Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey



Representatives from various fan groups, including the Scottish Football Monitor took up the invitation to the above event which is largely self-explanatory. The scene was set with the following agenda





Media Briefing.


 WHEN:                             Thursday, 20TH July 2017 at 11AM

WHERE:                           Scottish Parliament – Committee Room 4

WHO                                Simon Barrow (Chair of the SFSA), Henry McLeish (Board member of the SFSA), Richard Leonard MSP (member of Scottish Parliament for Central Scotland and host of event) and Dr Joachim Lammert (The Department of Sports Economics and Sports Management at the University of Leipzig)


The first independent evaluation of Scottish football governance will be launched by The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA).


The SFSA’s nationwide survey will assess, for the first time, supporters’ views on the current position of the game, including the performance of the game’s governing bodies in Scotland.  The research will become an annual benchmarking & reporting exercise looking at all aspects of the game.


The SFSA’s online survey has been created in partnership with Prof. Dr. Axel Faix and Dr. Joachim Lammert, two experienced German academics who have undertaken similar evaluations on a national level in Germany and on a European level on topics including 50+1 (German football’s rules that a parent club must own at least 50% plus one share of the football company) and Financial Fair Play.  Their research has been backed by Football Supporters Europe and by German fans organisation, Unsere Kurve.


Fans will also be able to provide comment on their own club’s performance.


The SFSA, whose board includes former First Minister Henry McLeish; former MP and MSP Cathy Jamieson and Maureen McGonigle, Founder of Scottish Women in Sport and first female Scottish FA Council Member, has over 67,000 members supporting clubs across Scotland.


The SFSA is Scotland’s fans’ representative in The Football Supporters Europe network (FSE), an independent, representative and democratically organised grass-roots network of football fans’ in Europe with members in currently 48 countries across the continent.


The SFSA might be best thought of as movement appearing at a time when Scottish Football supporters are desperately seeking an alternative to the attitudes and events that have seen our game at best stand still and at worst decline, as changes in the way football has grown as a global industry  have left us marooned on our own small patch of God’s earth.


If the two maxims that

  • a problem cannot be solved by the mind that created it and
  • if you cannot manage (and therefore improve) what you cannot measure

are true, then the SFSA professional idea to making change happen offers a different approach to the past by introducing new thinking and using tested scientific metrics on a survey model used successfully in Germany, where the game is light years ahead of Scotland’s by any measure.

The arrival of this movement is crucial, and in the words of SFSA Board member Henry McLeish, ex footballer and former First Minister of Scotland; “Scottish Football is at a Watershed”.

Few if any who love our game would argue with that. We love football because it is in our blood, it plays a key part in the social interplay of Scottish society and it is too important not to now say  “Enough!”

It is clear that the medicine of the past, an approach to the game which excludes it’s life blood, (no wonder it is ill) is no longer efficacious – if indeed it ever was.

To continue with that same prescription would fall foul of that other maxim; “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”.

Thus the SFSA, who are independent of current Scottish football authorities (SFA/SFL), offer an opportunity to break that insane cycle by offering a new approach, which sees it’s first duty as asking the fans what they think, and they are seeking to do exactly that by enacting a comprehensive nationwide survey of fans’ views and attitudes. The survey, created by a team of research academics at Leipzig University will present, in a cohesive way, the views and thoughts of Scottish football fans concerning the health of the game in Scotland through their own own clubs, the SPFL, and the SFA .

The higher the number who complete the survey and articulating their views, the more weight and authority the survey’s outcomes will carry when the SFSA presents them to current authority and government.


SFM hopes that as many people as possible will take part in an exercise that offers real hope of change by clicking below

and visit the SFSA page at

where the survey is explained and you can join the SFSA individually.


This may be our last chance as lovers of Scottish football to restore its integrity and trust in our football authorities who have lost sight of those values in pursuit of commercial concerns.


To the cynics whose past experience of calling for change discourages them (and who can blame them for it’s taken lifetimes) one last maxim.


If you don’t buy a ticket, you don’t win the lottery.


Roll Up, Roll Up

Big Pink Comment:

Like Auldheid, I am encouraged by the birth of the SFSA and its determination to procure the views of supporters. There are enough people involved in the initiative with clear views about the harm that inherent self-interest on the part of the clubs has brought to our game.

I was less encouraged by the conciliatory tone of Henry McLeish, in public at least, towards those in power at Hampden. For example he said that Scottish football folk viewed outside bodies with suspicion, and that was often understandable.

My take is that they only view anyone wishing to become proactive with that suspicion (and fear). They have never viewed my cash with anything other than hungry eyes, far less suspicion.

The feeling in the room, when less formal discussion was taking place, was that the authorities and the clubs have refused to take fans’ views into account for too long.

Governance (particularly the lack of and the ‘making it up as we go’ varieties), FFP and Strict Liability were all subjects of those discussions. These are all nettles that MUST be grasped in public, and the sooner the better, if fans’ views are to be properly reflected.

I am hopeful that the weight of dissatisfaction I expect to see as a result of this ambitious survey will compel a change in tone by McLeish and his colleagues.

One final note of concern is that a group like SFSA, which after all hopes to represent fans at the top table, appears to have a board overly comprised of folk from the political, business and academic spheres. Some grass roots participation is vital moving forward. Hopefully that is also on the agenda.

About the author

Auldheid author

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.

629 Comments so far

AuldheidPosted on5:11 pm - Jul 25, 2017

goosygoosyJuly 25, 2017 at 16:50 (Edit)

After the RES12Boys handed further action to Celtic in December 2016 an earlier version of this was handed over. That earlier version was circulated to Res12 shareholder in October before the AGM and it was based on information already obtained via Res12 lawyer or research..
The later version above reflects what came out at CW trial as well as could not be included in the earlier update for fear of prejudicing it.
The earlier version was discussed at Board level who agreed questions needed answers. Advice in December was  to wait until both SC and CW cases out of the way.
That was only 20 days ago and there is a lot to take in in order to decide Celtic’s next step. The steps Celtic are taking make sense and it is a matter of waiting to see what they produce. So the answer to your question is yes the Celtic Board are well aware that Celtic’s integrity is at stake. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:22 pm - Jul 25, 2017

valentinesclownJuly 25, 2017 at 16:50
‘mentalist idea of Rangers being stripped of titles because of rank misunderstandings of how EBT schemes operate has been officially put to bed.’
The same unwillingness to acknowledge the great offence of deliberately concealing from the SPL and SFA the true earnings of their players, and that it doesn’t matter a tuppenny toss whether Murry paid them with legitimate money or , as was actually the case, illicit money whipped from the taxpayer!
The BT players were ineligible, and  those who deny that simple truth  put themselves in the same category of lunacy as the Holocaust deniers.
That denial of truth simply has to be resisted at every turn, and those who, by misusing their offices, created the  LIE and continue to maintain the lie must be called to account.
The matter is no longer ,if if ever was ,a matter of the internal busiess affairs of a shady bunch of businesses and the men who run them.
Tens of thousands of us now demand that the whole disgusting story of betrayal and cover-up be  exposed to the light of day, and the guilty men hounded ,if not out the country, out of office.
There is no place among decent folk for liars and cheats in Football and/or in Football Administration.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:29 pm - Jul 25, 2017

StevieBCJuly 25, 2017 at 16:22  
Looks like Bazza had taken further tax advice – as I’m sure most of the UK-based EBT recipients will have done likewise, as they had plenty of time to transfer assets into wife’s name, or offshore.Absolutely expected, and absolutely despicable – and from an ex-Rangers and Scotland captain as well.Extracted from The Sun today.“BARRY’S TRANSFER Rangers hero Barry Ferguson transferred luxury mansion into wife’s name six years before bankruptcyThe ex-Scotland captain, who has gone bust with debts of more than 1.4 million, gifted his joint share in the house to wife MargaretBy Stuart MacDonald25th July 2017, 1:12 pmFORMER Rangers star Barry Ferguson transferred his luxury mansion into his wife’s name six years before his bankruptcy, it has emerged.The ex-Scotland captain, who has gone bust with debts of more than 1.4 million, gifted his joint share in the house to wife Margaret.Barry Ferguson transferred his luxury mansion into his wife’s name six years before his bankruptcyTheir home is a gated property near Larkhall, Lanarkshire, which the couple bought for £1.2 million in 2003.Property records show Mrs Ferguson, 39, became the sole owner in November, 2011, when the footballer handed over his interest in the home for ‘love, favour and affection’.The move means the house is likely to be out of reach to creditors who Ferguson, 39, owes money to.Under bankruptcy laws, an asset which has been transferred more than five years before the date a person is made bankrupt cannot be used to pay off their debts.Ferguson applied for his own bankruptcy after running up debts of £1,425,633 and it was approved by the Accountant In Bankruptcy, Scotland’s insolvency service, earlier this month.He declared that he has only £3,000 worth of assets available to help pay off his creditors. Ferguson also gave up all his company directorships in firms which he ran with his wife before his money woes became public.He resigned as a director from an investment company, a nursery business and a media firm during 2013 and 2014 but Mrs Ferguson remains involved in them all.Ferguson is one of a number of former Ibrox stars who faced paying back money they had received in Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) after Rangers lost a battle with HMRC at the Supreme Court earlier this month.The former midfielder, who recently stepped down as manager of Clyde, received £2.5 million in EBT paymentsHe also invested in a film production partnership called Eclipse which has targeted by HMRC after being ruled to be a tax avoidance scheme.Ferguson was previously listed as a director with Eclipse Film Partners No.9, a scheme which allowed investors the opportunity to claim tax relief through investing in the production of moviesIn April last year, the Supreme Court upheld a judgement that one of the biggest partnerships, Eclipse 35, was a tax-avoidance scheme.HMRC has used that judgement to issue demands to investors, who include several footballers and managers, in the other 38 similar partnerships.The so-called Rangers ‘big tax case’ centred on the use of EBTs. More than £47million was paid to players, managers and directors between 2001 and 2010 in tax-free loans.Earlier this month judges found that ‘loans’ paid to players and staff were in fact taxable earnings, in a decision that brought to a close legal proceedings that have dragged on for years.HMRC said the ruling proved the EBT scheme was ‘contrived’ in that it presented payments as ‘loans’ rather than earnings, amounting to ‘tax avoidance’.A bankruptcy trustee, Maureen Leslie of Glasgow-based insolvency specialists MLM Solutions, has been appointed to take control of Ferguson’s assets and try to recover money owed to creditors.She said she did not comment on individual cases.A spokesman for HMRC said: “We do not comment on identifiable taxpayers.”Ferguson was unavailable for comment.”===============================

Such a loyal servant of the crown he sings about in such dignified tones, giving another V sign to the honest tax-paying public who unwittingly paid to watch their club being cheated by his for so many years. Immoral then, immoral now, immoral b*stards, one and all, forever!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:33 pm - Jul 25, 2017

Hmm, wee Barry’s only got three grand left after transferring all his dosh to his wife. I wonder how he was going to repay his EBT ‘loan’ then!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:39 pm - Jul 25, 2017

valentinesclownJuly 25, 2017 at 16:50  
ffs remorse, as they stick to we done nothin wrong approach.

Didn’t bother reading it, having my tea soon and would prefer not to vomit before eating it, but we can all imagine the BS it exudes as they prepare to ramp up the ‘WATP’ attitude, should, as expected, the SPFL endorse their cheating.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:29 pm - Jul 25, 2017

StevieBCJuly 25, 2017 at 15:13
[Admittedly, I do not know specifically how a JR works re: allowed plaintiffs, allowed scope etc.]
You might find the ‘guidance’ at this link quite useful, StevieBC

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:10 pm - Jul 25, 2017

EASYJAMBOJULY 25, 2017 at 15:53       6 Votes 
 The TRFCG/Wavetower accounts for the last five years and the Restoration to Register document requested by H&J on behalf of Law Financial can now be viewed on the Companies House Website.
Business Address……..1 The Green.
Almost spat my tea all over the screen

View Comment

West Ham FanPosted on7:44 pm - Jul 25, 2017

To Change the Subject for a Min.. Lots of Rumours on Twitter that WHU have bid £22m for Dembele from Celtic.. anybody know if it’s true and how good is he really? 

View Comment

West Ham FanPosted on7:45 pm - Jul 25, 2017

ps good luck with Nailing the Cheats in the SFA and SPFL 04

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:54 pm - Jul 25, 2017

Questions over Nimmo-Smith inquiry as leak reveals Rangers given no title-stripping immunity guarantee in secret SPL deal.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Questions over Nimmo-Smith inquiry as leak reveals Rangers given no title-stripping immunity guarantee in secret SPL deal.
guarantee states: ‘The SPL hereby undertakes solely and exclusively to Sevco and to no other Person . . . that the SPL shall not . . . take or commence disciplinary proceedings against Sevco . . . in respect of any EBT Payments and Arrangements’.
From a few years ago for those who have not read before.
Oops! forgot to post the link.

View Comment

Jimmy BonesPosted on8:15 pm - Jul 25, 2017

AuldHeid at 17:11
Yes, very sensible but time to move forward.  
In light of AllyJambo’s post earlier today ( it appears to me that waiting for the SC result on EBT’s was a stalling tactic.  If CFC are going to act, could their PR people please hijack the agenda, say what they are considering and when they expect to act.  PLEASE.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:27 pm - Jul 25, 2017

Jimmy Bones

Its the Celtic way to act out of public view which can be frustrating but when you know you are working with a bunch of scallwags, there is method in the approach as in not tipping your hand to them.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:10 pm - Jul 25, 2017

Deliberate Dishonesty
Lets say I owe my neighbour £100 that he loaned me.

Things improve but I decide after due consideration of other factors not to tell him I can repay and he doesn’t ask for it. That is I take a deliberate decision not to tell him. Questions are:

A) Since he doesn’t know I am flush and doesn’t ask for re payment am I being deliberately dishonest?
Morally possibly but technically no question of dishonesty
B) However if he asks for repayment and I’m flush and I tell him I’m skint am I being deliberately dishonest?  I ask because it is on the semantics of the meaning of deliberate that LNS is said to have covered the non disclosure of side letters.
In my view  he was wrong to preface his judgement on individual and corporate decisions with ” there is no question of dishonesty” (as in these were 10 years of honest mistakes).
However, he cannot be blamed for this as the documents that would have shown dishonesty were themselves dishonestly not provided by Dufff and Phelps when they too were asked for. So dishonesty in concealment of side letters and dishonesty in concealing the original dishonesty.
If for no other reason the LNS Commission should be reviewed as the findings were unreliable. .
From LNS Commission.
[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
 Cue Gerry Rafferty 19

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:14 pm - Jul 25, 2017

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:19 pm - Jul 25, 2017

AULDHEIDJULY 25, 2017 at 20:27
But given everyone and their uncle knows that the rest are scallywags, what is the point of the subterfuge?
I await the  full SPFL announcement with interest.
However as I have said before, title stripping or not, if no mention is made of the wholly dishonest practices of the oldco in relation to their handling of the tax avoidance schemes and the dealings with both footballing and tax authorities,  then it is all piss and wind.
If Celtic and Lawwell wanted to sort things out then I am sure they could have got Milne and Budge on board to have three of our biggest clubs take a stand. Petite would have then had to fall in line, many others would have then  followed.
Given the passage of time I,, for one, am struggling to see why one would want to keep one”s  powder dry.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:40 pm - Jul 25, 2017

wottpiJuly 25, 2017 at 23:19 (Edit) Its more a case of making sure the powder isn’t wet now rather than keeping it dry.
Your frustration, which I do understand, is like a flap of a butterfly’s wings to my flap of an African elephants ears. 19 
I could have taken the Dromedarian hump more than once since 2013 but that would have made me a Bactrian.
Its not just Celtic though, its the opaque culture of Scottish football, into which SFM is trying to introduce transparency, which means building trust and removing the untrustworthy.

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:43 pm - Jul 25, 2017

Thanks for that wee reminder of Night Owl, Auldheid listened to it on Utube plus another 4 songs, very enjoyable.  Gerry Rafferty RIP.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:44 pm - Jul 25, 2017

AuldheidJuly 25, 2017 at 20:27
‘…Its the Celtic way to act out of public view ..’
It’s also, of course,  the way of the SFA and SPFL!19
I appreciate the differences, of course, not least that Celtic have not themselves perpetrated any wrong against Scottish Football!
It’s true that, in the same way as every other club,Celtic Football club did not mount a kami-kaze one- horse cavalry charge against the creation and propagation of the Big Lie.
And even I accept that it is a bit too much to ask of any individual club, which may already have checked out what degree of support it could expect from other clubs and found ‘zero'[ as had been Turnbull Hutton’s experience- I bow my head to his memory ] that it should bear the total responsibilty for smoking out the corruption.
I had thought, though, that a Resolution proposed at Celtic plc’s AGM  in 2013  was the perfect opportunity to take the focus from the ‘football world of sporting rivalry’ to the hard-nosed world of the duties of the Directors of a plc under the Companies Act 2006.
If approved by shareholders, there would have been no legal way that Celtic plc could have refused to act on the Resolution and raise the issue, in the Courts,ultimately, if need be.
And the civilised world of Sport and business would have had to accept that that action had  nothing to do with football rivalry but with corruption in business, and the loss to company shareholders of monies that were properly due to the business  in which they were shareholders.
A challenge to the SFA on their issuing of a European licence to a club that they KNEW was actually in very fact owing money, and had been told they were owing money, to HMRC, seemed to me to be the tool that would  have opened the Pandora’s box and let the whole world see that the SFA had sold its dirty rag of a soul to corruption.
I was therefore extremely disappointed that Celtic plc’s response to Resolution 12  was the same as that of my dearly loved and fondly remembered father-in-law’s response to any difficult proposition that arose during a pub discussion, namely, ” we’ll take that to avizandum” ( in 1969 I had no idea what that meant!)
If, now, Celtic plc , having taken a long view and waited patiently until the Nimmo Smith decision that ‘no sporting advantage had been gained because EBTs were licit’ [ our Barry was not so sure, was he?] are accepting that they must do something in light of the Supreme Court’s decision that they were not at all licit, praise be!
But I suggest that they need to do it soon.
We could be in another ‘Flag’ situation here: fundamental principle as against conspiratorial dishonesty and deceit.
If needs must, there’s no real choice.
The real losers, as history shows, are  those who ,for the basest of reasons, murder innocent truth
And that is not fanciful language.
In my opinion.
(And may those in office in Scottish Football administration never have the untroubled sleep of people like us:ordinary , decent football supporters)

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on11:51 pm - Jul 25, 2017

West Ham Fan

I suggest you post your questions on a Celtic site/blog.

SFM is focused on the governance and integrity (or lack thereof) of the game in Scotland, not the discussion of Club specific rumours.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:13 am - Jul 26, 2017

AULDHEIDJULY 25, 2017 at 23:40
Appreciate where you ate coming from.
Howevet was thinking the other day that Stewart Roberston would have been seen as an honest broker when at Motherwell but his recent election to the SPFL board is tainted by his current post.
He may be trustworthy but some of his masters are very much not.
I still hold to the position that there had been far too much pussy footing around to the extent I fear that the changes and attitudes that are required to take our game forward will never come to  the fore. 
Once more I hope that the statement to be issued will give us something to cling onto but I am not holding my breath.

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:24 am - Jul 26, 2017

There are a lot of rumours going about that tomorrow’s statement will revolve around a similar attitude to the SFA.  We have taken legal advice.  There is nothing we can do.

The funny thing is both the SFA’s & the SPFL’s rules have commonality about them.  I am certainly no expert on their rules but any time I have seen them, they all start off sounding strong and purposeful and then descend down to “or at the board’s discretion” type of thing as the last ‘get out’ clause.  They can do what they like.  Who needs a QC?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:32 am - Jul 26, 2017

wottpiJuly 25, 2017 at 23:19
‘….If Celtic and Lawwell wanted to sort things out then I am sure they could have got Milne and Budge on board.’
In light of what Milne ( stupid man) had to say about ‘moving on’, and Ms Budge’s readiness to front up for the liars, how can you possibly say that Lawwell could have got them on board if he had wanted to?
How could he do that, given their obvious and demonstrated  readiness to accept the Big Lie?

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on1:35 am - Jul 26, 2017

Tommorow may be the day you question your own moral compass do you roll over or do you do what should be done and tell them to shove it up their arse?
it is not as difficult to walk away from as you may imagine, to be honest if this was someone pushing you about you would know what to do.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:09 am - Jul 26, 2017

When Anne Budge stated ‘you’ll understand’ when the announcement is made today I take it there will be a transparent explanation that everyone CAN understand, as to why they can legally do nothing? Then again maybe a herd of pink elephants will land at Glasgow Airport! If this matter ever does go to a Judicial Review would a Judge accept ‘we took legal advice, we have nothing more to say, and that is the end of the matter?’ I think not! 

Privately briefing Journalists they were going to do nothing immediately after stating they were having a review wasn’t very clever either. Then again maybe I do them a disservice, as they knew the journalists would simply repeat the message without challenge.  

This matter must constitute the largest circle of wagons in football history. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:20 am - Jul 26, 2017

The greatest want of the world is the want of men – men who will not be bought or sold; men who in their inmost souls are true and honest; men who do not fear to call sin by its right name; men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole; men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall. Ellen G. White.
Will honest men fear to call a sin by it’s right name,will they stand for the right though the heavens may fall?
Today i hope against hope that if there are any honest men left in scottish football, they do the honest and right thing for scottish football

View Comment

FinlochPosted on7:25 am - Jul 26, 2017

A viral video made by the SFSA.
I love the sponsor board and think they are tapping into a rich vein.

View Comment

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on9:13 am - Jul 26, 2017

Does anyone know what time is statement o’clock?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:43 am - Jul 26, 2017

Does anyone know what time is statement o’clock?
   2 minutes before they all become unavailable for comment, and the battery coincidentally dies on their phone. 14

View Comment

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on9:56 am - Jul 26, 2017

CORRUPT OFFICIALJULY 26, 2017 at 09:43

Silly me – should have realised!

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:45 am - Jul 26, 2017

JOHN CLARKJULY 26, 2017 at 00:32
If Lawwell can’t convince the likes of Budge and Milne then surely we all have to question his abilities to hold positions on both the SFA and SPFL.
As implied in posts with Auldheid the Celtic approach is far from convincing and many feel it is nothing more than a sop to their fans and others.
If Milne is a stupid man then where does that put Dermot Desmond who has waxed lyrical in the past about missing Rangers and still seems keen to see Glasgow finest, as a pair, join the EPL.
I suspect all clubs including Celtic are keen to sweep sweep the Rangers affair under the carpet.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:08 am - Jul 26, 2017

No legal powers but want a review of how matters are handled

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:27 am - Jul 26, 2017

Corrupt officialJuly 26, 2017 at 11:08
‘..No legal powers but want a review of how matters are handled’
The bast..s have locked themselves into such a devious dirty ‘legal’ secret deal that they cannot legally get out of it?? 

If that is true, then they did it deliberately in the rotten corruption of their black hearts.

They will need to explain why they have no powers over the ‘old liquidated Rangers’ when it was their own in-house judicial protocol , not a court of law, that made a precipitately rash judgment  with relevant evidence and facts withheld from it by one or more of their own officials.

It’s a monumentally destructive moment in Scottish sport, and those guilty, deceitful men should be run out of town on a rail.

View Comment

DunderheidPosted on11:42 am - Jul 26, 2017

Re: the latest SPL announcement:

Is there no end to the contempt of this shower?

It is beyond doubt that the LNS Commission was misled, lied to, kept in the dark and otherwise wilfully deceived.

It needs to be declared null and void.

A new – independent – enquiry, with full access to all the facts, is the only way to get this resolved; not some pathetic hand-wringing exercise in the shape of 2 sheets of A4 paper.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:06 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Legal advice in full

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on12:07 pm - Jul 26, 2017

I’ve only speed-read the SPFL statement: 

Am I correct in assuming that Mr. Moynihan QC is saying that the findings of the-then SPL’s in-house commission are inviolable/unchallengable in law & have legal status greater than that of several CoS cases & the Supreme Court? Even though that commission itself has/had no real legal standing?

Yon fella Doncaster really is worth every penny!

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on12:13 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Like you I’ve only speed-read that but I got the same impression.  It seems lawyers are now like ambassadors and are expected to lie for their clients.  There’s no way they couldn’t revisit these decisions if they wished.  I must admit I expected something complicated with a lot of double-speak but it’s pretty clear.  They don’t want to do anything, so there!!

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on12:18 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Good morning
As expected a cop out.
QC Moynihan,
“applying the general principle of finality in litigation,”
Utter tosh it was never a litigation it was a flawed inquiry based on a false premise of EBT’s being lawful.
Just because someone has QC after their name does not make them infallible, with respect.
It is only his opinion after all. Many other will have different opinions equally or more valid.
What is needed is a complete clear out at the SFA/SPFL and the whole facts put before a Court.
Funny what a handshake can achieve

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on12:35 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Get MR Donald Findlay QC involved on the side of us the fans so he can do the double.  He would have a field day with that statement.

View Comment

macfurglyPosted on1:01 pm - Jul 26, 2017

I will leave it to others better qualified than I am to dissect that opinion by Moynihan QC, but it seems to me he has done an exceptional job for his client by managing to sustain semantic, dialectic and quasi-legal contortions, contradictions and interpretations, of Brysonesque originality at such length.
The hole has just got much deeper.
This needs to be challenged. Even I can see it defies common sense, and if they think they are going to make this go away by commissioning a review with its remit and members agreed by the SFA and the SPFL, they are simply still digging, faster and faster.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on1:04 pm - Jul 26, 2017

If it smells like bullshit then its bullshit,
when a group of morons think they have prosecuted an assumption and put out shit like this “applying the general principle of finality in litigation,”
What does this mean that there is no right of appeal dream on…..

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:15 pm - Jul 26, 2017

valentinesclownJuly 26, 2017 at 12:35
 “Get MR Donald Findlay QC involved on the side of us the fans so he can do the double. He would have a field day with that statement”
Findlay’s saving grace, as I think,  is that as a lawyer he recognises that the new club is not the old club.
I have now read Moynihan’s advice.His  witterings include observations that make it clear that he believes the myth that Rangers of 1899 were sold to new owners.
On that basis alone I would give him a body-swerve if I was looking for Counsel’s advice.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on1:46 pm - Jul 26, 2017

There’s been a murder, we know who it was, we know who dunnit but F*** that eh, lets have an investigation into how we got there.

” CI Taggart, never mind that corpse, but well done in bringing it to our, eh, attention. Now, were going to just check that you did everything right”. ” Nothin’ we can do now, they’ve been dead five years. No point in bringing up the past. It’s important that we’ve done everything right and the Chief Super says just to leave this. There’s no point now”.

” But what about the relatives Gov, do we not owe it to them to finish this and keep them informed? It is a murder after all. 

“Oh F*** them Taggart, just say we’ve concluded our investigation and that’s that.


View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on1:48 pm - Jul 26, 2017

The questions posed were leading.
    If the questionS asked , “Can we……..?”,is replaced with, “How do we go about…….? ,The QC’s answers would be very different.
   That’s what we need a QC to answer. 
   On another note, did LNS ever say “Rangers(I.L.) ceased to become a SPL member club?” 
   I seem to recall he said (paraphrase) “Rangers ceased to be a club”, and the exact date didn’t matter too much as bugger all hinged on it. 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:53 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Just as an opener…

The SPFL has no power in law to re-open these issues

and yet..

My advice is that neither the SPL nor the SPFL can take any further disciplinary action against Oldco, Newco or Rangers (the club)


The key here is that Rangers FC is not a legal entity.


View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:00 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Just as a complete aside btw.

the judgement of the Supreme Court….. finding that OldCo acted unlawfully in failing to deduct and pay over to HMRC, PAYE income tax, from payments made by it to EBTs for many of its registered players.

Does that make it evasion, not avoidance?  All the Blue minded reports post SC ruling were always at great pains to say that it wasn’t unlawful. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:01 pm - Jul 26, 2017

The b*stards, not only have they given the supporters of every other club the two fingers, they have slipped in a bit about the ‘same club’! Have they no shame, does the ordinary supporter not matter to them, at all?

“5. The second possibility relates to non-payment of tax. The SPFL now has rules requiring tax to be paid when ‘due’. Those rules were first introduced after Oldco ceased to member of the SPL. The Rules define the date when a formally contested tax liability is considered to fall ‘due’: it falls due when the tax dispute is resolved. That day will only come when the Supreme Court announces its decision. Assuming that the Supreme Court holds that there is a tax liability in respect of the EBT scheme that will be a liability of Oldco (not the club under the current ownership of Newco). There can be no complaint by the SPFL against Oldco because that company is not a member. I have been asked whether it would be possible to bring a complaint against the club on the basis that the SPFL Rules can be construed as referring to any tax due in respect of the activities of a club, even by a past owner. While the point is not entirely free from doubt it is my opinion that the Rules do not apply to tax due by former owners and, therefore, it would not be possible to bring a complaint against Rangers (and Newco) in respect of any failure by Oldco to pay tax.”

At a time that they should be extremely contrite and ashamed of their organisation (and those of longer involvement should be ashamed as individuals), they have not addressed the issue (other than to say they can’t revisit it) by stating clearly what they think of Rangers’ actual use of EBTs and their deliberate concealment. So there is nothing, not one attempt, to placate the supporters of all clubs bar Rangers, but they do find the time to promote the big lie!

And this review, it’s announcement worded as though Rangers’ cheating is somehow comparable with other clubs’ tax problems! Rangers use of EBTs was not a tax problem, it was a deliberate scheme that included the concealing of it’s existence from both the SFA and HMRC. They could save themselves the bother and cost of this review, anyway, by simply introducing Financial Fair Play regulations! Oops, of course, they can’t do that, not without opening another can of worms down Ibrox way!

The bit I’ve highlighted, though, seems a bit interesting. It seems to suggest some members raised the possibility of bringing a complaint against TRFC. Looks like more eyewash to me, I very much doubt it was raised as a suggestion to pursue the possibility, more raised as something to be covered in this statement, to head off any questions (not from the SMSM, of course), giving them something to refer to rather than to tackle any such questions.

By making this statement, and announcing it as their final word on the matter, they have not put it to bed, they have merely given themselves something to hide behind. We can be certain that should any true journalist dare to raise the matter with the SPFL, or an individual member of that sordid body, the response will be a curt referral to the statement.

One last word, they have not said one word that suggests Rangers did not cheat! They have, though, lumped Rangers in with every other club that has been late with a tax payment, as though that was all it was about.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on2:10 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Perhaps the SPFL briefed their QC with the wrong information (again) and gave him Charles Green’s old ramblings instead. He couldn’t have written this script better himself. I can almost hear him say to Doncaster – “That’ll do, pig”. (See the film Babe, if I’m being too obscure.)
The SPFL have managed to make this look like amateur hour (again), as within hours their legal advice is being picked apart e.g. unsound assumptions and a lack of concern for the big picture- e.g. allowing industrial cheating / wrongdoing / imperfections of process with regard to the oldco’s dealings with the SFA & SPL.
It doesn’t seem to properly address the issue that LNS’s decisions were based on information that has been proven to be incorrect, that it was an internal enquiry, not a legal or final one, and that the SC has identified the motivations and actions that broke football and tax rules over a long period. Its a nonsense to say no-one can ever look at this again especially as its now known now that it was misled.
I suppose its too early to have a hairy fit, and I await the developments from Res 12, & the Scottish Fans group, hoping that we will get a proper legal challenge to the corrupt nonsense we seem to be stuck with from the games “authorities”.
The proposed enquiry will need to have fans and independent input or its a waste of time and a deflection to keep us all sweet for another few rounds of season tickets. 
Have given up hope that my club (AFC) and all the others will do the right thing, so like other folk on here, I’m ready to help fund our fight back.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:38 pm - Jul 26, 2017

John ClarkJuly 26, 2017 at 13:15  
valentinesclownJuly 26, 2017 at 12:35 “Get MR Donald Findlay QC involved on the side of us the fans so he can do the double. He would have a field day with that statement”_________Findlay’s saving grace, as I think,  is that as a lawyer he recognises that the new club is not the old club.I have now read Moynihan’s advice.His  witterings include observations that make it clear that he believes the myth that Rangers of 1899 were sold to new owners.On that basis alone I would give him a body-swerve if I was looking for Counsel’s advice.

I do not think for one moment that he believes that, John, anymore than he believes every client he defends is innocent and telling the truth in the dock.

Like Nimmo Smith, he has achieved what he was paid for, but I doubt very much that the payment was for advice, and produced a non-legal predetermined result to create this veneer of finality. It would be interesting to have him explain what ‘litigation’ he is applying this general principle to when he said this, “applying the general principle of finality in litigation,”! LNS had no legal basis, it was an inquiry commissioned by a company that was investigating the actions of a member. There was no litigation involved.

Looks like he forgot to cover the question, ‘are there any other charges that can be brought to bear on Rangers in respect of their actions surrounding their use of EBTs?’ (or similar). I’m surprised no board member raised that, particularly as at least one member (allegedly) questioned whether or not they could bring a complaint against TRFC! In covering that point, they are implying that a genuine effort was made to get to the truth of the matter, but that would surely include looking at the viability of separate charges! Is it really possible that in a group of people, seriously considering the correct way to handle this issue, no one would ask that question?

Of course, there was no one sitting on that ‘review’ that was seriously trying to achieve any more than producing a response that covered them doing nothing, and would give them something to point to as ‘finality’!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:51 pm - Jul 26, 2017

SmugasJuly 26, 2017 at 14:00  
Just as a complete aside btw.the judgement of the Supreme Court….. finding that OldCo acted unlawfully in failing to deduct and pay over to HMRC, PAYE income tax, from payments made by it to EBTs for many of its registered players. Does that make it evasion, not avoidance?  All the Blue minded reports post SC ruling were always at great pains to say that it wasn’t unlawful. 

Tax avoidance is illegal and/or unlawful, but is not criminal.

Tax evasion is all three.

So, Rangers were found to have acted illegally, but not criminally.

One thing that shows they acted illegally is that no one gets fined, or has a fine upheld, in court if they are not found to have broken the law! 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:04 pm - Jul 26, 2017

On a quick read is the largest obvious gap not at the response to Q 4.  My own edit is in italics within the quote, just to be clear.

My view is no.. (as in no nothing to see here)… because that presupposes that Oldco was in breach of some SPL or SPFL rule.

He then goes on to argue that “the EBT debt was being formally ‘contested'” (a fact I myself would ‘formally contest’ but there you go.)  In his opinion as it was being formally contested it was thus not due and hence no SPL rule was broken.  He therefore concludes the 5WA linking oldco to newco is therefore null and void.

Could I therefore politely ask, what about the WTC then?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:13 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Don’t know why I feel deflated, as the SPFL statement is the minimum boll*x expected.


1) Why even name the QC ? 

He is going to get pelters – probably – and looks like the SPFL are trying to pass the buck.

2) The SPFL did not have to accept the legal advice given.

After all, it was only ‘advice’, and as mentioned before, legal advice is not always 100% correct.

3) The SPFL made this depressingly, myopic decision – not the QC.

It was Ralph Topping and the SPFL board who have decided not to investigate how their very own SPL / SPFL have totally screwed Scottish football in recent years.

The SPFL now refuses to even consider rectifying the league administrators’ past inaction / incompetence / corruption.

And all for the benefit of one member club.


View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on3:15 pm - Jul 26, 2017

I think a lawyer in the district court could win this hands down.
4. “The first possible complaint relates to failure to disclose the full range of payments when players were registered. That complaint was ‘prosecuted’ before the LNS Commission. The decision of the Commission was subject to certain limitations. Principally, it proceeded on the assumption that the EBT scheme was lawful. Secondly, there has been some suggestion that the Commission had an incomplete understanding of the full range of undisclosed payments (though this has not been demonstrated). Notwithstanding these limitations, it is now too late to appeal the decision of the LNS Commission; and, applying the general principle of finality in litigation, it is not possible for the SPFL to bring a new or second complaint in respect of essentially the same matter.” 

The bit that gets me is this; the registration process would have involved a withholding of payments. Also the commission have not addressed the issuing of side letters which indicates that the club did not trust its own advice that these trusts were legal. If the company has deliberately set out to withhold the payments then that itself is punishable in that it is setting out to fraud the SFA documentation in the beginning and it is an admission of guilt.
Also it cannot proceed, if it knows about side letters, on the assumption that the EBTs are lawful, the act of withholding information and side letters would assume that the client considers the scheme to be iffy. The case then would proceed on why were you withholding information and knowingly committing fraud by sending doctored registration forms.
The LNS enquiry has been investigating matters of no interest in that there is no need to investigate EBTS ( that’s up to clubs  to use them although they will have to declare them for clearance) or sporting advantage, this comes naturally if you buy the best to compete against weakend opponents. 
The case is merely were you withholding disclosure of payments in your registration and in doing so obstructed the wheels of jurisdictions. The registrations of the players doctored documents you submitted would have passed and would certainly mean players are registered; however, on discovering fraudulent documents the player’s registrations need to be revoked as the club has lied and declared unlawful information that only came to light when HMRC crashed the scam.
This is why it is now obvious that the associations have the power to investigate as the evidence now presented was fraudulently withheld and would not have seen the light of day. LNS dealt with facts not associated with an act of fraud.We are not dealing withthe same offence as LNS we are dealing with fraud.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on3:17 pm - Jul 26, 2017

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:33 pm - Jul 26, 2017

2nd and last observation would lie in the response to Q3.

In Cadder v HMA 2011 SC (UKSC) 13, at §§58-62 and 98-103, Lords Hope and Rodger referred to the principle of legal certainty: final decisions determine the issue between the parties and the same issue cannot be the subject of successive claims between them. In crime that principle is expressed in the concept of double jeopardy and in civil litigation it underpins the plea of res judicata. In England it has been applied to disciplinary proceedings via the concept of ’cause of action estoppel’. I refer to R (on the application of Coke-Wallis) v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales [2011] 2 AC 146. A complaint against Mr Coke-Wallis was dismissed by a tribunal and the Institute sought to present a reformulated, second complaint in respect of essentially the same matter and was held not to be entitled to do so. There are differences between the Scots Law concept of personal bar and the corresponding English concept of estoppel, and in particular there is no direct Scots Law equivalent of cause of action estoppel. Nonetheless, the rationale for the decision in that case lies in the principle of legal certainty that is recognised in Scots Law and it would bar a second complaint in respect of essentially the same matter. For the avoidance of doubt, my answer proceeds on the hypothesis expressed in the question: the new proceedings rely on the same rules and regulations. My answer should not be understood to exclude a second disciplinary complaint in all circumstances. To take the examples of double jeopardy and res judicata, the objection is to successive disputes on essentially the same matter. A second case can proceed if there is a sufficient difference between the issues or matters concerned. What amounts to a ‘sufficient’ difference is a fact sensitive question.

Now LNS/ND went to great lengths to ensure that he was looking into the question of misregistration.  He actually dismissed the tax issue when he said (and apologies if I paraphrase for brevity) “that it did not affect the registration per se whether tax was payable or not.”  That was the hook that he hung his “EBTs were legal and available to all” hat upon which Sandy Bryson gratefully provided and Rod Mackenzie, on all of our behalves, curiously didn’t think to question.

I would now at least ask the question if this matter could indeed be looked at afresh on the basis that the taxable earnings were falsely not declared.  Is a supreme court backed decision “sufficient difference?”  Is it a “fact sensitive question?”  The charge is as described in my previous post, that SPL rules – the failure to pay tax – were broken thus the 5WA is still in play.

Of course regrettably I revert to my original stance in that I’m damn sure there’s an indemnity in the background, as opposed to “within the 5WA” keeping it out of play.  

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:44 pm - Jul 26, 2017

One  key point for me. Has anyone said Rangers are not guilty of dishonesty? Is the QC saying that from the beginning of their use of ebts with side letters Rangers acted in good faith throughout, because if he is, he is only parroting LNS.
Now we might not be able to review LNS but the QC defence put forward certainly can be questioned.
Did the QC know that in 2005 RFC were questioned about the existence of side letters for De Boer and Flo?
Did the QC know RFC denied their existence?
If he did does he believe that denial was made in good faith?
Is he aware HMRC accused RFC of fraudulent behaviour in respect of that deliberate non disclosure.
Does he know that at the same time RFC were specifically asked about side letters for De Boer and Flo, RFC by then in 2005 would have had a number of players with side letters on their books under the big tax case ebts?
Does the QC believe that in their answer to HMRC,  RFC were acting in good faith by not admitting the existence of the other side letters?
Summing up in not revealing the existence of those side letters requested as well as those held, none of which were registered with the SFA does the QC go along with the LNS view that there was no question of dishonesty?
It may be the rules don’t allow sanctions for such dishonesty (and that has to be looked at by UEFA/CAS) but the SFA/SFA have to make it clear that dishonesty took place and the only reason the QC could not have looked at the implications of that dishonesty in 2005 and so follow the LNS line is that the evidence of dishonesty  was deliberately kept from LNS by Duff & Phelps, such evidence which should also have been in the SFA’s hands had RFC complied with UEFA FFP rules in 2011.
We might not be able to challenge LNS but a challenge can be raised on the basis on which the QC  gave his advice .
Having said that in relation to clarifying RFC’s dishonesty , the bigger issue for me is restoring some form of integrity to Scottish football.
In my view the 5 Way agreement has driven a horse and cart through at least one of UEFA’s 11 key values and the separation of operating company as a legal entity from a club as something with no legal identity violates UEFA FFP Article 12 and 45 that defines a club and an operating company  construct that must exist in order to be eligible to apply for a UEFA Licence and that in any enquiry into the 5 Way a UEFA delegate must be there to advise on the SFA/SPFL compliance with UEFA rules and if sufficient heed was paid to UEFA values in the implementation of the Five Way agreement, where retaining sporting integrity took a poor second to commercial concerns.
Value One• Football firstIn everything that we do, football must always be the first and most important element that we take into consideration. Football is a game before being a product, a sport before being a market, a show before being a business.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:47 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Further comments
In August 2012 before RFC ceased to exist and under the SPFL rules introduced on 16th July,  RFC did have overdues payable that had not been appealed to HMRC (i. e the wee tax case) or if an appeal had ever been launched,  HMRC had already stated it would be viewed as vexatious which would mean it was an overdue payable. So QC inaccurate on para 19 A

I don’t see any reference to SFA Article 5 1 f about clubs acting in good faith towards fellow members (see my previous on good faith) and that where the QC raises the Judicial Panel findings it is curious that those gentlemen were never asked if RFC brought the game into disrepute by not paying the wee tax bill which would have required some investigation into the background to it.
Its as if the wee tax case Shennagins have been airbrushed from history

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on3:55 pm - Jul 26, 2017

As i stated LNS dealt with improper registration and lawful EBTs, but it is the doctoring of the document that changes the fact. Improper can be clerical error or admin error, delibrately misleading and ticking boxes you know to be untrue is fraud.
There is a difference which is why principle of legal certainty does not now hold.You are now not been dealt the same hand. Seek to see the players registration forms and you will see the untruths marked as truths.

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on4:14 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Dont think Ive ever felt so low as I do right now about football in Scotland. I was expecting another lot of lying bullshit from the SPFL and boy did we get it so why do I feel like this. Im heading out to the celtic/ rosenberg game very shortly, usually I suffer from nervous excitement on occasions like this but just feel so deflated . Also if Celtic dont act ( I have a gut feeling that they will come out all guns blazing ……Hope so ) but if they dont, this may be my last visit to a football match in Scotland……ALL CLUB CHAIRMEN /CHAIRWOMAN NEED TO TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THEMSELVES IN THE MIRROR RIGHT NOW 05

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on4:18 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Lance Armstrong to suggest re-opening of medal-stripping inquest and that SPFL board get the gig. 

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:26 pm - Jul 26, 2017

This from Kerrydale St Forum but note its for supporters of all clubs to note.
Ok, been keeping stumph about the details of this, but there is a group who are actively progressing the legal petitioning of the courts for a Judicial review of the SFA and SPFL.
This group is not just Celtic fans.
Can’t divulge the details yet, but work has been going on in the background for quite some time, and legal council has been lined up.
The window to pursue a petition is very limited, so my earlier thread was mainly to gauge appetite for helping to fund this, on this particular board. The result has been really positive with 95% of people saying they would be willing to contribute.
It is absolutely essential in moving this crowd funding forward that we firstly have discussions with the petitioning group so we support them fully and dont interfere destructively in what they are doing. Secondly its not an exclusive Celtic fans only venture. It is very important that this crowdfunding is not seen as tribal Celtic fans, who have a personal rivalry grudge. It has to be all fans, from all Scottish clubs.
Once we get the nod, I’ll release the details of where to contribute, and people can contribute what they want to. This will happen in next few days.
In the first instance, can you all raise awareness of the crowd-funding with other sites you frequent, the more we wrap in now, the quicker we can send a message tho the SFA and SPFL that we as supporters of Scottish football are not willing to accept the whitewash and continued malgovernance that they are hoping will be allowed to continue.
Stay tuned for further developments.

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on4:37 pm - Jul 26, 2017

AULDHEIDJULY 26, 2017 at 16:26

Higgy’s Shoes sometime recently.
I will gladly cancel my current monthly FOH  contribution and transfer to support this cause. Without it Scottish football is dead to me.  My club no longer deserves my financial support, we all deserve better.  

View Comment

FinlochPosted on4:38 pm - Jul 26, 2017

No surprises today.
The SPFL briefed counsel and probably told him what they wanted to be told in his report.
He did what lawyers do and gave them what they asked for.
We live in a world where lawyers challenge lawyers every day using clever counsel in court rooms.
Counsel often disagrees. Its how they earn big salaries by using big words and confusing everyone.

Judges sometimes make decisions in courts that change on appeal.

Just because one “internal” SPFL recruited and briefed counsel says something does not mean it to be anything more than his paid for and quite possibly slanted and biased opinion.

I personally wouldn’t trust any of the SPFL/SFA/Chairmen in a situation where we know they don’t want to revisit their own 5 Way Agreement and related decisions made in 2011 and 2012.
Its too messy and they have all moved on.

So today they have collectively called our bluff vis a vis some kid of crown funded initiative.

I’m up for that and know well respected others are looking at that right now.

In the meantime here is some wisdom from others on the murk that is Law from a 2 minute search on the internet.

Lawyers are just like physicians: what one says, the other contradicts.
— Sholom Aleichem
LAWYER: A professional advocate hired to bend the law on behalf of a paying client. 
— The Cynic’s Dictionary;; published by William Morrow, © Rick Bayan.

Imagine the appeals, dissents and remandments, if lawyers had written ‘The Ten Commandments’.
— Harry Bender

View Comment

NTDEALPosted on4:52 pm - Jul 26, 2017

This is all bollocks.
We already have legal advice,its called the Supreme Court Judgement.We are therefore guided by this and NOTHING else!It means the LNS whatever it was is now irrelevant.
The judgement deemed EBTs illegal,more importantly for me,however is the comments at section 24 of the ruling.
A QC’s advice to the SPFL is just that,nothing else.
There may be scope for a civil action against the SFA,based on the Supreme court ruling,for their failure to obtemper their own rules,and for recovery of losses as a result.Any action would refer to previous instances,involving SFA and UEFA,on improper registration and the relevant punishment.Just because a football club no longer exists,it does not mean their historical record cannot be amended .
What was issued today holds no water,at all. 

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on5:00 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Whats the odds its now six not one of the journalists commentars on clyde understand what happened .

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:43 pm - Jul 26, 2017

There was no mention today of what legal entity would be entitled to stand against or contest any new investigation, tribunal or inquiry the SPFL might set up, though, clearly, we were meant to assume it was TRFC. If the SPFL just announced today, tomorrow or any day that they were making the questionable titles null and void, what legal entity could take them to court or even say ‘that’s no fair!’? I’ve not read every last cowardly word, but I never noticed anything about the 5WA being this legal impediment to a review, or anything else other than this supposed advice that they can’t review the LNS decision padded out with some dubious reasoning.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on5:54 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Corrupt Statement from corrupt SPFL supported by corrupt SFA duly noted
How did they get there?
Something along the following lines
They held a preliminary meeting with the Lawyer and posed the following:
“Scottish football has an issue arising from Rangers pc defrauding UK taxpayers, fellow member clubs, the SFA the SPL European clubs and  fans of all the other clubs involved
The evidence is well documented and undisputed.
We have a problem with our customer base. They are  mostly illiterate peasants. Many of them don`t care about the reaction of a sizeable number of violent Loonies who attach themselves to Ibrox. Unlike us, these peasants don’t have to worry about threatening letters, marches on Hampden, training in handling letter bombs or being assaulted in the street.
Question for the Lawyer
Should we condemn Rangers for cheating despite the consequences for public disorder ?
If so
How do we respond to these peasants?
The Lawyer`s answer?
“That’s a moral question relating to how you interpret your own rules. You can decide the answer by a Board decision or an EGM vote of your members You might be right ,You might be wrong. But since it’s a moral question its ultimately an in house issue. Matters of intimidation and public disorder should be referred to the police. They should not be criteria when making moral decisions.
“I can help you on legal issues”
“Nothing else”
They hold a further meeting with the Lawyer
They discuss some of the issues raised by people opposed to the behaviour of the governing bodies
This time they asked him what legal questions he could  definitively give the answer Yes and the answer  No to
He goes away and produced a series of legal questions for which the answer is Yes or No
They discuss them, delete some modify some, add some and finally agreed the list of questions
They instructed him to write it up in legal jargon that the peasants won`t understand
That becomes the Statement
They pay him off and turn to their corrupt PR Dept for advice
Lawell resigns from the SPFL and the date is fixed to give him a few weeks grace. This is to let him  claim later that he didn`t see the  Statement before he left. With the reality being that he helped frame the hand written version but didn`t see the typed up version of the final draft.   
As posted previously
If this Statement commands 100% support by all 42 Clubs 
There will be no resignations by any Director of  any Club 
And therefore
On a major moral issue
The entire leadership of Scottish football from Club Director level in every Club  up to and including the SPFL and SFA have acted corruptly
As a separate issue
I await  the resignation of  at least one Director from Celtic FC in protest at Celtic refusing to act unilaterally to pursue a response to the moral question above. 
But if there are no resignations at Parkhead and Celtic attempt delaying tactics or issue some bromide effectively treating their fans as illiterate peasants
Then there is only one course of action left to them
Far from pursuing changes to the history of Rangers plc now deceased
Celtic should pursue changes to the history of Celtic FC
At a Minimum
Remove Bro Walfrids statue from Celtic Park
Erase from their history all the good things done in his name when the Club was founded.
It is hypocritical to act corruptly while claiming a link with such an illustrious past

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on6:01 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Is it possible to hold Newco indirectly liable by virtue of the 5-Way Agreement? In other words, is it possible to hold Newco liable for a breach of the rules by Oldco? My view is no because that presupposes that Oldco was in breach of some SPL or SPFL rule. As I shall explain in the next paragraph, Oldco was not in breach of the SPL Rules and cannot be in breach of an SPFL rule.
Accepting that punishment and agreeing to pay football debts were part of the agreement that allowed the Green-led consortium to acquire Scottish Football Association membership – the licence required to play league and cup matches.
“These debts were incurred prior to the club going into administration and there was no obligation on the consortium buying the club to pick them up,” Green added.
Green did not clarify the status of debts Rangers accrued to non-Scottish clubs, which include Arsenal, Manchester City and Rapid Vienna.”

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:22 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Grant Russell@STVGrant Replying to @STVGrant The Five Way Agreement, however, made the newco liable for certain actions of the oldco. But today’s legal opinion disagrees.
If today’s legal opinion disagrees? will the new club from ibrox be wanting their £250,000 back.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on6:30 pm - Jul 26, 2017

ALLYJAMBOJULY 26, 2017 at 17:43 
There was no mention today of what legal entity would be entitled to stand against or contest any new investigation, tribunal or inquiry the SPFL might set up, though, clearly, we were meant to assume it was TRFC. If the SPFL just announced today, tomorrow or any day that they were making the questionable titles null and void, what legal entity could take them to court or even say ‘that’s no fair!’? I’ve not read every last cowardly word, but I never noticed anything about the 5WA being this legal impediment to a review, or anything else other than this supposed advice that they can’t review the LNS decision padded out with some dubious reasoning.
   Maybe pretendygers would crowd-fund a challenge on their behalf…. I hear Mr Custard has a helluva courtroom presence. 12

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:33 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Not if an indemnity exists outwith the 5WA limiting Newcos liability to Only those found under LNS which, logically, they would already have had a hand in determining the quantum thereof.  

Why else, as I’ve said before, would Green have accepted the liability.  It would have been like writing a blank cheque.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:50 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Corrupt officialJuly 26, 2017 at 18:30  
ALLYJAMBOJULY 26, 2017 at 17:43 There was no mention today of what legal entity would be entitled to stand against or contest any new investigation, tribunal or inquiry the SPFL might set up, though, clearly, we were meant to assume it was TRFC. If the SPFL just announced today, tomorrow or any day that they were making the questionable titles null and void, what legal entity could take them to court or even say ‘that’s no fair!’? I’ve not read every last cowardly word, but I never noticed anything about the 5WA being this legal impediment to a review, or anything else other than this supposed advice that they can’t review the LNS decision padded out with some dubious reasoning.    ———————————————————————————————-   Maybe pretendygers would crowd-fund a challenge on their behalf…. I hear Mr Custard has a helluva courtroom presence. 

Unfortunately for them, it would not be about money, but about having the right to litigate on another company’s (club’s) behalf.

I fear that those well minded people who are intending to seek recourse to the courts to pursue justice, might well flounder on similar grounds. I hope not, for I will gladly contribute to their cause,  our cause, actually.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:10 pm - Jul 26, 2017

It is recognised that the effectiveness of a historical sporting sanction is not a straightforward concept. For present purposes, unless counsel advises otherwise, what might be considered effective in the case of a Championship or Cup might be an order that its award is withdrawn ab initio and a direction to Newco and Rangers FC that it does not represent that it was a Championship or Cup won by Rangers FC. It is understood that the historical awards of Championships or Cups are amongst the ‘assets’ of Oldco purportedly ‘sold’ to Newco, through the agency of the administrators by Oldco, in June 2012; so that Newco might now be sanctioned by SPFL if it did not cease to claim that such an award stood in the records of Rangers FC.
Are they saying that the historical awards of Championships or Cups that were won by the oldco were sold to the newco.
if that is correct then the club playing at ibrox today have not won 54 titles but they bought them

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:17 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Question 9
Senior Counsel will be aware that partners in BDO are the liquidators of Oldco. Once the Supreme Court has issued its decision in the appeal, it is likely that the liquidators will thereafter take steps to finalise the winding up of Oldco and to secure its dissolution. The latest reports of the Liquidators of Oldco suggest that the liquidation will be ongoing for a considerable period.
Am i correct in assuming that this announcement today was already pre-prepared before the SC case

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:27 pm - Jul 26, 2017

What have the Hampden incompetents achieved ?

They have just stalled ‘Moving on’…indefinitely.


View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:39 pm - Jul 26, 2017

Championships or Cups are amongst the ‘assets’ of Oldco purportedly ‘sold’ to Newco, through the agency of the administrators by Oldco, in June 2012; so that Newco might now be sanctioned by SPFL if it did not cease to claim that such an award stood in the records of Rangers FC.—————–
Are they saying if newco did not cease to claim that such an award stood in the records of Rangers FC.
(the 54 titles) Then the SPFL would sanction them?

View Comment

Comments are closed.