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.
AllyJambo@10.36
If I didn’t know any better it looks like Mr Boyd is being groomed to be Scotland’s answer to Gary Lineker or maybe just Steven Thompson.
AJ, yes celebrities like to hide their cheating. They also like to hide their earnings. Graham Norton is very annoyed that his salary at the BBC is made public. £600k and that isn't the half of it. He is paid for some of his BBC work through a 3rd party.
He is also affronted on behalf of Gary Linekar and Chris Evans. Does he not get it that there is, for obvious reasons, a public interest in BBC salaries?
Ironically enough I can't stand watching or listening to any of the three. Vastly overpaid in my opinion. I refuse to believe there are not equally, if not better, talented people out there who would step in at a moments notice if aliens came down from outer space and took them away for scientific research.
Gary Linekar is a strange one. I've always found it disturbing his obsession with crisps!
So does Leigh Griffiths think that we're back in the past where you're only good enough to play for Scotland if there's not a Rangers man (either club) available ?
Peter Grant and Leigh Griffiths went to great lengths to play the withdrawal down. To take any heat out of it. Leave the door open.
Then McLeish comes out and pours oil over it. Typical. What can you expect from a tax cheat and unwanted manager. Man management skills my bahooky. LG will still be playing for Scotland long after McLeish is gone.
The Denmark team went on strike this year. They were forced in to selecting a bunch of amateurs, 3rd and 4th division players and, I believe, a couple of Fusbal players to represent their country in a friendly versus Slovakia. They lost 0-3. Apparently those selected were bursting with pride. With the odd, unacceptable exception such as Ronaldo, no player is bigger than the team in club football and certainly not international football. McLeish will indeed move on from the job (sooner the better for me) but Griffiths joins an ignoble band of dummy spitter outs that should be ignored. Only my opinion, no club allegiance makes it any more acceptable.
I came across this article today when trying to explain the genesis of the points deduction for going into administration.
The author makes a case for removing the rule now because it is not the deterrent it was intended at the time and HMRC now keep a closer eye on clubs defaulting on PAYE.
https://www.clarkhowes.com/blog/points-deduction-for-football-clubs-going-into-administration-who-pays-the-price
However it got me thinking.
We all know by now that the wee tax case calculation of tax owed was based on PAYE terms on the basis that the ebts used were designed to underpay HMRC what they were owed in 2000/2001/2002.
So if non payment of PAYE is deemed to have offered clubs an unfair advantage to such an extent that it was recognised in 2003 a ten points deduction was merited to offset that sporting advantage, then why was that principle not taken into account by Lord Nimmo Smith nor indeed the SFA/SPFL in his commissioning?
Now I'm not sure when the SFA/SPFL introduced the points deduction for administration rule but when they did they must surely have recognised the underlying principle because they applied the rule in 2012 when RFC entered administration and deducted them 10 points for doing so and of course non payment of PAYE was one of the reasons administration became necessary.
I appreciate that at the time LNS ruled that the early DOS ebts were wrongly treated as continuous with the BTC ebts and in any case preceded for the most part the date the points deduction rule was introduced, but after the Supreme Court ruled that RFC owed tax on the BTC ebts, as long as the tax owed was based on the same PAYE principles as a tax on wages then why was a ten points deduction not applied to each of the seasons the rule was in place in Scotland?
It is the logical outcome of applying the principle that introduced the points deduction rule in the first place.
Now if someone can be bothered to establish when the rule was introduced in Scotland and apply a ten points deduction to RFC we might get an idea of the cost to other clubs through those years in terms of prize money lost due to lower league placing.
We might then get a greater appreciation of why the SFA/SPFL do not want to go there, who would pay compensation to whom?
Ach its international week. Nothing else happening. Go on go on.
https://twitter.com/bbcsportsound/status/1049691206769434625?s=21
I’m not defending Leigh Griffiths decision to withdraw from the squad but the national team manager uses an odd and vaguely threatening phrase in discussing the situation at the press conference.
Not often you get a laugh in Court!
This morning's proceedings in David Whitehouse's action v The Chief Constable, Crown Office and the Lord Advocate provided a good one.
I haven't got detailed enough notes to do try to do my usual report, so I'll try and summarise.
Mr Duffy (QC) for the Pursuer (Mr Whitehouse) told Lord Malcolm that the 1st defender does not wish to move his application, and that some things had accordingly been adjusted. He handed up a document to the Judge who asked for a few minutes to read it. He read it ( that took a few minutes) and then asked whether this was to establish that 'privilege'……?
Mr Duffy handed up another document from the Police, which the Judge read silently.
Mr Duffy then recounted that in July 2015 a warrant was executed to recover documents from the offices of BDO and another firm of solicitors. Among these were papers subject to legal privilege. There were also some computer disks.
On 6th October the material returned by the Police included those disks subject to privilege. These were in envelopes attached outside the boxes, by elastic bands. Statements on the envelopes clearly stated these enjoyed 'legal privilege, and should not be read by anyone without consent or on the order of a Court. These were not obtained. The Pursuer needs to know [what documents were read]
On October 17, enquiries were instituted into the matter. No detailed report has been forthcoming. The Pursuer needs to have it clarified , needs to know what were all the documents seen.
Lord Malcolm asked whether the purpose is to find whether the disks were accessed. Mr Duffy told him that there was no basis in the 'record' to show..
Lord Malcolm then suggested it might be useful to hear what the opposition had to say at this point.
Mr Moynihan QC then embarked on a detailed description of various 'calls' , referencing 'call 16' which post-dated something or other, and 'call 15' which was exclusive to the Crown office, not the Police . The parties were agreed on these.
But , he went on, article 34 refers to a visit by Mr McGregor (solicitor) to find Det Sergeant O'Neil reading documents. He complained about the conduct of the police [in an averment] Mr Moynihan went on to say that it is this letter and not the pleadings that is the basis for 'call 15'.Did D.I. Robertson and his colleagues peruse privileged material?
Lord Malcolm asked , is Mr Duffy correct that this letter is a year old? Mr Moynihan then embarked on an explanation. This seemed to revolve around what 'accessing the documents' means. Was 'opening an envelope' accessing the data on the disks? Is there evidence of accession of data?
Lord Malcolm said that he had understood Mr Moynihan to say that a response to the letter will be issued shortly. Would that be that no data was accessed?
Mr Moynihan replied that opening an envelope is not a breach of legal privilege. This is part of a general picture..
Judge Malcom intervened to remark that 'he says there is police evidence that an envelope was opened…'
To which Mr Moynihan said “ So what?” And the Court laughed, (including eJ and me),and Lord Malcolm continued, asking whether the purpose in opening was to get access?
Mr Moynihan remarked that his learned friend cannot say he does not know [whether data had been accessed]
Lord Malcolm asked , how could he know?
Mr Moynihan then wandered into the realms of Mr Whitehouse's defence being something of a more or less fishing exercise. Breach of legal principle is, he said, a very serious matter, and he (Mr Moynihan) is instructed by the Scottish Government and the crown office in this serious matter, and to ensure that no unnecessary was incurred without any proper 'pleadings' It is such a serious allegation that the onus is on his learned friend, he has to make amended pleadings.
Mr Duffy wished to remind his Lordship that there had been no response the letter about the circumstances in which the envelope was opened.
Mr Moynihan ( conferring with his instructing solicitor) told the Court that a response would be produced today.
Lord Malcolm's observation on that was “Well, there you go!”
Mr Duffy continued, saying that this was not an exercise in speculation, and that he took very strongly any suggestion that there was any such unfounded speculative fishing. The averments are there, he said, and are to the point. He began to run through the averments. After mentioning and quoting from a number of these, Mr Duffy was halted by Lord Malcolm asking , but what do these averments say? That material was accessed?
To this Mr Duffy replied ,yes….. the Police..
Lord Malcolm cut him off, asking, there is evidence that that is so? That there was access?
Mr Duffy replied ' I can't say that, but ' and he returned to his averments, referring for completeness to 35.
Mr Duffy finished, Mr Moynihan had nothing more to say, and Lord Malcolm adjourned to consider his judgment.
When Lord Malcolm returned, he read out a summary of what he had heard and been told.
He noted that the First Defender does not wish to move his application. In relation to Pursuer's 'Call 15 he granted commission and diligence in respect of unopposed call.
Call 15 being in the 26th October 2017 letter, he had been told by Mr Moynihan that a written response will be given today.
Lord Malcolm said that because (…?..) prematurity and possibility of appeal against Mr Moynihan (?) time and cost of investigation into a very serious allegation of wrongful conduct of Crown office and …..fishing exercise , and sundry other things like the need for amended pleadings, he would make no decision today, and that he would deal with matters at a Hearing 'By Order' on 15th November 2018.
This would allow the letter to be received and considered and for time for the Pursuer to amend his averments, wording to be revisited by perhaps deleting call 15, without prejudice.
Counsel for parties acknowledged this with no complaint.
Court adjourned at 12.20 or thereabouts.
Auldheid 9th October 2018 at 16:12
Now if someone can be bothered to establish when the rule was introduced in Scotland and apply a ten points deduction to RFC we might get an idea of the cost to other clubs through those years in terms of prize money lost due to lower league placing.
===============================
The 10 point deduction was introduced in Scotland at the start of season 2004/05.
Motherwell, and Dundee were already in administration during the previous season when the SPL decided that there needed to be a sporting sanction placed on clubs dumping their debts in that way. Livingston followed those two clubs into administration in February 2004, after the SPL made their intentions known, but before the rule change came into effect.
The first Scottish Club to suffer a points penalty was Gretna in season 2007/08. That ended with the club being liquidated.
Hearts was the last Scottish club to suffer a points penalty (for season 2013/14).
John Clark 9th October 2018 at 17:33
Mr Duffy ……….
====================
I think your hearing aid needs adjusted.
It was Euan Duthie QC representing David Whitehouse.
Alex McLeish, a tax avoider looking at a bill for the best part of £1m from HMRC from his time at Rangers. Who walked out on his country to take up a job with Birmingham.
Lee Griffiths, who went to the national manager and withdrew from the squad because he isn't fit enough to play for club or country. Having seen him recently he really doesn't look fit enough just now.
He could have came up with an injury like a lot of players do, but it would appear he just told the truth.
McLeish's digs and veiled threats are pathetic. Maybe he's not used to people telling the truth.
McLeish is a disgrace for a Scotland manager. There is no doubt about that.
I had no hard feelings towards him when he was a manager of the Ibrox side. Never felt he was a bigot.
But now? He is an idiot. A desperate eejit. He knows this is his last chance. And he takes on Celtic? You fool. Go to sleep tonight. Ya mad man.
ohn Clark 9th October 2018 at 17:33
/////////////////////////
Thanks again for the court reporting JC. Hope you have your flask,hat and gloves for November as the courts are going to be busy.
Judge Malcom intervened to remark that 'he says there is police evidence that an envelope was opened…' To which Mr Moynihan said “ So what?” And the Court laughed, /////////////////// And for some reason i thought Jimbo would post Return to sender
easyJambo 9th October 2018 at 17:39
'…It was Euan Duthie QC representing David Whitehouse.'
________________________
I'm obliged to you for the correction, eJ.
In mitigation, I thought there was something not quite right –I've never known a 'Duffy' with a 'public' school accent and a mooth-fu' o' balls!
It is peaceful.
Sometimes you wonder were the double page spread was when the supreme court ruled they had. From Nov 21, 2012
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1049736753857421315?p=v
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-496873/McLeish-told-SFA-leaving-Scotland-job-line-letter.html
McLeish told SFA he was leaving Scotland job in a one-line letter
Last updated at 08:43 28 November 2007
Alex McLeish quit as Scotland boss in a one-line letter of resignation faxed to Hampden yesterday lunchtime – when he was already in the clutches of Birmingham City.
The SFA's desire to retain his services forced the issue as the Premiership outfit demanded a clear signal of the Scotland manager's intent to move south.
Events took a swift and dramatic turn on McLeish's return from the World Cup draw. He shook hands with chief executive Gordon Smith and SFA president George Peat at Heathrow Airport around 7 am yesterday – then headed off for talks with Birmingham.
Those discussions ended with McLeish agreeing to take over at St Andrews in a rolling deal believed to be worth around £1million per year, almost three times his £350,000-a-year contract with Scotland.
"Alex did not mention the issue at all as we flew back from Johannesburg to London overnight following the World Cup draw in South Africa," revealed Peat.
"Before we had left Durban, we told Birmingham we were refusing them permission to talk to our manager. We had even been saying to Alex over there that we would offer him an improved deal.
"Then, when Birmingham made their official approach, we wanted to leave it all until our office-bearers could meet on Wednesday morning at Hampden. At Heathrow, he simply told us he had other business to attend to and was heading elsewhere."
Smith also had business in London, so Peat flew to Glasgow with McLeish's seat on the plane north empty.
"By lunchtime, we received a faxed letter signed by Alex tendering his resignation," added the SFA president. "He said it was with regret that he was stepping down with immediate effect. Alex has broken his contract and, under those terms, he is liable for compensation. But I think we all know that is picked up by the club in question."
Smith and the SFA board will gather at Hampden today to start the process of finding McLeish's successor, with Billy Davies, Gary McAllister and Dundee United's Craig Levein in contention and attracting heavy bets.
Graeme Souness is also believed to have refused to rule himself out of becoming the third former Rangers boss in succession to take charge of Scotland, but the list of candidates for Smith to assess is lengthy.
"It is a big blow," said Smith, with the SFA losing McLeish just 10 months after Walter Smith quit for Rangers. "We had blocked Birmingham's approach because we wanted to keep Alex.
"So the events were a bit of a surprise in many ways and took it to a different level."
Birmingham have just received £3m from Wigan for their last boss, Steve Bruce, although Smith was joking when he said he hoped to receive that amount from City for McLeish.
"We will take that £3m they received from Wigan – I think that would be very fair," he said. "There's no deal in place. There will be compensation. Substantial? I think it will be and what people think is the correct amount. I cannot say if it will be seven figures."
Back at St Andrews, confirmation of McLeish's capture brought a positive response from Birmingham skipper Liam Ridgewell.
"The new gaffer has a great pedigree,' he said. "Alex has managed one of the biggest clubs in the world in Rangers and done well with Scotland.
"Hopefully, this is a new era for us. It was important the club sorted it out quickly, because December is a really busy month and we have important games coming up."
So McLeish now moves to England for the first time in his 30-year career and will be unveiled as a Premiership manager today.
Meanwhile, his old defensive partner at Aberdeen, Willie Miller, who never ventured south, signed a new three-year deal as Pittodrie director of football as the 'Big Eck' exit drama was finally concluded.
How one country's league teams co-operate in the common interest of all clubs within that league.
Dutch Football @FootballOranje_
A new Eredivisie structure is close to being approved. New proposal will make the league 16 clubs with end of season playoffs. PSV, Feyenoord and Ajax have agreed to distribute part of their earnings from Europe around all the clubs in order to get rid of artificial pitches (AD)
https://twitter.com/clydessb/status/1049739271198904320?s=21
The Griffiths bashing continues apace.
Tuesday, 09 October 2018, 13:45
by Rangers Football Club
RANGERS International Football Club PLC is pleased to announce that Barry Scott is rejoining its Board of Directors.
Barry left the Board for a short time earlier this year in order to attend to other business affairs and the Board is delighted that he is now able to offer his services again and contribute to the continued success of the Company.
…………………..
And just the other day we were posting why he left…..Strange one
Ex Ludo 9th October 2018 at 22:06
0 0 Rate This
https://twitter.com/clydessb/status/1049739271198904320?s=21
The Griffiths bashing continues apace.
………………..
LG won’t worry, he knows you can get banned for life and still be asked back.
Please don't "just post a song".
It really does this blog no favours.
As other Bampots have alluded to, and apologies if I'm repeating other posts I've missed…
This surprising Milne public utterance about questioning the SFA to improve the customer/fan experience…
Of course, he hasn't suddenly found his moral compass. He has more immediate needs to appear fan-focused: whether it's simply to punt semi tickets, or something else – I haven't a Scooby.
But,
as another SPFL chairperson has placed his head above the parapet to have a pop at the Hampden blazers…
then Shirley, it is a rare opportunity for Lawwell to give Milne very public and very loud backing to have a review of the SFA & the SPFL practices. (And discreetly enlarge the scope of said review, following lobbying of other clubs.)
Upshot is a review, as requested by AFC: so it neatly removes any attempted deflection that it is a CFC/TRFC bun fight.
I know…
https://twitter.com/bbcjamescook/status/1049907280056082433?s=21
James Cook (not a football correspondent) telling it like it is.
Ex Ludo 10th October 2018 at 07:50
https://twitter.com/bbcjamescook/status/1049907280056082433?s=21 James Cook (not a football correspondent) telling it like it is.
___________________
While agreeing with him, entirely, it's a bit hypocritical of a BBC correspondent, and ex Scotland correspondent – who has as a tag line 'facts are chiels that winna ding', to criticise another media outlet for their use of hyperbole when talking of an Ibrox club or it's players. He also made the classic error of those media toadies by describing Kyle Lafferty as 'Rangers striker' which is, as far as facts go, a 'chiel that dings' rather loudly!
StevieBC 10th October 2018 at 00:34
As I posted a few days back it is also the ideal time for Budge to join the party along with Milne and Lawwell.
The leaders of three of our biggest clubs actually taking a lead in asking difficult questions would be a breath of fresh air.
Strength in numbers and all that.
As someone who agrees wholeheartedly with Homunculus that posting bland, soporific, maudlin song videos does this site a disservice, I feel I'm mibbe being two-faced (and certainly pedantic) in suggesting to Allyjambo that "ding" disnae mean a sound.
In that phrase, the fact is impervious to blows or damage: it won't "dent".
EG in car metal work you get dings, that need hammering out.
fishnish 10th October 2018 at 10:08
As someone who agrees wholeheartedly with Homunculus that posting bland, soporific, maudlin song videos does this site a disservice, I feel I’m mibbe being two-faced (and certainly pedantic) in suggesting to Allyjambo that “ding” disnae mean a sound.
In that phrase, the fact is impervious to blows or damage: it won’t “dent”.
EG in car metal work you get dings, that need hammering out.
______________________-
I wasn’t suggesting it did, just using reverse onomatopoeia (if there is such a thing) to make (what I thought as) a mildly humorous comment, and to make the point that his hypocrisy was ‘loud’ in the same way a colour can be loud. Also, as one interpretation of ‘ding’ is ‘disputed’, I was inferring that it is loudly disputed.
The point of my post was that here is a man, working for the very much discredited BBC, criticising the hyperbole of another media outlet, while proclaiming that he is an honourable journalist interested only in facts, who totally ignores the fact that Kyle Lafferty used to play for Rangers FC but now kicks a ball for a new entity that uses the word ‘Rangers’ in it’s title to mislead. He also works for a corporation that refuses to allow the facts of Rangers’ demise, along with many other facts pertaining to cheating and other dishonesties, to be aired on any of it’s programs. I just wish the BBC would attempt to make these chiels ding (to try to justify their change in position from before the failed CVA until after a known liar changed their minds), but we know they never will?
AllyJambo@09.06
To be fair to James Cook I think he might have been trying to be funny. I did like a tweet in the thread which declared “The Hunt for the Red Hand of October “
Maybe phoning the Scotland manager and telling him you are not available to play, explaining that you are not fit enough for either club or country is seen as a heinous treachery, whereas unilaterally withdrawing from the Northern Ireland squad is a perfectly acceptable expedient.
The important point though, as others have said, is the use of the word "unilaterally" as it clearly exonerates his club from any blame. It was Lafferty's decision and his alone. Nothing to do with his employers.
Ex Ludo 10th October 2018 at 10:46
AllyJambo@09.06
To be fair to James Cook I think he might have been trying to be funny. I did like a tweet in the thread which declared “The Hunt for the Red Hand of October “
____________________-
However funny his tweets, or the validity of what he said about the Scotsman's tweet, if he is going to label himself as a purveyor of facts/truth then he should also publish the truth before pointing out his competitors' faults.
Of course, I may be wrong and he has already published an article giving a true and accurate summation of all (or even one part) that has gone on at Ibrox since 1998.
@eaamalyon Big news from Belgium this morning: top football clubs raided, leading managers and refs questioned, the country's biggest agent is under arrest Top managers, agents and refs interrogated in Belgian corruption probe independent.co.uk 10:37 AM · Oct 10, 2018
https://t.co/9vbU8lHXab?amp=1
Allyjambo 10th October 2018 at 10:40
'..I just wish the BBC would attempt to make these chiels ding (to try to justify their change in position from before the failed CVA until after a known liar changed their minds), but we know they never will?'
___________________
To be scrupulously fair to BBC Scotland, aJ, their 'volteface' was against their (natural) instincts.
As I understand it, BBC Scotland's hand was 'forced' by a decision of the now defunct BBC Trust's
Editorial Standards Committee. The full decision is here:
downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf
BBC Scotland reported the decision in brief https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22951447
as follows:
"In its evidence to the Trust, BBC Scotland had stated: "We remain of the opinion that due accuracy was achieved."
It said: "A football club, once incorporated, is indistinguishable in Scots law from its corporate identity.
"If the club was separate it would need its own constitution, committee members, trustees, etc.
"Rangers Football Club does not have that because it is incorporated."
BBC Scotland's submission said that an implication of the ESC ruling could be that future reporting, in order to achieve a "common standard", may have to differentiate "between the business elements of a club's activities and its footballing activities".
It added: "This, we believe, would add layers of complexity to reporting that would not be to the benefit of clear reportage or enhance the understanding of such issues by our audiences."
Following publication of the Trust's findings, BBC Scotland said: "We note the findings of the report."
They then, sadly, 'obeyed' without further challenge to decision which they knew ran totally counter to the fundamental duty to be truthful to the facts.
It is that cowardly obedience to a body which had already by then become so arcane and irrelevant that it was abolished soon afterwards that stains BBC Scotland.
Any Controller and management team ought to have kicked up a din and threatened to resign en masse at such a ridiculously outrageous decision that required them to lie!
The decision by one now abolished effete , undemocratic, 'establishment' Trust is as little to be honoured as are the dishonest decisions of a Sports governance body which too readily sold the Integrity of the very Sport which they are supposed to defend against sports cheats and perverters of Truth.
And, with the abolition of the BBC Trust and its replacement by a far more democratic governance model, the current Controller ,Donalda Mackinnon, should review the matter, and get BBC Scotland back into truthful, accurate reporting.
<
p style=”margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px”>As much for the sake of the BBC and what it claims to stand for, as for the sake of Scottish Football as a Sport, and of Scottish professional football clubs as 'businesses'.
It seems the Rangers and their support are a special case in Europe as well as domestically
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/uefa-give-rangers-special-permission-13395114
UEFA give Rangers special permission to cut Europa League ticket quota over police fears
Homunculus@14.25
Interesting choice of words in the DR piece. “Special permission” and “dispensation “ and “special dispensation “ all used to make out the club is, well, special. I’ve had some experience in dealing with Russian football fans in Ibrox. They were on the whole well behaved apart from a few numpties much like any football crowd. I’m wondering if there is particular information re this game or have UEFA been paying attention to a recent unfortunate incident involving west of Scotland fans.
Billydug 10th October 2018 at 11:57
@eaamalyon Big news from Belgium this morning: …in Belgian corruption probe…
Scottish football, Italian football, FIFA, UEFA, etc…
Have we all been conned since forever?
Have we unwittingly supported possibly the most corrupt global sport?
And are we past the point of no return: football is a business first, and any consideration of sporting integrity simply has no place in the pursuit of profit / backhanders / bias, etc.?
And now Belgium?!
How depressing.
News 3 hrs ago
Transport cops hunt for RANGERS fans who abused passengers on Glasgow train
By Evening Times Online
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Oops, Chris Jack will be greetin’ at this headline.
…wonder how long before this explicit / truthful headline is redacted?
Posted on the ET site at about 12.15pm Glasgow time…
StevieBC 10th October 2018 at 14:59
=========================
You can add Portugal, and specifically Benfica to that list.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/sports/soccer/benfica-leak.html
It seems they don't like Bloggers revealing internal club documents, such as:
" It included a Benfica slide show detailing an apparent effort to gain greater influence over federation and league officials "
" There were also documents suggesting connections between the club and the men responsible for overseeing refereeing in Portugal. "
…… the article goes on:
" The police are investigating the hack on Benfica’s system, but also the club itself. Law enforcement officials have conducted raids on Benfica’s offices, and last month prosecutors charged the club with corruption after investigators found it had a mole inside the Portuguese judicial system. "
" The Portuguese soccer federation has started a separate investigation. "
It couldn't happen in Scotland of course, because all our football authorities and club officials are beyond reproach, …………. or so we are told.
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/scotland/rangers-and-sports-direct-back-at-high-court-over-merchandise-deal/
Bosses at Rangers Football Club are embroiled in a fresh merchandise deal row with Sports Direct and Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley, less than three months after a High Court judge said both sides should “try to make peace”.
In a High Court hearing in London in late July, Mr Justice Phillips was told a dispute over the terms of the deal had been settled.
But lawyers representing the two sides were back at the court on Wednesday after Mr Ashley complained of a breach of contract by Rangers.
Homunculus 10th October 2018 at 15:46
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/scotland/rangers-and-sports-direct-back-at-high-court-over-merchandise-deal/ Bosses at Rangers Football Club are embroiled in a fresh merchandise deal row with Sports Direct and Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley, less than three months after a High Court judge said both sides should “try to make peace”. In a High Court hearing in London in late July, Mr Justice Phillips was told a dispute over the terms of the deal had been settled. But lawyers representing the two sides were back at the court on Wednesday after Mr Ashley complained of a breach of contract by Rangers.
____________
Worth noting that PMGB hinted at this yesterday.
It does make you wonder, though, what RIFC/TRFC, or is it just King, are up to in their pursuit of trouble, for they seem determined to have at least two court cases on the go as often as possible. It's as though they are poking a stick at the legal system as often as they can and acting as though a legal ruling doesn't bind them.
Allyjambo@16.27
PMGB reporting that Mr Kings QC has advised in court that he represents RIFC, TRFC and Mr King. I’m not sure of the significance of this admission but I suspect it might not bode well for the Club/Company and the shareholders.
The Rangers support who have bought merchandise from Elite Group are not going to be best pleased if the Court rules that it breached Sport Direct's contract and that Mike Ashley is entitled to a cut of that income.
Surely Mike Ashley didn't let this go for a while until a whole load of sales had been made.
Ex Ludo
10th October 2018 at 17:07
===================================
I think that relates to the Takeover Panel case in the Court of Session, as opposed to the hearing which would appear to relate to who can sell the merchandise, being heard in England.
That 'off message' headline from the ET has changed.
'RANGERS' is now 'Rangers' in the headline.
Pedantic I know, but surprised the article hasn't been dropped onto an earlier page, or simply dropped.
Homunculus@17.16
Noted and thanks.
wottpi 10th October 2018 at 09:58 Edit This
17
1
Rate This
StevieBC 10th October 2018 at 00:34
As I posted a few days back it is also the ideal time for Budge to join the party along with Milne and Lawwell.
The leaders of three of our biggest clubs actually taking a lead in asking difficult questions would be a breath of fresh air.
Strength in numbers and all that.
================
The CSA wading into Milne in their latest post.
When they say fear of retribution is a factor impeding sporting justice then those intimidating should be named by the clubs.
Its not just Milne who needs to grow a set, it is all other clubs. Enough lies
http://thecsa.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2007&sid=e7a78203f764aef70ec66e192c873c33
Given that the CSA and Celtic have a respectful relationship perhaps Joe O Rourke's article is a reflection of Celtic's frustration.
Rangers ticket statement
It's not like them to have a sense of entitlement over other clubs and their supporters.
I note that an "unopposed" motion was granted yesterday in the RIFC v Chuckles case, which is about him agreeing deals not in the club's best interests.
A97/18 Rangers International Football Club Plc v Charles Green – Anderson Strathern LLP
Based on Anderson Strathern being named, I'd expect that the motion originated from RIFC. It is probably a fairly routine request, e.g. for documents.
It might be an interesting case once it starts making progress through the court. I understand that Green has engaged Heriot Currie QC to defend him, so he's getting one of the best available. Currie defended David Whitehouse in the preliminary hearings in the criminal trial, before the charges were dropped against him.
Big success for the 'Gers today:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/rangers-win-legal-fight-against-street-trader-over-club-s-logo-1-4812928
RFC? Shouldn't that be followed by '2012 (IL)?
Still, break out #winning!
Jingso.Jimsie
10th October 2018 at 19:27
Would it be churlish of me to point out that "RFC" is an initialism, not an acronym. Though with such imprecise use of language it will be soon.
Billydug 10th October 2018 at 11:57
"……These came as part of 44 raids nationwide and 13 more across France, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia."
___________________
Perhaps if the shareholders of Celtic had made an approach some years ago to the COPFS suggesting a wee seizure by Police Scotland of documents from the 6th Floor relating UEFA licencing , the list might have included Scotland!
( But perhaps such a seizure of documents would have been compromised by the Plod mistakenly seizing 'legally privileged' material thus bu..ering up the chances of conviction! I've heard that such a thing can happen.)
You may recall I made a Freedom of Information request to Scottish Government (SG) and SportScotland as funders of Scottish sporting bodies and Scottish sports governing bodies regarding the measures in place to ensure compliance with the expectation that sporting bodies funded from the public purse had the necessary levels of transparency, accountability and financial integrity in place. I received a reply from SG to the effect that SG funds sporting bodies through SportScotland and I should perhaps direct my question to them. This despite the fact that I have seen several letters addressed to Stewart Regan from SG advising of grant awards to the SFA which were being made direct from Scottish Ministers. I have now disputed their answer and escalated it to the Director of Population Health? asking for a review of the answer. I will keep you posted. I have not received a reply from SportScotland although some aspects of their acknowledgement do not fill me with enthusiasm:
Thank you for getting in touch with sportscotland.
This is an automated message to acknowledge that we have received your email. If it is appropriate to respond to your enquiry, then you should receive a reply from us within 20 working days.
sportscotland offices are closed from Wednesday 24th December at 12.30 pm until Monday 5th January 2015 at 9.00 am inclusive. Your enquiry will be responded to as soon as possible thereafter.
Firstly, it looks like I will hear from them only if they see fit to respond. And secondly, they have helpfully advised me that I will have to wait until after 5th January until they start work on my request. Oh wait…..
Mordecai 11th October 2018 at 06:58
=========================
Good luck with the Scottish Government. I once received a reply from them basically saying they will not interfere in the way a members organisation like the SFA is run. All I asked was that since they gave the SFA funding, shouldn't they (the SFA) be publicly accountable to someone?
Of course, if a certain SFA member decides to cheat the state out of tens of millions in social taxes things are different. Even though those taxes would have funded vital public services the Scottish Government are not particularly bothered about the tax cheating, because the cheats themselves are classed as part of the fabric of our society. The most senior member of the Scottish Government may even choose to contact HMRC to demand they let the tax cheats off.
That, I'm afraid, is the society we live in, and it would happen again and again if required.
Up the Hoops 11 October 2018 07.12
Good luck with the Scottish Government. I once received a reply from them basically saying they will not interfere in the way a members organisation like the SFA is run. All I asked was that since they gave the SFA funding, shouldn't they (the SFA) be publicly accountable to someone?
—————————————————————————————
This is exactly the the matter I was pursuing. The body responsible for funding sporting bodies – including sporting governing bodies – in England is UK sport. The have published a code which came into effect in April last year for Sports Governance that sets out the levels of transparency, accountability and financial integrity that will be required from those who ask for Government and National Lottery funding. Sport Scotland are the equivalent in Scotland and have published a similar code.
In England, the Code is proportionate, expecting the highest standards of good governance from organisations requesting the largest public investments, including:
I was merely asking SG and SportScotland what arrangements they have in place to monitor compliance with the Code and who does the monitoring. Anyone can introduce a code for any purpose in any organisation but unless compliance is monitored, it is nothing more than words in a glossy brochure.
Jingso.Jimsie 10th October 2018 at 19:27
I suppose the worrying thing is that significant column inches have been devoted to a 'success' in beating a street trader while far bigger stories re Ashley's legal battles and the general financial position and associated gongs on at Ibrox are under reported and left to continue without any serious investigation.
What a riddy having to draft up such pish to make a living when these guys probably started off thinking they would be the next Woodward and Bernstein.
wottpi 11th October 2018 at 09:57
'… that significant column inches have been devoted to a 'success' in beating a street trader while far bigger stories re Ashley's legal battles …. are under reported and left to continue without any serious investigation…………… these guys probably started off thinking they would be the next Woodward and Bernstein.'
___________________
News item this morning about the Johnston Press (publishers of the 'Scotsman' ) being up for sale, due to declining revenues from advertising and digital presence.
While there is no likelihood that any media corporation which might buy it will be any more inclined to seek the truth about the 'saga' and print it, it would be gratifying to see those in the 'Scotsman' who so assiduously propagated the Big Lie get their jotters.
My concept of 'freedom of the Press' does not include 'freedom' to refuse to seek the Truth, or disguise it, or cover it up, or generally protect bad guys from accountability.
I would feel unmoved by the death of Pravda.
I would equally be unmoved by the death of those newspapers which have supported the ridiculous notion that a dead football club, stripped of any entitlement to participate in Scottish Football, is somehow the same club as a club newly created in 2012; and the equally absurd notion that that new club was somehow able to earn lots of sporting honours and titles over the preceding 140 years! honours and titles.
I'm not sure whether I am more offended by the insult to even the meanest intelligent than I am by the wicked intent to deceive.
The newspapers in question are pretty much like the GRU, with its fantastically ridiculous story about the Salisbury murder.The sheer stupidity of the attempt to deceive makes the attempt even more wicked.
The Ibrox side are just about to start spending big.
They have struck oil underneath the Albion Car Park
…or they could be digging a hole deep enough to hide their shame?
I know, brass necks all round at Ibrox.
But the stench of the industrial scale cheating will forever linger over the team/club playing out of Ibrox.
Homunculus 11th October 2018 at 14:28
Is this going to lead to more fracking protests?
The news that Gascoigne's name has been withdrawn from nomination for the Hall of Fame is yet another indication of how fatuous and shallow are those who first proposed his inclusion,basing their decision apparently on the fact that he aided in securing 9-in-a-row!
On that basis, Harald Bratback should be nominated as having stopped the other nine-in-a row from becoming ten. a significant achievement.
Halls of Fame are surely meant to recognise a whole lot of things- sportsmanship over a career, 'model' behaviour as athletes, long-enduring effort, talent and skill, ambassadorship on the part of the sport and so on.
Short-term bouts of individual brilliance are shown by lots and lots of players who would think themselves worthy to be nominated when compared to those ,by and large, who have been deserving of inclusion.
amendment to my previous post at 8.38 …"who would NOT think themselves worthy.."
'Homunculus
11th October 2018 at 14:28
The Ibrox side are just about to start spending big.
They have struck oil underneath the Albion Car Park…'
————————————————————-
I'm so old that I immediately starting singing the theme song from 'The Beverly Hillbillies' when I read that.
'Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea' etc. etc…
The public humiliation of a guy with both mental health and addiction issues is a new low for the SFA board members concerned.
Shameful decision by all those involved.
Forgive me if I have picked you up wrong, but as I understand it the SFA board members don't select who gets into the Hall of Fame.
Fans make nominations and the Scottish Football Hall of Fame committee pick who gets in.
Seen a post saying JD sports have removed The Rangers gear from stores and online. Apparently being discussed on follow follow.
Homunculus 10th October 2018 at 15:46
25 1 Rate This
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/scotland/rangers-and-sports-direct-back-at-high-court-over-merchandise-deal/
Bosses at Rangers Football Club are embroiled in a fresh merchandise deal row with Sports Direct and Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley, less than three months after a High Court judge said both sides should “try to make peace”.
……………………
How much will this cost king…err the ibrox fans i mean.££££
Does this mean no pumpkin coloured tops for halloween?
Billydug@20.41
Puma kit still available. £10 a pop.
slimjim 11th October 2018 at 19:45
_
slimjim: it's now 9.20 pm and I've just come backon totheblog.
I have looked at your post of 19.45. I don't know what you are referring to!!
Please,indicate in any post what you are referring to :hours, days,can pass before any post might be read!
Homunculus 11th October 2018 at 14:28
17 5 Rate This
The Ibrox side are just about to start spending big.
They have struck oil underneath the Albion Car Park
…………………..
Was part of the loan deal with close brothers not to maintain the securities, not dig a great big bloody hole in them?
Well Scotland did well to keep the score down.
Talking about those deserving to be included in the 'Hall of Fame'…
did any other Bampots get an update on the consideration of Turnbull Hutton?
I did get a reply a few years ago from a lady at the Hampden museum saying IIRC that he 'might be nominated in future'.
A guy who was brave to enough to call out the corruption in Scottish football – and which probably went a long way to curbing further corruption in 2012.
Turnbull Hutton should be honoured before any football player, IMO
I know many of us didn't want him in the the first place but now he is there can I be the first to say 'McLeish oot' !!!
Homunculus
Your Albion Carpark picture put me in mind of Daniel Day Lewis playing the Oilman in "There Will Be Blood" which fits in with a notorious song.
It would be interesting to know why the drilling is being done. Given that the Car Parl must remain for th sake of the Club Deck it may indicate problems and there are many potential issues in such old heavy industrial areas.