currently, apparently, statistically, the best-performing keeper in the Premier League.
That Foderingham has said he “doesn’t want the distraction of thinking about (England Cap)” is probably wise, that the SMSM does want the distraction is more the point…
“Battle for Britain’s top marksman”
As for the SMSM’s “battle” between Leigh Griffiths and Waghorn as to who is the most prolific striker in Britain, I’m fairly sure in the eyes of any neutral (or even those with anything but the most tinted of specs) it’s a no contest vis a vis who is top in Scotland, given the difference in division/level of opponent (no disrespect etc). Even the laziest SMSMSJ (SMSMSportsJourno) would know of the UEFA multiplier required to compare top leagues with lesser leagues for the Golden boot. That multiplier is goals x2 for top 5 leagues, 1.5 for the next 16(!) leagues and x1 for teams outside the top 21 leagues in Europe.
Guess which multiplier Scotland’s top division wold qualify for? Am not sure anyone’s ever asked if the lower tiers deserve an even lower multiple (.8 perhaps?) for divisions outside the top one. Anyhoo, Given Vardy’s phenomenal success @ Leicester (16 league goals in 23 league games this season)*, Lukaku & Odion Ighalos strong performances at Everton and Watford respectively and of course a certain Harry Kane plying his trade at Tottingham (and leading the line for England) I’d suggest the question about any pair knocking in goals for fun in Scotland (in any division!) as being in the same breath as the four I mentioned would get pretty short shrift.
And finally…. To Rumplewarburton: as well as tipping free agent Foderingham for an England call-up and discussing free agent Waghorn’s £3m tag as a veritable queue of English clubs apparently forms to thrown money at NewGers (wonder if Ibrox would try to hold them to ransom…?) Warbs has now claimed his side would be “ready for Europe” IF they win the Scottish Cup (which they’ve not even kicked a ball in anger in yet this season) and IF they make “the right signings” next year (I wonder how many of those would involve a fee…).
FYI The young Martyn Waghorn scored 8 times in his 59 appearances for The Foxes.
junglemikePosted on5:45 pm - Jan 26, 2016
I have not posted for a considerable time but I must now. This article by John Clark is as good as anything from the early days of RTC.
The SFA have given us several enormous hostages to fortune by asserting that
1 They had legal advice that liquidated Rangers and new Rangers were the same club. The campaign should now be relentless to reveal the source and qualityy of this advice.
2 The lazy and prejudiced assumption from their official spokesman that unhappiness over this comes only from the Celtic support and that the rest of Scotland is in favour of a cheating Rangers. Asking JC to reveal the team he favours is like the days when you were asked at job interviews if you had been to an RC school. And this insults the memory of people like Turnbull Hutton who were not associated with Celtic.
3 The SFA strategy is clear. Leave everything confused and unresolved (big tax case, legal issues around ownership of the club/company etc) until Rangers reach the top division and then bank on the usp of ‘Old Firm” to get us back to the old days.
It is no surprise that there has been no celebration of new good attendances at Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen, no marketing of the overall game, no inquest asking why we are the only Home Nation not to qualify for 2016 Euros. This interview is proof positive and transparent that the Establishment mind set is about Rangers through and through with every other club and the National Team as merely a backdrop for Rangers.
View Comment
incredibleadamsparkPosted on5:47 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Hello EdinMan. It’s always good to have people with a different opinion so please stick around for the debate and get your point across. You’ll no doubt be frustrated with some postings but you may also learn a few things that you could otherwise have been unaware of. Give SFM a try.
View Comment
tykebhoyPosted on5:54 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Anyone else think EdinMan is probably a journalist as he seems very adept at cut and pasting. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to have located the return key.
I won’t bother dissecting [] other than a lie told at least twice in there.
they had the power to do whatever they deemed fit, under the ACT, and they sold Rangers Football Club to newco.
No they didn’t. The exclusivity agreement stated that in the event of the failure to obtain a CVA then the Charles Green consortium would buy the assets of the club. The Administrators are clear that they only sold the assets and Charles Green recently admitted in court under oath that he only bought a basket of assets.
View Comment
incredibleadamsparkPosted on5:55 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Should’ve added that we could also learn a few things from EdinMan as well.
View Comment
AllyjamboPosted on6:00 pm - Jan 26, 2016
EdinMan 26th January 2016 at 5:17 pm
Thanks for that, it’s a while since we’ve seen these arguments put forward. Ignoring the fact that the LNS Enquiry had no legal basis, and was bought and paid for by the men at Hampden who also set the parameters for the legal bods to work around, I’ll paste something from it that was ignored by the media and those such as yourself. It is, like the rest of the LNS findings, not legally binding, but does counter balance his lordship’s acknowledgement of what the SPL rules say.
“The SPL disputes that Rangers FC ceased to be a club on 14 June 2012 and argues that that the relevant date is 3 August 2012”!
‘Rangers FC ceased to be a club’, the dates are irrelevant, what matters is that there is a point when Rangers FC ceased to be a club. At the very least, if this is to be ignored, or somehow derided, then the same must stand for the rest of LNS!
On the other hand, the man who first came up with the notion that TRFC were the same club as RFC, Charles Green, had his counsel in a criminal court of law state that he (Green) did not buy the club, he merely bought a basket of assets. Now, if Charles Green didn’t buy Rangers FC, who did?
How this might help Green in his defence, I don’t know, but the statement went unchallenged at the hearing, and if it remains unchallenged, or is upheld if disputed, it will be demonstrated that as a legal fact Charles Green didn’t buy Rangers Football Club. And if he didn’t buy it, then where is it, if not being liquidated by BDO?
View Comment
Big PinkPosted on6:00 pm - Jan 26, 2016
incredibleadamspark 26th January 2016 at 5:55 pm #
Should’ve added that we could also learn a few things from EdinMan as well
I wish that were true ias, but honestly, I can’t see anything from there. All I hear is someone who is genuinely frustrated that we take the position we do, but who has bought the farm that Charles Green and the MSM have sold to the fans.
I do hope he sticks around though.
View Comment
easyJamboPosted on6:09 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Scottish FA @ScottishFA 6m6 minutes ago
NEWS | Excelsior Stadium to host @officialEKFC vs @celticfc in @WillHillBet Scottish Cup: http://scotfa.co/kghHQU
I trust that someone has actually spoken to Airdrie re the availability of the ground this time round.
Big PinkPosted on6:15 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Another aspect of john’s meeting that has been touched on is the rather clumsy attempt to find out of he was a Celtic fan, thereby proving conclusively that he was a Rangers hater.
At best that tactic and line of questioning is snide, clumsy and illiterate. At worst it is sinister.
By that logic, had John asked Darryl about his allegiances, and had he answered truthfully, would we then have been entitled to assume he was a same club, liquidation denying zealot ?
No we would not – and Darryl Broadfoot’s allegiance to Rangers has probably very little to do with his posture and assumption of great power.
At the very top, this has very little to do with any club allegiances.
On the one hand it is about cash and the self interest of a very select few. On the other hand, it is about a real commitment to the truth and to the integrity of the sport we all love.
The fact that a commitment like that is routinely mocked is shameful. They no longer make any attempt to try to pretend to square Murray/RBS/Rangers circle with sporting integrity.
That is how bad it is. I think we owe John C a great debt in that his courage (and that was an incredibly brave thing to do) has crystallised for us just how things are in the state of Denmark (see what I did there John 🙂 )
View Comment
Carfins FinestPosted on6:16 pm - Jan 26, 2016
A very busy day today on SFM. Has anyone noticed if the venue for East Kilbride v Celtic FC has been announced yet? Has the SFA released any sort of statement?
View Comment
AllyjamboPosted on6:17 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Auldheid 26th January 2016 at 5:31 pm # Ally Jambo The legal advice will depend on context I imagine.The LNS Decision as Neepheid points out post dates the shenanagins in June 2012 when 5 way was signed.However what form did that advice take and in what context was it made? Remember the SFA wanted football debts paid and CG could have said “only if we are a continuation of RFC.”Football wanted it both ways and has become more bent than a CurlyWurly as a result.
____________________________
Totally agree, Auldheid. I think they’d like to make it clear that they do consider them to be the same club, but dare not. Not because of the fear of any legal challenge, but because of what it might mean to any club trying to raise money. If it’s ever announced that a club can’t die, then every possible lender will know that they leave themselves open to losing their money, while the club can restart, debt free, considered within football, itself at least, as the same club. At the time of liquidation, when it should have been put to bed, there were a number of clubs (not counting Hearts and Dunfermline) who were in uncertain positions financially. They have been able to sort themselves out, but maybe leaving the decision in limbo was, and still is, the preferred option.
Carfins FinestPosted on6:23 pm - Jan 26, 2016
SFA confirm East Kilbride’s Scottish Cup match against #Celtic next month will be played at Airdrie’s Excelsior Stadium.
View Comment
jimlarkinPosted on6:29 pm - Jan 26, 2016
EdinMan @ 5.17
[]
Charles Green bought the assets using his company – SevcoScotland, who had no football business or licence.
The Club was ‘incorporated’ many years ago, so there was no club, it was a business (major loss making one).
Charles Green then had to apply for a football licence, which the SFA would not give him as his business was
a new start up with no trading history and no experience of running a football business.
A few weeks later, when funding was ‘assured’ by SevcoScotland, then SevcoScotland changed their name
to The Rangers Football Club LTD.
The Rangers Football Club PLC at that point, were allowed to change it’s name to RFC(2012)PLC, to HIDE the fact
that it WAS RANGERS as everyone had known Rangers to be.
Sevco via the 5way Agreement, were then able to obtain a ‘conditional’ licence, which is not written in the SFA rules and no other ‘team’ ‘club’ has ever been issued with such a licence and at that time, both SevcoScotland through the ‘conditional’ licence and Rangers Football Club PLC with their FULL SFA membership/licence, were BOTH in existance at the same time !!!!!???
one big con by the SFA to pretend nothing major happened in football terms, which allowed lots of debts to be
Legally ditched/avoided and allow the blue pound to influence the SFA coffers (and not the game in general).
your assertions regarding the use of the name Rangers did not apply, as this law only applies, if it is clearly the same Directors doing the debt ditching in order to ‘Phoenix’, and as Charles Green was the Owner/Director of the
assets who started up the new company, then the name ‘issue’ did not apply as he wasn’t phoenixing, he was genuinely starting not only one new company but two
The Rangers Football Company LTD
Rangers International Football Company PLC
which are both totally unconnected to Rangers Football Club PLC now RFC(2012)PLC
I and many others would accept that
TRFC LTD and/or RIFC PLC was the same ‘Club’ as Rangers Football Club PLC now RFC(2012)PLC
Was/is the same ‘Club’ – if all the outstanding debts were paid, but they have not and will not, so
[]
incredibleadamsparkPosted on6:33 pm - Jan 26, 2016
I hear what you’re saying Big Pink and it’s only one post so I’ll reserve judgement. I have no idea if what EdinMan writes is true just as I have no idea if those who might contradict him are correct either. I simply don’t know enough about that sort of thing.
I know you are in no way suggesting this but I personally won’t dismiss him just because he appears to have a different take on things.
View CommentAbsolutely agree. I understand the frustrations of EdinMan – and those who have heard these arguments before. However anyone wishing to engage is to be welcomed. We may indeed yet learn something from anyone.
BP
Jimmy BonesPosted on7:00 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Superb work Mr Clark – many chapeaux from me.
I have also been reading the JJ site and have lifted the next 4 paras from a comment by “Jack” on that site – the last para is my own:
“On the basis of one word per each of the above paragraphs, the SFA are reckless, ill-advised, hypocritical and evasive.
“Under their own and UEFA/FIFA rules, the SFA is a legally protected cartel who are exempt from any real challenge on their decisions/rulings from their member clubs, other than through their own procedures. Once their own procedures are exhausted, their decision is final and binding unless the contrived “Court for Arbitration in Sport” is asked to rule on appeal. In other words they are above the law – and we all just accept it. This allows them to continue to be unaccountable and closed minded.
“The cosy arrangement that allows this situation was set up when clubs were clubs and businesses were businesses, i.e. in the nineteenth century. Scottish Football is in the mess it’s in because we do not contradict those who refuse to accept this seismic change while, at the same, wielding control over us from within dark, private offices.
“We do indeed know where the SFA stands on any issue. They know best and we are not entitled to question them, their motives, their decisions or their professionalism and impartiality.”
If the SFA are still in receipt of public money then they are accountable – I think I read on SFM that they could be taken to task by Sport Scotland, who take the funds from the public purse and disburse to the SFA and other sports. However, in Scotland in 2016 I am pretty sure that Sport Scotland will be run and controlled by the same kind of establishment figures that have proven themselves so corrupt over the last 17 years.
View Comment
BrendasbackPosted on7:11 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Has phil’s latest post been removed for him or by him???
View Comment
BawsmanPosted on7:15 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Haw You’s
Jc’s interview is worth sticking yer hauns in yer deep poakits fur the site………….Rite!!!!!!!
smartie1947Posted on7:16 pm - Jan 26, 2016
On the biscuit theme, surely the whole saga reeks of Jammie Dodgers!
View Comment
tonyPosted on7:17 pm - Jan 26, 2016
hearing there was a charity match to be played at the Excelsior Stadium which has now been dumped for EK vs CELTIC game,the SFA have done a charity out of money,why can’t we get rid of this mob,they are not fit for purpose
View Comment
jean7brodiePosted on7:20 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Thank you very, very much John Clark. You are an erudite man of integrity, honesty and great perception. Chapeau.
View Comment
neepheidPosted on7:23 pm - Jan 26, 2016
As old timers on here will know, I’m not a great fan of the old club/new club debate. However Edinman raises a couple of matters of which I have at least a passing knowledge, so here goes.
He mentions two clubs, Middlesbrough and Leeds. I spent 35 years working in England, fifteen of those years in Leeds and seven years in Middlesbrough. It’s totally irrelevant, but I spent my first 6 years in England in Portsmouth, so English clubs should be tracking my whereabouts with fear and trepidation!
Now Middlesbrough did go bust in the mid 80’s, comprehensively bust in fact. The original company went into liquidation,but a new company was formed by Steve Gibson, which got the assets, presumably from the liquidator, paid the FA a 350k registration fee, and off they went again, with a new crest and a new company name. Now I worked alongside fans of the club for 7 years in the 90’s. They know what happened. The old club/company went bust and ceased trading. Local businessman Gibson bankrolled a new start. It’s not some sort of dirty secret. Nobody is kidding themselves. That’s just what happened. Nobody claims they are the “same club”, or nobody I ever met on Teesside. And nobody cares. They go and watch a team called Middlesbrough. That’s it.
On to Leeds. My son, poor soul, is a LUFC supporter. All through the madness of the early 2000’s. Was I cruel and uncaring by laughing at every new twist in the extremely sorry saga? Sadly, yes, but I’m sure it was character building for him, and of course my punishment awaits when my call to judgement comes, no doubt.
Our new poster states as a fact that LUFC did not achieve a CVA. Well sorry, but yes they did. They went into Admin in May 2007, got a 10 point deduction, got relegated as a result (although probably going down anyway) and agreed a CVA. Now the CVA involved the arrival of Ken Bates, which upset HMRC, who lodged an objection in court. So the Administrators went through the process again, with the same result, Ken Bates got over 75% of the Creditors’ vote. At that point HMRC gave up and withdrew their objection, and the CVA went ahead. I can’t remember whether it was the first or second CVA that went ahead, it doesn’t matter really, since I believe the terms were identical, but whatever, the administration of LUFC resulted in a CVA.
PLGlenPosted on7:26 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Big Pink 26th January 2016 at 6:15 pm #
Big Pink, JC was speaking to the Scottish Football Association about matters which involved a Football Club. I think any reasonable person would assume that he therefore had an interest in football.
I’m not sure how them happening to ask which team he supported is them saying that he is “thereby proving conclusively that he was a Rangers hater” depending on his answer?
It would be unfair to label all Celtic fans as Rangers haters.
AllyjamboPosted on7:45 pm - Jan 26, 2016
neepheid 26th January 2016 at 7:23 pm
I have often read the whataboutery over a few English clubs that bears claim were liquidated but have been allowed to carry on as the ‘same club’. Now I’m not in a position to do any more than speculate, but I’d suspect that the clubs that have been liquidated were clubs, that at the time, had long since had their day, and were not in a position to claim ‘record titles’ etc. Neither would they have had the WATP attitude nor the even worse record of bigotry that was displayed by the Rangers support and nurtured by the club for many years. In short, no one could care less whether these clubs were new or old! No one questioned it, and no decision was ever made on their status. On the other hand, should Chelsea, or Arsenal, Manchester United etc, ever find themselves in financial bother, there would be cries of dead club, even before liquidation was a certainty, and any shenanigans by the games’ authorities to gerrymander them back to ‘their rightful place’ would be critically observed by the press, and supporters of all other clubs. Sometimes being a giant can be a disadvantage; everyone loves to see a fallen giant! And just imagine the outcry if it was discovered the club had been dodging income tax and deliberately mis-registering players to cover it up!!!
View Comment
Cluster OnePosted on7:46 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Just catching up, may i say well done Mr Clark.
—————————–
mungoboy 26th January 2016 at 12:17 pm #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.———————————
Now they can say….see, Mr king did just pop in for tea and a chat
BarcabhoyPosted on7:54 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Firstly , I salute John Clarke’s diligence and determination. Well done on the initiative and effort you put into trying to get the SFA accountable to the stakeholder in Scottish football who is as important as any other.
Secondly, I wonder why the SFA agreed to the meeting ? They would have been aware of Johns own views on the issues and the majority view on SFM . What did the SFA hope to achieve ? It can’t have been purely a courtesy to a prominent part of the new media . I doubt it was a personal courtesy to John. Was it a decision made by McRae out of naivety with Broadfoot brought in for the purposes of damage limitation ? Or was it agreed to for strategic reasons of which we are currently unaware ?
Thirdly, Darryl Broadfoot. He unfortunately is symptomatic of the problems many fans have with the SFA. He is head of communications for an organisation perceived by most in the game as distant , incompetent , arrogant and out of touch. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement for the job he does. He might start taking some humility lessons and realise he’s not really a big deal. He clearly only serves one stakeholder in Scottish football , which is where the problem starts. His job shouldn’t be to keep fans in the dark about the background and reasons for decisions taken by the SFA . His job should be to oversee transparency and to provide full information to ALL stakeholders. No topic should be off limits , no decision should be deemed “not for public consumption”
Fourthly. Edinman you might get reasonable debate on here if you don’t introduce yourself by abusing the collective who make up this site. Your points carry little weight when accompanied by that type of outburst. I would though be interested in your views on the individuals who carried out a decade long deception of clubs in Scotland and who shamed Rangers through their actions . Should we just move on from David Murray, Campbell Ogilvie and all other directors at Rangers , including King & Paul Murray , who constructed and signed off on this deception . Not a single individual has been held to account by the SFA for this scam .
Fifth . I have posted on here many times why the new club / same club debate is something I don’t get involved with. Technically a new club , emotionally the same club probably sums up how I feel about it . It is a circular debate that will never be resolved or accepted by many on either side of the argument . Good luck to those who strive to get an official position , but I doubt anyone at the SFA or SPFL will ever say it’s a new club, no matter their private views or regardless of evidence.
View Comment
jimmciPosted on8:03 pm - Jan 26, 2016
I was so impressed by JC’s post and disgusted with Broadfoot’s ” I am the SFA” I did something I thought I would never do tonight.
Not only did I listen but I called ClydeSSB.
I told the screener subject of my discussion point and was told this was “off-limits”. The helpful chap told me they now had my number and their calling system will auto-block future calls from the number I used.
Maybe I should have said I was Laurie from Dennistoun’s brother and I wanted to have a go at Deila as Clyde are wont to call him
You’ve got to them, John. A big well done.
tonyPosted on8:17 pm - Jan 26, 2016
jimmci
do they think they are MI5 what a joke of a radio show
AuldheidPosted on8:25 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Neepheid
On Res12.
The SFA in response to a third lawyer’s letter in Nov 2015 continued to stonewall in answering the questions put to them in the first letter in July.
After the New Year at two pow wows, the decision was taken to try and shake the tree by going elsewhere on what by now is a very serious issue of misgovernance not just by dint of what took place in 2011 but in the SFA’S responses for clarity since and failure to act on information first provided to them in August 2014. (As an aside just as in JC’S visit the SFA are desperate to make it a Celtic/ Rangers issue to deflect from their role in events in 2011 and since)
Whilst the tree shaker was being created, the SFA got an indication of component parts not just misgovernance but provenance as a defense being stripped away at trials plus who might testify and then after the first court case re SevcoFraud a direct link to some indictments in the upcoming cases.
For whatever reason the SFA appear to have blinked, but we are waiting to hear just to what degree and in what form and they are running out of time.
In the meantime whilst the tree shaker is there with a few modifications to be used if necessary, the indictments have led to a bloody big saw being considered to take the issue to the only place we will get satisfaction and that will be in a court of law where, if justice is served, the trail that some of the indictments will leave could require SFA to come clean on Res12 and Duff and Phelps on LNS.
Looking at the big picture and what is coming down the pipe, either folk at the SFA like Darryl dealing with these matters are in the dark or kept in the dark about the seriousness of what they are failing to address or were part of what we are trying to establish took place.
ParadisebhoyPosted on8:43 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Barcabhoy 26th January 2016 at 7:54 pm
“Secondly, I wonder why the SFA agreed to the meeting ?”
I think JC has already answered this .
“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.”
If JC is correct here, then it follows that Alan McRae must have ” aired the views attributed to him “.
Big PinkPosted on9:04 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Small point, but I believe John James has said today that he has no right of reply here. He is mistaken. There is nothing that prevents JJ from contributing here.
And he is welcome to do so – as are all Rangers fans
View Comment
Danish PastryPosted on9:09 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Bravo JC for the interview report. Been following reaction to it. Feels as though genuine movement finally being made to bring issues into the wider public domain. JJ is making a fascinating contribution, too, and quite often echoing sentiments expressed here for the past many years. And his sense of fair play and sporting justice is exemplary. Phil is still adding some deeper insights even though he has a momentous 100th anniversary on his mind, and a piece about that in the works.
Not posting here much myself, but so many others far more capable do that. Keeping up via twitter, etc.
Godt nyt år and onwards and upwards in 2016 (somewhat belated).
neepheidPosted on9:09 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Auldheid, many thanks for the update. And even more thanks for your major part in taking this important initiative forward. I’m convinced that the pockled UEFA licence will turn out to be the stick of dynamite that blows open the doors of the Hampden bunker and lets in some light and fresh air. Unless, of course, Charles Green and Craig Whyte are just waiting to lob in some tactical nuclear weapons of their own.
View Comment
TheGamesABogeyPosted on9:22 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Mr Clark well done sir. At work today I managed to get a look at the tweets and the re-tweets from The Clumpany and they were all talking about this. The people in charge at the SFA are no longer a joke, they are a danger to the sport we all enjoy called football
View Comment
jimboPosted on9:28 pm - Jan 26, 2016
A few days ago I posted my opinion that . Forgotten Bp delete
View Comment
tonyPosted on9:29 pm - Jan 26, 2016
neepheid
as craig whyte recorded his stuff his might be termed radio active
parttimearabPosted on9:32 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Barcabhoy 26th January 2016 at 7:54 pm #
Thirdly, Darryl Broadfoot. He unfortunately is symptomatic of the problems many fans have with the SFA. He is head of communications for an organisation perceived by most in the game as distant , incompetent , arrogant and out of touch.
Certainly not a triumph of communication from Mr Broadfoot – his major achievement in the interview (and can I add my congratulations here John) has been to make the president of the SFA look like a useful idiot who can’t be trusted to open his own mouth in public.
View Comment
ProhibbyPosted on9:35 pm - Jan 26, 2016
John Clarke, you are an inspiration for this lesser mortal. Many thanks for your determined pursuit of the truth above and beyond the call of duty. Lang may yer lum reek!
View Comment
ianagainPosted on9:53 pm - Jan 26, 2016
The “founder” of all troubles and advisor to “”Sir”” David back in court tomorrow.
COURT 12
Before MR JUSTICE ROTH
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
At half past 10
TRIAL LIST
Part Heard
HC-2013-000389 Barker v Baxendale Walker Solicitors & anr
vansenPosted on9:54 pm - Jan 26, 2016
It’s an interesting idea that, if i dont support Rangers, then i must be a Celtic fan. i must also be a Rangers hater. Haters gonna hate after all. If i criticise Rangers then i must support Celtic. If Rangers are criticised then the person doing so must support Celtic. I understand that ignorant view on call shows or in ‘news’paper articles. Haters gonna hate after all.
However, unbelievably, incredibly, i dont support Celtic or Rangers. I appear to be one of a small band of unnoteworthy supporters who mean nothing to the Scottish game or the football authorities. I mean its great that i have a season ticket and put money into the game but im not worthy or important enough to be treated with respect. Or dignity.
The fact that the SFA, and Mr I am the SFA no less hold these views is condescending, patronising, ignorant and arrogant. This is an organisation that, broadly speaking, claims to run Scottish Football. For many of us 2012 will never be forgotten as we witnessed just how low our Association would stoop/bend over to help their favoured club.
Now, im pretty sure that this Association wanted Rangers crowbarred into the Premier League. Then it was the Championship/First division. Finally they were accepted as a new entry into the bottom league. I am not making this up. I am not inventing this. These are facts. There was no relegation.
So for Mr I am the SFA to appear unconcerned if large numbers of supporters abandon the game just about sums it up for me. A football Association that cares nothing for large numbers of supporters. It also appears that they have short memories as it was fan pressure on the clubs that saw clubs stand up for what was right. They did it for financial reasons but they still stood up.
So as i think tonight about what a Shambolic Football Association the SFA really is, i also think about how a number of criminal trials might be progressing around April/May time and what information might have slithered out concerning the people who run our game. All at the same time as season tickets are on sale. What a happy coincidence.
View Comment
jimmciPosted on10:08 pm - Jan 26, 2016
BP,
Can I be so rude as to ask when has an op-ed article on this blog received as many responses as the 139 ( at time of writing) in such a short time – less than a day as I write,To my mind this demonstrates a number of things.
1) There is a genuine and healthy interest in our game from fans across Scotland – not solely the Glasgow teams so Daryll, be careful, fans are interested in the product but your message, to me, reads like the SFA are happy to lose , say 20K fans across Scotland as long as it retains approx the same number coming into Ibrox “entertaining” us.
2) The authors of the comments seem to be from a broad church. This is not, as Daryll would like us to think, a Rangers/Celtic issue; it’s a governance / Rangers issue.
3) We should remember the SFA are also stringing the Rangers support along and consciously misleading them. Sadly, they are too blind to notice…..for now. Maybe the end of the transfer window will wake them up…..
John, we owe you a massive vote of thanks for breaching the fortress and giving us a view of the inner workings of the 6th floor at Hampden and especially how their “professionals” operate
Finally, where have the SMSM been while all this has been happening? Surely there are some proper journalists there? Surely? SDM must have an amazing grip over them to keep this sordid mess covered up or as deeply hidden as it’s been up till now.
The mystery deepens further than I would ever have believed.
HighlanderPosted on10:12 pm - Jan 26, 2016
“…..the legal advice obtained was that Mr Green’s new club was not a new club, and the Authorities were stuck with that.”
This reminded me of the US and UK governments assuring us that they had received legal advice that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was legitimate, despite the UN subsequently declaring it illegal, and despite no Weapons of Mass Destruction being found.
As pointed out above, inquiries, commissions, and even courts of law can be manipulated by the selective submission and/or exclusion of influential information and evidence, leading to a predetermined, desired outcome.
Congratulations to JC for his continued sterling work in exposing the supposed guardians of our game for the charlatans that they are.
View Comment
ianagainPosted on10:33 pm - Jan 26, 2016
The Convention of The Baronage of Scotland
Proposed JC by Me
Seconded= go on
Bit OTT John but you know heads up and the like.
Just joking (Im sure you would turn it down) but couldn’t resist the linkage.
IT illiteracy means the wee pictures are missing by the way.
The owner of a barony will be given a chapeau or cap of maintenance as part of his armorial achievement, if requested. This is described as “gules doubled ermine” for most barons in possession of the caput of the barony.
You get to keep the chapeau JC
Some ancient baronies of Argyll and the Isles, originally owing allegiance to the Crown through the Lords of the Isles or other high nobles of the region, may historically have a chapeau lined with ermines (white tails on black).
Think we know one of them
An azure chapeau is appropriate for the heirs of ancient baronial families who are no longer owners of the estates.
MM know a few of them
Uniquely a chapeau Gules furred Vair was considered appropriate to the Livingstones of Bachuil. In 2003 the Lord Lyon found that the Bachuil title was not a feudal Barony and that vair, rather than ermine, was the appropriate fur for the chapeau of a barony held by the grace of God ( ‘par le grace de Dieu’).
The chapeau can be used in the same manner as a coronet. For instance it may be used on a visiting card, the flap of an envelope, to ensign the circlet of a crest badge as used on a bonnet or pinsel. It is used as a handsome motif on the ties of the Convention.
Nice
In the past this cap was usually put in place of the torque or torse upon which rests the crest where it looked very handsome (as shown here). But today’s custom is to squeeze the chapeau into the space directly above the shield and below the helmet. For anyone with artistic sensitivities this is an unfortunate place to put it, since it muddles and confuses the display, especially when the helm is half turned towards the observer. One solution is to display the arms alone, without the helm, and place the chapeau above, which is heraldically sound and most attractive, although it means that the crest is not part of the picture.
View Comment
goosygoosyPosted on10:33 pm - Jan 26, 2016
EdinMan 26th January 2016 at 5:17 pm #
TU TD
10 159
I’d never heard of this site until today when i spied it on a Gers forum….etc
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Compliments to JC
Getting that Bunker opened even for a short time has enabled a whole raft of squirrels to escape
I fully except to see a number of “genuine new posters” who espouse similar views as Edin Man and mutually back slap each other on the same topic.Somne of them will kick off by pretending to disagree with him but then accept he is correct It goes on day and daily on LSE Bulletin Boards and no doubt the companies involved pay handsomely for the service.We can also expect poster names to be burned when they are challenged withj evidence
However
Do not be deceived
The aim is not to convince anyone by the strength of an argument. It is to control the blog discussion topics and move it away from the ones they don’t want to talk about
Well I for one will not be defocussed
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IMO
The biggest problem in Scottish football isn`t whether Ranger plc and Sevco Scotland Ltd existed and were recognised by the SFA as two separate clubs for several weeks in the Summer of 2012
Its how to dislodge the corrupt officials at Hampden who brought our game into disrepute in the Autumn of 2011and continue to make us a laughing stock by bending the rules to avoid upsetting the Loonies who disgrace The Rangers Football Club Ltd
shugPosted on11:04 pm - Jan 26, 2016
EdinMan 26th January 2016 at 5:17 pm #I’d never heard of this site until today when i spied it on a Gers forum.
That tells me all I need to know of course everyone here is obsessed (obsessed with getting to the truth) who else will tell it not the smsm that’s for sure, keep plugging away guys the holes are appearing in the dyke and they don’t have enough fingers to stop the leaks.
FisianiPosted on11:38 pm - Jan 26, 2016
The strategy is clear.
assume that most people will tire of old club/new club eventually or already have.
ignore the ‘obsessed haters’ who are all blogging but have no authority. one positive comment can negate or equate to twenty negative ones.
appeal and appeal and appeal to drag out decisions till most have forgotten what they represented.
so far it seems to be working.
Let’s assume that a financial miracle occurs and this incarnation of a Rangers enters the Premiership in August.
The Aberdeen programme should read ” We welcome the visitors to their first ever match at Pittodrie.
The Celtic programme should read “We welcome the visitors to their first ever visit to Celtic Park.
We either play along with the same club myth or we do not.
John ClarkPosted on11:58 pm - Jan 26, 2016
easyJambo 26th January 2016 at 5:31 pm
‘JC had invited me along to accompany him, but I was forced to pull out due to illness…’
____
What’s with the ‘invited’?- ‘pleaded’,more like!
The readers of this blog know that your grasp of all that has happened in the ‘saga’ -dates, times, events, inputs, outputs, the financial situation of football clubs old and new, court business and legal actions etc etc is second to none. And know that you are not ‘West Coast’.
I felt a bit exposed without you along with me.
See you in Court tomorrow, by any chance?
macfurglyPosted on11:59 pm - Jan 26, 2016
Well done JC. You have penetrated the defenses and I don’t think any other individual has managed that.
I would like to think that both Broadfoot and MacRae are considering their positions, Broadfoot for having made so many disastrous comments and for his mishandling of the interview, and Mac Rae for having been publicly undermined and humiliated.
I won’t be holding my breath though.
SmugasPosted on12:26 am - Jan 27, 2016
Edinmans comparisons to the English teams and Boro in particular does raise one interesting aspect.
I am not particularly aware of the Boro saga so am using Neepheid’s input at 7.23pm for guidance.
What exactly is it that the bears need continuation of? It patently isnt a company number. They still have the same crest I understand. They could have called themselves the blue dragoons if they’d wanted, Reporting Scotland would still have called them Rangers when they ran through their extensive list (2) of scorelines. There was never any question that spiritually, just like the boro fans, that they’d continue to turn up to watch a team, and the only team, to call themselves Rangers.
I am now intrigued. What specifically is it that they are so very very keen to actually protect? What specific point was it that turned Greens strategy on its head? The right to say they beat Brechin?
[[For the record my own stance on this is unchanged – their fans could do whatever the hell they wanted, spiritually, ethereally, whatever. Legally, company law would apply, for better or worse. But footballing wise the only body with none zero zilch nada nowt wiggle room were the SFA. The club that won the cups was a dead parrot, ex of this world, shuffled off etc etc. If another wants to turn up in its (or at its) wake then so be it. If its a club buyout situation then fine. Same club. Historic creditors are either paid or choose not to be. But if its not, if the CVA is completely rejected, if the creditors have their porridge served cold then its not. You can shout and scream all you like, that is how it is.]]
The simplest way to demarcate this difference? Different name in my opinion. Not in common parlance. Reporting Scotland can and will continue to call it what they want. But historic records are just that. They’re there for a reason. So is that what this all about? That they want the Rangers now and forever to be the same one that was them then? Well take it up with the SFA then! In their failure to govern adequately (and that’s being generous) it was them that took you to the parapet and beyond. Don’t come whining to me when the parachute they supplied isn’t fit for purpose, and in any case the one you ordered from them was for a lean mean fighting machine of a club (almost said new there ), not a bloated old relic from a bygone age determined to drag us all down to its level you know, so its fair n’that!
Flocculent ApoideaPosted on12:41 am - Jan 27, 2016
JC – thanks for your commitment to Scottish football.
Did Mr Broadfoot, at any point, attempt to drink a gottle of geer as Mr McRae spoke? The other image I have is of an audience with Don Corleone (not that the SFA would mix with criminals, of course). Mr Broadfoot’s bed will surely have a horse’s arse in it in the morning. Interesting that this organisation seems only concerned about fans being lost to the game if they support a particular club. How very inclusive of them.
Allyjambo, your reference to a liar seems a bit harsh. I distinctly recall him saying (on a Charlotte recording) that he never tells a lie.
View Comment
About the author