The SFA’s Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT) process itself is now under scrutiny .
Aberdeen FC have asked for change and the Celtic Supporters Association have written to Ian Maxwell SFA CEO expressing concerns about judgements reached concerning recent on field incidents that appear to herald in A Cloggers Charter.
However the whole Judicial Panel Protocol (JPP) on which the JPDT is based (and which was the brainchild of the discredited former SFA Chief Executive Stewart Regan) has shown itself to be a means of perverting justice rather than providing it since it was introduced amidst a loud fanfare at the SFA AGM in June 2011 (the same one that saw Campbell Ogilvie elected SFA President)
To see how the JPP has been misused we need to start with a definition of judicial which according to Websters dictionary is:
of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice
The latest Judicial Panel Protocol can be found on the SFA Web Site .
One of its Founding Principles is:
2.2 Principle 1 – Economic and expeditious justice. The objective of the Protocol is to secure the Determination of disciplinary proceedings arising in respect of Association Football and that Decisions are made economically and expeditiously in a fair manner. Tribunals appointed from the Judicial Panel may impose reasonable procedural requirements on Parties to ensure that matters are dealt with economically and expeditiously.
The word justice actually appears nine times and injustice three times, so it would appear that whilst economy and speed are the means to the end, that end is justice, but how has that panned out since June 2011?
I am grateful here to Glasnostandtwostrickers for three enlightening articles in Pie and Bovril in which he reviews the protocol a year later in 2012 with suggestions that with the passage of time have been shown to be prescient when made. They can be read at:
Of particular interest is the important view that the process is not independent of the SFA and the following is an extract from Pie and Bovril 3 covering that aspect which explains how the JPP has been used by the SFA to pervert rather than administer justice.
“So to what extent does the JPP system achieve that independence? We think that it does so to a far greater extent than the old system, but not nearly enough. Ensuring that the Tribunals are chaired by respected members of the legal profession was perhaps the single most important reform to make. But there remains a serious lack of independence in the JPP system. This centres on the roles of the SFA’s Compliance Officer (Vincent Lunny) and the SFA Secretary (Stewart Regan) in the process of bringing a case in front of a Tribunal.
The Compliance Officer’s task is to monitor what goes on in Scottish football, assess whether anyone has broken any rules, and – if so – to initiate the disciplinary process. What happens if the Compliance Officer reviews a given event and decides that the conduct of the club, player or official in question doesn’t breach any rules? Well, that is the end of the matter. Neither the SFA executive nor the Judicial Panel can do anything about that decision. And, given that some SFA rules are very vague (e.g. ‘bringing the game into disrepute), the Compliance Officer wields a great deal of power. If the system is to be independent of the SFA, it the Compliance Officer must be independent of it. Yet, as things stand today, Vincent Lunny is an employee of the SFA.
The lack of independence associated with the SFA Secretary’s role is even more flagrant. Firstly, he can veto any decision of the Compliance Officer to mount a disciplinary case. Secondly, even if he allows a case to go ahead, he has the power to select (from the 100-strong Judicial Panel) the 3 individuals who will hear the case. The SFA claims that this takes place on a ‘cab rank’ basis (i.e. the Tribunal is formed of next 3 people in line), but no such rule is to be found in the JPP. On the contrary, it states that:
“Tribunals shall be appointed by the Secretary or his nominee from the Judicial Panel…The Secretary or his nominee may take such steps in respect of the appointment of Tribunals as he considers, in his sole discretion, to be appropriate.” (sections 7.2.1-2)
This applies equally to the Appellate Tribunals as it does to the first-instance Disciplinary Tribunals. So, in theory at least, the SFA Secretary gets two bites of the cherry. He may appoint to a Disciplinary Tribunal the individuals who he thinks are most likely to return the result that he desires. If they don’t, and there is an appeal, he also gets to choose the make-up of the Appellate Tribunal that will hear the appeal. And that’s only if he hasn’t blocked the case from happening in the first place. That is not to impugne Stewart Regan himself, but rather a system that allows him (and his successors) such great power.
The reasons why the JPP is structured in the way that it is are unclear. Despite the fact that it represents a great improvement over the system it replaced, more work must be done if we Scottish football is to have a genuinely independent – and therefore credible – system of footballing ‘justice’.
This article however will let the readers decide if they impugn Stewart Regan and shows how he has used the Judicial Protocol not to deliver justice but to prevent such an outcome, which might just clarify the reason why the JPP was structured in the way that it was and why it absolutely must be replaced on the lines of the suggestions in the excellent Pie and Bovril articles.
Perverting the Course of Justice.
The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal on Craig Whyte – Bringing The Game Into Disrepute.
The First instance can be found in this E Tim’s article where Regan and LNS met in February 2012 to set the terms of reference for the Judicial Panel that charged Craig Whyte with bringing the game into disrepute.( Telegraph Report 21 Feb 2012 )
As the E Tim’s article shows, whilst Whyte was charged with non payment of PAYE and VAT no charges were made with regard to his failure to pay the £2.8m tax liability that CW undertook to pay in his statement to Rangers shareholders of June 2011. This omission prevented scrutiny of what lay behind that liability, what created it and why it was accepted by RFC in March 2011 and how the SFA were able to grant RFC a UEFA licence in April 2011.
Whatever information Regan had from his telephone conversation with Andrew Dickson on 6th December 2011 and subsequent meeting at Hotel Du Vin with Craig Whyte along with Campbell Ogilvie and RFC CEO Ali Russell, appears not to have been passed to Lord Nimmo Smith in February 2012 when Regan and Nimmo Smith were drawing up the JPP Terms of Reference for the Craig Whyte Tribunal.
The Lord Nimmo Smith Commission
The second instance of Regan’s ability to shape outcomes is in respect of the LNS Commission. Here the SFA stood aside on the grounds they were the Court of Appeal should RFC wish to appeal the eventual LNS Decision and let the then SPL take the running in March 2012. This was a convenient argument given that Regan knew by March 2012 that RFC had a £2.8m tax liability that Sherriff Officers had called to collect that prompted a number of enquiries asking how the SFA were able to grant a UEFA licence in March/April of 2011.
That event caused UEFA and the SFA in September 2011 to discuss the submission RFC made in June 2011 under Article 66 of UEFA FFP that described the status of the liability as postponed and awaiting scheduling of payments but more of this SFA/UEFA discussion later in the context of the current JPDT charges of non compliance against Rangers FC.
It is inconceivable that by March 2012 when the investigation into ebts and side letters began that this September 2011 discussion along with his conversations in December 2011 that Regan was unaware that the tax owed was the result of RFC use of unlawful ebts nor the reasons why RFC had accepted liability for the sum owed arising from their use. However by standing aside there was no specific mention in the SPL Lawyers letter of 15 March 2012 that began the investigation of the by then clearly unlawful ebts that caused the £2.8m tax liability, although it did refer to all ebts with side letters from 1998. All rather convenient for Regan under the powers the Judicial Panel Protocol gave him.
The impact of this exclusion in skewing the LNS Terms of Reference and so the LNS Decision is now a matter of Social Media record that can be followed from beginning to end HERE.
The E Tim’s article already mentioned covers how events from February to April 2012 allowed the exclusion from the Craig Whyte JPP and The Reasons given by Lord Nimmo Smith in September 2012 appear in a follow up E Tim’s article where LNS himself justifies the exclusion of the £2.8m tax liability caused by RFC’s use of unlawful ebts in from 1999 to 2003 on what are less than convincing grounds unless he was kept in the dark by Regan.
SFA JPP Charges In Respect of UEFA Licence in 2011
The final instance of the misuse of the JPP begins in September 2017 when after court testimony stating when the £2.8m tax liability was accepted, the SFA, whilst rejecting an investigation into the handling of RFC use of ebts with side letters (and the foregoing on LNS spells out why) Regan accepted that the granting of the UEFA Licence by the SFA in 2011 should be subject to the Judicial Protocol process.
It took until mid-May 2018 for that process to come up with two charges of non compliance of SFA Articles by RFC that were put to TRFC presumably on the basis that they were responsible for the events in 2011, particularly when at least three current TRFC officials/Directors were in place in 2011, charges which TRFC said they would contest and subsequently in July wanted CAS involvement on grounds that the secret 5 Way Agreement requires it but on scope that that have still to be made known as the parties negotiate the terms of reference to CAS.
Now seven plus months is a long time to finally arrive at charges that according to a TRFC statement in May 2018 in this BBC report excluded the very period at end of March 2011 stating accusations were groundless, that caused the SFA to invoke the JPP process, but what is interesting about those charges is the absence (and as Regan left in February he might not have had an influence or was his parting shot), of any charges against the SFA itself of aiding RFC noncompliance at end of March in September 2011. The Compliance Officer himself resigned not long after the charges of non- compliance were made which raises eyebrows higher than Roger Moore level.
Perhaps it was because of possible SFA complicity in September 2011 that the Compliance Officer agreed to exclude this end March period although that exclusion was challenged by Resolution 12 lawyers just before the SFA Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT) sat on 25th June. No answers to the evidence backed questions in that letter, copied to Celtic, have so far been provided.
So what are the SFA hiding from or behind the JPP process this time?
Here is a copy of the Good News e mail of 19th September 2011 between Keith Sharp the UEFA FFP man at the SFA and Ken Olverman the Financial chap at RFC. In it Sharp tells Olverman that UEFA have verbally accepted the RFC submission of June 2011 under Article 66. (This admitted that the 2.8m EBT proposed settlement also required to be disclosed but is shown as a status of postponed (awaiting scheduling of payments) but that a further declaration will be needed under Article 67. This can be read here but note the Comments were not part of original exchange.
Note the tone of the advice given about the Article 67 submission but the point is, either Sharp of the SFA told UEFA porkies to get the monitoring submission under Article 66, that itself was false at the time it was made, verbally accepted or told UEFA the truth and as RFC were out of Europe there was an agreement to bury it between SFA and UEFA.
That UEFA involvement if the latter instance, would explain Celtic’s reluctance to take Res12 to UEFA in 2013 especially as we don’t know UEFA’s response to Celtic’s earlier letter of May 2012 to SFA re ebt investigation copied to Infantino at UEFA.
If the former instance i.e. SFA told UEFA porkies it makes SFA complicit in covering up the non compliance they are charging Rangers with!
I mention this in the context of the SFA Judicial Process being totally inappropriate in this case and why there should be a speedy independent investigation because the charges of non-compliance that the JPDT are covering relate to RFC and NOT the SFA which is perhaps why the terms of reference to CAS are taking so long to emerge.
There is clearly a conflict of SFA self interest here.
It would be more than ironic if the organisation bringing charges against Rangers were in fact complicit in the non-compliance by Rangers after it became public HMRC were owed tax in August 2010!
Summary
The point of this long blog is that the Judicial Panel Protocol introduced by Regan in June 2011 with the flaws pointed out a year later in The Pie and Bovril articles has been used by the SFA under Regan not to produce justice but pervert it since 2011.
Only a truly independent investigation will provide the justice that the crimes perpetrated against Scottish Football and its supporters since 2000 by RFC under the dishonest leadership of Sir David Murray requires, an investigation that should recommend changes that make the JPP independent of the SFA..
Justice is there to uphold the rule of law, that applies to football law as much as natural law and without justice there can be no law. That is where Scottish football now exists, in outlaw territory with the bad guys still ruling as they please, not as justice demands.
Until justice is served and seen to be served there is no law in football and no fake Judicial Protocol Panel is ever going to provide it.
The owners and Directors of all SPFL clubs need to revisit the scene of the crime, the 5 Way Agreement has done its job, a form of Rangers drawing big crowds will continue to exist, but on it has to be on more honest grounds, where who knows, they might even earn redemption.
slimjim 14th September 2018 at 20:48 AJ 19.57 I will admit that like you this was my belief until reading how violent conduct is now defined. Do you not think that the Rangers support have a lack of trust toward the SFA.This.is not exclusive to non-Rangers fans by any stretch of the imagination. By your own definition a simple finger to the chest of an opponent could be considered excessive force as there is no cause for it. It was the Assistant referee himself who said he had a" restricted view" of the incident. There have been many instances of as you say "surprising decisions" going back several seasons and not just this one. The big difference this time however is that Rangers are perceived to have been the beneficiaries, disregarding the fact that we have had three red cards overturned in the past 14 months or so.Where was the outrage on here, at the standard of officiating when this was happening.? Two grandchildren aged 1 & 3 arriving at 9.00 pm for an overnight stay so their father can police the streets on a Friday evening so apologies in advance for my lack of a responses to any further discussion on the subject. Goodnight.
__________________________
TRFC having three red cards (one this season, so far) overturned is the whole point of the current debate, for that would indicate a pattern the opposite of what you suggest. While they may be getting more red cards than is traditional for an Ibrox club, having three overturned does not, in the Scottish football bubble, indicate that TRFC are being hard done by, rather that they are benefitting from a system that is very reminiscent of the way the LNS inquiry was conducted – everything done to be as lenient as possible to an Ibrox club.
As to TRFC supporters being as angry with the SFA as everyone else, well, they are angry at everyone, and always have been whenever they are not delivered what they perceive as their rightful deserts. Example: the SFA (and SPL plus the SFL) do everything within their power to gerrymander the new club into the top tier, then make it impossible for the clubs of the SFL not to vote them into, at the very least, the bottom tier, and the bears blame the SFA (and everyone else) for actually being allowed into the league ahead of more deserving, and qualifying within the rules, clubs.
Allyjambo 14th September 2018 at 22:07
'…three red cards (one this season, so far) overturned is the whole point of the current debate'
You took the very words out of my mouth, Aj!
slimjim is on laudable, enviable, grandparently 'duties' of family love tonight ( I envy him, as we sit waiting for a Skype from Oz ) but I don't doubt he'll be back soon, so I feel free to say that he seems completely to have missed the current point of 'red card' debate and argues against himself!
Quiet night tonight, so I checked my correspondence file, and noted that a wee reminder was necessary :
So I will send this little note tomorrow, by snail mail ( these guys don't give an email address!)
“Mr David Bunting,
Interim General Counsel and Solicitor,
HMRC,
100 Parliament St.,
London SW1A 2BQ
Dear Mr Bunting [ name in handwriting, of course]
I wrote to you on 20th August.
I have received neither acknowledgement nor reply.
Can you say, please, whether I am to expect one or the other soon?
Yours sincerely,
(me, in manuscript)
Ok.
So, here we all are. Discussing referees, their decisions and the the politique of the Scottish game.
I’ll keep this brief.
Did we debate this to such an extent when TRFC were woefully challenging for lower league trophies? From memory, the disputes were few and far between.
The MSM are culpable. They rhrive on it.
p.s.
The SFM challenge! Q. Name one dubious game changing decision between 2012 – 2016 that was debated for longer than a Tom Rogic challenge.
stifflersmom 14th September 2018 at 23:35
'..The MSM are culpable. They rhrive on it.'
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
They know on which side their bread is buttered, that's for sure.
If their circulation figures and advertising revenue depend upon untruth, Truth goes doon the lavvy!
Simple as that.
The SMSM simply have to support the Big Lie, or suffer penalties.
Not just the tabloids who feed the basic bears, but those 'respectable' broadsheets' or senior folk in BBC Radio Scotland who have to be concerned about their owners’ ' need to toe the line in matters of football allegiances.
They simply are afraid to publish the truth: Rangers FC of 1872 died the same death of Liquidation as Third Lanark and Gretna: ihey ceased to exist as a football club entitled to participate in Scottish Football.
A simple, utterly incontrovertible fact that they refuse to accept. Some because of personal inclination, others because their livelihoods/personal safety are at stake.
But all of whom betray their profession as 'journalists'.
In my opinion the term "excessive force" is intended to refer to when there it is part of the game, when someone is making a tackle or two player are going for the ball. Clearly we must have a rule for the saety of the players if nothing else.
To suggest that it comes into play in an "off the ball incident" is nonsensical.
So if the ball is out of play and a player kicks another player it is ok, so long as he doesn't do it too hard.
Bunkum.
"Scotland is steeped in the finest traditions of freedom of expression….."
So says John McLellan, director of the Scottish Newspaper Society.
( Article in today's 'The Scotsman' -'Glasgow to host global media congress in 2019'
He is clearly unaware that BBC Radio Scotland in effect forbids discussion on air of the 5-Way Agreement and the absurdity of TRFC Ltd being allowed to market itself as the historic Rangers Football Club, in obedience to the unreasoned command of the unelected ( and now abolished ) BBC Trust.
Homunculus 15th September 2018 at 10:19
Funnily enough my thoughts exactly last night when skimming through the blog.
As always happy to be schooled in relation to the current interpretation of the rules but as you say One would have thought that there is a distinction between acts undetaken in normal course of playing the game and 'off the ball' incidents.
Looking at the FA's up to date site (IFAB Laws of the Game 2018-19_ it says the following:-
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12—fouls-and-misconduct.
It then goes on to say in the FAQ's section
How, in Scotland, can actually kicking an opponent up the arse and off the ball be anything other than violent conduct when, in the FA's eyes even if it doesn't make contact it is still a sending off offense.
In the above example there appears to be differentiation between ‘negligible’ and ‘excessive’. All the recent ‘kicking out’ incidents involving Morelos, Naismith and McGregor have not been negligible in my eyes.
jimbo 14th September 2018 at 23:54
EJ & AJ
Was with my Jambo pal and his wife this afternoon. He has not been well recently. I tried to goad him calling Naismith a thug – naw he's a good player!!! Telt him Levein is an eejit – naw I think he's OK!!!!!!
Please pray for him, he has lost it.
____________
Sorry to hear your Jambo mate has not been well recently, but he is right, Stephen Naismith is a very good player, but like many good players, opposition supporters might view him as a thug because of his indiscipline and penchant for the odd fly kick (I don't like that side of him), but every club, including yours, have players that are good, but viewed as thugs by supporters of other clubs.
Craig Levein, for an 'eejit', has a club clear at the top of the league, with a budget far, far smaller than that of at least two other managers. If that's what an eejit can do for us, long may his eejitness continue
By the way, were you calling him an eejit when he was a lone voice calling out referees for their Rangers bias (in the far off days of Rangers)?
Thoroughly enjoying the debate though have always been a bit of a non contributor. Thanks to everyone for their continued hard work.
Nicked from Jamboskickback but a nice wee story to remind us of the simpler things in life and what football should be about.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/sep/14/dundee-fan-play-club-stag-do-nutmeg
James Doleman @jamesdoleman Sep 14
Thanks .@peterjukes .@TumshiePam and everyone else who has been kind enough to visit, and to all of you who have sent kind words. 😉
On the mend. 🙂
Good to see a new blog.
Any chance this one could be kept free of
a) the industrial trolling of lawman and co
and
b) Jimbo’s maudlin religious pish?
Note to mods
even if you find the tone of my post unacceptable, any chance you could take the sentiment on board? IMHO both of the above points have seriously undermined the credibility of the site for months now.
Great blog by Auldheid and will keep me in reading over the next few days.
………….
The lack of independence associated with the SFA Secretary’s role is even more flagrant. Firstly, he can veto any decision of the Compliance Officer to mount a disciplinary case. Secondly, even if he allows a case to go ahead, he has the power to select (from the 100-strong Judicial Panel) the 3 individuals who will hear the case. The SFA claims that this takes place on a ‘cab rank’ basis (i.e. the Tribunal is formed of next 3 people in line), but no such rule is to be found in the JPP. On the contrary, it states that:
“Tribunals shall be appointed by the Secretary or his nominee from the Judicial Panel…The Secretary or his nominee may take such steps in respect of the appointment of Tribunals as he considers, in his sole discretion, to be appropriate.” (sections 7.2.1-2)
…………….
A bit more transparency on who selects this 100-strong Judicial Panel.
Why they are selected in the first place.
What do they bring to the table to be in the running to be selected.
And then a bit more transparency.
On the 3 individuals who will hear the any case.
Why they are selected in the first place.Have they been selected before.
What do they bring to the table to be in the running to be selected to rule on a particular case.
How many of the 100-strong Judicial Panel, wanted to be selected to be on this panel.
Are they doing it for free.
If not how much are they being paid to be on the 100-strong Judicial Panel and how much do they get paid if they are selected to be the next 3 people in line.
Do they want selected on this 100-strong Judicial Panel to help the game.
Or do they want selected on this 100-strong Judicial Panel to help themselves.
If any individual had been selected before and is selected again,maybe for a similar case to review, how did the individual rule before on a similar case,did they come to the same conclusion as last time or was it a different conclusion and why.
……………………
All these questions may be in the links,so sorry if they are covered.I will get to read the blog again and the links when i have a little more time
Ps on trying to catch up with things i forgot to wish James Doleman all the best and a speedy recovery.
When the media pervert the game through misinformation it makes it easier for the SFA to flabergast the fans quoting shite,without recourse.
https://youtu.be/T_nX3VHaaHA
Here is my take on what is currently going on with the SFA disciplinary process. After Rangers first game of the season Steven Gerrard, with very little knowledge of Scottish football, opined that Rangers had been on the wrong end of refereeing decisions for years. I don't think it takes a genius to work out who prompted him to say that. Probably the same person who managed to force the resignation of an SFA Director, and who has also managed to blacken the name of the SPFL Chairman. From the moment Gerrard uttered those words it was a certainty in my view Morelos would get the red card rescinded. There is clearly an air of intimidation hanging over Scottish football and it's interfering with fair and honest governance of the game. While the Kilmarnock Manager is cited for comments about a Referee, a Rangers player is free to call for a Referee to be demoted and no action is taken. Why is that? Are the people at the SFA scared that some misdemenour from their past will hit the newspapers?
Bullies don't like being stood up to. Let's hope the recent stances by Aberdeen and Kilmarnock are a sign that the tide is finally turning in terms of clubs realising what is going on.
Auldheid,
Excellent blog. I have skimmed read it and I now look forward to giving it the time and effort it needs (and deserves) to fully digest it – links and all. Thanks!
Good effort Auldheid!
The SFA just doesn't seem to do 'justice'…
Is there ANYTHING the SFA conducts in a transparent, competent and professional manner?
Serious question, anyone?
(Still think that the secretive processs of selecting 2 private – and very wealthy individuals – to bail out the SFA as highly dubious.)
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-statement-on-the-judicial-panel-protocol/?rid=14258
Scottish FA statement on the Judicial Panel Protocol.
Friday 14 September 2018
“We are always open to making the system more transparent with written reasons for Fast Track proceedings now published on the Scottish FA website alongside details of all Notices of Complaint and Claims lodged and dealt with under the Judicial Panel Protocol.
“The clubs, players and managers are represented in the ongoing review of the Judicial Panel Protocol and we will welcome any input this season through our usual processes.
……………….
They do like to use the word Transparent.
the Judicial Panel Protocol,“The panel are drawn from a pool of former Category One referees who remain active in the game,This panel is only used to assess unseen offences of serious foul play, violent conduct and spitting. It is completely separate and distinct to the Judicial Panel.
………….
Judicial Panel itself who are tasked with reviewing Notices of Complaint and Fast Track Claims. The Judicial Panel is made up of people from across the game.
…………….
Ok, i think i get it.
the Compliance Officer can ask a three-person panel to review whether a sending off offence occurred.
….
I believe if the player is shown a red card a sending off offence occurred.
……
“One key change that was made was in respect of unseen offences of serious foul play and violent conduct.
….
So why a three person panel to review a seen offence of serious foul play and violent conduct.
……….
As of this season, the match referee is no longer asked to provide a statement of opinion. This removes any perceived conflict where the match official is placed in the position of reassessing their original decision.
……..
If the referee’s opinion is to send someone off for what he deems as serious foul play and violent conduct.
If two other referee’s agree with him and one does not the verdict goes with the one.
Is that what they are saying? or am i lost in all this transparency.
Allyjambo
15th September 2018 at 11:24
By the way, were you calling him an eejit when he was a lone voice calling out referees for their Rangers bias (in the far off days of Rangers)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlFpHriMd8A
Allyjambo 15th September 2018 at 11:24
I thought that was the best moment ever when CL spoke out. Been a Celtic man it made the paranoia tag disintengrate overnight.The only time he was an eejit, was when he did like all managers do, make comments not required, like natural order restored nonesense, the game does not need fans been riled from management, apart from that, I liked the guy as a player and as a manager and hold him in high esteem for been a true professional with all clubs and for been a true Jambo thru and thru and never scared to call it out, as in the video you posted. he is not an eejit, far from it.
However the whole Judicial Panel Protocol (JPP) on which the JPDT is based (and which was the brainchild of the discredited former SFA Chief Executive Stewart Regan) has shown itself to be a means of perverting justice rather than providing it since it was introduced amidst a loud fanfare at the SFA AGM in June 2011 (the same one that saw Campbell Ogilvie elected SFA President)
……………….
From the link above.
Regan. ‘As daft as it sounds, a lot of the big issues we have faced in the game over the last eight months helped me to almost put a mirror up to Scottish football and say: “Do you want to carry on like this in the future?”
‘It was like: “Is this how you want it to be every season or do you want to actually draw a line under this?”
‘I asked them if they wanted to sort it out with improved structures, improved procedures and protocols.
‘There were problems with the disciplinary system, but I didn’t find them embarrassing because I think it was a signal that we had to change and that there were flaws in the process. That led to a deeper review and, as the season went on, there were various issues where our disciplinary procedures just didn’t stand up to legal scrutiny.
………….
If only he was around today he could be asked if the disciplinary procedures need a complete revamp again and in need of a deeper review.
justbecauseyoureparanoid 15th September 2018 at 13:50
You always have the option of scrolling past the posts of Jimbo and LM2 , as does anyone else who looks in . Not being a Christian , I totally avoid ' Jimbo’s maudlin religious pish' ,as you so eloquently put it ,but don't mind conversing with him . LM2 is a different kettle of pish , since he posts opinion and interpretation dressed up as fact ,and his output is copious, but is generally polite and courteous . Scroll on by –
The Supreme Court verdict was in favour of HMRC which meant that EBT's were earnings. These were never declared to SFA so all EBT recipient's were registered illegally over a 12 year period. SFA have done nothing . Corruption off the radar IMO.
upthehoops 15th September 2018 at 14:57
'…Are the people at the SFA scared that some misdemenour from their past will hit the newspapers? '
_____________________________
At the very best, the SFA Board foolishly sold their souls to the hectoring Charles Green.
They believe that they are bound in law to honour the terms of a secret multi-party legal agreement.
If that Agreement included 'allowing' TRFC Ltd to claim to be entitled to the sporting titles and honours of the Liquidated RFC of 1872 vintage, and to advertise itself as such, they should realise that, since they did not and do not, have the power as a Board to allow such falsehood, that part of the Agreement is null and void.
And they should take courage , repudiate that part of the Agreement, and go to the Courts if necessary.
The Agreement being 'secret' , we cannot say definitively that it specifically includes that 'permission.'
If it does not, so much the easier for the Board to repudiate it and refuse to be any longer bound by whatever forsworn nods and winks and complicit promises might have been made: if they have the will and the inclination.
Integrity in Sport is an absolute must, no matter what sport. If a Governance body permits sporting honours to be claimed by those who have not won them in fair sporting competition, the Sport dies as a Sport.
On Sportsound today I am sure I heard Neil Lennon say that in the pre-season Refs and managers meetings it was made clear that 'petulant kicking out would not be a red card offense.
Therefore if everyone was on the same page, the officials in the Morelos incident must have viewed it as more than petulance. i.e. excessive.
What we now have is folk in a darkened room trying to determine how much force is required to go beyond petulance and become excessive force.
Meanwhile McGregor has two consecutive incidents of clashing with opponents off the ball at corners and the pattern of his behaviour goes unchallenged.
Madness!!
paddy malarkey15th September 2018 at 19:33
You are of course correct that I (and everyone else) has the option of scrolling past.
My point was, and remains, that the blog has been cluttered up with irrelevant content from both these sources for too long, and to such an extent that I’ve had to do more scrolling than reading.
If I’m the only one who has found that increasingly tiresome then fair enough.
I would however be more than a little surprised.
A quiet night, so I have been entertaining myself with a look back to the RTC blog.
And the priceless stuff that appeared in the early days, such as this:
'..A Murray insider said: “Sir David doesn’t want to leave Rangers in debt, or while the acrimony and boardroom bickering continues.
“He wants to be able to say ‘I left Rangers with no debts, this is my legacy to the fans.’ He is worried anything tarnishes his reputation.”'
Question for you:
"On a scale of hypocrisy measured from 'off-the-radar high' to 'deserving of being stripped of a title' where does that reported statement lie?"
Any wrong answers will, of course, be recognised as 'honest mistakes' , such as referees make.
justbecauseyoureparanoid 15th September 2018 at 21:35
I have to agree, the Mods have been very accommodating to the extent of creating an area for Jimbo to post off topic at will. Many members contribute both financially and considerately.I view the blog as a pressure group, one that as time goes by I believe cannot be ignored but its thrust is diluted by the appearance of quasi religious brass band references. I accept that generally the posts are at quiet time but please ,please Jimbo post on the appropriate forum.
valentinesclown 15th September 2018 at 19:40
The Supreme Court verdict was in favour of HMRC which meant that EBT's were earnings.
=================================
The Court of Session ruled in favour of HMRC as well. It was actually Rangers (via BDO) who appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
The important part, and sorry to be boring about this, is that all disguised remuneration is taxable, and as the Supreme Court has ruled on that there is nowhere else to go with it. It is now definitive.
One would almost think that BDO were doing what HMRC wanted them to do when they appealed it to the Supreme Court and made the matter final. As if HMRC were so confident that they wanted the matter settled once and for all.
Bearing in mind that they were the major creditor and had effectively appointed BDO in the first place.
wottpi
15th September 2018 at 20:01
Meanwhile McGregor has two consecutive incidents of clashing with opponents off the ball at corners and the pattern of his behaviour goes unchallenged.
Madness!!
=========================================
He was banned for life by the SFA from playing for Scotland*, and played in goal in the last game.
The current national team manager is a former Scotland and Rangers manager. The first choice declined to take the job and McLeish (huge EBT whilst at Rangers) was clearly the best we could get.
He got away with elbowing an opponent recently, the evidence of that is clear.
He got away with kicking an opponent off the ball recently, the evidence of that is clear..
Fortunately none of the above is related.
*Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor have been banned for life from representing their country, the Scottish Football Association has confirmed. The duo were dropped by manager George Burley for last week's World Cup qualifier against Iceland after a late-night drinking session in the team hotel.
The players were then photographed making V-signs to photographers while on the substitutes bench at Hampden Park, and it is this behaviour that has led the SFA to make their decision.
Homunculus 15th September 2018 at 23:14
'…..As if HMRC were so confident that they wanted the matter settled once and for all.'
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
That explains ( to me anyway) what I considered to be a pretty poor performance in the lower Tribunals by Counsel for HMRC: the desire on HMRC's part to get the business to the UK Supreme Court by contriving to lose at earlier stages so as to get to progressively higher Courts.
Counsel for RFC plc got it wrong. Their Upper Tier Tax tribunal success led them to believe that an appeal to the UK Supreme Court against the Court of Session's judgment (that EBTs were in fact 'earnings)' might be successful.
I hope that the TOP is playing the same kind of long game in their approach to the apparent 'open and shut' case of King's failure to comply with both the TOP's order and Lord Bannatyne's order.
And I hope they succeed, because if they don't , regulation of the bandits in the world of business will go for a Burton, and tykes like King will reign supreme.
Homunculus 15th September 2018 at 23:26
'…*Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor have been banned for life .'
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
And then we have this from the then CEO of the SFA:
‘’ We never said they wouldn 't be chosen again ‘’ Smith insisted. ‘’It was never said it was a life ban.’’
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/141224/Barry-Ferguson-and-Allan-McGregor-return-to-Scotland
Honest to God, what a bunch of absolutely toss-pot folk we have had at the SFA!
Some of whom regularly pick up a few bob from us, as BBC licence payers, when BBC Radio Scotland wheels them in ,as they seem to do in respect of EBT recipients, to give them a few bob as 'pundits'.
God Almighty!
That the rest of Scottish Football should have had to put up with this nonsense of the revolving door!
IMO, the SFA as a national organisation should simply forget the past.
The current footy fans across the country know our place: we are p!sh. 20 years of non-qualification to Finals is clear evidence.
The ROI, Wales, Iceland, Crotia, etc. have moved forward.
The Scotland national team has regressed. Nobody, IMO, expects Scotland to qualify in the near/medium term.
Do us Scottish football fans – and youngsters – deserve this?
To state the bleedin' obvious: there is something fundamentally lacking at Hampden.
And to further state the bleedin' obvious: kids today have many more leisure activities to pursue.
Playing for – or supporting – a local footy team on a miserable, winter Saturday afternoon is a probably ever less appealing option.
Will the SFA save – and develop – Scottish football?
As a footy playing obsessive in the 80's/90's I know that the SFA is an incompetent, lazy, insular, old boys' organisation.
If I had boys, I would encourage them to play any sport in Scotland – except football.
Which is a distressing thing to write.
John Clark 15th September 2018 at 22:53
26 1 Rate This
A quiet night, so I have been entertaining myself with a look back to the RTC blog.
And the priceless stuff that appeared in the early days, such as this:
‘..A Murray insider said: “Sir David doesn’t want to leave Rangers in debt, or while the acrimony and boardroom bickering continues.
“He wants to be able to say ‘I left Rangers with no debts, this is my legacy to the fans.’ He is worried anything tarnishes his reputation.”’
…………..
From the Craig Whyte court case i think, did we not also learn that murray had a clause that nothing could be said or reported to embarrass murray
Homunculus 15th September 2018 at 23:14
“One would almost think that BDO were doing what HMRC wanted them to do when they appealed it to the Supreme Court and made the matter final. As if HMRC were so confident that they wanted the matter settled once and for all. “
They were
stare decisis
binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.
Apologies totally off topic but just watched a fantastic game of football on BT sport there Cologne v Paderborn in the German 2nd division . Open game , end to end , fantastic stadium great atmosphere . Ref was great ended 5-3 to Paderborn . Style of football was great from both teams , one of the players after scoring threw his top off and ran towards the crowd …guess what , no booking . Apparantly in germany you are allowed to celebrate when scoring . Pretty sure it aint bowling club blazers running football there ! So jealous of German footie
gunnerb 15th September 2018 at 22:58 – please Jimbo post on the appropriate forum.
How do I find this appropriate forum please? I like the odd ramble and video from Jimbo but they have disappeared and I don't know where to look.
I agree that there was a little too much the other day but surely a bit of light relief does not go amiss?
Do you really think that religious, or brass band videos portray the correct image for the blog.
If it was a forum and it was in an off-topic section I would say why not. Loads of forums have sections like that.
The comments section of a blog is an entirely different thing. Particularly a blog which clearly has a purpose.
"Scottish football, in the immediate wake of the Rangers FC liquidation, faced great challenges. Six years on, the MSM have still failed to provide any sensible checks or balances on the actions of the authorities.
The Scottish Football Monitor aims to provide those checks and balance."
"The common purpose of almost all within our community is to hold the football authorities accountable to the fans, something they have avoided for almost 150 years. Our overarching purpose is to ensure that sporting integrity is the paramount consideration in the organisation of football. Our belief is that the clubs do not share that purpose."
"Scottish Football Monitor asks contributors to remember only a few things;
1. The site is not the domain of any one club and is open to fans of all clubs.
2. Absolutely no discussion with regard to religion should take place.
3. Posters should refrain from using foul or abusive language."
I note online today at least one Journalist, Gordon Waddell, asking why Steve Clarke is being pulled up by the SFA, when Steven Gerrard was not. For that matter neither was Ryan Jack. It would be really good if more of the media asked these questions, although sometimes people are reluctant to ask a question they won't like the answer to.
Ballyargus 16th September 2018 at 15:36
—————————————————————————–
Thank you Ballyargus for pointing out my lack of research. I was unaware that the other place was no longer readily accessible since the Blogs 'revamp' . Possibly because no one had an interest in what was being posted. The original point is still one of consideration and appropriateness.What you describe as light relief is to me and ,I surmise others, an irksome distraction and totally lacking in humour or respect for the rules of the blog. I note there is a DM service allowing individuals to exchange anything they like privately,perhaps taking advantage of this option would be an obvious solution.In summary…..and my last word on the matter on the blog.
– please Jimbo post on AN appropriate forum.
upthehoops 16th September 2018 at 17:13 I note online today at least one Journalist, Gordon Waddell, asking why Steve Clarke is being pulled up by the SFA, when Steven Gerrard was not. For that matter neither was Ryan Jack. It would be really good if more of the media asked these questions, although sometimes people are reluctant to ask a question they won't like the answer to.
____________________
Or one they know they won't get an answer to. Which leads me to the question, did Waddell say in his article that he'd approached the SFA for an answer, or did he just ask it of the reader – to make it look like a piece of journalism?
upthehoops 16th September 2018 at 17:13
'…I note online today at least one Journalist, Gordon Waddell, asking why Steve Clarke is being pulled up by the SFA, when Steven Gerrard was not. ..'
________________________
On that topic, uth, I am happy to say that Richard Gordon yesterday himself asked that question. It was not particularly debated , but got lost in the general vociferous agreement that the inconsistency in interpretation and application of the rules not only by individual referees but by a reviewing body, makes a nonsense of things. (There was a nice wee comment about Lennon getting a 3-match ban for "running about like an aeroplane" in celebration)
Allyjambo 16th September 2018 at 17:27
Waddell was scathing of the SFA but did not say he had approached them for an answer.
John Clark 16th September 2018 at 17:42
In my opinion it is clear that Neil Lennon is not treated fairly by the SFA. Good to hear Richard Gordon was broaching the subject too, however they really need to ask whether bias is playing a part, because the wall of silence doesn't offer any other reason, although in my opinion Rangers have managed to intimidate the SFA with the help of some less than responsible journalists.
Homunculus, 16 Sept 2018, 16:29
Do you really think that religious, or brass band videos portray the correct image for the blog.
If it was a forum and it was in an off-topic section I would say why not. Loads of forums have sections like that.
The comments section of a blog is an entirely different thing. Particularly a blog which clearly has a purpose.
Homunculus,
Thank you for articulating what I have felt for a while. Personally, I am completely irreligious, nevertheless I can just tell Jimbo is the kind of guy whose company I would really enjoy. He comes across in his contributions to this site as a genuinely all-round good-guy but his posts are so off-topic as to become tiresome and a distraction. As someone else has posted, his contributions do come in the wee quiet hours but I have to say I feel they don't contribute to overall aim of the blog. You have reminded us all in a succinct way what the purpose of the blog is and sometimes we all need to be reminded of that.
Jimbo, you're a good laugh and I would be more than happy to go for a pint with you and I want to read your comments on the core issues this blog is designed to address but please find somewhere else to post the religious stuff!
Sorry but testing again to gain access
I'm sorry. I look upon you all as on line friends. That clouds my judgement when I've had few. But you are right it's not appropriate for the site.
BBC radio four Moneybox programme right now ( a repeat of yesterday's edition) about HMRC pursuing up to 50 thousand individuals for tax unpaid when using 'loan' schemes, with some bleeding heart of an MP ( in England) mumping and moaning about people being ruined if they have to pay back tax plus, going back to 1999 in some cases.
Financial Secretary to the Treasury tells interviewer that two thirds of the folk were high earners, rock stars, footballers, or people in businesses dealing with management consultancy and such like……. And no, HMRC will not consider reducing the amount of back tax that they will have to pay, because it would not be fair on the rest of us.
Music to my ears, except perhaps that it might mean that Sportsound will have to recruit more 'ruined' footballers as 'pundits' to help them put food on the table.
Found this on twitter
https://mobile.twitter.com/HMRCgovuk/status/1040284352129761281?p=v
………………
Wonder how many from ibrox have registered to settle?
John Clark 16th September 2018 at 21:30
Music to my ears, except perhaps that it might mean that Sportsound will have to recruit more ‘ruined’ footballers as ‘pundits’ to help them put food on the table.
…………..
It is all the articles from the Bleeding hearts we will have to put up with soon and the tales of how they will be ruined.
RUINED!…What the feck did they do with all that money you gained as an EBT recipient, Squander it?
RTC's final blog( in the original series ) on 30 July 2012 included this:
"The last remaining task is to ensure that the sporting records are adjusted to account for the 5 SPL titles, 4 Scottish Cups, and 6 Scottish League Cups won during the 11 years of paying players with money they did not have. Drastic player cuts, or insolvency, sometime in the 2006-08 period would have been a virtual certainty if Rangers had not been avoiding tax. It is worth emphasising that had Rangers paid these players the same net salaries during the EBT period of 2001-2011, their wage bill would have been almost £50m higher (unadjusted for inflation). That extra £50m would have had to have been paid by Lloyds / HBOS or a chainsaw taken to the playing squad. This is the value of the financial advantage gained prior to Craig Whyte taking over at Ibrox."
RTC's emphasis of course was rightly on the tax matter.
But of course, the immediate football-rule breaking, the breach of the Articles of Association of both the SFA and the then SPL, was the non-disclosure of the monies that were actually being paid to players ( whether or not the money to do that was 'honestly' obtained by using EBTs)
Up popped Bryson ( may his name be ever dishonoured!) , and the rest is the bloody mess that Scottish Football is in -'Integrity' shot to hell by the creation and propagation of the most absurd lies: a new club claiming to be 140-something years old, and an interpretation of 'ineligibility' rules that is beyond farce.
And worse than that, a SMSM whose journalists and editors could easily be mistaken for apparatchiks of the Putin press because of their fawning readiness to subvert Truth.
Man, it gars me greet, that the Governance body of a sport that is the most beautiful team sport of all should have been so feckin stupid as to corrupt it from the most base of 'reasons'.
Things simply must change.
The tail must not be allowed to wag the dog any longer.
The Truth has to be given primacy.
Titles and honours have to be won, before they can be honestly claimed.
Not to act the goat or anything, or to go too many millions of miles off topic, can I say I love this kind of little bit of humanisation of formal enquiries and judicial stuff:"
https://rangerstaxcase.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/11-mur180411-copy.pdf
"MR THORNHILL: Just pause for a moment, Mr Dickson. If you want to pour yourself a glass of water, do.
THE JUDGE: Just on that, would it be helpful if we had our usual coffee break a little later, say about quarter to 12, 10 to 12?
MR THORNHILL: I think that would be appropriate, sir, in view of the somewhat delayed start.
THE JUDGE: If you'll interrupt yourselves at an appropriate time.
MR THORNHILL: Yes, I'll keep an eye on the clock, sir. "
That kind of 'humanisation' of serious business always reminds me of Alexander Pope's poetic line:
"The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang that jurymen may dine…."
And my mind sort of strays into thinking of what other human motivations than desire to get one's dinner might lie(!) behind one's judgments?
Cluster One 16th September 2018 at 22:00
"What the feck did they do with all that money (they) gained as an EBT recipient…" – spent it on booze and women, the rest they just wasted, is always the "Best" response…
StevieBC 16th September 2018 at 02:33
If you will permit the comparison with the non-round football game, Will Carling, then captain and darling of English Rugby called out "the old farts in blazers" back in the 90s for being stuck in the past and this phrase has now entered the lexicon of sport as a shorthand for administrators more concerned with "old school ties" (or maybe in Scotland, the knowledge of handshakes?) and preserving their place in the game than the good of the game itself.
Similarly rugby union in Ireland kind of lucked out that their league structure very much lent itself to the professional and national set-up required for the modern era – it's taken Scottish Rugby a lost generation to impose something that could be considered fit for purpose. As you say, Irish soccer has punched above it's weight I'd say, especially considering the number of great athletes choosing to play Gaelic sports. Norn Iron certainly punched above theirs! These footballing nations have the same issues with computer games and alcohol that have been used to excuse Scotland's poor track record over the past couple of decades(!), so it's not that.
And sure it can be tracked back to teachers' strikes way back when or other individual issues like that, but Iceland has transformed it's youth culture and by extension its footballing heritage by pumping money into facilities and coaches.
From Wiki:
The initiative bore its first fruit in 2000, when KSí ( Football Association of Iceland) built the first of a series of domed football facilities known as "football houses" in Keflavík near the country's main international airport. Eventually, a total of 15 football houses were commissioned, some with full-sized pitches and others with half-size pitches, with these facilities supplemented by more than 20 full-sized outdoor artificial pitches and over 100 smaller artificial pitches throughout the country. All children's schools in the country now have at least a five-a-side football pitch on their premises. Additionally, all of the football houses are publicly owned, making access easier and much less expensive than comparable facilities in many other countries.
At the same time, KSí invested heavily in training of coaches, starting a regular program designed to equip coaches with UEFA "A" and "B" licenses. The association chose to conduct all courses at its headquarters in Reykjavík, and deliberately chose not to make a profit off the courses, reducing costs for participants. By January 2016, more than 180 Icelandic coaches held an A license and nearly 600 held a B license; an additional 13 held UEFA's highest Pro license. This translates to about one in every 500 Icelanders being a UEFA-qualified coach. By contrast, the corresponding ratio in England is about 1 in 10,000. Many top clubs in the country have B-licensed and even A-licensed coaches overseeing children as young as age 6. Every UEFA-licensed coach in the country has a paid coaching position, although only a small number receive a full-time salary.
Who in Scotland will show the same vision? Instead we get throwbacks to the "glory days" (sic) of the 80s – the fall-back position is appointing someone like McLeish – and even with expectations incredibly low, we still consistently fail to meet them. A nationwide malaise is I think all the legacy of the current SFA…
IMO the only way forward is to get a root and branch review by some folk from the Bundesliga and the KSI and implement it.
I’ve just read a tweet saying that Clyde SSB will be discussing the SFA this evening. Anyone confirm this is true? Not that I’m holding my breath for anything meaningful to emerge from the debate but you never know.
Ex Ludo @ 11:11
I can't confirm this, or otherwise.
However, I can aver (with no little confidence) that Clyde SSB is a joke of a radio show, with base production values: fiercely loyal [sic] to promotion and sustenance of the continuity myth; scathing to anyone with the audacity to attempt to raise anything remotely of import to the better governance of the game in Scotland.
To be fair, the show will no doubt also be fearful of advertisers pulling the plug, should the show’s predominant demographic take umbrage at the merest hint of a serious question vis-à-vis subjects that Father Ted might have called ‘an ecumenical matter’ (i.e. beyond their wit or wisdom).
For the sake of balance, Ex Ludo: I should perhaps also have mentioned that Radio Shortbread's Sportsound offering is barely better of a weekday evening.
At least 'Clyde' has the excuse of being afraid of its advertisers.
I agree about Radio Scotland
I cant listen when its Kenny McIntyres show during the week.
The weekend open all mikes is generally very good if im not actually at a match.
Thanks for the replies to my earlier query.
Ex Ludo 17th September 2018 at 11:11
I’ve just read a tweet saying that Clyde SSB will be discussing the SFA this evening. Anyone confirm this is true? Not that I’m holding my breath for anything meaningful to emerge from the debate but you never know.
================================
Such 'debates' on Radio Clyde tend to start with the pre-determined rule that there is no bias at the SFA, and there never has been. Neither are there different rules applied depending on the club, player, or manager involved, which makes it all fairly pointless in my view. For whatever reason these decisions are happening, we need to get to the bottom of it, and that means asking the awkward questions too. In my view it simply can't all be written off as mere incompetence.
I see Sportsound is advertising an interview with George Peat and in particular a claim that one club asked that the SFA didn't help RFC at the end of season 2007/08. It's a poor show if that claim is true.
On the other hand I wonder what else he was asked about from his time at the SFA.
easyJambo 17th September 2018 at 18:12
——————————————
Rangers were helped at the end of that season, just not as much as they wanted. They also had a game postponed earlier in the season against Gretna to assist them in Europe, which then contributed to the build up at the end.
It is an utterly pathetic thing for the BBC to push ten years down the line, especially as it is now clear how much Rangers illegally cheated HMRC during the same period. Everything, absolutely everything pushed by Kenny McIntyre is completely one sided, and we are all having to pay for this bias.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/9429647.stm
Celtic will not call for George Peat’s resignation, despite criticism of the Scottish Football Association president in a judgement from Lord Carloway.
Peat’s attendance at a disciplinary hearing for Celtic manager Neil Lennon was held to be “contrary to principles of fair play” after a club appeal.
Lennon was given a six-game touchline ban for excessive misconduct in the game against Hearts in November.
Celtic were unhappy that Peat, who was not part of the disciplinary committee, was in the room with the four members of the committee while they were considering what punishment to hand out to Lennon.
Paul McBride QC, representing Celtic, argued that Peat should not have been there at all as a matter of procedure and natural justice.
………This George Peat?
upthehoops 17th September 2018 at 18:33
I do think that all clubs do have a responsibility to the wider Scottish game to facilitate "success" in Europe by individual clubs, whenever practical. Self interest is a killer.
My second paragraph alluded to the fact that there were other major issues in the game during his tenure that should have merited questioning, e.g. the SFA being asked by HMRC to provide details of RFC player contracts.
Cluster One ☝️
You missed a bit; Peat also said:
"Celtic's policy of airing their grievances in public is becoming tiresome," was Peat's response.
"Perhaps Celtic should devote more time to their own responsibilities and discipline than questioning others."
Public grievances; responsibilities; discipline; questioning others?
Tax grievances. Tax responsibilities. Financial discipline. Questioning others….’RANGERS last night declared all-out war on the SFA as Ally McCoist demanded the identity of the three anonymous legal experts who sanctioned a 12-month transfer embargo on the stricken….’
And here we all are, 7 years on and TRFC continue with their public grievances, question the authorities, have ‘questionable’ financial discipline (? insert superlative) AND the authorities continue to dilute the ‘tax myth’!
easyJambo 17th September 2018 at 19:39
upthehoops 17th September 2018 at 18:33
I do think that all clubs do have a responsibility to the wider Scottish game to facilitate "success" in Europe by individual clubs, whenever practical. Self interest is a killer.
====================================
You are entitled to think that way if you choose. Rangers contributed to their own fixture pile up by demanding the postponement of the Gretna game earlier the same season, through total self interest. They got an extension and the reason they wanted a longer one was to help win the league, again through self interest. Self interest was what drove people like Peat, Gold and Smith, who are all Rangers men.
Thinking back to season 95-96 Celtic complained about having to play on Saturdays after Thursday European games. They drew every time, once after only getting back on the Friday night. The following season the authorities unsurprisingly decided such a scenario was unfair, once Hearts were involved. Don't tell me there was no self interest in making Celtic play on the Saturday as Rangers drove towards the hoped for ten in a row.
upthehoops 17th September 2018 at 20:17
————————-
I'll repeat exactly what I said in my previous post – self interest is a killer.
It works against every team. There's no need to resort to whataboutery.
easyJambo 17th September 2018 at 20:39
upthehoops 17th September 2018 at 20:17
There's no need to resort to whataboutery.
===========================================
There absolutely is given what the BBC have suddenly decided is a major issue ten years after the event. However, I have no reason to be at variance with yourself over this. If that is your principled stance I fully respect it. The point I am making is that the self interest to see Rangers succeed was as great among the authorities as it was at Ibrox. It still is I suppose.
stifflersmom 17th September 2018 at 20:17
Tax grievances. Tax responsibilities. Financial discipline. Questioning others….’RANGERS last night declared all-out war on the SFA as Ally McCoist demanded the identity of the three anonymous legal experts who sanctioned a 12-month transfer embargo on the stricken….’
…………..
That reminded me of something i caught a glimpse of during the last couple of weeks, but could not respond.
Death threats because of McCoist Oct 27,2012 pic.twitter.com/z9dHpFG23i
…………..
How McCoist can look himself in the mirror i don’t know.And how he is given a job on TV after what he put these family’s through, i don’t know again.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1033455646413414400?p=v
What might be the perfect storm to get an ex-SFA President onto Sportsound to rake over some old coals with the help of a Rangers supporting presenter? Well first it might help if the ex-President was on the board of Airdrieonians for many years. Then it might help if a very prominent Airdrieonians supporting Journalist turned PR advisor is currently providing services to Rangers. The PR advisor just happened to have worked for BBC Sportsound for many years and knows the Rangers supporting presenter well. The Rangers supporting presenter then agrees a stage managed interview with the ex-SFA President which implies a rival club stopped the SFA helping Rangers to European success in 2008. It is agreed that many other awkward facts from that period which could have shown the ex-President in a bad light will not be discussed. It is also almost certain the written media will pick up on the story with the same pro-Rangers angle as Sportsound.
I have no idea at all whether any of the above is the reason George Peat came to be on Sportsound tonight but hypothetically it would be a perfect storm for it to happen.
A bit behind with posts, so apologies if I'm repeating.
George Peat. Why is he being quoted now?
What's the purpose?
And McCoist. Couldn't watch the World Cup programmes he was involved with. He simply has no shame – zero self awareness.
If he had immediately held up his hands at the time and apologised profusely to the affected families he might have been given the benefit of the doubt.
But any goodwill remaining towards McCoist from non-TRFC fans disappeared with his dog whistling, IMO.
I did like the guy previously, but he let his mask slip with his behaviour after the Tribunal.
StevieBC 17th September 2018 at 23:28
'…George Peat. Why is he being quoted now?'
_________________________-
For McIntyre to have dug up old rotten Peat might suggest that those who know how rotten the 5-Way Agreement was are beginning to make their presence felt on the 6th Floor.
And the arch-Deniers are not happy.
So, they wheel in the spiritual descendants of Peter Thomson, whose malign spirit clearly made its way to Pacific Quay from Queen Margaret Drive.
What a wholly stupid and inconsequential effort that was on the part of Peat and McIntyre.
( And am I the only one to have welcomed the latter's absence over the last couple of weeks, when he was replaced by the super laid back David Currie?)