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.
I wish there was a chairman of one club around today who could control the SFA, in a manner that would bring honesty and transparency into the equation.
What was requested at the time was for the SFA to apply the rules that they had, or at least have the courtesy to consult Queen of the South if they would mind waiting a few extra days for the SFA Scottish Cup Final.
Was it the Q o t S chairman who stopped Peat?
I think that the SPL had already stated that the league season would be extended.
As a result, five other clubs had to twiddle their thumbs until the Thursday.
Why Peat? Why now? is there something afoot.
Surely the financial input from W. Haughey and T.Hunter, did not come with a condition of reform of the SFA?
There was a significant reaction to the George Peat interview on Twitter earlier. It even elicited a tweet from @rangerstaxcase. Developing story?
Had a listen to some of the Sportsound podcast from last night. This part is incredible – I paraphrase a little:
Darryl Broadfoot: "The rules are working fine with the SFA disciplinary process and the correct decision has been made very time"
Michael Stewart: "No, they are not. Steve Clarke has been cited and Steve Gerrard has not"
Darryl Broadfoot: "The Compliance Officer decided the language Clarke used fell on the wrong side"
Kenny McIntyre: : "yes…I spoke to people at the SFA and they said Gerrard was just on the right side"
Folks, I give you everything that is wrong at the SFA and BBC Sportsound in four quotes. In my view Rangers people are now untouchable by either organisation, if they were not anyway.
Bias is the only explanation for it.
Upthehoops@7.22
With a comment like that I don’t think Michael Stewart is going to have a long career in public broadcasting. The pitchforks and torches will be getting looked out as I type this.
From Barcabhoy on Twitter.
“So
Not Neil Lennon being sent bombs through the post , not a Scottish clubs fans trashing Manchester and attempting to murder Police , not facilitating a decade of cheating and refusing to investigate . What Peat regrets most is a club asking for the rules to be applied !”
From BRTH on Twitter.
“Ah now don't bo bringing all that up again. George would be absolutely flumuxed when HMRC came knocking on the door with a warrant explaining false returns, EBT's, witheld payments, interest & penalty provisions, false accounting and fraud etc. After all, George is an accountant.”
There were two extracts that struck the most ‘chord’ with me from this week’s shows.
Re the Peat allegation it came across to me that he proclaimed the SFA was a member organisation and was arguing that it wasn’t up to one club what they could and couldn’t do. But in the next breath did he not say something like “we were already in discussions with the league about an extension” (the one which was granted, something Kenny seemed keen to ignore). But hang on, I thought it was a member organisation? I assume this smaller extension had full endorsement had it?
Then, on the same fiddle, different string, who was the key contributor the other night (I think broadfoot?) who’s entire business plan for Hampden that Michael Stewart was eagerly destroying seemed that once -one club, apparently doesn’t matter which – weren’t “winning the league at a canter” that all would be well. And that was it.
We could all see this was the extent of their thinking for the past 7 years but it’s the first time I’ve heard it so openly stated.
On this Peat interview and his claim that one club tried to influence him and prevent Rangers being granted an extention. It matters not one jot which club it might have been, nor whether or not it was a sporting thing to do. The Rangers team at that time were cheating us all, and were only in the final because of that cheating. That is what should be discussed in the media, not some unnamed club trying to prevent Rangers receiving the help that, from memory, was denied to Dundee United in 1987 (I think it was).
While it may be the correct thing to do – to help a club do well in Europe – it has to be measured against help that might aid the club to win, or prevent another from winning, a domestic competiton. Although rules, and sticking to them, don't seem to matter in Scottish football, perhaps there should have been rules in place covering the situation at the start of the season, and not left until a decision had to be made, with much wider implications, by an SFA with a very conflicted man at it's head (and elsewhere throughout it's structure).
Allyjambo 18th September 2018 at 11:56
This.
Totally.
Mmm…prominent club chairman…anyone else thinking Romanov?
I know we're all meant to think it's Celtic, but Romanov, I think, is the only one who would actually have the balls to do this.
With regards to RFCIL since 2012 and all the wrongdoings attached to this story it actually amazes me how corrupt from the SFA and smsm really are. 6 years have passed since that day when the press actually printed the truth of what happened to their club. Since then absolute silence and closed ranks, no in depth articles,statements or interviews concerning liquidation ebts etc.., Nothing in fact quite the opposite especially concening RFCIL being the same club. Over 6 years of keeping their guard up. Not one has broken to tell the truth. In fact the SC verdict totally being ignored is incredible. If this was any other club our site would not exist. They all know what we know and likely more, they do not give a f*** about our football until their favourite Ibrox club is dominating. They are all corrupt. They all have an agenda, I will wait to someone in the SFA or smsm proves me wrong, and so will my sons and then my grandchildren as I expect a long wait.
Thanks, Bordersman, and another thing. What would make any man feel that that was the most important, or worthwhile, thing to say about his time as president of the SFA? Most people would want to highlight their own, and Scottish football's, successes during the period, and even if there was none, to steer away from any controversies involving themselves. After 10 years in the wilderness he takes this oportunity to raise a matter that does more to highlight his own failings than anything else, clearly in an effort to discredit a club other than his own favourite, when his preferred club was, at the time, cheating every other club in the country. Now his thoughts on that would be much more interesting, though unlikely to be enlightening in terms of the truth.
George Peat's recent statement can only mean one of three things;
– he has a book to promote
– he has formally been offered a job at Ibrox
– bad news from Ibrox is imminent and another squirrel is required
As others have pointed out, Peat's reign at the SFA can hardly be described as successful considering he consistently failed his two most important Key Performance Indicators regarding Scotland's non-qualification for tournaments and his organisation's abject failure to govern the game without fear or favour whilst knowingly allowing one club to cheat with impunity.
Below is a link (courtesy of Jambos Kickback) to a BBC article describing how Rangers refused to postpone a league match with Hearts which would have provided Hearts with breathing space during a busy European schedule, just one season after Hearts had acceded to Rangers request to postpone a game for precisely the same reason.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/923069.stm
Finally, I listened to Sportsound the other night in utter astonishment at Darryl Broadfoot's pathetic attempts to defend the indefensible regarding the different treatment applied to Steve Clarke and Steven Gerrard. Broadfoot truly is an embarrassment and he clearly thinks that the average football fan zips up the back. Well done to Michael Stewart for taking him to task.
Upthehoops 20.17.
I'm afraid that your facts re- results when returning from Europe is simply untrue.
In fact your record was W1 D2 L1.
The loss was against Rangers (Celtic park) who were unbeaten in Old Firm games that season with a record of W3 D3 so hardly a surprise. One of the draws (Kilmarnock A) was replicated later in the season so once again can't be blamed solely on European participation.. Remember you only played 4 games in Europe that season so not exactly an exhausting set of fixtures that caused any great disadvantage.
As Allyjambo has correctly mentioned, the Rangers of 2008 were cheating at the time they wanted (even more) rules bent for them.
Why Peat, one of the many men who have over the past few decades been responsible for running Scottish football into the ground, should be given any attention is beyond me. The man who helped to kill Airdrieonians 1878, then jumped over to Ochilview as a ship of convenience, promising influence and favour to Stenhousemuir, to their shame.
He claimed to have helped the Warriors to attain FIFA Category 2 Star accreditation, even although the club installed the pitch before he arrived. What he did do was ensure the club got a SFA National Club Licence, which followed a box ticking exercise into 'competence in all areas', whatever that meant.
However, he was gone as quickly as he arrived, having used the Warriors to attain the position he craved at the SFA.
From the UEFA website:
A forthright character, Peat once said that he was the "kind of guy if someone asks me a question, I will give them an answer".
https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/member-associations/news/newsid=1588162.html
Mr Peat should name and shame. Why would he not? It’s not as if anyone could do anything about it if it was not true is it? As the comedy skit goes “I smell sh**e”.
And furthermore, if there was anything in this real journos would be asking Peat who the “hater” was and , given no comment, would be asking chairmen of the time to confirm or deny if it was them. Otherwise these sound bites are no more than that. For example: a prominent referee told me that every penalty Aberdeen got against them in 1990/91 season was a fix. There, that’s off my chest now.
Our smsm at its best. When FTT verdict went against HMRC there were at least 2 debates on STV and BBC 2 on this verdict. On one I think STV we had Chris Graham actually stating that the whole of Scottish Football owes RFCIL and its fans an apology. Now Supreme Court's verdict last July overturned the FTT and the UTT in favour of HMRC. I must have missed the television channels new debate on this issue. Silence is golden they say, well I say silence is Blue.
Any update on a mute facility on here?
Peat's comments will no doubt divide down the normal lines of Rangers fans who view this as more evidence of SFA bias against them, those who dislike Rangers will view it as an example of "cheats" asking for more help and the wider footballing community will be apathetic.
Taking a dispassionate view I think it's clear that the 2007/08 season was extraordinary for a number of reasons ie weather conditions, unusual amount of replayed cup games, busy international calendar and of course a European run that would have seemed very far-fetched at the beginning of the season.
If you look at the bare facts of Rangers having to play 4 games in 8 days as preparation for a European final when their Russian opponents had 2 weeks it does look terrible. Given the earlier context it is however easier to understand how the situation happened and why the SPL and the SFA had limited options to help (worth noting they did offer some help).
You can't legislate for freak weather conditions or a perfect storm of circumstances such as the one which occurred in 2008. What the SFA and the SPFL should be looking to do is set down a set of principles for the clubs to agree on explaining what help they are willing to give clubs who reach various stages of European competition. This takes away the inconsistency of decision making, the pressures of a "prominent club's Chairman" throwing his weight around and allows us to ensure our clubs are properly supported in Europe where success does benefit the whole game.
I'd like to see guidelines published saying if a club reaches:
– Qualifying stages we'll give them xxx support
– Group stages we'll give them xxx support
– Knockout stages we'll give them xxx support
How exactly the detail of that looks I don't know, perhaps it's committing to give them a minimum number of hours between games or perhaps it's committing to extend the league season to a certain date if a club reaches a certain stage. This issue hasn't gone away just because our clubs haven't reached the latter stages for a while, Celtic's defeat to AEK Athens was probably financially more costly than Rangers' defeat to Zenith back in 2008 but what support did they have from the league this season?
This is the classic SFA mindset of lets reactively deal with an omni-shambles when it's so far along we can't ignore it rather than pro-actively creating a framework to help our game and avoid a future problem.
From all that has transpired in the last week to ten days it looks, to me at least, that an undeclared war has broken out and we are seeing the first salvoes. The SFA in its present form is crumbling and criticism is being levelled from more than a single source. Although Celtic F.C. have not, as yet, issued a statement a la AFC and KFC there has been plenty of flak originating from proxy outlets such as CQN. In fact their blog today highlights the dysfunction of the SFA and the man of the moment, Mr Peat. Whether or not CFC will comment directly remains to be seen as it would not be in that clubs’ strategic interests for this phoney war to become a Rangers/Celtic thing.
And………….
the same George Peat who, as SFA President, had this to say about Chris Iwelumo?
"But had a certain centre forward not missed an open goal in the first match with Norway we would have been three points ahead of Norway at this stage and the pressure just wouldn't have been as great."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/8236878.stm
What was that about bringing the game into disrepute, and questioning the competence of another in the game that I've been reading about lately?
Highlander
18th September 2018 at 13:44
George Peat's recent statement can only mean one of three things;
– he has a book to promote
– he has formally been offered a job at Ibrox
– bad news from Ibrox is imminent and another squirrel is required…
========================
H, I'll go for "All Of The Above" !
As time goes by and RIFC/TRFC seems to repeatedly outwit the Internet Bampots by clinging on financially by its finger tips…
Mibbees it will be the – eventual – second, Ibrox financial meltdown which could force the endgame for the defective SFA ?
Upthehoops 14.57
IF this is in response to my post (13.47) in which i pointed out the inaccuracies in your earlier post then i would ask what do you expect?.
Should i remain silent whilst you post made up stats just so you can attempt to show bias against your club?.
SlimJim says "Remember you only played 4 games in Europe that season so not exactly an exhausting set of fixtures that caused any great disadvantage."
Nawlite says….What a horrible, snidey wee comment to finish your post. Unnecessary imo.
nawlite 18th September 2018 at 16:55
SlimJim says "Remember you only played 4 games in Europe that season so not exactly an exhausting set of fixtures that caused any great disadvantage."
Nawlite says….What a horrible, snidey wee comment to finish your post. Unnecessary imo.
____________________
I think SlimJim would do well to remember that throughout that season, regardless of anything and everything else, his club were cheating everyone else. There would be much more justification for Mr Peat to address that disgraceful fact than to throw hints and aspersions in the direction of a club he so obviously hates. Of course, he would never want to open a debate on what his part in it all might have been. He (Peat) is so full of Rangersness, it oozes from his every pore.
"A sheriff has deserted the trial of nine Celtic fans charged with hanging effigies at an Old Firm match.
Sheriff Allan Findlay hit out at prosecutors for not giving defence lawyers "full disclosure" of available evidence.
The supporters were charged following a league match at Parkhead in September 2016, which Celtic won 5-1.
The accusations centred on effigies and a banner hung at the game and were said to be "threatening and offensive………………..
But after a two-year wait the Crown gave defence lawyers a version edited by police of what was deemed to be relevant to the case.
Lawyers successfully argued that they did not have all the material that was available and made a motion for the case to be deserted.
There was edited material from a number of computer disks and USB sticks.
Sheriff Findlay said: "The Crown have taken the view that they are going to rely on police evidence.
"I don't know what's on the disks.
"For the life of me I cannot understand why the Crown simply didn't disclose this stuff to the defence."
(BBC)
If this doesn't lend weight to the opinion that football fans are treated disgracefully in Scotland then I don't know what does. If the police and the Crown thought they had a case, let it go to court and let justice be done.
Without cheating.
Thank goodness there was a fair minded judge. (Sheriff Allan Findlay)
George Peat
Something i read on.
https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/peat-a-litany-of-dysfunction/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
……………….
He was SFA treasurer and vice-president, and would have had to resign his position at the Association, but managed to cling-on after becoming a director of Stenhousemuir.
A year after Peat retired as SFA president, but when he was still at Stenhousemuir, his team were the only club to vote to allow Newco Rangers direct access to the Scottish Football League Championship. Peat did not get his wish and Newco started life in the bottom tier of the SFL.
………….
And it jogged the memory.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1015294746489524224?p=v
………….
July 6, 2012.
I think it is posted as july 6, 2018, just my mistake in the tweet.
Black circle if anyone wants to read it.
nawlite 16.55
[moderated].
The Celtic team of 95/96 was a fantastic team to watch, full of flair players who played an exciting attacking brand of football led by a fantastic man who i had the pleasure of spending time in his company on a couple occasions.The reason they fell just short was their inability to defeat Rangers in 4 league games and both the League & Scottish cups.
AJ
I was referring to Celtics 4 games in 1995/96.
Jimbo 18.09
[moderated].
Slimjim, yes and you had answered his points in the first part of your post. The part I quoted from you was simply a snidey put down of his supporting Celtic, belittling him and Celtic unnecessarily. A sort of 'don't kid yourself you were any good in Europe that year' comment. Poor from you
slimjim 18th September 2018 at 16:39
====================================
Muted.
Nawlite
8th September 2018 at 16:55
The tone of slimejim's reply reminds me of a radio host called Traynor.
slimjim 18th September 2018 at 20:11
AJ I was referring to Celtics 4 games in 1995/96.
________________________—-
Makes no difference to me what season you were referring to*, the thrust of the debate is Peat's 'revelation' about 'a' club chairman trying to block Rangers getting assistance to, not only help them in a European final, but to also win the league. So what I said still stands, regardless of the Lawman-like minutiae of your posts.
* I am a Hearts supporter and Celtic's travails in 1995/96 are of no consequence to me. What is of consequence is the cheating of old Rangers from 1998 onwards, and the complicity of SFA officials in that cheating.
nawlite 20.29
Given they were eliminated by what my Celtic supporting friends tell me was the most impressive team they had witnessed at Celtic park, until the same club did an even more thorough job last season, it was no disgrace not to have progressed in 95. I have already mentioned how highly i rated that particular Celtic team so therefore your interpretation is wholly incorrect.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"
Terrific article as per ??
One thing that has slightly perplexed me this week is why it has taken Peat so long to come out with what he has this week?
It’s almost as if it’s a load of shite made up to deflect from the real issues at Hampden regarding the Governance of Football and application of the rules?
Sure it’s probably down to my “Paranoid Timmy genetics” ???
SlimJim,
As you are no doubt aware I made no comment on the incident itself. That was not my point. With holding of evidence is why the case failed. There are issues of justice here.
I take it you agree with that?
If you are right that it was inappropriate behaviour then the police and the crown should have made sure it went to trial. Instead they, in their desperation for convictions regardless, completely ballsed it up.
Cluster One, you are 'one' of the best resourced posters on here, but the CQN article is poorly researched. Peat was away from Stenhousemuir by the time Rangers entered liquidation, unfortunately they had another poor chairman in Bill Darroch (an oldRangers shareholder) involved at that point. He almost led the club to financial oblivion, and has since gone.
Darroch wanted the club to support the new Ibrox entity entrance to the top tier of the SFL and jumped the gun with quotes to the press. His position was not official, and to cut a long story shorter, the club's board held a different view and voted for the only option which was available in the situation of having to allow Green's new club into the SFL system.
Stranraer FC were the only dissenting voice, and had to abstain (from memory) as they were uncomfortable with the choices offered to the lower league clubs.
Fans often wonder why clubs who were in waiting to enter the Scottish league system didn't speak out when Green's club got easy access. They were promised a pyramid system, as a fall back in case their prospective foray into the League set up went awry.
jimbo
18th September 2018 at 18:09
——————————————————————————–
Its actually a legal principle in Scotland. The defence is entitled to full disclosure.
That means they are entitled to know every detail of the prosecutions case, and that means absolutely every detail. Every witness statement, every production, absolutely everything.
They are also entitled to have the prosecution inform them of all exculpatory material. So everything which would either hurt the prosecutions case, or help their defence. It is totally a matter for the PF to disclose that, it is not a matter for the defence to go looking for it.
The principle is based on the concept that it is not the PF's job to secure convictions, it is their job to see justice done. If there is not enough evidence to convict someone, or if there is evidence of their innocence then they must make that clear to the defence and to the Court.
The Sheriff did the right thing.
Jimbo:
I think he was well aware. SJ's remarks have been removed.
borussiabeefburg 18th September 2018 at 23:14 Cluster One, you are 'one' of the best resourced posters on here, but the CQN article is poorly researched. Peat was away from Stenhousemuir by the time Rangers entered liquidation, unfortunately they had another poor chairman in Bill Darroch (an oldRangers shareholder) involved at that point. He almost led the club to financial oblivion, and has since gone. ……………. Thanks for the clarification on that
Still on George Peat. I wonder if the recent statements by Kilmarnock and Aberdeen set alarm bells ringing in Hampden. I'm sure they've always been comfortable that the argument regarding governance of the game is a Celtic/Rangers argument that the other clubs feel they are above. A lack of interest from other clubs has allowed them to pass through all that they have done to help Rangers. As an aside Celtic have done nothing wrong but it still doesn't stop the SFA and the media somehow blaming them. As long as it's only Celtic complaining then they are on a winner. Significant clubs such as Kilmarnock and Aberdeen complaining though is a new thing, so how can the pot be stirred to get things back to the way they were. A BBC show with a Rangers supporting presenter and a SFA placeman on every Monday night is a good start. A stage managed interview with a response guaranteed to be picked up by the rest of the media. Rangers made to look like victims with the inference Celtic are responsible.
The entire thing stinks to the high heavens. I hope Stevie Clarke takes the SFA all the way and then some.
Almost 470000 shares traded at 20p recently
http://jpjenkins.com/companies/rangers-international-football-club-plc
The thrust of a lengthy article in today's 'The Scotsman' by Andrew Smith (not Aidan, of that ilk) is nicely summed up in these few sentences from it:
"It sticks in the throat that Peat should bring this matter up in a potentially misleading way" and
" The idea that nothing was done to help the Ibrox side over the challenges …is plain wrong" and
" The 2007/08 season is the only one in the history of Scottish football to be extended over the inabilities of one club to fulfil their fixtures. And if Rangers supporters want to direct their ire towards anyone for that fact, perhaps they might want to consider Peat's part in it"
%%%%%%%%
Personally, I would add that there was of course another occasion when a team from Ibrox couldn't fulfil its fixtures-because it had gone into Administration and had ceased to be entitled to play, and was replaced by an unnamed 'team X' made up of players whose registrations were held by the Administrators, whose permission had to be begged.]
John Clark@09.16
Theres definitely a war going on now but the quotes from the Scotsmans’ article indicate that not everyone in the SMSM is going along with the usual narrative.
Further to my post at 09.16 this morning, Smith needs correcting when he says :
"Why Peat chose to get bogged down in the period and bring it back into the public domain during a BBC Scotland Sportsound interview this week only he can answer."
I think I would not be a million miles away from truth if I suggested that the over-excitable, metaphorically one-eyed ( and therefore useless-as-holder-of- the jaikets in a radio discussion) McIntyre,might have thought it a wizard wheeze to give the detestable Peat an opportunity to drip his cowardly bile into a pre-recorded programme, with the agreement ,no doubt, of the programme's editor.
BBC Radio Scotland at its scabrous worst.
The Andrew Smith article is worth a read even just to read one journalist who seems a little off piste.
I just can't believe the Peat Radio Shortbread appearance from out of the blue and his particular wee poisonous and disruptive leave-behind story was a random occurrence.
Time will tell but when you think about it the SFA has had a dismal line of recent presidents and Petrie, the architect of the 5 way agreement is next in line.
jimbo 18th September 2018 at 23:05 64
SlimJim, As you are no doubt aware I made no comment on the incident itself. That was not my point. With holding of evidence is why the case failed. There are issues of justice here. I take it you agree with that? If you are right that it was inappropriate behaviour then the police and the crown should have made sure it went to trial. Instead they, in their desperation for convictions regardless, completely ballsed it up.
___________
While I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, Jimbo, I think there's a bit more to this balls up than meets the eye. There's that 'elephant in the room' again! The elephant that is Rangers' liquidation. That would have to come up in any court case, as the reason for the effigies, and why some people might find them offensive, would have to come out.
Whilst it's right to discuss the reasoning behind the Sheriff's decision not to prosecute those responsible for the hanging effigies at Parkhead, it's slightly disconcerting that nobody has commented on the fact that those neanderthals responsible for the effigies are likely to escape punishment, unless of course Celtic sets up its own inquiry and bans them. To my mind, there is no place in football for such a hideous representation of hatred, regardless of where your allegiences lie. Indeed, if this had happened at Ibrox with the hanging effigies trussed up wearing Celtic scarves, I can just imagine the furore it would have caused.
AllyJambo @ 10.10
What you’re alluding to in this post falls neatly into line with a whole series of badly handled cases by both Police Scotland and the Procurators Fiscal Service and directly and indirectly related to one club/company. I don’t particularly believe that this series of unfortunate events is a result of a plan but there are certainly a lot of coincidences.
The Dollgate case was deserted pro loco et tempore. This might suggest that the PF could bring it back at another time. The arguments are still raging on Twitter btw.
Well said, Highlander. I think it was also suicide prevention day when these effigies were hung from the stands. Chances are those responsible were unaware of this but I'm sure it must have been pretty offensive to a number of people. It was to me and that had nothing to do with any elephants in the room.
incredibleadamspark 19th September 2018 at 11:18 Well said, Highlander. I think it was also suicide prevention day when these effigies were hung from the stands. Chances are those responsible were unaware of this but I'm sure it must have been pretty offensive to a number of people. It was to me and that had nothing to do with any elephants in the room.
And my post had nothing to do with whether or not there was anything offensive, to anybody, about the effigies, it was merely my take on why the case might have been dropped, or, rather, why it was ballsed up – deliberately (I wouldn't be surprised) after the realisation of just what might come out in court, and be even more upsetting to the 'people' than effigies ever could be.
PS This current debate is about the dropping of the case, and the apparent balls up by people who don't usually balls things up to such an extent (though when a certain football club is involved, it seems that, in their desperation to 'get' somebody, it tends to happen). The discussion over the actual offensiveness of the effigies was held long ago, but remains, it seems, a good distraction from current events.
Edit: And this case was never about whether or not the effigies were offensive to the greater community (regardless of what might be claimed), but purely as they alluded to Rangers.
Allyjambo, previously on these pages you have admonished Slimjim for the 'Lawman-like minutiae' of his posts. Might I respectfully suggest, with that post, you could be indulging in a bit of that yourself.
I think my point remains a valid one and that's where I'll leave things.
AJ, are you honestly telling me you believe the authorities deliberately ballsed up the case to help Rangers because, somehow within the court case, hanging effigies were going to be the key to having a court of law confirm the New Club debate? I have heard many a conspiracy theory in my time but I think this wins hands down.
Hanging effigies are always going to be offensive, no matter who they are levelled at. Blow up dolls with hoods and hands tied behind their back is acceptable to you why? Almost every Celtic fans opposed it and says the same, and the huge majority on this forum and others came out in critiscism of what was a very very small minority of idiots did it that day. I must say I'm surprised by your posts as you are usually one of the more reasoned on here.
Below is a link to an article I recently stumbled upon when researching something else, on the thoughts of Walter Smith from August 2012. This was the same Walter Smith who had earlier wished good luck to the new Rangers club, but we can safely assume he had been 'appropriately updated/reprogrammed' on events since the article post-dates the five way agreement.
Smith's comment that "the erosion of the game’s been caused by a withdrawal of finance that should have been there" is telling and illustrates the deluded way of thinking of those involved in the deceased club's death throes, not to mention the bloated sense of entitlement.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/former-rangers-boss-walter-smith-1214780
Highlander 19 September 2018 at13:58
I couldn't open the link provided in your post. I recall having had this problem before and it was because of the characters included after the number , ie " " I copied the link minus these characters and it worked fine. Just mentioning for the benefit of others.
The erosion of the game started long before the inevitable,avoidable and well documented destruction of Rangers.
It started in 1988 when a guy called David Murray invested £6m in Rangers and took them on a rollercoaster ride supercharged by Limitless Credit and Megalomania.
Scottish Football had been riding on the crest of a new wave with the Emergence of Aberdeen and Dundee Utd on the East Coast as the stranglehold of Glasgow’s big two was finally released.
What Rangers did from there on in more or less broke any idea of a level playing field and ultimately killed off any notion that anyone other than them would win the prizes on offer?
This also had a secondary effect of killing off any notion of Celtic being able to stop them.
Now we know how and why this was allowed to happen with the likes of Masterton at the BOS and a complicit SFA all too willing to turn a blind eye and lavish praise on their “mighty Rangers”.
The media of course gladly played their role of ignoring the dangers of such a situation whilst lavishing praise on the egotist at the helm of the good ship Rangers.
Most Clubs as a result ran up debts and many sailed very close to the wind in a desperate attempt to mount some sort of a challenge but given the tactics being deployed within Rangers it was futile.
Celtic in 1994 almost paid the ultimate price of course and of course the Press gleefully dissected our supposed demise on a daily basis with cracked crests and Funeral Hearse outside “Parkheid” counting down the days to oblivion.
A lot has happened since of course and much of it has been duly airbrushed by these same Media outlets as the Continuity Myth continues to be paraded out on a daily basis with Editorial perfection.
What a load of pish it is.
So long as Supporters continue to buy into this pool of detritus then I’m sorry you really cannot expect things to change?
The SFA’s Cup tournaments and National side should be blanked by Supporters full stop because only then will these charlatans take any notice.
Put your money into your own Clubs and snub the cabal.
Send them the ultimate message…
“Football without fans is nothing”
incredibleadamspark 19th September 2018 at 12:28
Allyjambo, previously on these pages you have admonished Slimjim for the 'Lawman-like minutiae' of his posts. Might I respectfully suggest, with that post, you could be indulging in a bit of that yourself. I think my point remains a valid one and that's where I'll leave things.
____________________
Explain where my post indulges in 'minutiae'. Perhaps even try to point out any part of it you think is wrong.
The display of the effigies was crass and reprehensible , and it is not good that the miscreants are escaping censure . However , I think the furore is a bit manufactured as , having been in the corner , it's next to impossible to see anything up in the depths of that stand , and if it hadn't been for a social media post , few of us would know anything about it . We surely know by now that these two sets of fans have among them individuals who are beyond the pale . And a lot of the behavioural traits stem from their interface on the island of Ireland , in my opinion .
As for the PF's performance , it would be nice to know what information was withheld that would undermine his case .
Club 1872 has sent the following to its members:
That looks to me as if King is trying to canvass sufficient shareholders with 50% or more of the shares to say that they wont sell, thus providing King with a means of not having to make an offer at all.
If he doesn’t hit the 50% mark then he would still have to make an offer but the amount he has to put up may be reduced below the £19m implied by the enlarged share numbers following the targeted issue (If it’s actually been completed)
Darkbeforedawn 19th September 2018 at 12:29
AJ, are you honestly telling me you believe the authorities deliberately ballsed up the case to help Rangers because, somehow within the court case, hanging effigies were going to be the key to having a court of law confirm the New Club debate? I have heard many a conspiracy theory in my time but I think this wins hands down.
Hanging effigies are always going to be offensive, no matter who they are levelled at. Blow up dolls with hoods and hands tied behind their back is acceptable to you why? Almost every Celtic fans opposed it and says the same, and the huge majority on this forum and others came out in critiscism of what was a very very small minority of idiots did it that day. I must say I'm surprised by your posts as you are usually one of the more reasoned on here.
_____________________
Firstly, as I said previously, the current debate is not over the offensiveness of the effigies, it is over the dropping of the case, so I am not going to get into any discussion on that matter.
I have no way of knowing what was in the minds of the prosecution when they failed to provide all the evidence they are required to under law, but they knew full well that they have to provide it all to the defence. It would appear that they have failed to provide quite a large proportion of that evidence, so it's not just one guy slipping up on a single occasion. The failure in the Whyte trial threw the police and the prosecution service in a bad light, as has the case currently undergoing involving D&P's Clark and Whitehouse, again where the police and prosecution service, in their keenness to 'get' those who might have harmed Glasgow police's favourite football club, have cocked up.
I do not know, so cannot 'believe', that the scenario I put forward is correct, but it does seem to me that there has to be a reason why the law was not complied with by the prosecution, and I can well imagine that it was deliberately not provided. Now, if that was the case, it was either to have the case stopped on a technicality, or to deceive the defence and commit a crime far worse than the one they were involved in.
So, the police and prosecution are either;-
a) Incredibly incompetent (something that seems to occur whenever Rangers FC (IL) is involved).
b) Decided they didn't want to proceed for a reason other than they couldn't form a case (they'd obviously already decided they could or it wouldn't have gone so far, and you seem to be certain they had a very good one) and so needed to create a technicality on which to withdraw.
c) The evidence was deliberately withheld from the defence, something that must surely be a crime greater than the one being tried (though highly unlikely ever to see the light of day).
I'd suggest that a) and c) are too terrible to contemplate and that some form of b) must be behind the failure.
I am very likely completely wrong in the scenario I have suggested, but the amount of cases involving the establishment club that have shown those in authority to be, at best, incompetent, while attempting to punish those that are perceived as doing Rangers FC wrong, leads me to assume that the reason behind this latest failure is some realisation that should the case go to court, something might come to light that their favoured football club would wish to remain in the dark – such as the meaning of the effigies. Such is my, and I am sure many others, distrust of all authoritative institutions when it comes to all things 'Rangers'.
Don't you agree that there appears to be an awful lot of incompetence shown by the police and prosecution service, as well as an overzealousness, whenever 'Rangers' are involved, and that if that level of incompetence was shown in every case they pursue that the legal system in Scotland would collapse?
easyJambo 19th September 2018 at 15:21
Interesting preamble to that statement – blaming Somers instead of the convicted criminal who ignored the law and put himself, and the club, in the position it is in with the TOP.
The statement, itself, would seem to suggest that the TOP has not gone away, the intended share issue hasn't trumped the requirement and King is desperately looking for a way to get out of making the offer.
I see there is much debate on the desertion of the case against the nine West of Scotland football fans.
It would appear from the press reporting that in the two years from the incident the matter has called in Court on seven occasions which presumably means it started with a Pleading Diet, ended at the Trial Diet and there were five Intermediate Diets for the question of disclosure, or non-disclosure, to be raised, discussed and answered.
It is reported that the reason for the desertion of the case was that the Crown were going to rely on material from a number of computer disks and USB sticks; material which had been edited by police.
Given the nature of the case it is reasonable to assume that said computer disks and USB sticks would have included CCTV footage.
If such is indeed the case there is a limit to the scope for any editing, for whatever reason.
The CCTV footage would only contain two aspects; video and audio. I don't know what editing would be done so far as the video aspect is concerned but I can readily think of a reason why the audio element might be deemed less than helpful.
Each and every game involving one of the teams playing that day is accompanied by the singing of songs which are, among other things, sectarian. The thought of songs about Famine and a Razor Gang leader booming through Glasgow Sheriff Court may have led to a number of pertinent questions which police witnesses would prefer not to have to answer.
I don't know if consideration was given to calling an expert witness,such as a haematologist, to give evidence about how many Fenians would have to die (because they hadn't surrendered so fair enough) to provide the amount of blood required to reach up to the knees of the singers.
Anything's possible.
Whatever the reason the solution is simple. Provide the unedited version or have Police Scotland explain why any editing was, and presumably still is, deemed necessary.
Celtic accounts published.
http://www.celticfc.net/news/14977
No Close Bros. loan to report on!
(Sorry, couldn’t help myself there!)
Celtic's headline figures are exceptional, but ultimately success will be measured on the pitch, not off it.
They are so far ahead of the rest financially, it will be viewed as a failure not to complete a three-peat.
The impact of the loss of CL revenue will not be revealed until the next interims are published, but even then player trading will balance the books short term.
easyJambo 19th September 2018 at 15:21
6 1 Rate This
Club 1872 has sent the following to its members:
the takeover panel’s action was prompted by a complaint from david somers, who resigned as chairman of rifc’s board shortly before the march 2015 meeting that installed the current regime at rifc.
the action by the panel is just one unfortunate consequence of somers’ time at our club. we need hardly remind members of other misfortunes that befell the club during the period he was chairman.
………..
Please remind, please.
Did they not have a retail contract is that it?….No.
Did they not have a NOMAD is that it?…No
Were the finances worse than what they are now?…No
Please remind the poor members of misfortunes that befelled the ibrox club.
Or was it just that somers told the truth about king and company.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1042456139437428736?p=v
Busy day today .
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/fanzone-update/
Highlander 19th September 2018 at 13:58
8 0 Rate This
Below is a link to an article I recently stumbled upon when researching something else, on the thoughts of Walter Smith from August 2012……………………..Smith had a plan that would have avoided chaos and the scenario that now has his old club exiled to the lower orders for a minimum period of three years unless there’s league reconstruction in between.
…………
He said: “I’d have penalised Rangers financially and with points deductions, while using the money taken from them to benefit the other clubs in the SPL.
“What would have been wrong with deducting half the gate money from every SPL game at Ibrox and giving it to the opposition?
…………….
He said: “I’d have penalised Rangers financially.
You did when you took up a post as a director and in your own words admitted you did not know what you were doing.
……
while using the money taken from them to benefit the other clubs in the SPL.
That would have went down well with the ibrox support,turning up at ibrox and half your gate money going to the clubs who wanted to kick you when ..you know the rest.
…………..
“What would have been wrong with deducting half the gate money from every SPL game at Ibrox and giving it to the opposition?
……
The ibrox club can’t survive just now with all the gate money they get never mind giving half away.
With a mindset like Smith’s no wonder the ibrox club went bust.
Highlander 19th September 2018 at 13:58
8 0 Rate This
Below is a link to an article I recently stumbled upon when researching something else,
………………
Taken a note out of Highlanders book i stumbled upon this when researching something else.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1042465134478872576?p=v
…………
Wonder how kings thousand percent is now that they are all free men?
Allyjambo 19th September 2018 at 15:50
I believe you may have a point without going into too much detail, the court would have asked for a motive behind the blow ups and if you wished to make the headlines and get a point across, some wee gallus Glaswegian would have no hesitation to state they represent a symbol of overdosing on debt and finally self destruction as the way out of it.
The Celtic financial results are very good, no need to say more than that. My worry is next year and especially the year after.
For any team in Scotland to gain access to the big money of the Champions League you have to:
That is a big ask for any club. As Celtic proved this season.
As EJ says this year's results should still be OK even with the reduction in Euro money, due to the sale of Moussa Dembele.
But if we fail again next summer due to 1 or 2 above we will be in trouble. With wages of £87m that would be not be sustainable. Unless of course they sell someone like KT. Otherwise cost cutting will be the order of the day.
I think the January transfer window will be crucial to Celtic.
One good set of financial results guarantees nothing in the medium to long term. Football is very dynamic. As we all know for various reasons.
I’ve seen it from both sides as a Celtic supporter.
Sorry, the £87m I mentioned was not wages but total operating costs (which includes wages)
paddy malarkey 19th September 2018 at 18:03
You know paddy I felt sick reading that link what the f''#./
A walk down memory lane.
Poor Jim poor poor Jim,poor David poor David
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/james-traynor-why-this-is-my-last-ever-newspaper-1470050
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/may/30/clubsincrisis.football