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.
One for the Dons fans to take up with the SFA.
From Davybhoy on Twitter:
“Any idea why the @ScottishFA would penalise the Aberdeen women's team for fielding ineligble players in 3 games and results in their relegation but doesn't punish Rangers for fielding inelgible players for around a decade in hundreds of games?”
But fans have been left in the dark over release dates – other than confirmation the new ‘mandarin orange and royal blue’ third strip would be available to buy in October.
…………………
I have been out the loop these last few weeks.Anyone get me up to speed.
Is october still on? if so a nice pumpkin coloured top may sell well for Halloween.
http://socialistreview.org.uk/371/decline-and-fall-rangers-fc
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/rangers-in-crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/18/how-the-mighty-glasgow-rangers-have-fallen
Cluster One 19th September 2018 at 18:15
Highlander 19th September 2018 at 13:58
8 0 Rate This
“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.
To be fair to Walter Smith he was using the Ibrox Calculator when working out the Finances ???
bigboab1916 19th September 2018 at 18:37
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
____________________
Whether or not what I wrote has any chance of being correct, I am absolutely certain that the liquidation/death of Rangers would have been presented as the event the effigies represented, and so distance the defendants from what would undoubtedly be offensive should they be held to represent actual people. The argument would then progress, I suspect, to one of deciding whether or not Rangers died, for if they didn't, how could anyone be offended by the suggestion that they did?
It is clearly less offensive to celebrate the death of an institution than it is that of a person or group of people, and even less offensive if, in fact, the institution had not died. It would have been quite interesting for the prosecution to argue that Rangers had, in fact, died, with the defence council, under instruction from his clients, shrugging his shoulders and saying, 'Aye, yer right, they did die. Guilty as charged, m'Lud!'
Thing is about Celtics Finances they are worked out over a 5 year plan.
That Cycle restarted when Rodgers took over and in that period we have Qualified for the Champions League twice and now the Europa.
The sale of Dembele (which has yet to hit the books ) offsets most of the loss from no Champions League qualification and any monies gained in the Europa will de further profit yet still.
We do have an oversized squad now which Rodgers has stated he wants thinning out with the fringe players being either punted or moved on a free.
I would expect to see one major signing in January in preparation for the Qualifiers nexts Season (provided we win the League that is).
Our Finances are dependant on Qualifying 3 out of 5 years so by my reckoning and the latest figures we are well ahead of the curve.
One last thing… our last payment to the Co-Op is due in July (£6.5m) from this point forward Celtic will be officially Debt Free.
With Stadium improvements more or less complete and the upcoming Pro14 Rugby Final in May Celtic are in a Financial position previously unseen in our history.
Given the shambolic end to this Summers Transfer Window it is my option a Statement of intent may well be on the cards within the next 9 months.
JustTheFacts 19th September 2018 at 21:02 To be fair to Walter Smith he was using the Ibrox Calculator upside down when working out the Finances.
JustTheFacts 19th September 2018 at 21:16
One last thing… our last payment to the Co-Op is due in July (£6.5m) from this point forward Celtic will be officially Debt Free.
…………….
The last time i heard of a Debt free club, they said the league would be begging to have them,
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1023601283436105729?p=v
I have just read that Celtic have used up their historic losses and are now having to pay corporation tax on profits. I have no idea if its true
If it is then sack the accountancy team, that's a disgraceful situation to be in. There must be some way to reduce the profit, some debt which can be paid off.
Things can't be that good financially that the club has stooped to paying corporation tax on top of everything else.
Aye H, just waiting for the foaming-at-mouth to start being furious again because it is so unfair that CFC is allowed to pay Corporation Tax, but RIFC/TRFC can't!
HMRC are still 'Rangers haters'.
Obviously.
Now for something completely different.
Isac Asimov a science fiction legendary writer of the 50s to 70s created a set of rules for a universe populated by robots and human beings.
They were:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”
That got me wonder how Asimov would define The Three Laws of Rangeotics.
Homunculus 19th September 2018 at 22:34
I have just read that Celtic have used up their historic losses and are now having to pay corporation tax on profits. I have no idea if its true
If it is then sack the accountancy team, that’s a disgraceful situation to be in. There must be some way to reduce the profit, some debt which can be paid off.
Maybe its accountancy genius H. Screw the tax man and buy oodles of players with his money. Then pick up from where deid Celtic left off, going for 8IAR and a treble treble.
OK we will have to run about like a headless chicken kidding on its not deid for a wee while, but it will be fine. Nobody will notice, but if they do, a green brigade TIFO will put them right.
8 in a row and counting has a nice ring to it….
What?
Or … or.
Celtic still owe £39m to the Co-op (you have to not understand the concept of "net" to believe this) and they can call it in any time and Celtic will fold like a pack of cards*.
*I do of course mean "house of cards" but I wanted to acknowledge the financial and linguistic genius that is DCK.
Ex Ludo 18th September 2018 at 15:36
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.
————–
The SFA have consistently tried to make any criticisms of their governance a Celtic/Rangers issue.
Whilst I don't want two swallows to make a summer, the weight of evidence Celtic now hold as result of hard work by Res12 and SFM contributors blows that line of defence away.
Check the third instance in the current blog, TRFC moved from accusations are groundless to SFA have no jurisdiction and matter should go to CAS.
Something changed between June and July and if /when it becomes public it will demand SFA reform although I suspect a behind closed doors deal to reform might occur..
Just as when Farry's defense collapsed so too will the SFA's, but this time it will require more than the removal of a guilty party to restore integrity.
<
p style=”margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px”>
Following on from Auldheid’s Asimov analogy I would also suggest that Robert A Heinlen’s A Stranger In A Strange Land would also work, with the truth being the stranger as far as the SFA and the majority of the football journalists in Scotland are concerned.
Rate This
Ex Ludo 18th September 2018 at 15:36
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.
=============================
The circumstances were ideal for Aberdeen and Kilmarnock to speak out. As it stands it appears the rules are not being applied equally to all member clubs. It was encouraging to see the Times Newspaper ask questions of the SFA, although they got no answer which is no shock. I certainly have grave concerns about anonymous panels of ex-Referees when some of them brag on the after dinner circuit in certain types of establishment that they did not always apply the rules on the park as they knew they should have. If some of these people are in a position to veto bans with one vote against two votes who think the other way then we have a serious problem. We can't accuse anyone because we don't know, but the system as it stands is ripe for abuse.
UTH,
The answer is quite simple really.
All referees should be made to declare the football club they support/supported. If they have ever been a season ticket holder, a member of a supporter's club, been a regular on a supporters bus etc.
Then, when active as a referee, should not be allowed to officiate at said team's matches. When retired, not allowed to participate in any review of decisions regarding said club.
(I personally would go further and bar members of the masonic lodges, but I would settle for the above).
This of course would suggest that there is a possibility of bias in individuals, perish the thought! You see in Scotland's footballing hierarchy, and the media, this is not possible! Much as it flies in the face of every conceivable perception of human nature. Our officials ‘turn off’ their human nature for 90 mins.
I believe declarations such as these are used in other FAs. But we know better in Scotland. As in all things football.
If people knew judicial panels were not compromised, there would be no need for anonymity.
Ask yourself, why are their identities kept secret?
I remember a past interview on bbc sportsound with Jimmy Calderwood and he stated that the chairman of RFC not ( In Liquidation at the time ) Mr Murray was instrumental in the process of him getting the managers position at Dunfermilne. Mr Calderwood went on to say that it was intended to be a stepping stone to acquiring the future managers position at RFC. To this day I do not think this interview got the in depth coverage it should have.
Some might say that individuals might lie about their affiliations. That's true that could happen. But let's take the risk to begin with. If a referee declares 'neutrality' but evidence comes to light later that he was lying, he should be run out the game. He is not worthy.
This is not to run people out the game, there is plenty of work for officials regardless of who they support. I would be surprised if any referee didn't come from a football supporting background.
It's just an effort to make football fair. And importantly, be seen to be fair.
valentinesclown 20th September 2018 at 08:16
———————–
It's a bit OT, but I heard that interview too. Calderwood said on Sportsound that he was brought to Ibrox by Murray under the impression he was going to get the Rangers job, to be told by Murray and Masterton, "We're putting you into Dunfermline". The "we" is the damning word for me. In a later interview Calderwood, apparently having been informed of the significance of what he had said, softened his tone.
It has been discussed on here in the light of comments made by Chris Sutton, but I agree that the significance has never been fully explored.
Jimbo, seems a very reasonable solution to a lot of the problems. You would never find a Spanish official refereeing a game against Real Madrid and Manchester United. You would never find an Italian official refereeing a national game between Portugal and Italy. So why should that not be applied to club football?
Jimbo, even if referees declared which club they supported, I'm not sure it would work.
The general perception is that most support TRFC, so fine….they wouldn't be allowed to ref TRFC matches. What if TRFC is in direct competition with another club for the title, whoever that club may be in a particular season? Would you be happy that they referee Celtic vs, say, Aberdeen at Pittodrie on the last day of the season when TRFC would win the title if Celtic lost? Would they not be tempted to 'help' Aberdeen win?
On referee impartiality:
To my mind there seems to be a very close parallel between the once-tolerated concept of '90 minute bigots' and that of there being '90 minute neutrals': people can't just switch off life long allegiances: who are you trying to kid?
At best it's a quaint notion, to think that referees are 'above all that'.
It is also why ref's (and, indeed, public officials in well-run democracies e.g. the UK's 'Nolan Principles on Standards in Public Life') in many other jurisdictions are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest: viz. to avoid situations that could give rise to the suspicion or appearance of improper conduct).
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11781/2941976/fixture-boost-for-rangers
Aide memoir.
Nawlite,
You are correct of course, there might still be occasions when bias could come into play indirectly. Let's think about it as solving the 'red alert' games, but maybe not the 'amber alert' matches. But at least that is something.
If all else fails and a referee has a 'bad day' at one of the type of fixtures you mention, we would still have recourse to the SFA panel, who in my cunning plan, would have a better chance of being less compromised.
At the end of the day it can’t be perfect. But if it cut biased decisions by 50%, that we would be brilliant.
Perhaps the inclusion of VAR at some point in the future could help as well. At least for the avoidance of honest mistakes.
That only leaves the competency and management of referees. Including recruitment and training.
Auldheid did a great article on this subject a year or two ago. I wish I could find it. But I do seem to remember a central point was the separation of Refereeing from the SFA. That itself sounds good to me.
On referees and bias, and finding a solution.
I am absolutely certain that the board of TRFC is fully on board with everyone on SFM on this subject at least, for was it not they who made much about the very arms length connection between an SPFL official and Celtic, fearing bias?
The TRFC board, or was it the RIFC board?, are clearly of the opinion that, in a meeting of the SPFL board containing people from a number of clubs and lots of time to discuss and think on the matter in front of them, may very well find their allegiances, however remote, leading them down the road of favouritism. So, it must follow that they also believe that referees who support certain clubs, finding themselves with little time in which to make a decision in the heat of a match, will also run the risk of being led down the road of favouritism, and so measures must be put in place to avoid this wherever possible.
Isn't it good to know that, at last, we have found ourselves at one with TRFC?
Well, I'll just leave this here:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/elleray-insists-sfa-known-wording-13274622
but highlight this section;
"But, speaking exclusively to us from his Zurich HQ, former top level English whistler Elleray poured scorn on any suggestion that the Scotland’s refs have been caught cold when he revealed the wording was last altered more than two years ago – at the SFA’s request."
Hmm, what was all that nonsense about 'excessive force'? Note that 'the spirit of the law and intention of the law' is something to be observed, and who could ever imagine that the 'spirit of the law' would ever allow the deliberate kicking an opponent off the ball, regardless of the level of force used?
Once again, the SFA getting themselves tied up in knots and looking very foolish over their protection of an Ibrox club!
Allyjambo @ 15.05
Well spotted and it has Keith Jackson’s name on the article as an added bonus.
From Roger Mitchell on Twitter.
“3) there is currently a power struggle between who should be, by tradition, next in line, Rod, and the change agents, led by Neil and Peter. Ian Maxwell is merely a pushed pawn in all this. Always was. Not sure he understands. I feel sorry for him.”
There’s that battle thingy coming up again. Pity the fans don’t get a vote.
Is it my imagination , but didn't RFC(IL) play in light blue home jerseys ? It's just that Hummel are advertising the use of royal blue on the soon-to-be released TRFC tops . Wouldn't be a contractual thing , would it ?
Just noticed that 'our' SFA will reach its 150th birthday soon: founded in March 1873.
Second only to the English as the oldest FA in world football.
An impressive milestone for any organisation.
A year of celebratory events would typically be planned well in advance, and 2023 is not that far away.
But it is the SFA.
Will the blazered buffoons just see this as a money making opportunity – in the continued failure to qualify for a Finals? Mibbees to help raise funds for their athletics stadium at Hampden?
150 years later and with football being the national sport, we – the fans / paying customers – should be celebrating with 'our' SFA.
But, IMO, I don't think many fans will be interested.
And, do any fans feel any affiliation to, or respect for the SFA?
If the SFA had any shame – at all – it should at the very least do the decent thing: implement a rebranding exercise before 2023.
Hampden is an Athletic Stadium. Never a football stadium. No harm in that. But who designed it and which officials at the SFA gave it the thumbs up?
Even worse, how many clubs named and shamed it?
Scottish Football is rotten to the core.
Jumbo
most clubs only get there when they play against Queens Park so it's irrelevant for most , unless they also follow Scotland . Having been in corporate hospitality , that lot are well catered for and the football is an afterthought . Lovely heated, padded seats in the pressbox though – pity they are facing the pitch
So we have two encouraging results in the EL for Scottish teams, one home win and an away draw.
Now who can see it through to the knockout stages.
I've tried a few of the old articles to see if I could post my lovely hymns. But they are all closed.
I watched both games. Both teams should be happy. I love Leigh Griffiths.
Sorry I can't share my tunes with you. But go on to utube and listen to "Be Thou My Vision" It will inspire you and lift you up.
Paddy, I'm hurt. I thought you were my friend.
Sorry JIMBO ! Posting on a phone with bad eyesight and inaccurate fingers .
OK, pal, no problem.
https://twitter.com/jimspencesport/status/1042708423148810240?s=21
From Jim Spence on Twitter. There’s a local connection in that the Bank Of Scotland are involved in this too.
Wayne Rooney another one, how gross when these so called stars line up with their wee patroitic poppies and show their loyalty to their country knowing deep down the troops who fight for them are been let down by them for failing to pay tax, the same tax the soldiers are paying whilst fighting, how gross when soldiers shuffle along the street as amputees when it can be argued extra funding could maybe have protected them as the budget for equipment might have been met.
Pay your tax like everyone else you have enough money shower of thieving greedy barstewards.
bigboab1916 21st September 2018 at 01:49
=====================================
Whether they be football players, actors, or other rich people who don't pay their tax I hope each and every one of them is chased for every last penny using every legal means possible, including imprisonment if that's what is deserved. In terms of things sticking in the craw, Rangers indulgence of the armed forces every year is particularly nauseating given the amount of tax that was illegally withheld at Ibrox. It's strange how such a principled man as George Peat can't bring himself to comment on that. Equally strange is how the publicly funded BBC avoid such topics like the plague.
Taxes, it seems, are just for the little people. The little people who do all the work that keeps the country moving. It has always fascinated me how celebrities are feted in Britain. Take Sir Mick Jagger for instance. Rolling Stone Inc. was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands in 1964. So Sir Mick and the band have not paid tax in the UK since then. Sir James Dyson moved the production of his clever vacuum cleaners to Malaysia to get cheap labour and presumably avoid British corporation tax. Then of course we had the EBT players in Glasgow. Enough said.
Ex Ludo 21st September 2018 at 09:30
Taxes, it seems, are just for the little people.
=====================
The little people as in PAYE people. Sitting ducks for every Government. We should pay our taxes of course, but we have a right to expect everyone else to do the same, and we are getting no justice on that count.
On the subject of refs declaring their alliegance:
When Hearts lost the league title at Dens Park, I'm sure the referee (can't remember his name) was a Hearts fan. Years after I remember an interview with the ref who stated that he felt under pressure with the authorities and the public knowing he was a Jambo. In fact, he hinted that he didn't award a 50/50 penalty call to Hearts in the first half precisely because of these circumstances.
EJ, AJ and other Jambos on the site may add to this or tell me my memory is playing tricks
HS
Higgy's Shoes 21st September 2018 at 13:10 On the subject of refs declaring their alliegance: When Hearts lost the league title at Dens Park, I'm sure the referee (can't remember his name) was a Hearts fan. Years after I remember an interview with the ref who stated that he felt under pressure with the authorities and the public knowing he was a Jambo. In fact, he hinted that he didn't award a 50/50 penalty call to Hearts in the first half precisely because of these circumstances. EJ, AJ and other Jambos on the site may add to this or tell me my memory is playing tricks
Your memory is not playing tricks, although the referee, Bill Abercromby I think, described himself in the interview as an 'Edinburgh' referee and that the penalty was rather more than 50/50. I don't think he suggested that he'd been put under pressure by the authorities, just that he felt under pressure, personally, not to be seen to give his home town club an early favourable decision. He intimated that he'd always regret not making the decision he should have made.
I think this is an example of how a referee's allegiance can have the reverse effect, and I've always thought it was a bad decision to appoint a 'conflicted' match official for such a decisive game, regardless of the result. It was an open secret, even before the match, that he was, indeed, a Hearts supporter, so the SFA must have also been fully aware that they were appointing a Hearts supporter to this most decisive of matches.
Perhaps we do have, or have had, referees of integrity who might well have a fear of appearing biased when put in a position of fulfilling their, and their fellow supporters', dreams.
Allyjambo 21st September 2018 at 13:27
============================
AJ. I'm sure it was Bill Crombie, not Abercromby, but I fully get your point. Similarly, before a Celtic v Rangers game in 2010, Willie Collum was described by a leading newspaper man as 'Scotland's most prominent Roman Catholic Referee'. In the game he awarded Rangers a penalty that TV proved he had his back to at the time, and did not even see. Not one single observer of any persuasion agreed it was a penalty.
Jimbo 13 .40
Here is the extract from an article on SFA Reform relating to referees. Basically join up with the other UK Football Associations and draw from the larger pool because even if our referees are not biased, the perception that they are is that they are.
THAT is the issue and this proposal takes care of it and rewards good referees. This is the extract with a wee edit
Welcome as the changes to the Disciplinary system are, there are three other essential areas that the now more empowered SFA CEO, Stewart Regan, needs to address to safeguard the well being of Scottish Football and they are: ( I cannot believe I said that about Regan. Proof that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but I digress)
Note the word “service” for this is the way much of what the SFA do should be viewed. The SFA provide a number of services to the clubs who play in Scotland. They should not be seen as their masters but their servants or in modern terms the clubs are the customers and the SFA the service providers. This change of attitude would allow competition to provide such services to enter the scene and so improve them. This would be a huge cultural change but it has to start somewhere and all the above mentioned “services” would be prime candidates.
The Referee Service
This would be split with the SFA doing the recruitment, training and match appointments (having taken the nature of the game to be officiated into account).
However the monitoring and evaluation would be the province of the customer, using referees or ex refs from anywhere to mark to a standard set by the customer.
This spilt of responsibilities would prevent any one person being in a position to exert his own influence on referees as a result of being part of the appointment and evaluation process.
It would safeguard the SFA from the kind of suspicion that led to the referees’ strike and lead to a higher standard of referee because the customer would be setting the standard not the supplier (as happens everywhere in business but football)
If it did not, it would free the SPL/SL to hire their own referees from wherever they could get them. A bit of competition never did anybody any harm and that includes our referees who, if they reached higher standards, would be in more demand outside Scotland.
<
p style=”margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px”>I'll post on the other two separately.
upthehoops 21st September 2018 at 14:05 Allyjambo 21st September 2018 at 13:27 ============================
AJ. I'm sure it was Bill Crombie, not Abercromby, but I fully get your point. Similarly, before a Celtic v Rangers game in 2010, Willie Collum was described by a leading newspaper man as 'Scotland's most prominent Roman Catholic Referee'. In the game he awarded Rangers a penalty that TV proved he had his back to at the time, and did not even see. Not one single observer of any persuasion agreed it was a penalty.
________________
yes, Bill Crombie it was.
I think we both give examples of how a referee can be put under pressure (even just self-inflicted) when assigned a match involving his team, or even one in which the assumption might well be that he is biased towards one club. This pressure may, or may not, be as a result of the referee's genuine desire to be honest, or just from the fear of being outed as biased, but it will certainly be much easier for a referee to allow himself to be swayed to favour one club if he knows he will have an easy ride from the media.
We have seen examples of these 'easy rides' in recent weeks where a new interpretation of a 'free kick' has been introduced to the Scottish game, with barely a whimper from the SMSM, as a direct result of the overturning of a decision against a player who might well be seen to be playing for a club that invariably benefits from those media easy rides.
I believe Scottish Referees should be required to declare their allegiance. If the oldest Football Association in the world thinks it's the right thing to do then what is so wrong with doing it here? If it results in too many Referees declaring allegiance to one or two teams then the SFA simply bring them in from elsewhere. I have no idea how it would currently pan out, but I remember in the 1990's an ex-Referee from the lower grades phoned Radio Clyde and stated he knew for a fact 90% of the then Grade 1 Refs were Rangers fans, some of whom even wore Rangers anoraks to training. The pundits on Radio Clyde said it didn't matter because they could never be biased. The media are a huge part of the problem because they think it's impossible that a Scottish Referee could ever act out of bias.
Allyjambo 21st September 2018 at 14:21
We have seen examples of these 'easy rides' in recent weeks where a new interpretation of a 'free kick' has been introduced to the Scottish game, with barely a whimper from the SMSM, as a direct result of the overturning of a decision against a player who might well be seen to be playing for a club that invariably benefits from those media easy rides.
==================================
The one thing I can't get away from with the Morelos and McGregor situations is the position a ban for the players would have left Rangers in. In the Morelos case at the time it would have left Rangers with no recognised striker. He then went on to score in the two games he would have been banned for, including a hat trick against Kilmarnock. McGregor has been Rangers outstanding player this season. He is an excellent goalie who made a massive contribution to getting them to the Europa League groups. When only one dissenting ex-Referee voice is required it is easy to wonder what goes through their mind when making the decision, especially if the Rangers Manager has thrown the toys out the pram with many in the media lined up behind him.
On the Licensing Service from 2011.
(The term here is cui bonno from its continued absence and what will it take to replace a system whose probity is under suspicion since 2011? – Von Rangers Express running out of track?)
Note that since original publication CL income is even more remote to all clubs, but nevertheless some form of transparent domestic control is required to ensure no repeats and financial fair play within each clubs earning capacity from football sources.
The Licensing Service
This needs to be more transparent. As it stands it is likely to approve Rangers licensing application that enables them to play in next season's UEFA competitions. This, despite question marks over Ranger’s ownership; the intent of that ownership; (an intent that has still to be conveyed to the other small shareholders in Rangers), not to mention (Scottish media style) a potential crippling tax bill.
Not only is it likely to approve a license this year in spite of the above, its role in not preventing Rangers getting into the situation they now find themselves in has surely to be investigated and changes made to prevent Rangers, or any Scottish club, endangering themselves and their fellow clubs in the future. In short the Licensing Service that is supposed to protect the financial well being of Scottish clubs has failed and that failure has undermined the integrity of our game.
The process the SFA use is governed by UEFA and the new UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules that stipulate amongst other things what is to be treated as allowable income and allowable debt come into force for the new season. The problem with the FFP rules is that they are designed to stop rich owners putting money into clubs and thus help restrict player wages, the high cost of which is why so many clubs are carrying so much debt.
Whilst an indirect wage cap will indirectly help Celtic (and Rangers) by making us more wage competitive with our neighbour's in the Championship and lower EPL, neither ourselves nor Rangers are particularly high wage payers nor do we get income Abramovic style from our major shareholder.
However what Celtic have had to compete with in the last decade is our main rivals Rangers first indulging in a questionable method of paying player wages (EBT's) and then borrowing beyond their means to repay. This has all but destroyed the integrity of our game, something that can be inferred from the Scotsman article where it says,
‘which last season led the SFA's legal and moral authority to be undermined by constant challenges.’
It is therefore clear to any observer that the processes that have allowed Rangers to damage themselves and with it the game that the SFA is supposed to protect must be tailored to reflect the reality of the SPL not the EPL.
In Scotland, unlike England where 4 clubs can qualify, the risk of failing to get CL money means the loser can be condemned to being the perpetual bridesmaid or not getting a wedding invite at all, forcing them into taking risks/gambles that can seriously damage the well being of each club, if not end it. So the licensing processes in Scotland have to be tighter to take more of an account of a clubs debt and to confirm that all players at all clubs are contracted on a basis that complies with standard tax law principles. ( a tick against “ Are your players wages subject to PAYE should suffice)
A way of balancing debt with income and expenditure would be a triangulation profile for all clubs. A triangulation profile would have income (A) in one corner, players wages (B) in another and debt (C) in the third. The triangle has to be equilateral and kept in balance and the figures from the accounts supplied to the SFA by clubs have to feed each of the balance points.
It gets more complicated in that what is counted as income has to be defined because some has to be allocated to non football costs,but as these need to be met they have to be included in the formula to set (A). What can be allowed as income will be defined by the UEFA FFP rules but is generally gate money, TV income, merchandising and UEFA money.
Players wages including PAYE and NI should be easy to arrive at and the debt level would have to bear some relationship to the income and wages.
So say for arguments sake (and the multiplier would have to be argued) the debt allowed was 3 times the difference between income and wages (like they used to do in my young days when mortgages bore some relationship to income) then everyone would know if a club was over borrowing if (C) > (A)-(B)*3
A simple spreadsheet drawing on the figures from the accounts with a pie chart to present the picture could be published for each club without divulging the figures beneath and any club not meeting the result of the formula would have their licence to play in UEFA competitions refused as well as it triggering an SFA audit of their accounts.
There is for Scottish Clubs (usually Celtic and Rangers) however an additional issue of what is allowable income for triangulation purposes because of the “skew” affect of Champions League money and the fact that it cannot be depended upon.
Because of the consequences of the proposed profiling, a club borrowing would have to take a risk that they were always going to have that money as guaranteed income as its loss would risk a refusal of a UEFA license or an audit under the proposed profiling rules.
So what any sensible club would do is not to include money that could not be depended upon in the income, and if they get a windfall (like CL money) that is used it to avoid or to reduce debt levels, not to keep using debt to try and ensure they get the money that enables them to stay in debt, as Rangers have done.
In fact any sensible measure of governance in Scotland with only two realistic competitors for CL money should insist on the CL money being excluded from the debt affordability calculation by removing it from the allowable income. (since Euro Cup money is more dependable and a lot less this could be included as allowable but not CL money)
The principle of limiting debt to what you can afford is one which our banks abandoned to everyone’s cost and is a principle that needs to be restored everywhere never mind being introduced to football. The triangulation profile is a simple representation of that principle and a more detailed one looking at what is and is not admissable as income and what the debt multiplyer might be in the context of Scottish football is required. Any club who wishes to operate as if CL money is guaranteed and is allowable for financial profiling purposes could only do so if they have good reasons to believe that this is the case. Those reasons should be supplied and made public.
Whatever approach is adopted Scottish football needs a more relevant process and the SFA should be saying something about the lack of transparency in the Licensing process and what they intend to do to address it.
Whilst looking for the Referee Service item I came across this collection from Peat in 2010 that I've uploaded to
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14TloI1dom60OIbRYm6IjeOoogmeiS34a/view?usp=sharing
Among it is a CQN blog that I’ll now paste in full for entertainment purposes only. whilst it is written in green ink it might persuade non Celtic fans to read the other stuff. Fascinating that 8 years later we have moved not an inch.
CQN Feb
Celtic campaign for fair refereeing stings SFA
SFA president, George Peat, is always good value, “We find it disappointing and somewhat bizarre that, in the build-up to an Old Firm (sic) derby, an unnamed Celtic ‘source’ would seek to exert additional pressure on match officials by issuing ill-timed and fundamentally inaccurate comments”.
This follows a BBC report that a Celtic ‘source’ expressed the club’s concerns about Scottish referees to the broadcaster. The comments attributed to Celtic are fairly prosaic, “We are considering contacting the SFA to highlight our concerns at some of the major decisions we feel have gone against us this season”.
Mr Peat should know that this is the right of every association club, a right exercised by more than just Celtic. Under no way are clubs obliged to keep such concerns a secret.
Robbie Keane was flagged offside five times against Hearts, four of which the player was onside, the Celtic source suggested, “It seems that officials are struggling to keep up with his pace.
“Several key offside decisions have gone against him purely because of his speed.” Evidence suggests this is an entirely reasonable observation.
The source goes on to say, “The refereeing performances are a concern and a frustration to us,” no more than what referee’s chief, Hugh Dallas, said himself in recent weeks.
In a fit of pique, Peat revealed, “In actual fact, discussions between the Scottish FA and Celtic have taken place, but the contents of these discussions will remain private, as was agreed with the club.”
The BBC source did not reveal the contents of discussions with the BBC, nor did they reveal that discussions had taken place, although both matters appear to be in the public domain thanks to Peat.
Celtic have made repeated representations to the SFA over referee’s performance this season; a steady stream of letters, phone calls and DVDs have flooded into Hugh Dallas office to little avail – although the moment Keane’s onside goal against Dundee United on Saturday was allowed to stand I referred to Celtic’s recent highlighting of his pace to Dallas. Advice that went along the lines, “You have to tell your assistant referees that Keane is faster than any player in Scotland”.
The timing of Celtic’s expression of concern seems to anger Peat most, his suggestion being that the club, are trying to “exert additional pressure on match officials”.
He could not be further from the truth. All Celtic have asked for is a far crack of the whip. After result-changing referee performances in both games against Rangers this season, there is as much chance of Celtic getting this without a careful and planned request, as finding the proverbial snowball in Hell.
Discussing evidence submitted to the SFA of poor refereeing is perfectly fair game, especially when we live in a land where officials with Irish names are called out by a club with a long and undignified history of prejudice against the Irish.
Peat is surely trying to raise a laugh when he says, “I am sure the Celtic chief executive, Peter Lawwell, will be concerned by the fact that someone has elected to speak on behalf of his club, seemingly without consent, and therefore undermined his authority.”
Maybe it was Scott McDonald again!
I’m glad this story is out; I must have spoken to dozens of narcissists on the subject this season who believe that if a newspaper hasn’t told them Celtic have done something, it has not happened.
And don’t think it’s only the board the SFA have heard from on this subject, the manager has been personally involved in those discussions Peat referred to. Just because he is not grandstanding does not mean Tony is ‘taking it on the chin’.
A fair and balanced performance is the request. If we score good goals, we expect them to be awarded. If our players are fouled in the Rangers box, we expect all to be rewarded by penalties. If our players break free onside, we do not expect to be flagged offside.
No more and no less.
By Paul67 on February 24, 2010 8:24 PM
Continuing on the referee theme it looks like the Kilmarnock manager will be getting another citation.
From the BBC online.
“Kilmarnock boss Steve Clarke: Refs have decided three of our five Premiership games”
https://twitter.com/dishwasherpm/status/1043148652821274624?s=20
There may be trouble ahead.
Ex Ludo – Shirley that has to be a Photoshop job?
If not, then that's deserving of a "Wow Just Wow!"
Apart from playing a Euro tie in an unofficial strip,
Hummel won't be impressed.
A dodgy club very publicly promoting dodgy, knock off strips to their own fans.
Quality! (…joke that is.)
Must have been a "manufacturing problem"…yes, that's a believable excuse…
I saw a few threads (pardon the pun) on this wrong kit on the Bears Den last night. It seems to be true that someone (Ryan Kent, they said) had the wrong kit on. No one could quite explain how.
StevieBC @ 18.16
A photoshop effort was my first thought but there’s been at least 2 different tweets showing the same fashion faux pas.
Perhaps what Mr Kent was wearing is the Company top. It’s very easy to make that sort of mistake.
I blame that charming kitman at Ibrox…
StevieBC 21st September 2018 at 19:38
'…I blame that charming kitman at Ibrox… '
____________________________
I'd give him a round of applause for that gaffe…but, ach, naw, it'll need to be a minute's silence: yer man doesn't do applause.
Ex Ludo 21st September 2018 at 17:27 14 0 Rate This https://twitter.com/dishwasherpm/status/1043148652821274624?s=20 There may be trouble ahead. ……………………….. One for the compliance officer….Ah!forget it
Friday, 21 September 2018, 17:30
by Rangers Football Club
RANGERS are delighted to announce that an initial batch of this Season’s hugely popular Hummel range of replica kit is available for sale.
…………
But what one is it? the one with the red or blue on top.
…………………
The kits can be ordered online from our new non-exclusive partner, the Elite Group.
………….
Wonder if Ashley knows about this?
Why can we not just pay the English FA for refs to come officiate our top flight games?
Mibees send our useless f#ks in the opposite direction to officiate in theirs?
Just a thought…
Cluster One 21st September 2018 at 20:22
Friday, 21 September 2018, 17:30 by Rangers Football Club RANGERS are delighted to announce that an initial batch of this Season’s hugely popular Hummel range of replica kit is available for sale. ………… But what one is it? the one with the red or blue on top. ………………… The kits can be ordered online from our new non-exclusive partner, the Elite Group. …………. WonWonderder if Ashley knows about this?
_____________
I don't know if Ashley knows about this, but PMGB writes today that a missive has arrived from Ashley at Ibrox and hints that another court case may be looming. Putting two and two together…surely not!
I think we are in an inbeteeny point of football politics, so what about last night? I thought The Rangers played well. celtic, thank God for wee Leigh.
Love you all.
Well come on you thumbsdowners, post on! I'm trying my best!
https://twitter.com/meljomur/status/1043195598902579200?s=21
A matter of life and death you say….?
Jimbo,
C’mon the co-efficient!
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/important-news-for-supporters/
Supplies are limited but any orders that can’t be fulfilled immediately will be given priority as further deliveries become available. So, don’t delay.”
But we will !…..Buy today !….. And you will mebbe get one soon…..ish
In a spirit of light-hearted helpfulness, I have sent this little email to 'The' Elite Group.
For all I know, the photo may be fake.
But a bit of fun is not to be missed.
"To:info@elitegroup-uk.com
21 Sep at 22:54
Dear 'info@elite'
I understand from the website of 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' that their new season's playing kit is at last available, and that it can be ordered online from your good selves, the Elite Group.
It has been drawn to my attention that there are two versions of the jersey used by The Rangers for their match against Villareal the other night. There is one version in which the blue diagonal stripe is above the red stripe, and another in which the red stripe is above the blue. I imagine that UEFA might have some rules about all the players in a team having to wear an identical strip.
Can you say which of the versions is the 'authorised' version, please, which of course, you will be arranging to supply.
One would not wish anyone to be confused to the point of spending good money on unauthorised merchandise from the Far East!
Yours sincerely,
The Sports Direct website is still selling Rangers Puma kit. This is going to get messy.
The Elite Group home page looks very professional and offers a whole range of tech services. One wonders just what enticed them to get involved with Rangers? If SD do what they usually do in these situations then litigation can’t be far away and the Elite Group could be drawn into it too.
https://companycheck.co.uk/company/03475396/ELITE-GROUP-HOLDINGS-UK-LIMITED/financials
I think they have about 6 grands worth. lol
It's past Oz skype time, so I can continue on the 'strip' theme:
Article 4.09 of the UEFA Kit Regulations 2012 [ presumably still current?] :
'4.09 If, following UEFA's approval [of team strips] any kit item is subsequently altered in anyway, UEFA's decision will be considered null and void with immediate effect.
Article 6.01 The UEFA match delegate is responsible for monitoring compliance with these regulations at the match venue.'
So, a strip is UEFA approved. And then some player take part in a match wearing a different strip from that worn by his team-mates.
What is a the Monitor to do? Claim that he did not notice, in an 'honest mistake' kind of way? Call for tv evidence?
And what happens if the evidence is that even one player in a team was wearing a shirt that was not identical to the UEFA- authorised one?
It would seem that the authorisation given would have to be rescinded!
Can that be so? That the new strip will have to be abandoned and a different one submitted for approval?
Geez, it would not be fun anymore, but a damaging financial and reputational (ha!) blow to a club.
But I'm probably wrong.
And certainly wrong, if the whole thing is a spoof!
JC, you are very naughty! But keep up the good work.
On the DR article about the sudden availability of kit – excluding the schizophrenic Away strip…
My immediate, very cynical take was: a desperate deflection move from Level42. No questions about the curious top worn by a TRFC player, just great news, "roll up,roll up and get your official kit here!"
And the bonus?
They actually don't have any kit to sell – but TRFC will gladly take your 'free cash/working capital’ until some deliveries appear.
And no refunds allowed as you are good bears and WATP!
No, I must be way off the mark here.