It has taken a year longer than predicted, but a critical appraisal of TRFC’s progress through the lower leagues must include recognition of the improvements on the playing field made under the new manager Mark Warburton. SFM usually precludes lengthy discussion on subjective issues like relative abilities of players and managers and referees, but on this subject, and by any objective standard, that is a given.
It is therefore right that he and his players should receive the congratulations of us all at SFM.
It has to be said that, despite the pitfalls, man-traps and honey-pots that remain to be successfully negotiated by the Rangers board, they have implemented their own stark version austerity, contrary to their rhetoric, whilst managing the expectations of their supporters. Perhaps some of what we have come to term “reasonable” Rangers fans would argue that the lack of humility still evident in the demeanour of the TRFC board is an essential part of managing those fans whilst imposing the austerity package on them.
Much like a political party conference, a football board has to play to it’s core support as well as the rest of the country.
How that will pan out is anybody’s guess, just like the random bagatelle that is the “TRFC in Court” saga.
There is also the existential problem to deal with. Many TRFC fans bought into the ‘same club’ myth at the outset, not because they actually believed it, but because it suited them, and because it served as an understandable GIRUY to the rest of us. With the passage of time, the suspension of disbelief, even in that constituency, is now complete and arguably irreversible. The problem for them is that the rest of have not subscribed to that rather bizarre set of contradictions. No other club has to have the “company that operates” prefix. Nor does any other club compel observers to skirt around the facts and search for a form of words acceptable to both sides of a mutually exclusive argument. In short, and existentially, the new Rangers don’t fit into the same kind of comfortable groove that other clubs do.
All of these problems for the new club, and many more, will exercise our minds to a greater or lesser extent moving forward, depending on how sensitive our outrage thresholds are to the various legal and Jungian issues. However we at SFM need to focus our sights on those whose maladministration of football gave rise to those problems in the first place – the SFA, SPFL, and by extension, the clubs – all of them.
Here are some facts;
- The SFA award clubs a licence to participate in UEFA competitions.
- The licence is only to be awarded if the applicant club has no unpaid tax debts.
- Both the club and the SFA have responsibility to notify UEFA of any debts (belt and braces routine in case the club ‘forgets’ to notify the SFA).
- In 2011, one club applied for and was awarded a UEFA licence.
- That club had accepted debts to HMRC – which were outstanding and overdue.
- These facts have been in the public domain since 2012,and were brought to the attention of ALL clubs in Scotland as well as the SFA.
- Nothing has been done by any club, or the SFA, to investigate the claim at #5
- SFA Chief Executive Stewart Regan, when asked by an SFM member what he would do if these claims could be substantiated, said; “Nothing!”
- All clubs will be within a few weeks, issuing season ticket renewal forms.
The story contained in points 6 and 7 above is a lengthy and protracted one.
From sources inside two clubs I have been informed that the problem here is subversive and obsessive fans, who don’t represent the vast body of fans generally. On points 1-5, my sources refused to comment. Conversations with SFA officials and print journalists yield the same reaction, with the addition that it is “just Celtic fans obsessed with Rangers” making the claims.
The lesson, if there is one worthy of the name, is that the bearers of the message need to attacked, and the message itself ignored. We could speculate why that is, but that would be to fall into the trap, taking our eye off the ball.
Perhaps I am being naïve, but my inference is that the SFA and clubs have no intention of doing anything about what was at best incompetence on an unbelievable scale, or at worst corruption. A source at Celtic Park was complaining in victim-like fashion to SFM that many Celtic fans were threatening to close their season book accounts over this issue, and that Rangers might have 45,000 SBs next season whilst Celtic could be down to as low as 20,000.
It had never occurred to him that actually supporting an investigation into SFA malpractice would add another 10,000 to the SB takeup.
Overall, the clubs and the SFA want us to believe that an investigation into this licensing issue is a Celtic or Rangers thing. It is neither of those.
An investigation, even if finds that corruption or incompetence has taken place cannot harm Rangers – old or new. There are no titles to strip here. The licence has been used and thrown away, so it cannot be “un – awarded”.
The only people who have anything to lose out of this are those individuals who allowed it to happen – those who our clubs seem so keen to protect.
More importantly, an investigation may be the catalyst for changes in procedures at the SFA to ensure that rigorous accountability is enforced -accountability that the clubs are eager to avoid.
Are we wrong? I hope we are not foolish enough to imagine that everything we believe is set in stone. I am confident that we are correct in our assumptions and in our interpretation of the facts, but please, let’s hear the counter-argument. Thus far, not one word of rebuttal save the usual invective reserved for the messenger has been uttered.
So what do we do? For me it is simple. If we really love our sport, and do nothing, the sport is lost to us completely and irrevocably.
If our view that sporting integrity has been killed off by those in charge of the game is correct, we lose nothing by embarking on a season ticket boycott. However by doing so we may awaken those in charge to the realities of our power as fans and prioritise in their minds the need to listen to what we say.
My view? if they ignore us, they can take their industry that they pretend is sport, and put it somewhere away from my reach. I neither want it nor need it.
If enough of us feel the same way, we WILL get a clean game. If we are as few as the MSM claim we are, at least we will have freed ourselves from a bent one.
I won’t be buying any more season books until I see these issues addressed. It certainly is tough love, but it is the only way for me. And it is driven by love – a love of the game I spent decades supporting, thinking that on the whole it was played on a level playing field. Certainly not driven by a sneering disregard for truth and integrity and a worship of acquisition.
Maybe it’s not just the end of Rangers’ journey then. Certainly if it’s not the end of ours, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The fans, the clubs, and Rangers too. The decision we make over the next few months may determine the future of our clubs, our sport, our Saturday afternoons.
I can tell you this though. Even when the dark facts are laid before us starkly as this, and when football is at the mercy of those who really do hate sport for its own sake, it is worth mentioning the common thread of decency and purpose we have all shared here on SFM, the friendships we have forged, and the love of football we have demonstrated.
Main Headline in to-day’s edition (27 April) The Times – “Tycoon’s Knighthood at Risk over BHS Collapse” – Mark Field , Tory MP described the BHS collapse as ” a cautionary tale about how the rules of the game can be manipulated by those who are happy to pocket cash in the good & bad times before leaving the bill for any collapse with responsible businesses , employees , suppliers & , potentially , taxpayers “ .
A Scottish Knight of the Realm seems to tick all the above boxes – it still amazes me how easy a ride Murray has had up here – on reflection , not surprising really with friends such as the Noble Lord Grossart etc to help us move on , nothing to see here etc – a complete chancer ! A question really should be raised in the Scottish Parliament about his knighthood status .
BillyBoyce – I’d go back to JP and ask if he knows Res12 was discussed at a Celtic AGM – that’s hardly internet speculation – maybe an angle could be “what progress has been made since the AGM” – if the answer is “some”, tell us what it is, but if the answer is “none” then there’s a genuine reason to press the board for action.
Maybe JimmCi could ask Lawwell directly?
That all said, as I have stated before, if Celtic do take unilateral action they’ll be damned as trying to undermine their arch-rivals out of fear, loathing whatever, and with the recent result they’ll be doubly damned as sore losers, scared of “Rangers return” (sic). For anything related to Res12 we other teams to be involved, but I fear that ship has sailed for the vast majority…
JIMMCI
APRIL 26, 2016 at 23:30
We will no doubt remain as attendees this season in the officially published attendance figures but our seats are empty. No more after this season though, without significant change. We’re out.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I can add another 3 empty Hospitality seats
………..for the same reasons
A poster on etims last night stated that he had been speaking to the supporter liaison chap at Celtic yesterday. The bottom line seems to be that Res. 12 is dead in the water and that Auldheid et al are aware of this.
However I would rather hear it from Auldheid himself before I go into a depression about it. It would be very sad.
I should clarify I think they were talking about the issue being dead in the water so far as CFC and the SFA are concerned, not the requisitioners.
Apparently the SFA have taken legal advice and Celtic accept that.
Just returned from cruising in Caribbean so have missed last 2 weeks fitba. Well not quite missed, had the misfortune of having SKY Sports news in cabin, and had to try hard to avoid the weeks build up to the semi, was there 2? Anyhoos Mrs Marquez and I pop up for early breakfast, a Preston football supporter joins us. We exchange pleasantries, and upon hearing my accent, he tells me Rangers are 1-0 up scorer Kenny Miller. I inform him that is one for the record books, the first player to score for all 3 sides of the Old Firm*. Seeing his puzzled look I quickly explained new club situation (only 3 of us at table
).
Anyhoos he seemed genuinely interested.
John ClarkApril 27, 2016 at 00:29
AllyjamboApril 26, 2016 at 16:08‘… there is every possibility that no one in the boardroom of any club has the slightest idea that there may be a problem with TRFC’s eligibility, or that the SFA are not to be trusted to police that club’s applications for European football – or anything else.’_________________I doubt if the word ‘trust’ is one that most clubs would ever figure as forming the basis of their relationships with each other or with their SFA Board! Those clubs who have experienced financial difficulty must have spat blood when they learned of SDM’s (personally unpunished)cheating. And they must be raging at not being as smart as Whyte in liquidating, asset stripping, dumping the millions of debt, setting up a variously named new club and getting the SFA to create and support the myth that the new club is the old Rangers! I’m pretty sure most of them would have used some very un-Parliamentary language when they saw what a wizard wheeze that was for the fly men. If SDM was ‘duped’, our club owners and directors have been made to look like right patsies. But they put up with it. They know they have been had, but for some reason other than ‘trust’ they have been afraid to call the whole thing out for the deceitful nonsense it is. Bad cess to them.
________________________-
John, I wasn’t meaning the kind of trust one shows when leaving a loved one, or possession, in the care of someone we know will take great care of them. I meant the ‘business’ trust, where responsibility is passed to another party for things that (in this case) the clubs (boards) don’t want to know about, or, at least, don’t have the time or ability to deal with. In most cases, the running of a football club will come second (or lower) in the business life of the people running the clubs, and they could well do without the distraction of chasing past wrongs.
For many, perhaps all, their chagrin at Murray’s cheating will have been assuaged by the LNS Enquiry, not because they agree with it’s findings, but because it lets them off a hook they don’t want to be on. I suspect that the various board members never talk about ‘the cheating’ or ‘liquidation’ by/of Rangers when they meet up, preferring to leave it as something only the non-business minded common supporters feel strongly about. They’ve got a business to run – and that allows them to pass the buck, to the SFA and SPFL, and leave it there (in their minds – but not in a dignified and integrity run world).
The last stuff I saw from Auldheid (on CQN?) seemed pretty pessimistic. I don’t really see where this is going, if the club won’t take it forward, unless the requisitioners can fund a judicial review, maybe through a crowdfunding appeal or whatever. I doubt very much that UEFA will listen to a minority group of shareholders. It seems to me that it is far too easy for UEFA to pass this back to CFC, and say “you deal with these people- it’s none of our business”.
I would like to see the SFA’s legal advice, but doubt if I ever will, even though the Celtic Board are apparently hiding behind it. I am almost impressed by the fact that the Celtic Board and the SFA have together managed to stall this crucial issue for almost 3 years. The requisitioners have clearly put their faith in people who were not to be trusted, in my opinion.
I think that the Board of CFC owe the requisitioners (and the broader Celtic support) answers to the following questions-
1) Is it agreed that the UEFA licence for RFC for 2011/12 should not have been granted, based on what is now known regarding unpaid taxes?
2) If so, does the blame lie with RFC for false declaration, or with the SFA for maladministration?
3) If RFC are to blame, what action is proposed by the SFA? (After all, the “same club” is progressing onwards ever upwards, apparently, so sanctions can still be applied- can’t they?)
4) If the SFA are to blame, what action is being taken against the individuals involved?
5) What compensation do the SFA propose paying to those clubs financially disadvantaged by the wrongful award of a UEFA licence to RFC? (I know the answer to that one, by the way, the answer is hee haw).
6) Have you actually seen the SFA’s legal advice? Can we have a copy?
All very well, if answers are forthcoming , but can’t the Board see what this issue is doing to totally undermine the essential relationship between the PLC and the support? And why? To pursue mythical cash from an even more mythical “old firm” ?
I now see that some overseas “old firm” pre-season friendly match is being proposed. Talk about milking a franchise. They really don’t get it, do they? This isn’t good business, this is business suicide.
jimboApril 27, 2016 at 12:44
‘..[Res12]…Apparently the SFA have taken legal advice and Celtic accept that.’
____________
( Didn’t SDM have the benefit of legal advice? Much good that did him!)
A little passage in the ‘Scotsman’ editorial today struck me with a phrase it contained :
“..What is more, the inquests found that Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield had lied for 26 years about mistakes he made on the day,allowing myths to perpetuate..”
We know of some other folk, including folk on the “Scotsman”, who are quite happy to perpetuate myths in the attempt to protect themselves and other guilty men.
It is precisely because of the complicity of hypocritical organs such as the “Scotsman” that we might have to wait a few decades , like those heroic Hillsborough victims’ families, before the truth is finally revealed,( perhaps on his death-bed by some retired former SFA person), about the sordid RFC(IL) affair and the even more sordid “5-way agreement” affair.
As WOTTPI pointed out, RIFC has has been incurring very heavy losses since its inception, and these losses show no sign of abating. This is the area to look at when considering the club’s eligibility to participate in any UEFA competition next season–not the tax issues left over from the Craig Whyte era, or anything else.
In recent years UEFA has denied several (small-ish) clubs entry to the CL/EL due to breaches of FFP rules; Sevco would appear to to be similarly snookered. As far as I can tell, the SFA will not be able to intervene on RIFC’s behalf in this instance.
Jimbo
The situation is fluid and that message was NOT what we were led to believe from the end of March which is a chapter in itself.
Witness to the fluidity is this update from BRTH on CQN from this morning.
BROGAN ROGAN TREVINO AND HOGAN SUPPORTS OSCAR KNOX, MACKENZIE FURNISS AND ANYONE ELSE WHO FIGHTS NEUROBLASTOMAon 27TH APRIL 2016 1:31 PM
Re Res 12
At long last the SFA have actually replied to a letter from solicitors (sent last Wed),and it makes for very curious reading.
It answers no direct questions concerning the main issue and seeks to avoid all questions.
It states clearly that the SFA do not consider themselves answerable to the individual shareholders of Celtic PLC or the shareholders of any member club.
It states that in 2011 the SFA fulfilled its licensing and UEFA monitoring functions fully and properly.
It states that those monitoring and compliance functions came to an end at the close of that particular season in respect of that same season and that it is not obliged to make any report in connection with the events of that season after the close of the season. You follow?
However, it goes on to say that the SFA will co-operate in every way with any enquiry that should be opened by UEFA in the event of issues being raised by someone else.
The letter arrived yesterday afternoon, was copied to Celtic PLC, and is only being considered today.
If anyone thinks this brings matters to a conclusion they are ill informed.
How does that old song go?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDTvLldOgZs
========
The fat lady hasn’t even sprayed her throat never mind cleared it. For all SFA say they do not recognise shareholders, in replying they just have. One up to the fans. They are being made accountable but no reason now for Celtic not to takeover the mantle.
In replying the SFA have brought their raison d’etre into question and clearly they and UEFA need to investigate, if only to ensure no holes in their process that let a club with tax so overdue it required SOs to call and collect 6 weeks after being cleared of having none, play in CL qualifier at end July.
Had RFC beaten Malmo and qualified I very much doubt if Malmo would have stayed silent after 10 August especially as their opponents had a player that RFC paid for with the overdue tax money.
This is an extremely serious good governance matter and it cannot be allowed to be swept under the carpet.
As the CQN post says the response is still being digested, but Res12 asked for the licensing process in 2011 to be investigated. Celtic’s response based on partial answers to questions by the SFA to avoid the relevant date was that the resolution wasn’t necessary.
That position in our view is no longer tenable.
I hope supporters of other clubs will start asking their clubs if they support Res12 for if they do we can finally get SFA clear out then closure.
The coming weeks will be crucial for the integrity of Scottish football.
Thanks Auldheid.
Was reading CQN earlier today, must have missed it. That’s a small victory in itself getting a reply!
What a cop out – they will not investigate after the season in question ends. Sounds like they have just made up another ‘rule’.
Just a guess but I think now that the SFA have engaged with your solicitors that might strengthen your chances of a UEFA response, here’s hoping.
ps John Paul seems to be giving out contradictory messages, the official standard email reply and something different on the phone.
John Clarke, was thinking that myself, I wouldn’t obviously compare the gravity of Hillsborough with our travails, but it could take years of persistence to get a result. As you have often said in your posts ‘the truth will come out one day’
Couple of tenuously related observations;
1) Self-interest / ‘Sir’ Phil Green & [S]DM.
I used to be an interested follower of Green’s High Street dealings – especially his purchase of BHS and subsequent generation of massive returns for him, [or for his Monaco resident wife to be exact !].
However, I was totally unaware that he had “done a Murray” last year and discarded BHS for the token GBP1, as he could see the writing on the wall. He had sucked out all he wanted from BHS and just handed it over to an over-optimistic buyer – a la Craig Whyte.
But Green is rightly getting the flack now, a la [S]DM.
However, IMO, nothing will happen to either character.
2) Team work: playing for each other / Leicester City.
Unbelievable that they could win the EPL this Sunday !
Despite the massive wealth, transfer fees and wages of the bigger clubs, I am ‘absolutely’ delighted for the club and for the previously derided ‘Tinkerman’ Ranieri for proving that a team playing as a unit – without superstars – can become the Champions. That gives some hope for the sport, although I’m sure it will be dismissed as just an aberration by the MSM.
But as a kid I do remember Nottingham Forest coming from nowhere and even defending their European Cup successfully !
It might be increasingly difficult to achieve, but Ranieri has shown that you don’t always need tons of money, tax avoidance schemes to attract the best players, generally overpaid players etc. to win at football.
It doesn’t have to be all about the money.
Leicester City: a ray of hope for the game ?
Auldheid
“I hope supporters of other clubs will start asking their clubs if they support Res12 for if they do we can finally get SFA clear out then closure.”
Unfortunately Res 12, while being the probable answer to getting this all sorted out, could be the problem should we need a wider support from the fans of the other clubs in Scotland.
Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, the majority of supporters of the other clubs look on Scottish football as a Celtic/Rangers carve up. Everything from the financial muscle to the voting criteria ensures that these two get the best of everything. That is how the picture that is Scottish football is interpreted. So, the fact that Res 12 is a Celtic shareholder thing aimed at, to all intents and purposes, Rangers the reaction of most will be to see it as a means of Celtic trying to get more through proving Rangers cheated and will say “Let them get on with it.”. Tell those fans that it is for the good of football as a whole in Scotland the answer will be “Aye, sure.”
It does not matter the good intentions, the resulting good of the whole game or the fact that all clubs lose out with the status quo very few will step forward to help the “big club” as that is who Res 12 appears to belong to.
Res 12 can be successful but it needs to be achieved under the auspices of a Celtic action. To change that it would need the name dropped and probably a rebirth of the whole action. Once that is done and the decision is made to take this forward without the club attached then route would need to be one of independent legal action with an appeal to the fans of ALL clubs to support crowd funding.
This is not a criticism of Res 12 just a fact of life within the Scottish football supporting world. To start the process using the club as the tool to achieve success cannot then easily change to a mantle of an independent action.
Steviebc at 15.51
It might be wise to hold back on your enthusiasm for Leicester’s “achievements” as already there are questions being asked of the funding that has been available to them. It may be that they will turn out to be more akin to Gretna than anything.
Reiver, Res.12 is not really a ‘get at Rangers’ thing. It’s really about asking questions of the SFA. Rangers were the club involved so it may have the perception that it’s Celtic shareholders having a go at Rangers but it’s wrong it’s the SFA governance and administration which is the target and that is for the good of all clubs.
REIVERAPRIL 27, 2016 at 15:57
Steviebc at 15.51
It might be wise to hold back on your enthusiasm for Leicester’s “achievements” as already there are questions being asked of the funding that has been available to them. It may be that they will turn out to be more akin to Gretna than anything.
_______________
Unfortunately I agree that there might be a story or two behind Leicester’s success that in the future might take the gloss off their amazing story. In the meantime, though, I am enjoying what I am seeing, and though they may actually be enjoying the benefits of (legitimate) finances that even Celtic could only dream of, courtesy of Sky and BT, the return to a style of play where defenders defend and attackers attack is like a breath of fresh air in a game that, in my opinion, has become too possession minded.
There is something joyful about their play that suggests they are being allowed to play to their full ability, instead of to a system that says they must pass the ball backwards rather than risk running at the opposition defenders. Perhaps this is the secret of their success, particularly against the bigger clubs, whose defenders now expect to see the slow build up end with the ball being passed backwards, eventually, for the opposition to start again. Instead, because they (the bigger, smarter clubs) don’t commit to the tackle, they find themselves facing balls they’ve forgotten how to defend against.
I just hope nothing comes of the claims/rumours of wrongdoing to spoil this football fairytale, but if it does, I’d hope to see them punished to the full.
JIMBOAPRIL 27, 2016 at 16:14
Reiver, Res.12 is not really a ‘get at Rangers’ thing. It’s really about asking questions of the SFA. Rangers were the club involved so it may have the perception that it’s Celtic shareholders having a go at Rangers but it’s wrong it’s the SFA governance and administration which is the target and that is for the good of all clubs.
_____________
You are, of course, correct, but very few people who don’t pay the attention to what’s going on that we here do, see it as anything other than a ‘Celtic thing’. I suspect that there’s a great many Celtic supporters see it that way too. I’d suggest that in this, as with everything else, the SMSM’s non-coverage has helped to keep the majority of supporters, and nearly all of those supporters who don’t use social media, mis-informed. Remember, too, that the few statements from Celtic have all been chanelled through Celtic supporters’ own social media sites, helping to maintain that image of mischieveous Celtic supporters!
That said, there can be no doubt that the people doing all that great work are to be admired, and I think it’s true to say that only Celtic supporters have the infrastructure and willpower to attempt to do what they are doing.
Well ,who would have thought it ?
The good old SFA saying that because the 2011 season is gone then they cannot go back to any decisions made back then
STRAIGHT OUT OF THE SANDY BRYSON BOOK OF RULES FOR IDIOTS.
The words ten bob notes and dockers hook spring readily to mind .
Well SFA may I make a bold suggestion and say ,why don’t you just refer to your farcical rule book as …
THE CHEATS CHARTER from now on
Alas with this tripe coming just after posts telling us the people on the Celtic board waffling on about player bonus claims ,I am afraid it looks like Res 12 is heading one way only .
If true something stinks and the smell is enough to keep a lot of supporters well away from our so called game
You must also remember Reiver that the vast majority of other clubs do NOT have fan shareholders, so the fans have no real voice to use with their various boards, other than letter writing.
As a follow to a letter I had sent to Celtic expressing a number of concern – some Celtic specific; others matters of Scottish football governance I met with John Paul Taylor, Celtic SLO and Peter Lawwell today. Our meeting lasted about 80 minutes and was pretty wide ranging.
I was very pleasantly surprised by the openness Peter Lawwell showed in answering questions, In truth he was much more candid than I had anticipated and answered all my questions openly and, in my opinion, without recourse to any bulls**t.
Although not asked to do so I think confidences should be respected and I will do that.
However I left Celtic Park in a much, much happier frame of mind than when I entered the building.My sons and I will happily be buying season books next season which is quite a change from the view I expressed late last night prior to said meeting today.
JIMMCI
spill the beans
Jimmci
I find that reassuring . If the answers satisfy yourself then they should reassure those with reservations about the SFA handling of Resolution 12 hopefully taking the SFA’ ‘s latest response into account.
JC & EJ going to the court tomorrow? Hope there are no reporting restrictions. Could be interesting.
I think I need to re-emphasise the main point of my comments re Res 12.
I was referring to PERCEPTION and that comes about in the fans of the other clubs who don’t accept finesses like “It is for the good of Scottish football in general”.
Perhaps to win them over you may need to say that IF titles are removed for cheating then they remain unallocated. You remove the vision of one big club gaining from all this.
It doesn’t matter what it is truly about it must remain an untainted action.
As to the costs to clubs should we achieve our aim, well that is just plain crap. The SFA are the clubs and the clubs are the SFA. When the changes are made they will be made by all and as such the costs can be agreed to be waived. They want us to move on and I believe we should but only on a base that displays that all malfeasance has been properly dealt with. It is about the future but that will be as dirty as the past should we just let it all go.
I agree with Allyjambo that those that have got it this far should be applauded but unfortunately a lot of their work could be undone by the perception I mention should fans of other clubs at this late date be asked to get involved.
Jimmci
I cannot agree with you in not divulging what left you reassured. If no request was made for secrecy then those with whom you met do not expect it to be so. There is a lot of work being done by a number of people and if they are not party to the details of the reassurances then I can see no value in them working to make things better for you. You are doing no differently than the SFA and the clubs and we do not like being mushrooms.
It is no good us being informed that you were having a meeting and then you not sharing the information. JC and EJ sometimes do not impart what happened in court but they are under legal reporting restrictions you are not.
The aim of this site is to right the wrongs in the sport in our country and as a contributor to the site the least you can do is give back some of what you have taken.
Reiver
The tribalistic nature of football supporters is a human trait that causes more wars than peace.
In this instance the job is persuading others that their enemies enemy is their friend. No easy task.
Res12 is what it is and is getting answers from SFA and Celtic no matter how evasive, because it has locus.
That the SFA or clubs would much prefer to be unaccountable is almost a given. What Res12 is trying to achieve is to tell them shareholders and supporters, if they pull together really do count.
Res12 was as welcome to Celtic and SFA as a fart in a space suit, as is any attempt at making football accountable.
Those in the spacesuit can either let the air in or live in the stink.
Jimmci, on the one hand I admire that you contacted the club and managed to get a meeting to air your views. But I tend to agree with Reiver that given ‘no reporting restrictions requested’ you could share what was said.
Like John Clark did recently on two occasions.
I am glad to hear that Jimmci’s meeting with Peter Lawell had such a positive outcome. Perhaps it would be helpful all round if Mr Lawell could now publish an official club statement based on what he conveyed to Jimmci. By the sounds of it, that might be a great help in getting fans to renew their season tickets.
All most fans want is to know that the Board are on their side in all of this.
Well done Jimmci in getting 40 minutres of Lawell’s undivided attention. That’s quite an achievement. And of course credit to Peter Lawell, for actually engaging positively with one of his customers. That in itself is reassuring.
jimboApril 27, 2016 at 19:03
‘..JC & EJ going to the court tomorrow? …’
______
I’ve just checked with the Rolls of Court. The case is still listed (for a 2-day hearing)
” TO BE ALLOCATED
Thursday 28th April
“P1039/15 Pet: Mash Holdings Ltd for Judicial Review
Brodies LLP Burness Paull LLP Anderson Strathern LLP”
There seems to be no judge yet appointed.
I’ll be going in anyway. If the case is on, I’ll text/phone SFM Central before proceedings start.
I think eJ is on other duties tomorrow morning.
Auldheid @1921
I think one of the differences between Celtic and Rangers supporters is that Rangers supporters know they are disliked and thrive on it but Celtic supporters, when faced with animosity, don’t believe it is true cos they are the good guys. Me? I don’t hate any supporters but I do feel very uncomfortable with the imbalance of the finances and power within our game. One thing that I believed would happen when RFC went bust was that the voting requirements would be made more equitable but it did not happen. I think you will find that the majority of fans of teams other than the big two look at everything that happens and judge whether they are to be left poorer and more powerless. This is not tribal but the outcome is the same. If you try to get something done that will benefit everyone in the game then you face a large number of people who believe it is a ruse to get the duopoly more power. For a Celtic supporter to understand that then they just need to see their fellow supporters reaction when they see what appears unwarranted benefits for Rangers in a game. The difference between Celtic supporters and the rest of us is they see it only happening in favour of one team whereas we see it happening for two.
Once again we are talking perception here so any cries of “That’s a lie” or “It doesn’t happen that way” are wasted. It is how it appears.
That is what you will need to overcome should you need to get wholesale support from the fans of smaller teams.
Dem’s just the facts.
ReiverApril 27, 2016 at 19:53
Yup Dem is the facts. I blogged about it a few months ago although since then CL money no looks like a pipe dream.
http://www.sfmonitor.org/redistribution-of-income/
As a long time reader, first time poster I find it strange that anyone would say they have a meeting with PL regarding all of the issues they have in renewing their season ticket, only to then tell us they outcome will remain private!
I would have thought that PL’s candid answers would have been informative to all Celtic fans like myself that will not be renewing next year due to the lack of ‘effort’ by Celtic in cleaning up the governance of Scottish Football.
As someone else commented “Spill the beans”.
Whilst browsing football sites I came across voting for the PFA Scotland goal of the season, was going to vote for Martin Boyle but considered Rogic’s turn away from the defender and sweet strike against Kilmarnock the worthier…then I saw Barrie Mackays goal …sadly I had to vote for that given the relative strengths of opposition…But wait, it is a Skyports sponsored vote!
Yeah!!! I don’t go anywhere near supporting those revisionists. (still the best goal mind).
James Doleman has tweeted tonight that he’s heard rumours that Ashley is set to drop his case against the SFA. It’s times like these that make you wish James was a less credible source of information. Hopefully the rumours are just that, but I have a bad feeling that this is set to be another blow to the possibility of the truth coming out.
Keith Jackson now tweeting as though the DR is going to print news of the Ashley review even before it’s taken place. Perhaps, though, he is alluding to a report along the lines of the rumours JD has heard.
“If you like Mike Ashley v Dave King stories, with a sprinkling of SFA and a dollop of legal action then keep an eye out for our back page.”
As usual, though, I expect his tweets will be more sensational than his report.
ALLYJAMBO
it looks more like buy our paper tactics
Why would Mr Ashley drop the fit and proper issue? The evidence seems pretty strong,what would Mr Ashley gain from this approach?
Anyone who thinks Scottish fitba is deid and there’s no talent coming through have a swatch at the under 20s Scottish cup final on Alba.
Armageddon my arse.
VALENTINESCLOWNAPRIL 27, 2016 at 22:50
Hopefully the rumours have no foundation, but just think back to the previous Ashley case, where his counsel put forward a pretty weak effort, as though Ashley had lost interest. There’s no telling what goes on in these matters and what deals are made behind clised doors. Who knows? Maybe the case might be dropped, and in a couple of years time SD gets a nice deal to supply the Scotland strip! Totally unconnected, of course
TONYAPRIL 27, 2016 at 22:22
ALLYJAMBOit looks more like buy our paper tactics
_____________
I’m sure it is, which is the same reason he has such a twitter presence and my point about his tweets being more sensational than his reports. I will be very, very surprised if there’s anything in it we haven’t read here, and fully expect that it’s written from what he’s read here, and on other sites that are much more informed than he is.
FYI
Rumour on twitter that ashley might be dropping the court action? Not good news if thats true in my opinion!
REPLY
sitonfence says:
April 27, 2016 at 7:14 pmYes I picked up the rumour then approached someone to have it checked. My impeccable source informs me that the petition will proceed tomorrow. The rumour started because it’s not in Wednesday’s rolls, but there was no need to duplicate Tuesday’s rolls, where it’s clearly stated.
Maybe’s aye etc.
ALLYJAMBO
with a bit of level 5 thrown in for good measure,and the obligatory “old firm” mention
Rumour appears to have grown legs!
“Mike Ashley appears to have dropped his legal case against SFA to try overturn Dave King fit and proper ruling. Court will confirm tomorrow.(@stvgrant)”
Though, hopefully, John James is correct with his information that the rumour began because the case is not included in the rolls for tomorrow that were published today – because, he says, there is no need to include them as they were included yesterday.
In other non Rangers news I hear that The Motherwell pumped the Jam Tarts in the U20 Final at Hamdump. 5-2 it was. Marvellous.
I think that we should respect Jimmci’s position .” Loose lips sink ships”, etc .
AllyjamboApril 27, 2016 at 21:53
James Doleman has tweeted tonight that he’s heard rumours that Ashley is set to drop his case against the SFA. It’s times like these that make you wish James was a less credible source of information. Hopefully the rumours are just that, but I have a bad feeling that this is set to be another blow to the possibility of the truth coming out.
______________________________________________________________________________
The rumours are what they are.
Rangers cheating is well documented and we don’t need to rely on greedy capitalists like Mike Ashley to uncover the truth at bleed The Rangers FC, aka Sevco, dry. His part in the stripping of shareholder cash drom the IPO must surely come to light.
ReiverApril 27, 2016 at 19:53
Auldheid @1921
I think one of the differences between Celtic and Rangers supporters is that Rangers supporters know they are disliked and thrive on it but Celtic supporters, when faced with animosity, don’t believe it is true cos they are the good guys. Me? I don’t hate any supporters but I do feel very uncomfortable with the imbalance of the finances and power within our game. One thing that I believed would happen when RFC went bust was that the voting requirements would be made more equitable but it did not happen. I think you will find that the majority of fans of teams other than the big two look at everything that happens and judge whether they are to be left poorer and more powerless. This is not tribal but the outcome is the same. If you try to get something done that will benefit everyone in the game then you face a large number of people who believe it is a ruse to get the duopoly more power. For a Celtic supporter to understand that then they just need to see their fellow supporters reaction when they see what appears unwarranted benefits for Rangers in a game. The difference between Celtic supporters and the rest of us is they see it only happening in favour of one team whereas we see it happening for two. Once again we are talking perception here so any cries of “That’s a lie” or “It doesn’t happen that way” are wasted. It is how it appears. That is what you will need to overcome should you need to get wholesale support from the fans of smaller teams.
Dem’s just the facts.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As a long standing supporter of a Diddy team I can see where you are coming from as regards us types not seeing beyond the Old Firm carve up.
However, can I just say that you can relax a bit because we can see (and have for a long time) that the SFA is corrupt and incompetent. Cheers for patronising us though.
It seems that Mike Ashley has abandoned his Judicial Review at the COS. I can’t imagine why he would do this. Regardless of his reasons, I was looking forward to a lot of egg on the faces of the SFA. Maybe even a few resignations.
It is looking like Res.12 might be last chance saloon to bring out some truth on the public record and on the SMSM!. Thankfully these guys are determined enough to see it further than relying on the board of CFC getting behind it. Who knows the extent of a season ticket boycott might make PL take action, but I doubt even that.
And you never know, UEFA might, just might, take an interest.
It’s going to be an interesting few weeks ahead.
If the requisitioners decide to go with a judicial review I don’t think crowd funding would be a problem.
JIMBO
james doleman is on route to edinburgh we will find out in an hour if this is the case(no pun intended)
“I think that we should respect Jimmci’s position .” Loose lips sink ships”, etc .”
————–
I respect Jimmci’s position because he set up his chance to meet PL, met him and has now decided himself that he doesn’t want to share whatever made him feel happy enough to continue as a shareholder with a season book.
Fair enough.
However on reflection if John Clark had decided not to share stuff he set up himself like “I am the SFA” or “Nothing” then we’d be all the poorer and likewise if Phil ran out of people who share stuff with him to share with us.
I also can confirm I respect Peter Lawwell for meeting with one of his shareholders but in thinking about it and other stuff I can see real contradictions.
Meeting real stakeholders like Jimmci is not something he or his club is well known for I think he only agree to the meeting because he had his posterior kicked hard after last Friday’s board by a certain angry Irishman.
I say that because Mr Lawwell has had ample opportunities to have had “full and franks” with a whole bunch of issues including and especially his Stakeholder Requisitioners over Resolution 12.
Resolution 12 was formally and properly raised at an AGM and in time honoured fashion was treated with all deference and consigned to the longest grass that Mr L and his team could find.
I’d say this was because Mr Lawwell knew there was nothing the club could do because he, himself had already been part of the original review, discussion and agreement.
(and if you believe my brother in law who works at a high level in an SPL club that financial settlements were part of that series of events)
A done and buried deal.
Its all complicated, potentially embarrassing and was 4 or 5 years back in the mists of time, long enough to allow for the creation of favourable revisionism and deflections to spout to fans like Jimmci and others on this site who were asking the right questions.
Desmond and Peter just want the fans to become compliant and get back to talking about the ins and outs, comings and goings and toings and froings because if Ronnie Deila or his replacement is the talk of the steamies then resolution 12 and real stuff is displaced and a big new name and the return of the old firm is what they will be banking on.
Many of the Celtic fans I have come to respect and like on this site are bigger than that.
I fully respect Jimmci and his decisions to keep discussion with Lawwell to himself. I wonder, however, why would Lawwell take the time to talk to just one supporter? Jimmci is, I’m sure, well worth spending time with, no offence mean’t to you sir, respect due for even getting to have said chat.
Jimmci, did you mention you were one of the SFM collective? If so, would Lawwell not have seen this meeting as a means to dissimilate information to SFM?
What he said has clearly had an impact on you, but with respect he has only sold 3 (?) season tickets off the back of that meeting. I’m sure Lawwell would have hoped for a bigger return than that, otherwise I doubt he would have bothered. Perhaps he actively wants you to spill the beans?
jimmciApril 27, 2016 at 18:23 However I left Celtic Park in a much, much happier frame of mind than when I entered the building.My sons and I will happily be buying season books next season which is quite a change from the view I expressed late last night prior to said meeting today.
———————————————————————————————-
What could you have heard to produce such a volte-face??? And not having asked for whatever it was to remain private can we expect PL to make a public statement? After all if he succeeded in changing your mind so abruptly he must see the potential for similarly changing other SB rebels?
Regardless of whether or not Ashley goes ahead with his judicial review it doesn’t change the fact that the Footballing Authorities have no objection to a convicted multi million pound tax dodger being involved in the running of one of the country’s larger clubs.
This is a week where organisational incompetency and then cover ups by South Yorkshire Police of the deaths of 96 ‘ordinary Joe’s’ have been exposed.
This is a week where questions have been asked about how ‘successful businessmen’ like Philip Green can strip £400m out of a business for his and his families needs and at the same time leave a hole in the pension fund of ‘ordinary Joe’s’ upwards of £500m.
Yesterday I was having a look back at the oldcos ticket revenue compared to what may be achieved next season being they reports are simultaneously talking about a 20% increase in prices from this season but at the same time hinting this will realize income similar to when the oldco was last in the top flight. (I am not sure the two figures are the same!!)
It was interesting to note that there was of course a gap in audited accounts emanating from Ibrox a few years back. The last person in charge at Govan who tried to pull the wool over folks eyes by issuing unaudited accounts was Craig Whyte, who of course the same footballing authorities have banned sine die.
Would you then not be worried about history repeating itself if another club (already with a going concern condition hanging over its head) also published unaudited six monthly accounts, given the history of the Operating Company’s Chairman?
Frankly I don’t care what Ashley (a fat cat himself) does in the next few mins. We ordinary Joes on the terraces know shite when we smell it.
Owen Jones the Guardian on unaccountable power
“A proper response to the Hillsborough inquest isn’t a complacent sigh of relief, a sense of putting injustice behind us. Instead it must surely mean a renewed determination to challenge unaccountable power and dehumanisation.”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/28/hillsborough-could-happen-again-police-views-liverpool-fans?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
“I think that we should respect Jimmci’s position”
Can I change that slightly to-
“I think that we should question Jimmci’s assertion”
This all has a ring of a keyboard warrior claiming they have information that they do not have. With the anonymity of the web we have the ability to paint stories of ourselves that are pure fiction.
Lets look at the facts.
A statement of an upcoming meeting of an individual with PL.
No further comment until a number of posters started prompting for info on how the meeting went or when it was to happen.
Initially no response despite being present on the forums.
Finally a claim that it was happening the next day.
And now the claim that he had spent nearly an hour with PL and had info that may put all our minds at ease but was not prepared to share it.
An implied farewell to supporting Res12 and a the intent to purchase his STs.
Hasn’t been heard from since.
I’d like to see PL’s diary for that day.
Res12 update – SFA Reply On Resolution 12 http://bit.ly/1pIEJvm
Seems to be proceeding
And there it goes.
One more great white hope disappears into the sunset
sigh….
And that leaves US.
Time to step up to the plate guys.
Is it just me or do I get a whiff of :-
“Tell you what Dave, I’ll call off my attack but on the agreement that I get to go to the court and remind folks of what the SA courts said, that you were a director of the failed Oldco and you delay in handing over documents when asked, however we will just go on as normal with the remaining six year retail deal. Costs to me are peanuts so I don’t give a hoot.”
Does anyone still believe that the fraudco trial will fare any better?
ReiverApril 28, 2016 at 10:15 16 1 i Rate This
“I think that we should respect Jimmci’s position”
Can I change that slightly to-“I think that we should question Jimmci’s assertion”
……………………………………………………………………………..
I mean no disrespect to Jimmci, but I don’t know him from Adam. For all I know he could be Peter Lawwell himself, another board member, or even some poor club employee instructed to post the content so far.
If the meeting did in fact happen and he was encouraged enough by the answers he heard to completely change his position on his support of the club, then that is encouraging. Of course the meeting could have happened and poor Jimmci has been duped. Certainly wouldn’t be the first!
However having followed this story for years, I do not believe for a minute the Celtic board are about to rock the boat any time soon. As for Peter Lawwell himself, he appears to be entirely complicit in many of the SFA’s tactics in the last few years. This leads me to believe while he is CEO at Celtic, there will be no statements of truth from the club regarding the OC/NC lies, let alone an attack on the failings of the SFA in general.
Nothing can be taken at face value in this story until documentary evidence has been produced. It’s lies and obfuscation all the way. For me, Jimmci’s latest post remains in this dubious no mans land, between truth and bo11ox, until factual proof moves it one way or t’other.
Nothing in what Jimmci says gives me any crumb of comfort. Far too many false dawns in this story already.
I’m still OUT!
Not sure if it’s just the preliminaries to a withdrawal by Ashley, but going by JD’s tweets, the case is being heard right now, with both sides having stated their positions.
JIMMCIAPRIL 27, 2016 at 18:23 32 29 Rate This
As a follow to a letter I had sent to Celtic expressing a number of concern – some Celtic specific; others matters of Scottish football governance I met with John Paul Taylor, Celtic SLO and Peter Lawwell today. Our meeting lasted about 80 minutes and was pretty wide ranging.I was very pleasantly surprised by the openness Peter Lawwell showed in answering questions, In truth he was much more candid than I had anticipated and answered all my questions openly and, in my opinion, without recourse to any bulls**t.Although not asked to do so I think confidences should be respected and I will do that.However I left Celtic Park in a much, much happier frame of mind than when I entered the building.My sons and I will happily be buying season books next season which is quite a change from the view I expressed late last night prior to said meeting
———————————–
I see much comment, in the main negative, about my respecting what was said at my meeting with PL yesterday,
For clarity, at no time did PL ask that I refrain from comment on social media. I had specifically asked the SLO prior to Peter joining us. The SLO stated that would be the preference and that’s why I’m respecting that. However I do take the point that my comment was perhaps too vague so will expand a little.
What encouraged me most – and to be frank, amazed me at the same time – was PL’s willingness to allow me, as a very minor shareholder, to be able meet with the Company Secretary to view legal correspondence between the Club, the SFA’s legal team and UEFA; some of which is very, very recent. ( that would clearly be done on a non-disclosure basis). I did not do so but his openness in making this offer greatly reassured me. I am now 100% certain in my mind that the club have not dropped any balls and I have a much greater appreciation and respect of the legal complexities of the case than I had had before. So Res 12 is very much alive in PL’s mind although I believe the club were asking pertinent questions well before Res 12 was even raised
I also believe communication from Celtic will carry much greater weight than even many of the fine contributors to this site. I believe Celtic may have crossed the rubicon in realising that much clearer supporter engagement and communication is needed and I think we will see a change in the near future.
As preciously said all in all I left Celtic Park greatly cheered and encouraged.
Fool or fooled? Time will tell.
FINLOCH
Btw, the genesis on my meeting was an e-mail I sent to the SLO on 18 March. (I posted said letter on this site on 25 March if my memory serves me well.) Within two hours of original note I was offered the opportunity to meet PL with first date being 4 April but family commitments and being out the country meant yesterday was first mutually acceptable dates to meet. Why was I offered this opportunity? No idea but I get the impression PL meets fans on a more regular basis than we think. (Could not say for sure but certainly an impression I was given.)
reiver, i hope you get so see PL’s diary.
From a JD tweet, just why do the SFA need to mention Celtic?
“Counsel for SFA asks would a shareholder in Celtic be able to sue SFA if King does well hence leaving to a drop in value of his investment?”
So in summary,
Club went bust against a backdrop of stern warnings to other clubs that liquidation was serious. Turns out its not especially if you can convince mug punters to fund a glorious journey through the lower echelons, but only if forced. Administration? Read sideshow. Turns out one mug punter who knows a bit about retailing sports stuff directly had the foresight (in return for bankrolling the sideshow of course) to tie up the retail rights – the only bit that mattered since apparently we were all willing to turn a blind eye to the other unimportant stuff like pesky debts, creditors and highly, and falsely, leveraged titles since they are but words to be played with at will apparently. Three mercenary shysters to play with, spend and retain other peoples money – hell its only other peoples money so who cares – puts the original club back on a gravy train that apparently we all hated and the troublesome mug punter mentioned earlier will drop all his supposedly earth shattering charges against something that clearly stinks in return, presumably, for the right to wardrobe the whole shoddy affair.
This smells and sucks in equal measure and we all know it. I know what I’m doing.
Regards all.
And there we have it folks in black and white. It really is all viewed through the eyes of the suppurating sore that is Scotland’s shame.
The Glasgow Football Association at it best.
Why single out Celtic, why not just refer to the potential of any shareholder in any of the member clubs to sue the SFA?
What is being said here is that Ashley as a shareholder has no standing to challenge the SFA. Other shareholders of other clubs have no standing to challenge the SFA. The reality is that fans, many of who will be shareholders in clubs have no standing to challenge the SFA.
Openness, transparency and accountability my arse.
Proceeding to abandonment
I look in the mirror each morning and tell myself I’m as good looking as George Clooney but it doesn’t make it true!!
Interesting that the decision by MASH to abandon this case is on the basis that Dave King has a tax clearance certificate verified by SARS. This is routine paperwork – a one page form confirming that he currently has no tax dues outstanding in South Africa. SARS hasn’t shouted from the rooftops that DC King is an upstanding member of the South African tax-paying community and you’d be mad to think otherwise. And we certainly know what the the South African courts think of Mr King.
This ‘Good standing’ ought to have no bearing on the SFA assessment of ‘Fit and proper’, which should have focused on the convictions and the UK 5-year disqualification rule for directors of a failed company. The twitter updates suggest no response from either SFA or King’s counsel on this.
jimmci @ 11:19
Well done on getting a personal audience with Celtic’s CEO, and it’s lovely that you have seen and heard enough to be convinced that it’s ‘safe’ for you to renew your SB.
For the rest of us, however, (and until Mr Lawwell speaks to enough shareholders, either personally or through a blanket communication setting out at least as much as he shared with you), there must – for obvious reasons, based on the absurd lack of stakeholder communication during this sorry mess – remain an enormous amount of scepticism about Celtic’s, or any other club’s appetite for standing up for sporting integrity.
Actions speak louder than words.