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.
jean7brodie 1st October 2018 at 17:35
Site seems to hibernate after I post anything . Folk might be taking time to dissect , examine and absorb the intellectual content , or it might be something else . Like people having lives outwith the internet . I'm not even getting the guaranteed one TD anymore . It's an injustice !
paddy malarkey 1st October 2018 at 18:59
__________________________________________________________
Thanks Calimero!!!!!!
Naw it's not your posts paddy. I think something is wrong. Been on here since its inception and have never experienced this. Maybe BP or Tris will clarify?
easyJambo 30th September 2018 at 18:25
36 0 Rate This
Something that has intrigued me about the confirmation of the RIFC share offer is the phraseology used by the company.
RIFC discussed the placing with the Takeover Panel before completing the issue and can confirm that the Panel did not at the time of the placing regard any of the ‘new’ placees as acting in concert with those previously deemed concert parties by the Panel.
The sentence doesn’t require “at the time of the placing” to be included, unless the TOP has subsequently questioned the independence of one or more of the placees. It’s something perhaps to look out for in future TOP legal hearings.
…………………………….
Re the share issue.
It has been reported that Director Barry scott contributed around £1.7 million.
Did Barry scott not resign as a Director?
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/11355732/rangers-directors-paul-murray-and-barry-scott-leave-club
naegreetin 1st October 2018 at 13:21
On a quiet day – sad news Geoffrey from TV childrens' "Rainbow" has died – a little known fact – he was an Arab
====================
Hope nobody Bungled his medication.
Stevie BC, to soon! The man is a God!
Cluster One 1st October 2018 at 20:08
I noticed that, resigned as a Director after about 6 months but still a very major shareholder. Hmm?
Apologies, I'll Zip[py] it right now.
stevieBC @ 20.31 1 Oct
apparently Geoffrey's last words were "what 5-1 to Ross County ?"
Halliday in today's 'the Scotsman': " Spence was struck on the back of his head by a missile thrown from among a section of Rangers supporters…"
Maxwell: " I welcome Rangers' decision in moving quickly to try to identify the individual involved"
Fleming ( head of referee operations at the Scottish FA): " I wax horrified to see one of our officials ..have to receive medical treatment after being struck by a missile thrown by a spectator"
Was Fleming ever a referee? Seems he had one of the prerequisites- a lack of visual perception and reluctance to see and call things as they are!
The Scottish Professional Football League’s decision to stage both Betfred Cup semi-finals on the same day at Hampden has been described as “simply idiotic”, by Calum Steele, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation.
This is from The Times.
——————————————————————————————-
I don't know any other business where the customers are treated with such contempt.
Mr Doncaster outlined last week that he had no other options and that he had made the best decision.
So be it.
He has had his say.
I'd ask our clubs to consider two things.
The First is what would/will happen now if there is a random short-term reason or event that means the 2 semis cannot be played on the intended Sunday. (eg a public health scare or a weather event, or something else where all public events are cancelled short term maybe as a show of respect)
Would that mean the Betfred cup will be cancelled for season 2018 because of the total and extreme lack of options as articulated by Neil last week, or would the more likely outcome be that Mr Doncaster and his team would find a different and more suitable for the fans option or options?
Maybe after a conversation or two with some of the following, Iain Maxwell at the SFA, Scotrail, Police Scotland, Semi Final Clubs).
The Second is how well the SPFL are being run on our behalf? (As club stakeholders)
Has the SPFL been strengthened under his watch?
By that I mean have our revenues improved?
Where does the money that comes in go?
Does it help grass roots or just pay weekly wages and agents fees?
Do we have a good mix of sponsors competing for an association with Scottish Football?
Do all of our clubs feel happy with the SPFL?
Are the supporters happy with what the SPFL do? (Do they actually know?)
What do Betfred think of the fans alienation by the commercial pressures caused by and exacerbated by their contractual interests?
Is there a documented policy in place where fans interests and their ability to get to the chosen venues for semi finals and finals trump sponsors wishes even where they are contractual? (There should be).
For what its worth I think Betfred, Neil and his board should listen to the wisdom of Police Scotland and the outrage from some of the clubs and many fans and revisit their decision.
Ignoring the real outrage might just bring more attention on the performane and even the need for the SPFL in the first place.
Finloch, 2 October 2018, 11:19
"Maybe after a conversation or two with some of the following, Iain Maxwell at the SFA, Scotrail, Police Scotland, Semi Final Clubs)."
—————————————————————————————
I wonder if British Transport Police (BTP) have been consulted about this decision. As you know, BTP are responsible for policing the entire GB rail network including trains and stations. This policing operation on a normal big match day is a real drain on the resources of the 400 or so officers based in Scotland. They will have to police all the train movements into and out of key stations in Scotland and have a significant police presence at Aberdeen railway station, Queen Street, Glasgow Central and Mount Florida as well as monitoring a large number of smaller feeder stations. They will not have the capacity to police these two matches without significant mutual aid from their colleagues south of the border. I wonder who will be paying for all that? As the force is funded by the train operators and Network Rail, it will be the everyday fare-paying train passengers who will bear the brunt of the costs.
I should have mentioned the large presence that will be required at Edinburgh Waverley and Haymarket stations.
Often on SFM we comment on the bias shown towards Rangers* by our football authorities. Below are a couple of links to the current incumbents and while I don’t know which school each and every one went to, on the face of it there are no obvious Ibrox season-ticket holders or closet bluenoses, apart from Stewart Robertson.
Which begs the question, who exactly is it that is favouring the Ibrox entity if it isn’t our own clubs, including mine, Hearts, and yours (most of you), Celtic?
It’s true that Campbell Ogilvie, Jim Ballantyne and David Longmuir all held office and wielded influence during the most tumultuous and divisive period in Scottish football history, but they’ve long since been replaced by a succession of office bearers with no obvious Ibrox connection or affection.
Those replacements have all been fully paid-up members of the ‘move along’ brigade, yet I’d wager that every single one of them is fully aware of the scale of cheating and subsequent death of the original Rangers Football Club. They’re equally aware of the insane lengths the football authorities have gone to in order to absolve Rangers of guilt, as well as denying warranted reviews into LNS, the granting of a UEFA licence for 2011/12, EBTs and title-stripping.
We now know that title-stripping was included in the early drafts of the five-way agreement, but that Charles Green successfully negotiated its removal by the time of the final draft. What bargaining tool did Green have back then and what hold over the other clubs does Dave King have now that results in such obsequious, fawning, subservient kowtowing to the guilty parties?
If, as I suspect, the answer is money, or the threat of the lack thereof, then isn’t it long overdue that we called King’s (and Doncaster’s) bluff? To the best of my knowledge there is only one professional club in Scotland which has no line of credit to a bank, which has made a financial loss in every year of its existence, which holds a world record for the number of ‘going concern’ warnings issued by its auditor and which has failed to learn the lessons of its deceased predecessor by operating a policy of surviving on non-guaranteed future European income.
Isn’t it long overdue that instead of the Scottish football authorities (ie our clubs) pandering to the ‘school bully’, we stood up to it and put an end to the myth that we must feed the monster or face financial Armageddon? If Doncaster can’t negotiate a contract that doesn’t include x number of Rangers v Celtic matches, then sack him for incompetence. What next, a ‘no relegation’ clause for Rangers and Celtic purely for the purposes of financial expediency? If Doncaster can’t see how he is ‘fixing’ our national sport, he really has to go!
If a form of Rangers living within its means results in mid-table obscurity for a few seasons, then we and they might begin to see progress. If other clubs go to the wall despite all the klaxons and flashing lights provided by recent insolvencies, then frankly they deserve everything coming their way, notwithstanding the fact that you can’t liquidate a club of course, allegedly.
If only the football authorities (our clubs) hadn’t panicked and instead dealt with the death of Rangers Football Club identically to how they’d have dealt with any other club, then we wouldn’t be having to stand up to the bully, and who knows, maybe Charles Green’s new club would have been a welcome addition while it enjoyed its journey through the leagues.
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/organisation/strategy-structure/who-we-are/board-committees/
https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-clubs-elect-board-for-201819
Ex Ludo 1st October 2018 at 06:18 https://twitter.com/bbcsportscot/status/1046421501484945413?s=21 The BBC not quite able to point out from which part of the ground the coin was thrown.
_______________
Surely it came from the West of Scotland end?
It looks like the Police are reconsidering their position with the policing of two matches on one day at Hampden. As I suspected, the transport plan for these events is likely to throw up some serious issues.
https://celtsarehere.com/spfl-forced-to-re-think-farcical-hampden-decision-by-police-scotland/
Had my first sighting this season of "bring back Walter ".
Regards the decision to play two matches on same day. I wondered at the Police Scotland agreement in the first place, particularly how were they were going to meet the resources?
Unless I am mistaken this would take up the best part of two full compliments of personnel from Commander down, one for each match. Not unless the officers would be working more than the normal hours per working day. Many if not most would be on voluntary overtime. That’s a big ask, particularly on a Sunday. The logistics to me don’t make sense.
In addition, what if there is major trouble in or around the city?
No surprise the Police Federation have something to say.
Big question now: Which tie is to be moved?
IF the plan for 2 semi games, on the same day at the Hampden Athletics Stadium is indeed changed…
Then surely Doncaster – "there is no alternative" – must consider his position?
A subsequent change to his planning could be construed as a very public – and self-inflicted – vote of no confidence in himself!
(I know, there is no honour amongst the Hampden blazers.)
StevieBC 2nd October 2018 at 18:21
2 0 Rate This
IF the plan for 2 semi games, on the same day at the Hampden Athletics Stadium is indeed changed…
………………..
Will it be because of the fans once again that Doncaster has had to listen?
……………….
Then surely Doncaster – “there is no alternative” – must consider his position?
……………
If it is changed, expect the usual we listened to the voice of the fans speach.
StevieBC 2nd October 2018 at 18:21
'…Then surely Doncaster – "there is no alternative" – must consider his position?'
He surely must go.
I have said on a previous occasion that Doncaster, in the context of the 2012 ‘saga’as a whole, was not as guilty overall as the SFA CEO , in that the then SPL (and the current SPFL) were not the overall guardians of the Sporting Integrity and essential Truth of Scottish Football.
Nevertheless, he no doubt helped conceive and have the iniquitous 5-Way Agreement implemented, rather than ask the members of the SPL to order him not to sign.
In that momentous matter of betraying the very concepts of both sporting fair play and commercial honesty, he was duty bound to insist on the defence of integrity even at the loss of a powerful club with a (largely decent?) significant following.
Instead, he chose the path of deviousness, of double-speak, of capitulation to the dishonest, and cowardly self-protection rather than uphold the Integrity of Sport as played according to both sports rules and business rules.
Being less guilty than Regan is not a particularly favourable endorsement.
Ans many a CEO gets his jotters for far less a reason.
And now Nemesis is upon him in the shape of the farcical, idiotic, decision re the semi-finals.
Doncaster must do as I suggested to him some years ago- resign.
John Clark 2nd October 2018 at 18:42
===============================
It's all very well Doncaster resigning. He would only be replaced by someone else who prioritised the well being of 'Rangers' above every other club. Anyone not prepared to do that won't be considered.
And now Tierney's adolescent observations being cited in support of the Celtic-Aberdeen semi being at Murrayfield! (I had earlier heard Tierney's 'observations' about fans of Celtic being ready to travel as part of being fans! Players, I think, should just their gobs on matters like this)[Sportsound, a few minutes ago]
And now the BBC line on the ‘object being thrown by a spectator’, from Currie, of the tainted BBC
paddy malarkey 2nd October 2018 at 16:19
6 1 Rate This
Had my first sighting this season of “bring back Walter “.
…………………………..
Would that be as a manager or a director?
Remember the last time? Must have drained a pretty penny from the ibrox coffers during his tenure.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1047182690183725056?p=v
November 12, 2012
This double-dunter at Hampden cluster.
It would seem to me that a fee would exchange hands for whatever stadium(s) is used. Unless the SPFL are getting Hampden on the cheap, I doubt the SPFL would be too bothered about who they pay that fee to.
Clubs are unhappy with it, the polis and transport are less than well pleased. The fans are against it, as is the public in general.
It would seem to me that only one organisation has a motivation to insist it is played at Hampden.
Corrupt official 2nd October 2018 at 19:02
0 0 Rate This
double-dunter
Is a phrase i have not heard in a long time.
God, i sound like OBI WAN KENOBI
Corrupt official 2nd October 2018 at 19:02
It would seem to me that only one organisation has a motivation to insist it is played at Hampden.
=============================
Correct. The SFA would take 15% of the gate receipts as their fee.
The SPFL also takes a levy of 5% of the receipts, but they would take that cut regardless of the venue.
From the competition rules on where the money goes:
One thing is clear from today. If there is a big enough fuss, backed by the media, the football authorities are willing to think again. Oh how they must have longed for something as simple as illegally registered Rangers players for over a decade, or awarding a European licence to Rangers when they had an unpaid debt to a tax authority. These things tend to sail through without a whimper from the media.
upthehoops 2nd October 2018 at 18:48
'..He would only be replaced by someone else who prioritised the well being of 'Rangers' above every other club. '
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
That may be true, uth, but there surely must be some folk in Scottish football with a spark of integrity!
And, in any case, when Doncaster goes he, like Regan, will have been punished for his iniquities. And that's at least a bit of justice.
The others will be punished in the fullness of time, even posthumously. Even now, it can be no fun for them,knowing that they are justly held in living contempt.
They may live long lives, may hold many other 'honourable' offices, grand or masterful or lowly, before they pop their clogs- but every day in life they will know that they are whited sepulchres, splendid outside, rotten in their hearts.
So Ian Maxwell contacted the SPFL, re waiving the Hampden contractual requirement. Meaning he walked along the corridor. What an effort that must have taken.
easyJambo 2nd October 2018 at 19:25
How much better the SPFL (and the SFA) would have looked if the rather hasty announcement had been delayed pending discussions with all concerned. They could have announced that those involved in the discussions would have included representatives from all four sets of supporters, enhancing the SPFL's reputation (and that's not hard, though very rare), then, when they make an eminently more sensible decision on the date, time and venue, they could thank the SFA for their assistance in allowing the SPFL to change the venue to Murrayfield (if they do) making them all look good for the first time in over six years.
Instead we get a farce rivalling Brexit!
John Clark 2nd October 2018 at 19:22
That may be true, uth, but there surely must be some folk in Scottish football with a spark of integrity!
============================
Aye, oh for the days of Ernie Walker and Jim Farry!
easyJambo
2nd October 2018 at 19:25
So Ian Maxwell contacted the SPFL, re waiving the Hampden contractual requirement. Meaning he walked along the corridor. What an effort that must have taken.
Guess the SFA would celebrate this as real progress for their organisation.
Starting from an incredibly low bar.
Baby steps and all that… ?
John Clark 2nd October 2018 at 19:22
They may live long lives, may hold many other ‘honourable’ offices, grand or masterful or lowly, before they pop their clogs- but every day in life they will know that they are whited sepulchres, splendid outside, rotten in their hearts.
……………
JC i believe they have no heart.
How else could anyone explain the torment their children and grandchildren will go through by the actions of these people in power.Living with knowing their father or grandfather was not a man of honour and integrity. A man who sold his soul.These children living long lives will be left to acknowledge many a glass will not be raised when these people are no longer with us.
Any person who can leave that legacy to their children has no heart.
Cluster One 2nd October 2018 at 18:59
Saviour ? Definitely not for the football on display .
paddy malarkey 2nd October 2018 at 20:34
Saviour?
These stories do the rounds.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1009167886148161538/photo/1
I have one of a Mr Novo and a walter story somewhere.
You have to feel sorry for them when they long for the old days. But they all don’t want to be reminded the old days were a lie.
…………………
Walter is the man.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1008286754636525568?p=v
What kept you walter.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1008086945644318727?p=v
Found it but to late to edit.
Make walter chairman.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/999396923886002177/photo/1
AllyJambo @ 14.41
Indeed. Apparently forensics on the coin show a definite trace of vinegar, indicating that said coin passed through the till in a Glaswegian chip shop.
In other news, it looks as if the Commander of the Glasgow Division of Police Scotland has been overruled by ACC Higgins. I’m now wondering if that was initiated by Police Scotland or has there been a high level political intervention by Holyrood given the public outcry?
Speaking of crying out in public, Keith Jackson is tweeting that Celtic are not best pleased that their semifinal is being moved to Murrayfield.
easyJambo 27th September 2018 at 15:26
4 0 Rate This
Confirmation of the latest episode of the TOP v King saga next week.
LADY WOLFFE – E Hunter, Clerk
Wednesday 3rd October
Debate At 10.00am
P341/17 Pet: the Panel on Takeovers & Mergers for orders section 955 – Dentons UK – Lindsays
……………..
just a reminder.
Cluster One 2nd October 2018 at 22:40
'..just a reminder.'
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I had to remind myself earlier today that some TOP business is scheduled for 10.00 am tomorrow.
I have notebook ready, and a couple of quid in my pocket ( if eJ is there, it's my turn to buy the coffee in the Court cafe.)
I'm glad that you were here as a long-stop, though, C1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIMhshpf0Y4
John Clark,
I will be 65 in 15 mins. time. Time for me to join the OAPs on here. I still miss my mum and dad.
Happy birthday Jimbo. Yir maw and paw would be proud of the man you are.
Not sure if the SFA & SPFL – combined – could organise the proverbial p!ss up in a brewery…
but, I do know – for a fact – that they are incapable of arranging a couple of games of football… and literally in their own 'back garden'!
– have a good one Jimbo
&
– stop down thumbing me Bungle: it was a joke…
John Clark 2nd October 2018 at 23:19 I'm glad that you were here as a long-stop, though, C1. …………………… Thanks for the compliment……..
jimbo 2nd October 2018 at 23:44
'.John Clark, I will be 65 in 15 mins. time.'
_____________________
Many happy returns of the day, jimbo. 65 is just a number-onwards and upwards!
Much gnashing of teeth that moving the Hearts v Celtic game to Murrayfield would amount to it being a home game for Hearts!!
I mean honestly, you couldn't make it up! Welcome to the world the rest of us populate.
However, I have to say there should be a ballot, fairest way to do it.
Happy Birthday Jimbo. Many more of them!!
Happy Birthday Jimbo. Have a good one
It was my 65th yesterday!!!!
Happy Birthday Jean. Many more of them to you too!!
On Bbcsportsound last night the issue of the linesman injury came up. No one stated the object was thrown from the supporters of the Ibrox club, it was a spectator. Really? Then Mr Commons went on to say Mr Gerrard would be very unhappy about this incident. He also added Mr Gerrard was a man of the utmost integrity as he was known to shake the hands of all the opposing team win lose or draw. ffs really? I watched a little clip of end of this match and witnessed a couple of Ibrox team not shaking hands with Livvy players and I certainly did not see Mr Dignity shake hands with all Livvy players. Also on semi final fiasco how did all the media state that Hearts v Celtic game was to be moved? Based on what?
Happy Birthday, Jimbo, and welcome to the OAP club. I too still miss my mum and dad, but wouldn't it be terrible if we didn't!
valentinesclown 3rd October 2018 at 10:24
Presumably based on the fact that if the Hearts/Celtic game was played in Edinburgh, only two sets of fans would have to travel (Aberdeen and Celtic). If instead the Aberdeen/Rangers game was played in Edinburgh, three sets of fans would have to travel (Aberdeen, Rangers and Hearts).
While I can vaguely see the argument behind Brendan Rodgers request for a draw to see who plays where, I don't agree with him and I'm with Tayred above in being astonished at how either Glasgow club can complain about the possibility of a prestige game not being played in Glasgow, considering the historical advantage both have had simply by virtue of the national stadium being in Glasgow.
As an aside, if Brendan is worried about Hearts having home advantage, only five Hearts players have played at Murrayfield, of whom two would almost certainly not play in the cup semi. Celtic on the other hand have six current players who played recent games at Murrayfield.
Happy Birthday to you, too, Jean
and welcome to the club
I know the Euro games must be played on the dates allocated and must be taken into account. But why do the League Cup semis have to be on the same day? Premiership fixtures are postponed on a regular basis usually due to bad weather. There are clear problems with fans travel and police logistics. Is there a reason why a league fixture can not be rearranged to accommodate this semi final? ‘Contractual agreements’is a complete red herring. Public safety is always the overriding factor.
An afternoon kick off on separate days at Hampden for all it’s shortcomings, is the obvious solution. Why make it complicated?
Equally important, the dates should be drawn, as suggested, without favour to any club(s).
Simple.
brimacel @ 11.05 3 Oct 2018
Your solution is far too simple – obviously never crossed the guy's mind in charge of this farce who pulls down £250K+ a year (& he's got an MBA anaw) – the sooner he b*ggers off to a multi-national & gets a job re-designing biscuit wrappers , the better .
By the way , does anyone know where Regan ended up ?
Agree that logic dictates that if Murrayfield goes ahead, it should be Celtic- Hearts played there. Disappointed that Celtic would challenge this. Will be great to see a non-hampden game with no Celtic or Rangers end. Should always be the case.
Logic-shmogic, Nawlite.
I get the bit about the wrongness of either Rangers or Celtic (as if) getting to dictate where they should play their 'neutral ground' fixtures.
It's the arbitrariness of this particular saga that really rankles: make the process transparent, I say; and make any decision about the choice of venue known beforehand or, since we’re too late for that this time, by ballot.
(cf. If both these games had been scheduled for Murrayfield and then suddenly (and arbitrarily) re-scheduled so that the Hearts v. Celtic tie was to be played in Glasgow, Hearts fans would justifiably have a grievance.)
What do you mean by transparent though? If they announce that one game will be played at Murrayfield and they explain they've chosen Celtic- Hearts so as only two sets of fans need to travel, will that be transparent enough? I appreciate they haven't yet done that but as far as I know the decision hasn't yet been finalised.
PressReader – Daily Record: 2018-10-03 – GAME CHANGER
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-record/20181003/281479277355057
9 hours ago
Front Page DR print edition.
Funny thing is, the above is not available on line. ??
Has a gun been jumped?
Nawlite @ 13:49 said: 'What do you mean by transparent … ?'
What I mean is that in circumstances in which there will be a choice of venues for the fixtures, an example of transparency could be to say (in advance of the draw): 'the first team drawn, gets to choose the venue'.
You say also that the decision hasn't been finalised yet, which may be the case.
I wonder, however, where the BBC (cf. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45723291) and others got the notion that [to quote Alasdair Lamont] 'The Scottish Professional Football league is considering moving Hearts' meeting with Celtic to Murrayfield on Sunday afternoon, 28 October.'
I very much doubt Mr Lamont just dreamt up that sentence as a convenient space filler.
#notparanoidenough
Dunderheid, I agree with you that as usual our hopelessly incompetent football authorities have failed to look beyond the end of their noses to plan for the potential problems the semifinals and Europe could cause. I'm absolutely on board with the view that they need removing. All I'm saying is that having been too late to be transparent beforehand, making the right decision now re Murrayfield is better and if they explain logically why they chose one game over the other then I will be happy with that. NB happy only that the right outcome has been reached – the next step is to campaign for the removal of Doncaster after his 'we've exhausted all options ' comment.
naegreetin 3rd October 2018 at 11:38
brimacel @ 11.05 3 Oct 2018
"the sooner he b*ggers off to a multi-national & gets a job re-designing biscuit wrappers , the better
By the way , does anyone know where Regan ended up ?"
McVities i believe making jokes for penguin wrappers.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-chairman-dave-king-fights-against-contempt-of-court-bid-1-4809249
“It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be a wilful defiance of the court. It must be a contemptuous defiance of this court…
…It is not sufficient on the part of the petitioner to say to the court here is an order that hasn’t been complied with.”
As with the JPP & its 'petulant' kicks, 'petulant', rather than 'wilful', defiance of a court order is a defence/justification! Unbelievable.
It would make sense that in future the semi finals should be set, at the start of the season, for two consecutive weekends at Hampden with shifting to the Sunday an option should European ties dictate. I suspect however the current shambles will continue as we hawk ourselves to the TV scheduling based entirely on what coverage can be given to TRFC and Celtic. I have no problem with the demographics and can understand the resultant economics but that is why this shambolic juggling act will continue and is why we are a joke football nation.
I have to add (just to guarantee the TD count) that it does not surprise me that many see TRFC/Celtic vs Dons/Hearts at Hampden as a neutral venue but Murrayfield a home venue for Hearts. I have no axe to grind on this, we (like 34 other SPFL teams I think) have no alternative stadium in our town/city so all semis and finals are away games for us, no big deal.
I can fully understand the displeasure shown by Celtic supporters brought about by the possible change of venue to Murrayfield. It can't be pleasant to have to play a semi-final against an Edinburgh club in Edinburgh, the advantage that would give to Hearts will undoubtedly be huge, and it is not fair to expect Celtic supporters to travel through to Edinburgh for such a big match. On the other hand, Aberdeen will have no such disadvantage should their semi-final remain scheduled for Hampden, nor Hearts should the decision be made, or no decision be made to change the ludicrous schedule, to play their game at Hampden.
naegreetin 3rd October 2018 at 11:38
…
By the way , does anyone know where Regan ended up ?
++++++++++++++++++
Regan applied to be CEO of the Italian F.A.
But his application was rejected,
They thought he was “just too dodgy”.
Mibbees…
Mr Doncaster
Football has an inherent ability to resourcefully deal with fixture reschedule requirements.
It was always thus and is just something that happens as and when required.
I recall back in the very icy winter of 1979 when the Scottish Cup second-round clash between Inverness Thistle and Falkirk had to be postponed no fewer than 29 times.
The original date for the game was January 6, but the clubs had to wait 47 days until Thistle's wonderful Kingsmills ground with its superb playing surface, sadly now houses, was eventually declared playable on February 22.
That year the cup was completed on time, with Rangers winning a replay against Hibernian 3-2 after a 0-0 draw.
So there was even time for an extra Cup Final.
Compared to that moving one game to Murrayfield and having a fair draw to see who plays there is an absolute cinch.
Oh dear , first it was the immovable contract clause (that gives the new OF unprecedented privilege unheard of anywhere else in football) and now it's all about making sure they retain that privilege. It's utterly pathetic. For 140 years Glasgow teams have had all the cards stacked in their favour : play all the big games in Glasgow with Glasgow based refs (some even known to be supporters of said teams) – but move one game and it's not acceptable – and this from a team who have contributed to the fixture chaos because of THEIR Europa league games.
When all is said and done – this it what it has always been about ; Who was going to blink first , Celtic or Sevco. As a Hearts fan who would have had no possibility of attending under the original proposal (and I know MANY more in the same boat) I don't care where it's played. We now our place.
Once the “ who plays where” dust settles, we will be left with the cause of this shambles.
My view is that the SPFL made deals with the SFA/Hampden and BT, as to where and when these games take place.
By so doing, they ceded control of their competitions to those two companies and in the event, fell between two stools.
The former wants both games, with the accompanying revenues and the latter want both games to suit their broadcasting schedules.
The other gaff by Doncaster was to exclude potential Europa League ties from his calculations.
From what should have been relatively easy situation to resolve, by leaving scope for decisions to be made when all vagaries were known.
We will now have a Heath Robinson solution that will leave many fans severely discommoded, including those who have made flight and accommodation plans.
Doncaster must go. In the Name of God man, just go.
Ally J.
With Hearts playing in Edinburgh and Rangers* playing in Glasgow, 2 teams have a notional advantage of playing in their home town (Hearts and Rangers).
If the Aberdeen v. Rangers game were to be played in Edinburgh, only 1 team would be playing in its home town (Celtic).
Under the currently proposed solution, only Rangers* fans avoid the possibility of being inconvenienced.
But that's not the point I was trying to make: clearly either Celtic or Hearts fans will need to travel, based on the current proposal, no matter the final outcome of this affair.
My point is about the process underlying the choice of venue.
With fans of all sides (other than Rangers, as thing stand) currently having strong grounds to complain about where their game is to be played; and for want of the capacity of our governing bodies to have anticipated this shambles, or to be able to come up with a mutually acceptable compromise solution, the only fair option is to ballot in order to determine venues.
Today's Court of Session update.
…… well that's one day of my life gone that I won't get back.
As expected it was a day of very dry legal arguments and recitations of legal text books and precedents, so it was never going to be riveting viewing. King was represented by Jonathan Mitchell QC and TOP by David Johnston QC.
Mr Mitchell spoke first and was on his feet for the best part of four hours, and as one of the TOP team commented during a break "he talked a lot about not very much".
Mr Mitchell was seeking to have the contempt action dismissed, mainly on the technicality that the TOP side used an incorrect procedure of a "minute" to the court, rather than a "Petition and Complaint" approved beforehand by the Lord Advocate. He argued that because TOP was seeking penal consequences (imprisonment / fine / or other sanction as the court saw fit), then it necessitated a Petition and Complaint. He proceeded to go through a number of cases where that process was used.
Mitchell also argued on the basis that TOP would have to demonstrate "mens rea" i.e. that King willfully ignored the court order and also that any proof would have to meet a "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold.
Mr Johnston argument was a rebuttal of Mitchell's arguments again citing legal text books and precedents which showed that the "Petition and Complaint" procedure, approved by the Lord Advocate, only applied for breaches of an interdict. He pointed out that most of Mitchell's case references involved a breach of interdict, which does not apply in the current case.
The threshold of proof required was not disputed by Mr Johnston.
Thankfully he only spoke for around 1hr 20mins
We also found out from Lady Wolffe that the Lord Advocate had declined to get involved or take a view on the case. Apparently Contempt of Court is not a "crime" as such and then even if you are imprisoned it is treated as being "on remand". Contempt of Court actions also don't require corroberation.
Lady Wolffe will make her decision, whether to dismiss or continue the contempt of court action in due course. I suspect that it will be neared 3/4 weeks rather than the more normal 6/8 weeks.
Mr Mitchell sought to have the scheduled proof hearing (29/30 November) postponed pending her decision and any "reclaiming motion" (appeal) that may follow. Lady Wolffe declined to delay matters for the time being.
As part of the scheduling discussion, Mr Mitchell also raised the point that the new share issue may cause both parties to rethink their positions.
It is always difficult to predict what was a judge may decide, but I did think that Mr Johnston's submission was more sympathetically received that Mr Mitchell's. That may just be down to the time it took each party to make their arguments than any view on her likely decision.
I must disagree, Dunderheid. I think we slate our football authorities enough for making poor decisions that I would rather see them make (and justify) a logical, sensible decision than trust to the luck of a ballot.
Dunderheid 3rd October 2018 at 17:27
Dunderheid, I wasn't referring to your post in particular, or any post, but the general belief amongst Celtic supporters, and apparently the club, that they are being hard done by to be the club that has to change venue (if that is, indeed, the case). The simple fact is that Celtic have enjoyed far more semi-final and final matches at Hampden than any other football club, and it is doubtful they have ever had to leave Glasgow to play such a match in their whole history. For once in some 140 years, they might have to travel outside of their comfort zone, just once, and probably will never have to again. While once, just once, Hearts might play against Celtic in a cup semi at a venue that gives them that small advantage, while their supporters enjoy the match without travel arrangements to worry about.
Of course, here we have the problem that Doncaster, and both Celtic and TRFC will wish to avoid – a semi-final at Murrayfield that might just lead to future calls for such matches to have the venue decided by a coin toss, or ballot as Celtic seem to be calling it. Imagine, such fairness in Scottish football, now that will never catch on!
easyJambo 3rd October 2018 at 17:52
EasyJ, another great piece of work.
I was wondering if Mr Johnston raised any argument that King had exhibited 'mens rea', or if he just left that alone (in the belief that that was for the future hearing to decide). I do feel that the clear lie of impecuniosity that King's counsel put forward would surely be sufficient to prove that, throughout the case, King has been acting with 'mens rea' and the definite intention to circumvent the law.
Allyjambo 3rd October 2018 at 18:24
I was wondering if Mr Johnston raised any argument that King had exhibited 'mens rea', or if he just left that alone (in the belief that that was for the future hearing to decide). I do feel that the clear lie of impecuniosity that King's counsel put forward would surely be sufficient to prove that, throughout the case, King has been acting with 'mens rea' and the definite intention to circumvent the law.
==================================
Mr Johnston didn't respond to the "mens rea". There was little discussion about the actual case itself. That won't come until the "proof" hearing at the end of November or possibly later.
It was mentioned in the concluding discussion on scheduling that King may end up giving evidence by video link at the proof hearing.