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.
AJ, That's exactly my opinion too. I actually thought of Haymarket station too. Doesn't bear thinking about.
As you say it's probably the best outcome but could never be declared openly for fear of causing offence.
John Clark 6th October 2018 at 12:24
More great court reporting, John, thank you.
Was it possible to discern Lady Wolffe's acceptance of both side's arguments? I know it was a lot of waffle, with, I suspect, written submissions from which the decision will mostly be based, but I always think I'd love to be in the court to see the looks of disbelief on the judge's face, or indication of his/her acceptance of what was said. Of course, I could be there and from those facial clues make up my mind on how it's gone only to later find I was completely wrong, but in all that dry argument (I bet you wish it all got a bit heated and animated) I do wonder if clues can be gleaned from the demeanour of the participants.
jimbo 6th October 2018 at 12:59
AJ, That's exactly my opinion too. I actually thought of Haymarket station too. Doesn't bear thinking about. As you say it's probably the best outcome but could never be declared openly for fear of causing offence.
_______________-
Cheers, Jimbo
. There's also, I'm sure, many more potential flashpoints that could give the game's governors (and the clubs) bigger headaches than a bit of secrecy over a venue choice could do, and Edinburgh police don't have anything like the experience of Glasgow's finest in dealing with such large numbers in matches involving two sets of fans coming into the city from the same direction, particularly with the recipe for trouble when the Dons and TRFC meet.
As ever, of course, the game's governors cause controversy as much by what they don't say, as by what they do say.
Supposing that was the case Ally, wouldn't a quiet phone call from Neil Doncaster to Peter Lawwell have sufficed? Celtic could have perhaps understood and played it all down. Then again we don't know the working relationships with these people. Maybe there is little trust.
jimbo 6th October 2018 at 13:48
Supposing that was the case Ally, wouldn't a quiet phone call from Neil Doncaster to Peter Lawwell have sufficed? Celtic could have perhaps understood and played it all down. Then again we don't know the working relationships with these people. Maybe there is little trust.
________________
That was something that struck me, too, why not phone Lawwell, and the chairs of all four clubs, and explain the whys and wherefores, as you say? Perhaps such phone calls have now been made (too late, as usual), and the request for confidentiality is being observed with more silence to follow!
John, I’m sure someone said it before, but I salute your (and Easyjambo’s) indefatigably.
Allyjambo 6th October 2018 at 14:01
===============================
I would have expected by now for the SPFL to have come out and say Police advice was the primary factor in the semi-final decision. Unless of course that might lead to the Police saying they said nothing of the sort!
This really should be easy enough to explain, so why the silence? I doubt any club would have objected to a ballot either – what possible justification would they have?
So I have to ask again, why a ballot? Are they not both neutral grounds?
ernie 6th October 2018 at 14:56
So I have to ask again, why a ballot? Are they not both neutral grounds?
===========================
If teams have preferences then there has to be a ballot in the interest of fairness. Celtic and Rangers clearly would prefer Hampden as it is in Glasgow, Hearts will clearly prefer Murrayfield as it is in Edinburgh – not sure about Aberdeen. It's the only fair way to settle it. Having a position where Rangers can never be made to play anywhere other than Hampden is not acceptable.
Exactly, Celtic and TRFC always have an advantage in semis and finals. That’s a fact, we have to live with it. So do Celtic for once.
upthehoops 6th October 2018 at 14:43
Allyjambo 6th October 2018 at 14:01
===============================
I would have expected by now for the SPFL to have come out and say Police advice was the primary factor in the semi-final decision. Unless of course that might lead to the Police saying they said nothing of the sort!
This really should be easy enough to explain, so why the silence? I doubt any club would have objected to a ballot either – what possible justification would they have?
___________________
I've actually said in a number of posts exactly why I think there has been no announcement, if, indeed, my thoughts on the matter are correct. To repeat for the umpteenth time (apologies to those who have got fed up reading it). If it has been decided that Celtic supporters coming to Edinburgh are less likely to cause problems than a match involving TRFC, then it is quite likely to cause much embarrassment around a certain favoured club to have their club's supporters highlighted as worse than their hated rivals with the possibility that that embarrassment could lead to even more trouble from those same supporters riled up by even more of what they perceive to be 'Rangers hating'. At the same time, to announce something like this could be seen as a feather in the Celtic support's cap, further angering the bears (with the hubris that that would bring to the East of Glasgow). I'm sure by now the game's governors are well and truly worn down trying to appease that mob and will do anything to avoid any more confrontations of the social media kind, even in a situation such as this.
I also think that, as you seem to find this public safety reason to be something that could be announced without any comeback, why you think it might not be something they would use as an excuse to cover up whatever it is you think they are covering up? There would be no need for them to state that it was on police advice, just that they considered it advisable to reduce the chance of problems – not necessarily caused by anything more than the obvious risk of congestion (if they wanted to avoid tarring the favoured club with what I have described already). I cannot imagine, however, that if Police Scotland were asked their opinion by the SPFL on which game should come to Edinburgh that they would not say that, even just for the logistical reasons, that Hearts v Celtic would not be their recommendation.
Now, I acknowledge that I may well be well off the mark, so will ask you to provide us with what you consider to be the reason behind this secrecy, and why it might be that a number of people would come to the same decision on the teams to play at what venue, and to all remain silent if they know something less than honourable is behind the decision?
Of course, it could just be that they've cocked-up their cock-up and have created another cock-up in their attempt to cover-up their cock-up – and don't want us to know.
ernie 6th October 2018 at 15:18
Exactly, Celtic and TRFC always have an advantage in semis and finals. That’s a fact, we have to live with it. So do Celtic for once.
===================
So you have gone from both stadiums being neutral in your eyes to thinking there is now an advantage! Hampden is the national stadium where the semi's and finals are played. It is utterly bizarre to think Celtic can't ask for a ballot just because they have reached that stage of the tournament many times before.
For the record I have yet to speak to a Celtic fan who is not happy to play at Murrayfield as long as the decision is made fairly. There is no evidence shown it has been.
Uth. I’ve been stating the bleeding obvious with tongue firmly in cheek. Of course there’s an advantage in playing in your home town. I’m just surprised, and pleased, that we see that as a fact as for this semi, yes TRFC have the advantage. We’ll just have to live with it, Celtic will also but I accept they will complain as it’s new to them.
Come on, it’s a greet about nothing.
Blimey, 3-0 the Dons!
ernie 6th October 2018 at 15:18
Exactly, Celtic and TRFC always have an advantage in semis and finals. That’s a fact, we have to live with it. So do Celtic for once.
______________
I think for some, it's that once that's once too often. Still, that ballot thingy is a good idea, maybe if Aberdeen and Celtic reach the final it should be tried – in the interest of fairness, of course! I wonder when a cup final involving a Glasgow club was last played in Scotland in a truly neutral stadium. Do you think that Stewart Milne will have the balls to suggest a ballot should the unthinkable happen (Hearts not be in the final
)?
Notice something? We've had a few days of disagreement between, mainly, Celtic and Hearts supporters, with a few other club's supporters involved too, and not once has there been any insults flying or ad hominem style attacks. Just two sides of an argument, put with respect for both sides, just a little bit of sarcasm – often good for getting a point across. If only Scottish football could always be like this!
ernie 6th October 2018 at 15:49
=======================
My single biggest concern over this is whether the fact Rangers questioned the integrity of the SPFL Chairman a few months ago had a bearing on this. As I said earlier, it can't take a lot of explaining although Celtic seem quite clear that neither the Police or Broadcasters forced the issue either way. If that is the case then it seems crazy for the SPFL not to go down the fairest route, unless they deliberately don't want to be fair, which we can't rule out as it stands.
Allyjambo 6th October 2018 at 13:09
'…Was it possible to discern Lady Wolffe's acceptance of both side's arguments? '
______________________
I can say without hesitation that my assessment would be that Lady Woolffe saw little merit in Mr Mitchell's arguments. In fact, I'd go further and say that I think she thought he had a cheek coming to Court with such weak and sometimes confusing arguments!
Not that in any obvious way she exhibited any kind of disbelieving, unbelieving attitude. On the contrary, she was all sweetness and light and helpful: as I think all the judges I have seen in action have been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhxF9Qg5mOU
This is for you all.
Met a great group of guys from FC Boukier today, they from up around Dundee. Fine fellows.
. If that is the case then it seems crazy for the SPFL not to go down the fairest route, unless they deliberately don't want to be fair, which we can't rule out as it stands.
But they did go down the fairest route.
They had to get the games played on the same day but avoid a doomsday scenario in Glasgow.
Ergo, move one to a perfectly suitable venue (which had already been in the frame as a potential new national stadium).
Not only that , it removes the need for one team's supporters to travel. Marvellous.
The only thing "unfair" about it is Celtic wanted a ballot to have a 50% chance of avoiding playing outside Glasgow. It is ridiculous for Celtic to try to weasel out of playing at Murrayfield by saying players from all sides should have the chance to play at Hampden. Utterly disingenuous. Celtic are quite happy to be the beneficiaries of a contract that says all their league cup semi final games MUST be played at Hampden. How's that for "sporting integrity". Is that not “unfair”. Incredibly Unfair ?
The football administrators are there to administrate and have done so (albeit very belatedly to any degree that takes on board the needs of the fans). And as Hearts fans were told, it's only a 45 minute drive – so where's the problem ?
tearsofjoy
6th October 2018 at 20:45
Celtic are quite happy to be the beneficiaries of a contract that says all their league cup semi final games MUST be played at Hampden. How's that for "sporting integrity". Is that not “unfair”. Incredibly Unfair ?
======================================
Is it not the case that in the normal course of events everyone's league cup semi finals are played at Hampden.
What does sporting integrity have to do with it.
John C I need your help. You posted. I posted 2 and a half hours later with a lovely harmless song. I am getting loads of TDs. Surely we are not Philistines?
jimbo 6th October 2018 at 21:25
Surely we are not Philistines?
__________________
Ah'm ur, though: Ah'm a filla steyin' in Edinburgh!
(if that doesn't attract numerous TDs…)
John Clark 6th October 2018 at 18:10 21 Allyjambo 6th October 2018 at 13:09 '…Was it possible to discern Lady Wolffe's acceptance of both side's arguments? ' ______________________ I can say without hesitation that my assessment would be that Lady Woolffe saw little merit in Mr Mitchell's arguments. In fact, I'd go further and say that I think she thought he had a cheek coming to Court with such weak and sometimes confusing arguments! angry Not that in any obvious way she exhibited any kind of disbelieving, unbelieving attitude. On the contrary, she was all sweetness and light and helpful: as I think all the judges I have seen in action have been.
_______________
Thanks for that, John. I'm sure that Her Ladyship will spend hours pouring over the written submissions, which will, no doubt, be clearer than the long winded efforts in court, but with no experience to talk of, other than a long held interest in law and how it's administered, I am of the opinion that when counsel goes in with a long list of seemingly inconclusive precedents, then he has been unable to find the one (because there isn't one) that will secure him the ruling he seeks.
I get the feeling, that once again, King's counsel is going through the motions having been instructed by his client who never seems prepared to accept any court's decision. I wonder if Mr Mitchell has ensured that King has sufficient readies in a UK bank to meet his extensive fees once the verdict is finally reached?
'I'm sorry Mr Mitchell, but the S.A. authorities are being difficult and won't allow me to move any money to the UK. It's taken me completely by surprise. But if you're ever looking for a round of golf when in South Africa, just give me a call, I know Arnold Palmer.'
Morning everybody.
C'mon the Celts and the Jambos.
Brilliant for Hibs and Aberdeen yesterday.
Paddy I'm really sorry your just not getting a break.
Love you all. Jim the neutral.
If none of you come back on and talk about football then I'm going to fill the empty spaces with my lovely music. This one's for you Big Pink, I love it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqQT3oKA3v8&app=desktop
God rest their souls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1fiOJDXA-E
Recent reporting on the Contempt case leads me to think that the logical next stage is to have all future proceedings held before Judge, or Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh. He strikes me as just the sort of man Dave King could do business with. PR could be done by Sarah Jabbabee Sanders and Kellyanne Conwummin.
My thanks to easyJambo and John Clark for their consistently sterling attendances and reporting.
Scottish football; or at least Scottish supporters, have a need for honest, accurate reporting.
Speaking of which I hope James Doleman is well on the road to a full recovey and can soon rejoin his fellow Musketeers eJ and JC.
One comment caught my attention when at the end of the recent Hearing Mr Mitchell QC for GASH said that the recent share issue may cause both sides to change their positions.
I cannot see what is envisaged.
The only change in the TOP position would be to strenghthen their resolve inasmuch if King or his Trust(s) have money to acquire more shares it blows a hole in his too impecunious to buy shares argument.
The only change in the GASH position would be to do what he was supposed to do and which he is now under a Court order to do.
Odd thing for GASH's QC to raise unless he seriously believes the TOP will do the walking away thing or that for the first time in recorded history GASH will do something in a normal, reasonable manner without being dragged screaming falsehoods as he kicks cans into long grass; grass which was only grass seed when the delaying tactics started.
We should think about laying on a bus for the next Hearings. We would only be looking for tickets for the Home end of the Court and ask Police Scotland that suitable segregation plans are in place.
There are obviously live issues about what does and doesn't constitute Contempt of Court but I'm fairly sanguine that if anyone lobs a coin, a golf ball or a battery at Lady Wolffe the outcome would differ from the views of the SFA and SPFL.
Homunculus 6th October 2018 at 21:02
Is it not the case that in the normal course of events everyone’s league cup semi finals are played at Hampden.
What does sporting integrity have to do with it.
————————————————————————————
I’m not sure if things have changed with the league cups new format but in the not too distant past semi finals have been played a number of times at Tyncastle, Easter Road and, I think, once at Fir Park and Dens Park.
On those occasions it looks like stadiums were chosen based on which teams were involved and the possible travel implications for the fans. That’s my opinion on the choice of venues and I don’t recall any suggestions of ballots or questions of transparency.
Seems to me like the most sensible venues have finally been chosen for the teams and fans involved. That’s not to say that an almighty mess wasn’t created in reaching those decisions.
Scottish football for you, innit?
Aberdeen FC now querying the ticket allocation for the upcoming semi-final at Hampden. On the face of it, the partial allocation doesn’t seem fair. The SPFL are holding onto tickets until Aberdeen sell the first tranche. Now who could possibly benefit from such an arrangement?
In other news, Kris (Am no daft)Boyd continues to be feted by the media and given free reign to pass comment on other clubs. Pathetic interview by Tom English. Are Kilmarnock officially sanctioning these outpourings from their employee?
tearsofjoy 6th October 2018 at 20:45
========================
When you have a process which sets in tablets of stone that Rangers MUST play at Hampden no matter what then it is not just unfair, it is corrupt.
Ex Ludo 10.56
You ask " who could possibly benefit from such a decision", well the fans who want to attend the game is the answer. If Aberdeen sell their initial allocation of 16,800 or so they are given a further 4,800. What is the problem?.
I understand their point regarding being unable to purchase tickets in the North Stand but due to the segregation requirements for this game i see no alternative.
In other news I see Kris Boyd is being given more licence fee funded time to attack Celtic. I'm sure most reasonable minded fans of every club can see that this is a very dangerous route for the BBC to go down. I also think there must surely be a case for the SFA charging Boyd with bringing the game into disrepute.
I can only imagine the uproar from the media if Scott Brown singled out one club and attacked them via the BBC on a regular basis. As I have said before, just think how bad this is going to get when the BBC and Rangers actually forge a relationship again!
slimjim 7th October 2018 at 12:48
I understand their point regarding being unable to purchase tickets in the North Stand but due to the segregation requirements for this game i see no alternative.
=======================
Is that the same segregation requirements which gave Aberdeen slightly more tickets than Celtic the last time they met in the Scottish Cup final? I can't see what's so different with this game. Well actually I can…
It would probably be better if the authorities had their rule book re-written to actually state Rangers and Rangers fans are their priority. That way at least they would be admitting what we all already strongly suspect anyway.
upthehoops 13.19
You can't see the difference between a Cup final and semi-final?.Come on, you know full well Aberdeen have a better chance of selling tickets for a SC final rather than a LC semi-final.
If Aberdeen sell their initial allocation they will then have the opportunity to receive a further tranche of tickets.
Would you rather see large sections of the ground empty rather than being occupied by supporters who at least have made the effort to attend?.
Slimjim@12.48
It was a rhetorical question Slimjim. Everybody knows which of the two clubs will benefit most.
Looks like hearts are getting a pumping.
I doubt we'll sell our initial allocation anyway so it's a sensible enough decision.
Kris Boyd attacks Aberdeen at every opportunity also. Not sure how he gets away with it
https://twitter.com/oldfirmfacts1/status/1048956710302490629?s=21
Kris Karma
slimjim 7th October 2018 at 14:22
Would you rather see large sections of the ground empty rather than being occupied by supporters who at least have made the effort to attend?.
===============================
Well, given that Rangers were guaranteed never to be moved from Hampden I guess it's just another part of the plan.
Bill1903 7th October 2018 at 16:21
Kris Boyd attacks Aberdeen at every opportunity also. Not sure how he gets away with it
=========================
I have to say I was extremely disappointed at the attitude of Steve Clarke over Boyd. I wonder how he would feel if a player from another club made sustained attacks on Kilmarnock, which were constantly promoted by the BBC. In Boyd's latest attack on Celtic he actually admits he has not spoken to anyone from the club, but still insists there is a split in the squad. The BBC have been banging the drum about this for three weeks now, and then Boyd comes out and says it's just his opinion. It's an affront to journalism.
I take it that there is no appetite to sell any unsold Hampden tickets to neutrals ? Could be done via the other 38 clubs and might take the sting out of the meeting .
There are that many ex-players of the dead club on the bbc books now we would be as well to call it the ebtbbc. Question for any of the Jambos what formation did Mr Levein have your team playing today still keeps us Hibees right on your tail.
shug
7th October 2018 at 18:51
——————————————————————————
Kris Boyd's EBT was £215,000 according to the BBC and he had a side letter.
So he will be looking at a bill well in excess of £100,000 including interest and penalties.
Its nice that after having revealed the tax avoidance they are now employing a lot of the people who stole from the nation … of which they are the national broadcaster.
The report revealed that Rangers owes £2.3million to 12 other football clubs, including Celtic, Palermo, Rapid Vienna, Manchester City and Arsenal, in transfer fees and wages for players taken on loan.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/312934/Rangers-300-creditors-and-a-potential-debt-mountain-of-134m
…………………
Forgot to ask this the other day.
Now Rapid Vienna would know that the club from ibrox went into liquidation and that Rapid were owed some money.
I just wondered how they feel playing a club from ibrox that is pretending to be the same club that went into liquidation owing Rapid money.
(Rapid were on the front line of this,so to speak. Eg. phone calls listen you won’t get paid rangers have gone into liquidation)
When the return leg is played would there be a mention of any of this in the Rapid match program ?
Or are some rapid fans asking themselves how can this club be the same rangers that went into liquidation owing my club money.
Cluster One 7th October 2018 at 20:49
"Now Rapid Vienna would know that the club from ibrox went into liquidation and that Rapid were owed some money."
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I toy , CO1,with the idea of sending this missive to Rapid.
“Der Geschäftsführer
SK Rapid Wien,
Allianz Stadion,
Keißergasse 6,
Wien 1140
Lieber Geschäftsführer,
You may remember that Rangers Football Club ( founded in 1872)went into Liquidation in 2012,because of the mountain of debt they owed to many creditors, among whom was Rapid Wien!
You probably also know that Liquidation ended the existence of Rangers Football Club ( of 1872), because they ceased to be entitled to membership of a Scottish Professional Football League, and, consequently, ceased to be entitled to membership of the Scottish Football Association.
The club that you played on Thursday last ( 04/10/18) was not Rangers Football Club (of 1872).
It was The Rangers Club (of 2012 foundation!), formerly known as SevcoScotland Ltd, which was admitted for the first time into Scottish Football in 20122.
The club that went into Liquidation , owing you money, namely Rangers Football Club (of 1872), changed its name to 'Rangers 2012 plc and entered Liquidation, where it still remains, still, I believe, owing you money.
Unblushingly, The Rangers Football Club of 2012 foundation claims to be the Rangers Football Club of 1872.
But it refuses to pay the debts that that club owed., while claiming the sporting titles and honours won by the now dead club: und während Sie Ihre Nase zu Ihne!
You might want to remember that, when you next play 'The Rangers Football Club” (founded 1872).
Yours sincerely
…….."
John Clark 8th October 2018 at 00:01
===========================
I think you may have jumped the gun on that one. I'm sure that the newco settled the outstanding debt with Rapid as part of their agrrement to settle the oldco’s "football creditors" payments of just under £3m.
Basically, the SFA & SPL treated "The Rangers" as having achieved a CVA and exited administration, as several clubs have done both before and since, but with a couple of important nuances. One that the other clubs fans, forced the newco to start in the lowest tier instead of the authorities facilitating the league continuity normally afforded to clubs exiting administration, then on the other hand the football authorities provided assurances and undertakings that the newco would not be responsible for the misdemeanours of the oldco.
It's a bit like the UK cherry picking the bits of the EU that it wants to keep following Brexit, but refusing to accept any obligations for the bits it doesn't like.
easyJambo 8th October 2018 at 00:57
4 0 Rate This
John Clark 8th October 2018 at 00:01
===========================
I think you may have jumped the gun on that one. I’m sure that the newco settled the outstanding debt with Rapid as part of their agrrement to settle the oldco’s “football creditors” payments of just under £3m.
……………….
I think all scottish clubs debt’s were paid.Can’t remember if other clubs outside of scotland were, will have to look for that later. Anyway do you see charles parting with £3 mill?
Being a jambo you will remember how he tried to screw you’r club.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1049179673387839488/photo/1
Send the letter JC, as you never know what you might get as a responce, look at the RES 12 guys when they got a letter back and the responce they were not expecting.
Sorry if my post is all over the place, need coffee
Cluster One 8th October 2018 at 07:13 easyJambo 8th October 2018 at 00:57 4 0 Rate This John Clark 8th October 2018 at 00:01 =========================== I think you may have jumped the gun on that one. I’m sure that the newco settled the outstanding debt with Rapid as part of their agrrement to settle the oldco’s “football creditors” payments of just under £3m. ………………. I think all scottish clubs debt’s were paid.Can’t remember if other clubs outside of scotland were, will have to look for that later. Anyway do you see charles parting with £3 mill? Being a jambo you will remember how he tried to screw you’r club. https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1049179673387839488/photo/1 Send the letter JC, as you never know what you might get as a responce, look at the RES 12 guys when they got a letter back and the responce they were not expecting. Sorry if my post is all over the place, need coffee
______________
I am sure all football debts were paid and remember thinking at the time that the non-Scottish football debts would have been paramount in the SFA's minds, for they would not have wanted UEFA to get involved in any way (as it must surely have done if an Austrian creditor had contacted them to seek help in recovering their money). It's one thing pretending to be the same club when the deceased club owes no debt to any other club on UEFA's books, another altogether when the club you are pretending to be owes millions to clubs outwith the sphere of influence of a Football Association that is desperate to avoid unbiased scrutiny of that deceased club's actions.
I believe all football debts were paid including those to Vienna as it was required as part of the 5WA. So from that basis I don't see why Vienna would have any problem with Rangers continuity, assuming they did of course settle these debts? I'm sure if we hadn't we would have heard about it.
I’d rather the social debts were paid before any football debts and genuinely don’t understand how in a balanced society that such a situation is allowed to exist.
Sometimes Hector needs to step up.
easyJambo 8th October 2018 at 00:57
I'm sure that the newco settled the outstanding debt with Rapid as part of their agreement to settle the oldco’s "football creditors" payments of just under £3m."
______________________
Thanks, eJ.
I shall revise my letter accordingly.
The revision will allow me to mention the dastardly, hypocritical actions of the SFA in accommodating CG without giving a tuppenny toss about UK tax-payers and other non-football creditors, while accepting monies from the Scottish Government., provided by the taxpayer!
Cluster One 8th October 2018 at 07:13
'.. Send the letter JC, as you never know what you might get as a response,..'
_______________________
I will revise the letter and post it off later (unless someone can find the email address for SK Rapid Wein. I haven't been able to)
Austrian/German ingrained habits of punctilious record-keeping [ the records of the 'Kriegsmarine' are exhaustively detailed! ) I have more chance of getting a reply from SK Rapid than from the Interim Counsel and General Solicitor of HMRC, who has not as much as acknowledged either my original letter or my reminder.
Allyjambo 8th October 2018 at 08:44
'…It's one thing pretending to be the same club when the deceased club owes no debt to any other club on UEFA's books, another altogether when the club you are pretending to be owes millions to clubs outwith the sphere of influence of a Football Association that is desperate to avoid unbiased scrutiny of that deceased club's actions.'
_____________________
Absolutely.
As said before, the rottenness at the heart of the SFA is much, much worse in its long-term effects than the rottenness of any megalomaniacal cheat.
I know that we don't like to get into the ins and outs of individual decisions in games but, maybe it is just me, I am surprised over the acceptance of Big Uche being at fault for yesterday's failed offside trap at Ibrox and the lack of analysis on Sportscene
A daft tactic to adopt in the first few minutes and I appreciate the big man was slow of the mark but as everyday is a school day can anyone explain why it wasn't offside.
The rule as I understand it is
A player is in an offside position if:
A player is not in an offside position if level with the:
I appreciate the camera angle wasn't great but it looks like when the ball is kicked Goldson's body was beyond Ikpeazu and he then initially motioned forward when the free kick was taken and with the ball heading in that general area, he was not ruling himself out of intending to play the ball.
As I say a close one but have seen plenty analysis being given to other similar incidents.
Darkbeforedawn 8th October 2018 at 08:5
'..So from that basis I don't see why Vienna would have any problem with Rangers continuity,'
_____________________
They have to be reminded or informed of the fact that there was no continuity. If they got their money, it was received from the owner of a brand new football club who had no legal obligation to pay it.
CG was in effect blackmailed into buying the illicit support of the SFA for a monstrous fiction.
A truly horrendous act of dishonesty on the part of the wretches involved.
Sometimes Hector needs to step up. "
JC – would this do? info@skrapid.com From www.skrapid.at/de/startseite/verein/sk-rapid-gmbh/kontakt/
Scottish Football Needs A Strong Arbroath
I note despite a few years in the championship Hibs, currently 2nd in the Premiership, are reporting a small move back into the black of £200k (a turn around of circa £477k on last year)
Can anyone give an indication of what Premiership teams may be running at a profit and which ones may be running at a loss?
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/10/08/precision-in-perth-and-penury-in-london/
Re: Football Debts
There was also the case of the PSV Eindhoven fee due to Everton/Michael Ball which disappeared:
https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/status/928653508504457216
wottpi
8th October 2018 at 15:26
============================
The profit won't include post accounting period transactions. I would imagine that would be a net gain given the sale of McGinn.
Second place in the league, turning a decent profit, season ticket sales of over 13.5k and average attendances of 18.5k looks pretty good from a Hibs perspective.
Both of the big Edinburgh clubs are looking good, both on and off the park just now.
As far as I know prices for League Cup semi-finals have always been the same for both games, so I find it strange they have announced the prices for Aberdeen v Rangers, but not for Celtic v Hearts. Surely they are not going to try and put the cost of hiring Murrayfield, or at least some of the cost, onto the ticket prices? Nothing at all would surprise me now mind you.
Allyjambo 8th October 2018 at 08:44
I am sure all football debts were paid
……………
Darkbeforedawn 8th October 2018 at 08:55
I believe all football debts were paid i
……………………
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/8512267/rangers-settle-debt-with-rapid-vienna-over-nikica-jelavic-transfer
Rapid have accepted a payment of 820,000 euros (£717,000), less than the 1.18m euros (£1.03m) they were owed by Rangers, according to the Scottish club’s failed CVA in the summer.
Rangers chief executive Charles Green had agreed to pay all football debts from the liquidated oldco to clubs as part of the deal to have the club’s membership of the Scottish FA transferred to the newco in July 2012.
A Rapid spokesperson told STV: “We received the money from the ‘new’ Rangers yesterday (Tuesday) and the matter with them is closed.
“We have assured them we will not raise any dispute with FIFA which could have potentially blocked their participation in future European competitions.
“We are still trying to recover the full amount from the ‘old’ Rangers, but we understand this may take many months.”
Striker Jelavic, who now plays for Everton, joined Rangers from Rapid in the summer of 2010.
GAIS, Orebro and Palermo say that they have received negotiated amounts from Rangers over fees due for the transfers of Mervan Celik, Alejandro Bedoya and Dorin Goian respectively.
St Etienne reportedly declined to comment on whether they have been paid for money due for the sale of Carlos Bocanegra to Rangers in the summer of 2011.
20/02/13
……………
So Rapid know this is not the rangers of 1872 that they played the other evening.
A Rapid spokesperson told STV: “We received the money from the ‘new’ Rangers yesterday.
“We are still trying to recover the full amount from the ‘old’ Rangers, but we understand this may take many months.”
CHARLES GREEN last night revealed Rangers have finally settled their debts with Scottish clubs.
13 AUG 2012
It took Green a few months to then settle debt’s to other clubs outside scotland. Must have been the threat of FIFA getting in on the act.
…..
“We have assured them we will not raise any dispute with FIFA which could have potentially blocked their participation in future European competitions.
……………………………..
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/charles-green-revealed-rangers-debts-1257144
Stuart Milne wanting a summit ……….yeah right Stuart what about all the sweep sweep you are happy to go along with
redlichtie 8th October 2018 at 12:42
',,,JC – would this do? info@skrapid.com'
_____________________
Thank you, redlichtie.
I had already completed my revised letter and had to go out with the trouble and strife, so I just posted it, having previously splashed out on a stamp for Austria!
I'm just back in, and have just seen your post.
Which begs the question, do you think Rapid look at scottish football and think how does the ibrox club get away with pretending they are the same rangers.
Cluster One 8th October 2018 at 17:47
Surely if CG had to pay foorball debts he could have stated are the debts not the comanies debts along with the tax debts.
The levels the SFA stooped to have a tv deal and feather their nest.
The price to be paid to continue the myth and sucker the gullibles into an IPO for a 20 mill return.
So clubs are responsible for football debts but not tax debts and companies are responsible for tax but not football debts, why don't the blazers just piss off and die.
bigboab1916 8th October 2018 at 19:33
he could have stated
………………….
He could have.But then there would be no deal.No deal means no football at ibrox.
https://twitter.com/bbcsportsound/status/1049333153888919552?s=21
Should we hold our collective breath?
This entry appears in today's Rolls of Court .I haven't seen it previously mentioned.
"Tuesday 9th October
Inner House
EXTRA DIVISION
LORD MALCOLM
STARRED MOTIONS
45 mins
A295/16 David Whitehouse v The Chief Constable of Police Scotland &c
A & W M Urquhart
Ledingham Chalmers LLP
Scottish Governm "
I'll take a toddle in and see what's what, if I can.
John Clark 8th October 2018 at 21:37
Hope you have a pleasant day
wottpi 8th October 2018 at 15:26
I note despite a few years in the championship Hibs, currently 2nd in the Premiership, are reporting a small move back into the black of £200k (a turn around of circa £477k on last year)
Can anyone give an indication of what Premiership teams may be running at a profit and which ones may be running at a loss?
——————————————–
Sevco?
https://twitter.com/bbcsportsound/status/1049539401498456064?s=21
I give you the national broadcaster folks.
Ex Ludo 9th October 2018 at 08:28
https://twitter.com/bbcsportsound/status/1049539401498456064?s=21 I give you the national broadcaster folks.
______________________-
Even if I didn't know what the most newsworthy part of a 'celebrity's' story might be, if I heard him asked about his 8 dogs and their names I'd think to myself, 'is that all there is to this man?' Or. 'What is it he doesn't want to be asked?'
If a 'celebrity' has a question they do not want asked they should not be given the publicity their 'career' requires, especially when their career (in football punditry in this case) is solely based on their attachment to the football club in which their tax greed played a part in bringing about that club's demise. It's made so much worse when the interviewer and his editor have absolutely no intention of asking any awkward questions and choose instead to be conduits of PR.
Of course, with most celebrities it's their involvement in cheating – of one sort or another – that they don't want to be asked questions on…hmm!