JPP: Perverting Justice?

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.

This entry was posted in Blogs, Featured by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.
Auldheid

About Auldheid

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

972 thoughts on “JPP: Perverting Justice?


  1. As stated earlier, the semi final farce will be all but forgotten about in a few months.

     

    The recent situations, plural, have been caused by the SPFL being reactive to a situation they should have envisaged as being a potential issue.

     

    But ThomTT, you are asking about the absence of a ballot.

     

    Two aspects to that:

     

    a) the SPFL could simply fix the ballot, and

     

    b) has there ever been such a ballot in any case?


  2. Stevie bc. I’ve been rumbled! I know when I started going to games because my wonderful uncle who is now 79 took me and my brother and reminds me that my first visit was in honour of my fifth birthday. You are right, I probably didn’t pay in for a few years and as well as being lifted in over the turnstile I remember being handed down to the front to lean against the wall with other kids. Brilliant times, George Mulhall was my first hero followed by Winchester, hence my Ernie pseudonym. I love the fitba, passed this on to my son and now grandkids…. I really resent the whole rotten bunch in the SPFL and SFA for sabotaging my game. 


  3. borussiabeefburg 4th October 2018 at 15:39 

    ****

    Of course they could rig a ballot, but all it would need was a witnessed coin toss.

    As for precedent, there hasn’t been a need, as all four clubs would have had their semi played at Hampden, where the final was played.

    It is the double standard from respected posters that I find disappointing.

    As for why are Celtic only complaining about this issue.

    The answer is that they are not.

    They expressed their feelings on LNS and called for a revue on the actions of SFA re the infamous licence, etc.

    They were a voice in the wilderness. A lone voice amidst the Move On brigade.

    Anne Budge didn’t move for any investigations. Nor Milne, etc.

     


  4. ThomTheThim 4th October 2018 at 15:30

     

    There are many valued subscribers on here, ones who have been at the forefront in the fight for fairness and justice, that recognise what would have been a fair and transparent method of allocating venues. Yet those same people can park their integrity and offer spurious reasons why Celtic should just accept an unfair and unaccountable action. Celtic, nor their support have complained about going to Murrayfield. It was the absence of a transparent ballot that is the problem. Too many on here have used the issue as a GIUY to the club, due to real or imagine historical grievances . I posted earlier about the official reason for both games at Hampden. In the interest of fairness, each semi finalist were entitled to experience the venue where the final would be held. That was fair for clubs, although it often meant anomalies of two teams being dragged across the country to fulfil this ideal. In this case, due to incompetence, it isn’t possible to grant all four clubs this right, therefore a ballot was the only fair way to decide. All the rest is that big German word.

    _________________

     

    How very dare we not share Celtic's indignation when a decision is made that doesn't suit them or their supporters, or make the point that travelling to another city for a semi-final is not something the rest of us find questionable.

     

    If you think Celtic are merely interested in transparency then you are as deluded as the bears who are so often mocked on here for accepting every club statement at face value. Celtic are making a point in the hope they will benefit from it at some future date, nothing more. 

     

    As to your point about the 'fairness' of giving clubs a taste of Hampden before the final, the fact is that playing Celtic or Rangers at Hampden in a semi-final was viewed by all outside the Old Firm bubble as the usual eyewash to excuse keeping the showcase games in Glasgow. Think about it, if this experience was considered desirable because the non-OF clubs played there so seldom, then it hardly helped the smaller clubs reach the final in the first place, did it, as, more often than not, it was an OF club they were playing against, giving the desired OF Cup final a better chance of materialising?


  5. Borussiabeefburg@15.39

    I don’t recall there ever having been a need for such a ballot but then again, in football terms the Europa League is an infant in comparison to more august tournaments like the Scottish League Cup. The old European Cup morphed into the Champions League and is spread over 2 evenings pushing its weaker sibling into Thursday with a concomitant effect on national football competitions. I believe Auldheid has argued, perhaps in other forums, that success in European football is a pipe dream for all Scottish clubs and we should leave it alone and focus on our own stuff. It would certainly eliminate the need for a ballot although in my view a ballot would certainly pass the fairness test for this years semi-finals. It might also be something to introduce going forward, where there is such an East-West split.


  6. A ballot to allocate alternative grounds for semi finals would get my full support. Murrayfield will be ok, not really any closer but it would be a refreshing change. Dens would be ok if we were up against a really diddy outfit, I seem to recall playing a final there once, got gubbed by United, Dundee Utd that is. Pesky neutral grounds!

     


  7. This 65 club sounds great.I have a few years to go until i can join.

    If anyone can write me a side letter that will get me in, and don't worry about anyone finding out i'm not really eligible to join this club.Until anyone finds out i will be seen as ok to be part of this club when i joined.

    It is the perks i'm looking forward too when i join this club


  8. Allyjambo 4th October 2018 at 16:27   

     

    *****

    I think you are being obtuse. It wasn’t Celtic who instigated the rule that both semis are played at Hampden, even if neither of the Glasgow clubs are involved.

    If the reasoning behind it is to give all clubs the experience of playing there before the final, then that is surely fair.

    It is also surely fair that all four teams have an equal chance of gaining that experience.

    Celtic and its support ask for nothing more than that.

    To deny that opportunity is to ignore, once again the principal of fair play.

    I can say no more on this as I fear that I may start to question the motives of some, of whom I have had the highest respect.

    Off to watch us getting Red Bullied off the park.


  9. In the interests of fairness and transparency , mibbes the football authorities could let us know what they are contractually obliged to provide for their partners in crime so there is no need for the secret squirrel stuff .


  10. I will try for a third and final time to point out that the venues eventually arrived at provide the least amount of disruption for traveling fans. Only Celtic and Aberdeen fans will be affected by the current arrangements, whereas Hearts, Aberdeen and Rangers fans would all be affected if the 'ballot' demanded by some resulted in the Rangers/Aberdeen game being played at Murrayfield.

    That to my mind has to be at least a contributory factor in the decision arrived at, if by no means the be all and end all, yet nobody has commented on it or demonstrated why they think it is irrelevant, which suggests it might just inconveniently debunk unfairness conspiracies. 

    It is always disappointing when club allegiences are perceived to take precedence over valid arguments on here and for that reason this will be my last word on the subject. 


  11. Cluster One 3rd October 2018 at 22:06

    …………………………
    Given that celtic were drawn out first, current cup holders. will be playing away in europe,and a later kick off time at Hampden would have been helpful.
    Was it a we will take celtic v Hearts or nothing and that is why it looks as if the SPFL are not being helpful to celtics cause.ND had no other choice, was it a we will take celtic v hearts or nothing?

    =====

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh8ZhmxqbLk

     

    CO In the interest of accuracy Hearts were 1st out of the draw. 


  12. Highlander 4th October 2018 at 19:

     

     

     

    I will try for a third and final time to point out that the venues eventually arrived at provide the least amount of disruption for traveling fans. Only Celtic and Aberdeen fans will be affected by the current arrangements, whereas Hearts, Aberdeen and Rangers fans would all be affected if the 'ballot' demanded by some resulted in the Rangers/Aberdeen game being played at Murrayfield. That to my mind has to be at least a contributory factor in the decision arrived at, if by no means the be all and end all, yet nobody has commented on it or demonstrated why they think it is irrelevant, which suggests it might just inconveniently debunk unfairness conspiracies. It is always disappointing when club allegiences are perceived to take precedence over valid arguments on here and for that reason this will be my last word on the subject.

    __________________

    And a very good last word it was.


  13.  

    People having a go at Celtic and rangers(IL) having home advantage for semi-finals and finals, is this their fault did they build the national stadium in Glasgow, would you all be complaining if the national stadium was in Edinburgh and if your teams were consistently good enough to reach semi-finals and finals I would bet not, as that would benefit everyone apart from Celtic and sevco so no complaints their then

    Also the amount of posters having a go at Celtic wanting a bit of transparency when they missed their chance to do something about it 6 years ago, well what exactly did any of the other clubs main Aberdeen (ok supporters weren’t happy but the chairman was move on move on), hearts board deafening silence apart for. MR TURNBULL HUTTON no club comes out of this smelling of roses.

    Instead of point scoring against each other (on this subject anyway) we should direct our frustrations on the real culprits ie the authorities who helped drag our game into the gutter.


  14. John Clark 4th October 2018 at 01:10  

    '…….At present Rules of Court, chapter 14,Petitions in general, in the Outer House,

    14.2.(d)- breach , dealt with by Minute.

    ( to be continued, maybe)broken heart''

    ___________________________

    Continuation herewith:(Mr Mitchell still speaking…)

    "In other cases, by Petition and Complaint. This must have the concurrence of the Lord Advocate etc because of the criminal element.

    This concurrence was not shown on the Minute of the order made by Lord Doherty on 4th May 2018

    It did not show 'concurrence. Unfortunately Mr Johnstone and myself could not show 'concurrence'

     

    The flip side of 14.2 – “application to Inner House “ to be made by Inner House Petition and Complaint other than…and with the concurrence of the Lord Advocate “

    Breach of Interdict, or 'other order'? It [ed:I was kind of losing the thread of what Mr Mitchell was saying. I could hear him clearly enough, but couldn't really see the point he was arguing.]

    The 'Minute' process, as here, [applies] only to Breach of Interdict……until 1933.

    Does this case fall to be done by Minute, or not? If not-because it is not 'interdict'-they are stuck logically because this case can only be done by Petition and Complaint..

     

    Lady W: That would…are you saying.. raise the 'depending' process. Is the issue here 'dependent ' or 'non-dependent' ?

    [ed:I understood this to relate to whether a process is proceeding in the course of an unfinished other process. But if I had a free hand, I would have been scratching my head!]

    Mr M: (hesitantly) I'm not sure, m'lady….. (continues) Under the old statutory process, the 1933 Act, section 6(3) “ petitions ….to be presented to Inner House (para 4) if breach of court order interdict—by way of Minute.

    The Court of Session Act 1988 Section 46 , interdict and Section 47 (see Sec 6(1)

    The core proposition [ed: of the Petitioner] is that the need for the Lord Advocate's 'concurrence' is arcane.

    I say, no, it's current because only about Interdict

    Lady W: Are you saying Section 47(1)applies only to interdict?

    Are you on about form?

    Mr M: I refer, m'Lady, to various instances , the ordering of various civil servants to appear before Court without notice, in [Beck's?], para 15 ,16, breach of undertaking, para 39, 46 might be interdict, and in the House of Lords it seems not to be controversial .

     

    (coffee break at 12 noon)

    On resumption,

    Mr M: The cases cited are illustrative of 2 core matters, no workable distinction to be made between…

    Lady W: Can we just look at Inner House para 31.. not the characterisation of interdict as negative or positive….

    Mr M: It's in the context of knowledge but also in the context of defiance. In the prison officers' case there was a Minute, which included breach of undertaking…

    Lady W: I just wonder whether that helps you…

    {ed:there then followed an utterly (to me) incomprehensible exchange which I couldn't even begin to make sense enough even to write one whole word. This is what appears in the notebook

    Mr M: –

    Lady W: –

    Mr M: –

    Lady W: – – – – – 'concurrence'….

    Mr M: Might it be a criminal act …The seeking of penalties brings the Petitioner's need for the Lord Advocate's concurrence.

    Immediate 'contempt' before the Court never requires formal complaint.

    It's the 'wilful defiance' that is the offence, not the breach of order. If we go to the {Gribben?] case at this point (m'Lady ought to have both [cases] …

    Lady W: This morning?

    Mr M: Yes. Lord [ ?] said “ …incompetent without the concurrence of the Lord Advocate ..

    Lady W: [Gribben?] is quite critical to your argument……

    Mr M: …application seeking penal punishments require 'concurrence' [Gribben] suggests quasi-criminal requires 'concurrence' If petitioner uses Minute rather than Petition and Complaint, it is 'incompetency'. My objection is to the lack of 'concurrence' Concurrence is required by the request for penal penalties, and there is no plea for anything to be done for the Pursuer-just a reference to the Court.

    The pre-1933 Act cases required ''concurrence' and that consistent distinction between ….

    One, White v Dunbar: cack-handed case, Page 33…” respondents argue…, the lord President's opinion

    Lord Johnstone's opinion

    Two, Bell v Dow, lord Justice Clerk's opinion page 85 “ I think it necessary “

    Lord Howarth….

    my submission is: the Minute to be dismissed as a nullity.

    The petitioner is free to try again.

     

    Lady W: [looking at clock] We'll break for lunch.

    Mr M: I have one or two references m'Lady ….very quickly..

    Lady W: I'll look at them over lunch.  1.42p.m? “

     

    ( to be continued, perhaps)"

     

     

     

     

     


  15. Dear oh dear

    I'm starting to hope Jimbo comes on with some brass band videos!


  16. Allyjambo 4th October 2018 at 19:27  

    Highlander 4th October 2018 at 19:

    ===================

    Gentlemen, all that is required is for the SPFL to explain the reason for the decision. It's not that difficult. Explain it fully, then people can either agree or disagree with it. Of course, if the real reason is something that might not be reasonable in itself, even to non-Celtic fans like you guys, they might prefer silence.  

    I was at a meeting tonight where I asked a number of fellow Celtic fans for their views. Each and every one said if Celtic have to play at Murrayfield then fine. What was not acceptable to any of them was the pre-determined stance of Rangers never having to play there at any point. Play Hearts anywhere was the view, but the decision has to be made fairly, and there is zero evidence that is the case. Over to the SPFL to explain how it was made fairly. Silence is not an option. 


  17. amendment to my post of 20.51:

    at line 3/46 of the 'report' , after "This concurrence was not shown on the Minute of the order made by Lord Doherty on 4th May 2018" ADD  " which for some reason was not served on the Respondent by a Deputy Sheriff in South Africa until 8th June 2018."

     

     

     


  18. If anyone thinks that Hearts v Celtic will attract an attendance of 60,000 then I think they are mistaken.

    I've looked at the semi-final attendances over the last 10 years for games involving Celtic and it is clear that they have have only sold out when playing a team called Rangers.

    Hibs v Celtic 39,813

    Rangers v Celtic 50,697

    Ross Co v Celtic 21,330

    Rangers v Celtic 50,925

    St Mirren v Celtic 24,417

    Falkirk v Celtic 30,000

    Aberdeen v Celtic 38,085

    Dundee Utd v Celtic 19,258


  19. “Alfredo Morelos is Rangers’ version of Luis Suarez, says defender Joe Worral”

    By Christopher Jack @Chris_Jack89
    Group Senior Sports Writer

    ooooooooooooo

    Dear God!
    Shirley, even the bears must be embarrassed at the absolute p!sh this ET churnalist spews out?
    (I believe that this Joe Worral plays for TRFC, unsurprisingly.)


  20. Everything about the draw and the reasons for any decisions should be following policy and not agreed on the hoof.

    It should all be transparent and fair to all.

    If Neil Doncaster won’t tell why Hearts,first out of the hat by reports, are at Murrayfield then we should ask other board members and find a new big cheese.

    Most Scottish fans and most clubs in Scotland want transparency and fairness in all football matters.

    When “stuff” is obviously being hidden or obstructed or even finagled like throughout this whole taudry episode then it’s fair enough to ask for clarity.

     


  21. easyJambo 5th October 2018 at 00:53  

    =================================

    I don't think it will be a sell out but there will be novelty value in the occasion which will guarantee a very healthy attendance in my view. At least 25,000 Hearts fans? Given the capacity of Murrayfield there is likely to be a public sale among Celtic fans as well.

    In terms of your original point a league cup semi final for Celtic fans is generally not the huge occasion it is for some others. It is the lesser of the three domestic trophies, and fans cash only stretches so far, especially when European tickets have to be paid for too. 


  22. tamjartmarquez 4th October 2018 at 19:03 CO In the interest of accuracy Hearts were 1st out of the draw. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thanks for clarification, and in the interest of accuracyno

     

     

    Given that Hearts and Celtic were drawn out first, And celtic are the current cup holders. And celtic will be playing away in europe, A later kick off time at Hampden would have been helpful. Was it a we will take celtic v Hearts or nothing and that is why it looks as if the SPFL are not being helpful to celtics cause.ND had no other choice, was it a we will take celtic v hearts or nothing?

     


  23. Finloch 5th October 2018 at 06:23  

    Everything about the draw and the reasons for any decisions should be following policy and not agreed on the hoof.

    It should all be transparent and fair to all.

    If Neil Doncaster won’t tell why Hearts,first out of the hat by reports, are at Murrayfield then we should ask other board members and find a new big cheese.

    Most Scottish fans and most clubs in Scotland want transparency and fairness in all football matters.

    When “stuff” is obviously being hidden or obstructed or even finagled like throughout this whole taudry episode then it’s fair enough to ask for clarity.

    —————————————–

    A sensible post. I have been extremely frustrated at the number of people saying because semi-finals and finals are always in Glasgow then Celtic have no case.  All they asked for was an explanation as to how it was decided. The fact the SPFL won't tell them, or indeed tell anyone, leads to huge suspicion.  It's quite clear they can't blame the police because we would know by now. Personally I believe some people who are resentful of Celtic took the chance to have a go at them by refusing a fair ballot. If that is the case none of them are fit to be in a position of governance within the game. The reason I believe that is because if there was a valid reason we would know by now, although the media glee at what has happened gives them protection. 


  24. upthehoops 4th October 2018 at 23:38  

     

     

    Allyjambo 4th October 2018 at 19:27  

    Highlander 4th October 2018 at 19:

    ===================

    Gentlemen, all that is required is for the SPFL to explain the reason for the decision. It's not that difficult. Explain it fully, then people can either agree or disagree with it. Of course, if the real reason is something that might not be reasonable in itself, even to non-Celtic fans like you guys, they might prefer silence.  

    I was at a meeting tonight where I asked a number of fellow Celtic fans for their views. Each and every one said if Celtic have to play at Murrayfield then fine. What was not acceptable to any of them was the pre-determined stance of Rangers never having to play there at any point. Play Hearts anywhere was the view, but the decision has to be made fairly, and there is zero evidence that is the case. Over to the SPFL to explain how it was made fairly. Silence is not an option. 

    _________________

     

    I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that an explanation is due, but I do not believe that that is all that Celtic want, hence their stance on a 'ballot' as opposed to just asking for that explanation. They are not merely asking for an explanation, they are making a point, but clearly, honesty on the part of the SPFL would have made that point redundant if they'd disclosed their reasoning for the decision. 

     

    I put forward a possible explanation yesterday, based on not very much other than the police intervention that seemed to have prompted the change of heart, so it could be the police (and/or Edinburgh City Council) who have insisted/suggested on the Celtic v Hearts match being the one played in Edinburgh. I also suggested that the reason for the secrecy surrounding the decision might then be that, rather than any favouritism surrounding the decision of venues, itself, the secrecy is due to the fact that TRFC's supporters' already questionable reputation, added to the volatile nature of TRFC (and historically Rangers(IL)) v Aberdeen matches, is/was the driving factor. Saving the Ibrox club from further embarrassment (and the usual pitchforks that would follow) being the rationale behind the lack of disclosure. It also has to be remembered that a revamping of Hampden is proposed which might lead to future requests for the use of Murrayfield, so the SFA might prefer that no/limited damage is done to the seats and toilets of rugby's showpiece stadium. It could well be viewed as a feather in the cap of Celtic supporters that they are considered to be better behaved than the favoured club's – another reason (in their minds) to keep the reasoning secret.

     

    Someone else made the point that the decision may have been based on the fact that the Celtic v Hearts match was first out of the hat, and so would have been the one to play on the Saturday, so the reasoning might have been that game was the one causing the inconvenience and so the one to be moved. That makes sense, but in that case, one wonders why it would be kept secret. On the other hand, if there was a desire to disadvantage Celtic or not take away an advantage from TRFC (which is what everyone questioning the decision thinks/hopes), why not just use that as an excuse?

     

    Of course, it could just be that the game's governing bodies have got so used to not explaining controversial decisions that their fall-back position is always going to be secrecy, even if their decision rationale would be quite acceptable.


  25. Gazza to enter the SFA hall of fame….. words continue to fail me.

     

    We potentially have the most competitive league & cups for donkeys (no pun untended) years and yet the SFA/SPFL are absolutely determined to destroy everything. Permanent embarrassment as someone famously once said.


  26. Allyjambo 5th October 2018 at 08:08 

    ================================

    I honestly believe if it was on Police advice they would have saved themselves a whole lot of hassle by telling us. However it does not help at all that the media drop their campaign for honesty and fairness as soon as Celtic are the only ones complaining. Even allowing for my personal bias I find it shocking that they would rather ridicule Celtic than ask the SPFL to explain the decision making. 

    Not sure whether the potential powderkeg of Aberdeen v Rangers would be that much of a factor. I've never found Celtic v Hearts to be a love-in! It's also a new thing for the Edinburgh police to have such a fixture on that scale. Perhaps one influencing factor is the Hearts fans will be easy to manage given their familiarity with the area, therefore they only need to manage the influx of Celtic fans. Again though, why not come out and say that? My experience of life is when people are open, transparent, and cover all the bases those who disagree with them sometimes lessen their opposition. 

    As long as the silence from the SPFL continues I believe we are entitled to think what we want though. As was proven last week when the media kick up a fuss it makes a difference. However, as I said the media are more interested in criticising Celtic than asking for an explanation. 

    As an aside I was in that area of Edinburgh three weeks ago. Firstly it is a very impressive new stand at Tynecastle, but where are the huge amount of coaches bringing Celtic fans in going to go? I assume Murrayfield is used to a lot of coaches for international Rugby games and it will be manageable? 


  27. If the TRFC v Dons game was sent to Edinburgh would the venue have to be renamed Auchinhowiefield.?

     

     


  28. A lot of good posts regarding the League Cup Semi Final debacle.

    To recap.

    Some idiot/s scheduled the semi-finals directly after a European week when there was the potential for our four top teams from last year to progress to group stages and also have a good chance of being in the league cup semi-finals. Indeed three of the four Euro representatives made the semi-finals. Being that Hibs made the latter stages of the league cup then there was always going to be potential of a 3 from 4 scenario.

    When the perfect storm came with Celtic failing to reach the CL group stages and dropping to the Europa the clusterfuck became reality.

    Some idiot/s (possibly the same ones who scheduled the games in the first place) came up with the brainstorm of having fans from four of our biggest clubs all in Glasgow on the same day.

    Reports are that this was presented as a best option  but it later emerged little thought had been given to the needs of fans, matters such as train times, the views of officers on the coal face etc etc.

    Ann Budge is reported as saying all clubs who went to the meeting to be presented with the clusterfuck were unhappy to differing degrees.

    Note how this sounds very similar to the evens of 6 years ago when the T'Rangers to Div 1 solution was rammed down peoples throats.

    Aberdeen and Hearts (especially via Levein) went public with their displeasure. 

    The SPFL then had a rethink and we are now where we are but now Celtic aren't overly happy.

    Milne of Aberdeen has called the whole thing a shambles.

    Solution:- Milne, Budge and Lawwell get together and stamp their authority on the game and the SPFL and ask for heads to roll and for all clubs to start taking a serious interest in the running of the game as opposed to relying on people, who are clearly incompetent clowns, having too much control.

     


  29. Carfins Finest @ 09:18

    Or alternatively, YoullHaveHadYourPittodrie.   


  30. Did Neil Doncaster not give a “ full and transparent” explanation of the first decision in his “ Q and A” session after the first decision? Except that he was as lying. 

    Transparency only works if you have trust in the people giving you information. 


  31. Celtic spinning Doncaster as the good guy. CQN have been briefed by Lawwell to that end.
    A lot of fuss and bother over something relatively trivial, whilst wholesale cheating and rule-bending goes on unabated. Celtic’s priorities seriously out of kilter with that of their fans.


  32. Just a random thought.  Aberdeen versus Rangers is at Hampden because the fans of both aren’t trusted to arrive at Murrayfield together and as anyone attending rugby fixtures will tell you it isn’t set up to segregate.

     

    im sorry if this suggested explanation does not involve Celtic in any way shape or form.


  33. I see that Highland League club Rothes have had a three point deduction for fielding an ineligible player just a matter of weeks after Fort William also suffered a points deduction for the same offence.

    Compare and contrast with the lack of punishment applied to a club found guilty of playing ineligible players in virtually every game throughout an entire decade.

    It's also worth noting that it was Rothes themselves who commendably reported to the football authorities what was clearly just an administrative error.

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/sport/football/1579098/highland-league-side-rothes-deducted-three-points-for-fielding-ineligible-player/


  34. It has been 92 (Ninety Two) years since Celtic played a Scottish semi final outside Glasgow.

     

    Just saying….

     

    HS


  35. Highlander 5th October 2018 at 12:22  

    '..Compare and contrast with the lack of punishment applied to a club found guilty of playing ineligible players in virtually every game throughout an entire decade.'

    _______________________

    Brings us nicely back, Highlander, to the fundamental rottenness of the Football Authorities, part of which includes an in-built lack of willingness or sheer stupidity when it comes to trying to ensure transparent fairness in every important decision!

    Monstrous cheating virtually ignored, a 6-year-old club 's false and utterly market-misleading claim promoted as if it were valid, absolute cock-up of the arbitrary, unexplained decisions on the arrangements for 'show-case' games, and feck all done about any of it!

    The cancer caused by SDM's cheating and the complicity in that cheating -by silence, participation, endorsement/cover-up by the Football Authorities(spit!) and the SMSM ( hawk and spit at Pacific Quay especially) will not be 'cured' by the passage of time.

    It simply must  be excised surgically and the diseased body parts incinerated and ashes scattered to the  winds.

     

     

     


  36. I have kept my council to myself until now, however as I see it the SPFL in trying to bend over backwards to help the Old Firm have not taken into account the full ramifications of its original decision.

    When the dates for the Betfred League Cup were published, the semi finals were to be played on Saturday 27th and Sunday 28th October.  The first semi out of the hat to be played on the Saturday and the second on the Sunday.  No problem. 

    These dates would have been feasible if Aberdeen vs Hearts was first out of the hat, or if second; then the semis switched so that the OF semi was played on the Sunday.  Still no problem.

    But the draw split the OF teams requiring the Celtic semi to be moved from Saturday 27th.  The easy solution for the SPFL would have been move it to Hampden on the following Saturday 3rd November when Celtic vs Hearts was a league fixture.  \This would have involved the SPFL juggling some league fixtures so that Celtic had an away league fixture on 28 October.  This was likely too difficult for SPFL's Iain Blair to juggle so the easier solution to the SPFL was to play both semis at Hampden given that the SFA were playing contractual silly buggers.

    Given that the Hearts vs Celtic semi was first out of the hat, and initially planned to be played on Saturday 27th October, it was this game that was required to be moved.  When Hampden gave its permission for a semi to be played at Murrayfield, it was always going to be the Hearts vs Celtic semi that would move there.

    I do not see where the false sense of discrimination comes from.

     

    Flywheel

     

     


  37. Highlander 5th October 2018 at 12:22

     

    I see that Highland League club Rothes have had a three point deduction for fielding an ineligible player just a matter of weeks after Fort William also suffered a points deduction for the same offence. Compare and contrast with the lack of punishment applied to a club found guilty of playing ineligible players in virtually every game throughout an entire decade. It's also worth noting that it was Rothes themselves who commendably reported to the football authorities what was clearly just an administrative error. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/sport/football/1579098/highland-league-side-rothes-deducted-three-points-for-fielding-ineligible-player/

    ______________________

     

    Rhetorical question, I know, but what happened to Bryson's Law No.101 that clearly states that a player's registration is considered good until found to be otherwise?

     

    Or was that never actually a law, but merely a handy subterfuge for an establishment club's use only?

     

    Isn't it amazing, though, that these penalised clubs never call upon Bryson's Law when it must surely apply in these cases? I wonder what might be stopping them from calling upon it, I'm sure that would be a story in itself!


  38. Higgy's Shoes 5th October 2018 at 12:38  

     

    It has been 92 (Ninety Two) years since Celtic played a Scottish semi final outside Glasgow.

    ========================

    While that is a fact it bears no relevance to the SPFL not drawing lots to see who plays where. When did Rangers, old or new, last play one outside Glasgow? If it is more than 92 years should they then have been sent to Murrayfield instead?


  39. Aurellio Zen 5th October 2018 at 11:14

    This Did Neil Doncaster not give a “ full and transparent” explanation of the first decision in his “ Q and A” session after the first decision? Except that he was as lying. Transparency only works if you have trust in the people giving you information.

    ===============================

    That same Neil Doncaster who was a practicing solicitor, prior to joining the SPFL?

    A 'leader' of Scottish football who has been caught out – again – being economical with the truth…?

    But you could also infer that any stretching of the truth on his part is purely at the bidding of the clubs’ chairpersons themselves? 

    Or, Doncaster would have been out on his ear long before this latest SPFL shambles.

    They all stink, IMHO.  smiley

     

     


  40. I’d love (just love) to know if Rothes’ own confession to the SFA contained the word ‘imperfect.’  You couldn’t resist surely?


  41. Re : Doncaster's position

     

    I see Roger Mitchell yesterday , on twitter , saying now is not the time to get rid of Doncaster with negotiations re a new TV deal imminent apparently – given his (Doncaster's) track record including his recent performance & being a lttle "economic with the actuality" re the semi-final farce , I think now is the perfect time to get rid of this incompetent & untrustworthy executive .


  42. I'm pleased to see that the person accused of throwing a coin at the assistant referee last weekend will stand trial later this year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-45765237

    A football fan accused of injuring a linesman by throwing a coin at him has been banned from Scottish football grounds until he is convicted or cleared.

    Stuart McGaughay was warned he faced being sent to prison if he breached a special bail condition.

    He is forbidden from attending any regulated football game.

    The 30-year-old from North Lanarkshire appeared from custody on an assault charge at Livingston Sheriff Court.

    Mr McGaughay, of Deeds Street, Airdrie, was charged with throwing a coin or similar object at assistant referee Calum Spence and "thereby striking him on the head with same to his injury".

    Mr Spence was filmed bleeding from a head wound after being hit by an object thrown from the crowd during Livingston's 1-0 Scottish Premiership win over Rangers at the Tony Macaroni Arena on Sunday 30 September.

    Mr McGaughay pleaded not guilty to carrying out the attack and is now due to stand trial at the West Lothian court on 13 December.

    Stewart Peebles, defending, asked for Mr McGaughay – who he said had no previous convictions – to be freed on bail.

    Kate Irwin, prosecuting, asked the court to impose two special bail conditions: that the accused did not attend at or attempt to attend at any regulated football match in Scotland and that he does not contact or approach, or try to contact or approach, the alleged victim Mr Spence.

    Sheriff Douglas Kinloch asked Mr McGaughay if he agreed to abide by the conditions until the case had been dealt with and the accused replied "yes" each time.

    The sheriff warned him: "If you fail to comply with these conditions of bail it will be treated as a serious matter, so you could be remanded in custody.

    "If you were found at any football match you would be brought back to court."

    Mr McGaughay left the court complex via a back entrance with his fiancée and his mum to avoid waiting cameras.


  43. "…a football fan…"

    &

    "…thrown from the crowd…"

    ========================

    The guy charged was;

    <

    ul>

  44. attending a Livingstone match
  45. the court confirmed he lives in Airdrie
  46. he was amongst the TRFC support [wearing blue?]
  47. it was captured on TV!
  48. – he is possibly a “Rangers fan” then ?

    Had to look again at the source.

    Not the spineless DR…but from the spineless BBC.  

    Very poor.


  49. wottpi 5th October 2018 at 09:30 When the perfect storm came with Celtic failing to reach the CL group stages and dropping to the Europa the clusterfuck became reality. Some idiot/s (possibly the same ones who scheduled the games in the first place) came up with the brainstorm of having fans from four of our biggest clubs all in Glasgow on the same day. ……….. Note how this sounds very similar to the evens of 6 years ago when the T'Rangers to Div 1 solution was rammed down peoples throats. ………………………………………………………………………… And the same idiot's if not removed from office will come along with another brainstorming idea when the next clusterfuck comes along to become reality. The idiot's in charge of scottish football it would seem have no measures in place for the next clusterfuck to hit scottish football and will deal with it in the same shambolic way they deal with everything. They are not fit for purpose now, and never have been. …………………….. Mmmmm…… Clusterfuck. By no way is this a relative.mail


  50. While my comment is awaiting moderation, i tried the classic lyric quiz on the oc/nc thread.26 correct before it crashed on me and then i had to sign in again,so i will not be doing that again.smiley


  51. Up the hoops 15.23pm.

    when did rangers last play a semi final outside Glasgow?

    ——————–

     this argument is about celtics complaint. If rangers had been in Celtics position i would have pointed out the same fact. (Whataboutery methinks)

    in those 92 years  how often were Aberdeen, Hearts, Dundee Utd inter alia given the luxury of a ballot?

    Once again it's all about C and r

     


  52. John Clark 4th October 2018 at 20:51  

    ( court 'report'  ( to be continued, perhaps)")
    %%%%%%%%%
    Continuation herewith, which brings Mr Mitchell QC to the end of his submission.
     
    "  Lady W: I'll look at them over lunch. Back at 1.42p.m. “

     
    ( to be continued, perhaps)"

    On resumption after lunch:

    Mr Mitchell: I start with the Dunbar magistrates. A case which went off at half-cock, presented under the Rules as a Petition and Complaint. The 'prayer' was “to ordain some official to deliver to the Petitioners documents..” There was no order for punishment. Then,[it was held?] the Respondents argued ..{around?]delivery, not for punishment therefore [punishment?] 'incompetent'. There was no need for the Lord Advocate's concurrence because no punishment was sought: a civil court matter, but there's where [Griffin/Gribben?] comes in…

    Lady W:…You're founding on that observation?

    Mr M: Yes. The second case, seeking punishment…Lord Johnston comment “..no general power of summary application to this Court.. "…

    Cannot be proceeded with without concurrence [of the lord Advocate] You either seek punishment ,with concurrence, or you don't, and have to use other means

    There are cases of malversation where summary procedures [do] apply…

    Lady W:….[asked a question which I did not hear well enough to copy]

    Mr M:… I found on the general point. It was seeking censure, that is, punishment. The opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk “..it calls itself a petition and complaint” because it uses the language of contempt and punishment”  [and] Cannot proceed without the concurrence of the Lord Advocate.

    (This is not a petition…] ( ed: I have no idea what Mr M was referring to by 'this'- the case he had just mentioned?)

    There you have the nature of the distinction. Then in Paterson and Dobson the 'prayer' at page 78 is for censure and dismissed as 'incompetent', and the attempt to solve by deleting the punishment request was not allowed. Having quoted the 'prayer', the Lord President [opined that] “…this is a penal complaint, and was heard as such” and decided that it cannot be dealt with by statute and without the concurrence of the Lord Advocate.

    In McKay's Manual ,…and McLaren [ those are th names I heard, and took them to be legal text books or case histories: couldn't find them tonight on google, though], the overwhelming majority of cases are cases of Interdict..

    If I am correct in my characterisation of the present case, there are three ways to seek punishment,

    one, Petition and Complaint in the Outer House.,

    two, Minute during process,

    three, Petition and Complaint to the Inner House.

    Concurrence [of the Lord Advocate] is needed in any case seeking punishment.

    That, m'Lady, concludes my substantive argument, and deals with the Pursuer's Minute and Note of Argument:

    'a' is far too widely stated

    'b' and 'c' are correct

    'd' is wrong'

    'e' is wrong

    In Para13 (further propositions)

    'a' is half right, it is a quasi-criminal offence and 'sui generis'

    'b' is correct

    'c' is wrong.

    In Para 17,

    'a' is wrong

    'b' is wrong in its hypostulate

    'c' is wrong-: that is not the justification

    'd' is wrong in both its branches.

     

    My Lady has my motion: simply dismissal"

     

     


  53. Addendum to my last post.

    if rangers had been told to play at Murrayfield and had reacted as Celtic have, would you be on this site backing rangers request for a ballot?

     


  54. John Clark 5th October 2018 at 22:13  

    ===========================

    It's about time TOP had their say surprise


  55. 8 thumbs down already.

    refer to my first post and the line "it's all about C and r"

    I'll put it this way

    If Aberdeen had demanded a ballot because they would rather play at Murrayfield than Hampden would you back Aberdeens request


  56. easyJambo 5th October 2018 at 22:36

    '… John Clark 5th October 2018 at 22:13

    It's about time TOP had their say surprise'

    Aw, gie's a brek, eJ! You've seen my handwriting!heart

    Devil's own job trying to read it myself , and I'm trying to make sure I'm not inventing anything or putting words into his mouth  if I have to paraphrase or interpolate here and there.

    Fear not: Mr Johnstone is up next!  Some time tomorrow-after I've slapped some paint on a wall, fitted a piece of skirting board , fetched and carried and what not.

    I have eleven pages of 'notes' of his submission, but mercifully, Mr J's submission seems to be  more simply put together  and more clearly expounded, I think. So it might not take my one-fingered typing capabilities half as long as even tonight's effort took!


  57. Higgy's Shoes 5th October 2018 at 23:06 

     

    8 thumbs down already.

    refer to my first post and the line "it's all about C and r"

    I'll put it this way

    If Aberdeen had demanded a ballot because they would rather play at Murrayfield than Hampden would you back Aberdeens request

     

    =========================

    Of course in the interest of transparency.


  58. Instead of all the thumbs down could someone please explain WHY they don't agree


  59. Sorry to hog the site.

    Shug, it's interesting your reply about transparency appeared only after the post re Aberdeen and not the previous post 're rangers

     


  60. Lots of interesting games on this week-end.  I'm looking forward to it after Thursday night. heartsmiley


  61. Shug that's an interesting piece from James Forrest, and that is why – apologies in advance BP – I don't agree with 'choosing a hill to die on".

    Yes, in the great scheme of things, the semi's nonsense is lost in the noise.

    Because we have been desentised over the last 6+ years.

    We have been subjected to so much BS that it's not a hill, but a mountain that needs to catch our attention!

    (It's my shout next month BP and Auldheid  ? don't hate me).


  62. Higgy's Shoes 5th October 2018 at 23:34  

     

    Sorry to hog the site.

    Shug, it's interesting your reply about transparency appeared only after the post re Aberdeen and not the previous post 're rangers

    ====================

     

    Not interesting at all.

    (1) I didn't notice a post about the dead club.

    (2) There is no rangers they are dead.

    (3) In future it may be an idea to use their real name (sevco) or the name they were changed to (the rangers)

    I hope that clears that up.


  63. In case some are wondering about a reply to something at this time in the morning I am checking a flight that is running late so had some time on my hands hence the timing of the reply lol.


  64. The eagles eyed amongst the viewers may have noticed that when I mention any club in any of my posts i always use a capital letter except when referring to the Govan club.

    So, for you and everybody else, if I refer to Rangers with a capital im talking about the dead club.

    If I refer to rangers with a lower case r im talking about Frankensteins monster.

    Clear?

     


  65. Higgy's Shoes 6th October 2018 at 03:08  

    Rate This

    The eagles eyed amongst the viewers may have noticed that when I mention any club in any of my posts i always use a capital letter except when referring to the Govan club.

    So, for you and everybody else, if I refer to Rangers with a capital im talking about the dead club.

    If I refer to rangers with a lower case r im talking about Frankensteins monster.

     

     

    Clear?

    ===================
     

    Well just back in.

    As mud but i'll take your word for it.


  66. Not absolutely a million miles OT, let me mention a little peculiarity, which may be a pure fluke of coincidental timing or an indication of the mind-set of whoever makes up the 'Puzzle Challenge" page in the 'Scotsman' ( is Halliday involved, by any chance?)

    There is a 'word spiral' puzzle on the that page in yesterday's edition, in which the four-letter answers to a number of questions are written down in boxes round in a spiral, with the last letter of each word being the first  letter of the next. When complete, the middle boxes horizontally across spell out a surname. 

    Guess what the answer was in that puzzle, following Thursday's win by TRFC Ltd? 

    Would you believe, 'Gerrard'?

    Cue sci-fi music:doo-dee-doo-doo….broken heart


  67. While trawling the internet for the latest footie news, I inadvertently stumbled across a half decent article in today's Daily Record about racism and whataboutery.

    Amongst the author's more astute observations is the line, "Sometimes things just happen without being part of a conspiracy against you."


  68. The interesting thing about there having to be transparency over who of the big two plays at Hampden is that surely it’s irrelevant?  I’ve always been told that Hampden is a neutral ground just as Murrayfield is. Surely we’re not suggesting that TRFC ( or their fans) are gaining some advantage by playing at neutral Hampden? If so can I put in a plea for the poor disadvantaged Dons?  For every semi and final we’ve played against the big two that is. 


  69. So is there an advantage in TRFC  playing at Hampden rather than Murrayfield? Asking for a gobsmacked SFM donor. 


  70. I note from the SPFL's accounts that Neil Doncaster's remuneration for season 2017/18 was £297,000. That is unchanged from the previous year, although he also received an incentive bonus of £55k in the that year, which I'm sure he richly deserved (not!).

    It's disappointing that some influencers in the Scottish game, seem to think he is worth every penny.

    Back to the accounts, it's good to see that no clubs requested advance payments in the last season (previous year £300k), suggesting that all clubs are managing within their own resources (including loans, share issues, donations).


  71. Given that there are two Glasgow Clubs, one Edinburgh Club and one Aberdeen club and the games are to be played on the same day surely it makes sense to play one in Glasgow and one in Edinburgh.

    That being the case, surely the game in Edinburgh being the tie with the Edinburgh team in it also makes sense. At least for the sake of the least inconvenience for the support. 

    The Aberdeen support were always going to have a long journey unless their game was moved nearer Aberdeen. That was never going to happen.

    I'm not really sure what the big problem is. 


  72. I can't help feeling there is a fear of possible crowd trouble around Murrayfield if it is between TRFC & Aberdeen rather than Celtic & Hearts.  I know there is no love lost between Hearts & Celtic fans but it is even more so with Aberdeen & TRFC.

     

    Can't prove that obviously, just an opinion.  And it's something no one would talk about openly in public.

    Also, because most Hearts fans live locally, there might be less conflict at bus and train stations with two sets of supporters.


  73. Lady W: [looking at clock] We'll break for lunch.

    Mr M: I have one or two references m'Lady ….very quickly..

    Lady W: I'll look at them over lunch. Back at 1.42p.m. “

     

    ( to be continued, perhaps)

    On resumption after lunch:

    Mr Mitchell: I start with Dunbar magistrates. A case whichwent off at half-cock, presented under the Rules as a Petition and Complaint. The 'prayer' was “to ordain some official to deliver to the Petitioners documents..” There was no order for punishment. Then,[it was held?] the Respondents argued ..{around?]delivery, not for punishment therefore [punishment?] 'incompetent'.There was no need for the Lord Advocate's concurrence because no punishment was sought: a civil court matter,but there's where [Griffin/Gribben?] comes in…

    Lady W:…You're founding on that observation?

    Mr M: Yes. The second case, seeking punishment…Lord Johnston comment “..no general power of summary applicationt o this Court..” …Cannot be proceeded with without concurrence [of the lord Advocate] You either seek punishment ,with concurrence,or you don't,and have to useother means

    There are cases of malversation where summary procedures [do] apply…

    Lady W:….[asked a question which I did not hear well enough to copy]

    Mr M:…/ I found on the general point.It was seeking censure, that is, punishment. The opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk “..it calls itself a petition and complaint” because it uses the language of contempt and punishment” Cannot proceed without the concurrene of the Lord Advocate.

    (This is not a petition…]

    There you have the nature of the distinction. Then in Paterson and Dobson the 'prayer' at page 78 is for censure and dismissed as 'incompetent', and the attempt to solve by deleting the punishment request was not allowed. Having quoted the 'prayer', the Lord President [opined that] “…this is a penal complaint, and was heard as such” and decided that it cannot be dealt with by statute and without the concurrence of the Lord Advocate.

    In McKay's Manual ,…and McLaren , the overwhelming majority of cases are cases of Interdict..

    If I am correct in my characterisation of the present case, there are three ways to seek punishment,

    one, Petition and Complaint in the Outer House.two, Minute during process, three, Petition and Complaint to the Inner House.

    Concurrence [of the Lord Advocate] is needed in any case seeking punishment.

    That, m'Lady, concludes my substantive argument, and deals with the Pursuer's Minute and Noteof Argument:

    'a' is far too widely stated

    'b' and 'c' are correct

    'd' is wrong'

    'e' is wrong

    In Para13 (further propositions)

    'a' is half right, it is a quasi-criminal offence and 'sui generis'

    'b' is correct

    'c' is wrong.

    In Para 17,

    'a' is wrong

    'b' is wrong in its hypostulate

    'c' is wrong-: that is not the justification

    'd' is wrong in both its branches.

     

    My Lady has my motion: simply dismissal

     

    Lady W:…..Now, Mr Johnstone?

     

    Mr J: thank you, m'Lady.

    The objection is unsound and should be repelled.

    The objection founded on 'incompetenece' and'concurrence are ill-conceived.Most of the cases adduced deal with breach of Interdict.

    But breach of Interdict is a special case, with its own rules.

    While every breach is a 'contempt' other 'contempts' are different and are not required to be dealt with in the same way.

    My learned friend has not mentioned Roth. The law has not developed to the point where 'concurrence' is required.

    'Competency' in Rule 14-the Respondent thinks Rule 14 is key. I submit it is not applicable.He is trying to force this case into a form in which it does not belong.

    The cases and text-books make distinction between 'Interdict'[orders] and 'Contempt'[orders]

    Section 6 is concerned with [ed: contempt orders]

    Section 47 concerned with interdict

    Text Book:McLaren [ reference 19A] page 131, the dividing line between criminal and civil contempt.:

    where Court is contemned

    sub-para 1,[by] breach of interdict- concurrence of lord Advocate

    sub-para 2, where the Court has been defied (and now we are talking about contempt) the treatment is quite separate from treatment of Interdict: Formalities may not be required.

     

    Concurrence [of the Lord Advocate] is NOT mandatory in a case of contempt of Court , otherwise 'live' situations in court [ obstreperous witnesses, assaults on judge or court staff etc]could not be dealt with there and then.

     

    Text book McKay: discussion of when Petition and Complaint is proper. And that's where the the Court is asked to punish, and the Lord Advocates concurrence is necessary.

     

    And/but contempt can be dealt with by the Lord Ordinary without reference to 'Concurrence'

     

    then in Maxwell:(1980) distinguishing civil and criminal jurisdiction:

    sub-para 4, '..disregard of authority of the court'…court has inherent power to punish. Contempt can be drawn to the court's attention by Motion and the Minute does not have to be by Petition and Complaint, and [indeed] can be raised not necessarily in writing

    Moving on, Arledge the point is Rule , English text-book, edition 5: various ways in which Contempt applications can be made … only in breach of interdict.. [is concurrence required?]

     

    as:]

    Mr Mitchell referred to 'depending' and dependent, not finished yet .

    [ed: if there was more said on that, it went over my head, or I didn't hear it! Next thing I could note was..]

    Neither the old nor the modern textbooks say that Contempt of court has to be dealt with as Interdict is dealt with. The Lord Advocate's concurrence is not required , And the attention of the Court is to be drawn by some means, not necessarily Peititon and Complaint.

    And going back to Rule 14, the point is Rule 14(2)(a)……….

    It is simply wrong to assert that every application for Contempt must find a home in Rule 14!

    Rule 14.3.a 'jurisdiction'

    under current rules, rare kinds of complaint are reserved to the Inner House, and Interdict for the outer House.

    It does not say anything about method of application.

    I mentioned the Beggs case Court went through 'contempt'..

    Lady W: …was Beggs case a 'depending '…

    Mr J: Yes.

    Cases, taking Bell as an example , the Lord Justice Clerk's opinion….in which that course (of Petition and Complaint) was used.

    I say that is NOT a requirement that [applications for] contempt [proceedings]be by way of Petition and Complaint

    Lady W:…..when was Minute introduced?

    Mr J:………. I don't know, , m'Lady…….The key modern cases are Gribben and Gribben:

    “There is no doubt…”

    A clear distinction is drawn between Interdict and other contempts and,……'Concurrence has never applied to 'other cases' where punishment has been sought..

    Lady W:….There is an underlying coherence..

    Mr J: …….Yes. General rule of convenience ,might be convenient to have one rule….

    Concurrence law continues but only in breach of Interdict.

    If anything, one should not be extending the Rule of procedure of interdict: if anything, it should be narrowed.

    And, in point of fact, the Lord Advocate decline to participate.[ I wonder now why the hell he didn't say right from the off that the Lord Advocate had been referred to, and did not 'participate', without withholding his 'concurrence', and letting the Petition and Complaint proceed?? ]

    Now, the case of Roth: the essence of this is set out in Para 12. I

    agree that para 12 is wrong: Lord Hope said that common law does not and never has required 'concurrence'”Also, some contempts are criminal,

    ,it's not a crime it's an offence 'sui generis' The court will deal with the matter in its own hands or by complaint.

    There is no reason why the lord Advocate should be involved except in respect of Interdict.

    There is no basis that Concurrence is required, or mandatory or usual. It cannot be argued logically that concurrence is mandatory or standard practice.[ ed: I think I am summarising here, because Mr J took a wee wander for a minute into the logic of a syllogism being destroyed by an undistributed middle]

    [ stopping here:post too long, and I have to carry over]


  74. (Please see my immediately preceding post at 12.21of which this is a continuation.
     )

    So much for Roth, I could go back to Arledge, Paras 22,23, 28.

    General points:one, Contempt of Court is NOT a crime ( “The Naked Rambler”)

    two, I contend not even quasi-criminal ( but cases are contradictory and not consistent

    three, there could be characteristics which MAY make it quasi-criminal….. the case of A.B.

    …..The standard of proof: (the Byrne case) reasonable doubt but no need for corroboration.

    Th compellability of witnesses? [ ed: not sure what Mr J said here about what the Byrne case said about 'compellability', so I just had to put question markshere: maybe that judgment said nothing about 'compellability]

    Overarching, what about Article 6 [ European Human Rights Act] /If we look again at the Robertson case, para 64 … The Court was keen to show we have our own system of fairness, the requirements of a fair trial..

    I'm almost finished, m'Lady.

    As regards there being a distinction between 'negative' and 'positive' orders —-load of tosh.You cannot enforce a negative by interdict: positive action must be necessary.

    I ask you to repel the objection to Competency and disagree with the view that it is 'universal practice' to seek the lord Advocate's concurrence.

    It is neither practice nor universal.

     

    And that concludes my submission,m'Lady.

    Lady W:….You said we were not in the territory of the 1933 Act and 1988 Act ?

    Mr J:……Yes, but I just mentioned it was about Interdict orders.

     

    Lady W:….Mr Mitchell?

    Mr M:……..Underneath all this we are dealing with known and recognised categories of breach of orders. In summary cases, there is no requirement for the Lord Advocate's concurrence.

    But there is always a distinction between summary and formal procedures.On 'dependence', in cases where they are not in dependence , they have to be formal, by Minute.

    The only possible way is by Petition and Complaint in cases where there is no process, no dependence.

    We are in 'wilful defiance', and the need for 'concurrence' is because of the penal nature.

     

    Lady W:….Thank you for your submissions. ( gathering her papers) Can we confirm the dates for when Proof is to be heard?

    Counsel exchange questioning looks of uncertainty.

    Finally , the November dates are mentioned.

    Mr M then suggests to her ladyship that perhaps there might need to be flexibility, about 29/30 November. Leaving aside theoretical reclaiming motion, there may be outcomes from the new 'share issue'.

    Lady W:……I'm inclined to keep to those dates meantime.

     

    Court rose, at about 16.10.

     

     

     

     


  75. jimbo 6th October 2018 at 11:54  

     

     

    I can't help feeling there is a fear of possible crowd trouble around Murrayfield if it is between TRFC & Aberdeen rather than Celtic & Hearts.  I know there is no love lost between Hearts & Celtic fans but it is even more so with Aberdeen & TRFC.

     

    Can't prove that obviously, just an opinion.  And it's something no one would talk about openly in public.

    Also, because most Hearts fans live locally, there might be less conflict at bus and train stations with two sets of supporters.

    _______________________

     

    I am convinced the potential for trouble is foremost in the decision, though I can't possibly know this for sure because of the secrecy. While Hearts and Celtic supporters are less than nice to each other, as far as I can remember there are few, if any, episodes of mass brawls or missile throwing (I know there was that shameful attack on Neil Lennon but that was a one off by one ar*ehole). The thought of Aberdeen supporters arriving at one platform at Haymarket Station within minutes of Rangers supporters at another is a huge recipe for trouble, then there's the walk from there to Murrayfield, itself, and back.

     

    If there was some underhand level of favouritism in the arrangement, then I am sure they would have chosen to trumpet public safety as the reason for their decision, it's so reasonable to do so, but instead they chose secrecy. I think they chose secrecy because the truth of the decision would be seen by TRFC and the bears as a slight on them by that ever growing list of 'Rangers' haters.

     

    I am quite possibly wrong, for I have no more knowledge in such matters than anyone else on here, but I think this is more likely to be closer to the truth than the idea that the SPFL board sat around a table and discussed how best to stop Celtic winning another treble, or some other reason that would have caused anger at one of the four clubs involved.

Comments are closed.