ByAuldheid
Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
LAUNCH OF THE FIRST INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF SCOTTISH FOOTBALL GOVERNANCE BY THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL SUPPORTERS ASSOCIATION (SFSA)
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.
SURVEY TO SET BENCHMARK FOR FUTURE EVALUATION OF NATIONAL GAME
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
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/sfsa-benchmark-2017
and visit the SFSA page at
http://scottishfsa.org/have-your-say-now/
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 https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/sfsa-benchmark-2017
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.
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
scottcPosted on8:28 pm - Jul 26, 2017
ALLYJAMBO
JULY 26, 2017 at 18:50
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.
I fear you may be right AJ. Worth investigating though. From a legal standpoint, I think more traction could potentially be gained by a group of fans (customers) suing a(all) club(s) directly. Some sort of class action, I guess. They have, albeit innocently, taken money under false pretences but when the falsity has been discovered have done nothing to protect their customers and to rectify the situation. It was the potential loss of club money that prompted them to action in 2012 and that is the only thing that will prompt them into action now
View Comment
easyJamboPosted on8:49 pm - Jul 26, 2017
Cluster One July 26, 2017 at 19:17
Am i correct in assuming that this announcement today was already pre-prepared before the SC case
===========================
The legal opinion was clearly obtained before the SC decision.
The QC was asked a range of “what if” scenarios should RFC’s appeal fail (as it did).
What the QC didn’t answer (because he wasn’t asked it directly after the SC decision), was the key question of whether or not the SC decision actually meant that the LNS Commission findings were now flawed, given that it had proceeded on the basis that the EBTs were lawful………. and that’s without questioning the way the commission was set up.
He skirted round it just by saying it was too late to appeal and that legal precedents of double jeopardy could apply.
He could actually have said “yes”, but still used the “too late to appeal” etc. Even that would have been a more acceptable answer, before going onto say what the SPFL could / couldn’t do.
View Comment
Cluster OnePosted on9:00 pm - Jul 26, 2017
EASYJAMBOJULY 26, 2017 at 20:49
Has anyone asked for an appeal? from what i see no one want’s an appeal as the LNS Commission findings are flawed.
The LNS Commission findings must now be set aside and a NEW commission set up
ZilchPosted on9:27 pm - Jul 26, 2017
The LNS findings were unequivocally conditional on Rangers’ use of EBTs being legal.
Until the SC decision was made a couple of weeks ago, it remained uncertain what the final legal position on the EBTs would be.
We now know, again unequivocally, that Rangers used an unlawful tax avoidance scheme.
As such, we are now in a situation where there is new information. Although we previously ‘knew’ they had diddled HMRC, now we KNOW it.
It is like getting new forensic evidence years after the offence took place.
Would it be reasonable to simply ignore the DNA found at the scene of the crime?
So we are not looking to appeal the LNS findings.
We need a new inquiry to assess the new information and come to a reasoned decision on what the implications of the new info are based on existing rules of the sport at that time.
This is not rocket science.
What we have today is a totally corrupt organisation trying desperately to cover up their complicity in one of the greatest sporting scandals ever.
Scottish football stinks of corruption and must be brought to account. Judicial review or taken to UEFA / CAS – we MUST get the brogues out of Hampden.
View Comment
Cluster OnePosted on9:40 pm - Jul 26, 2017
Very good read.
Well…that’s interesting. I’m no lawyer, but it seems a bit odd to me that it is not “appropriate to reinterpret past events in light if a court ruling that comes at least 4 years later“, given the reason it took 4 years for a court ruling is because that is how long the process takes. You appeal, they appeal, and off it goes to the Supreme Court. It takes time. To in effect time bar this by citing the length of time the legal process actually takes seems somewhat perverse. Showing again how daft it was having the LNS report before the legal process was actually completed.
Should there really be a time bar on cheating?
https://sartomutiny.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/dirty-rotten-scoundrels/
AllyjamboPosted on9:50 pm - Jul 26, 2017
scottcJuly 26, 2017 at 20:28
ALLYJAMBOJULY 26, 2017 at 18:50 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. I fear you may be right AJ. Worth investigating though. From a legal standpoint, I think more traction could potentially be gained by a group of fans (customers) suing a(all) club(s) directly. Some sort of class action, I guess. They have, albeit innocently, taken money under false pretences but when the falsity has been discovered have done nothing to protect their customers and to rectify the situation. It was the potential loss of club money that prompted them to action in 2012 and that is the only thing that will prompt them into action now
______________________
There is no such thing as a class action in UK law, not even something similar. I’m afraid too much attention is paid to the novels of John Grisham on this side of the Atlantic leading people to believe such a course of action is possible. I’m not sure of the proper words, but basically, a litigant must have a personal loss or injury caused by the actions of the defender before the court will consider any law suit. As a result I am not confident that any more can be done by the ordinary supporter, but, hopefully, the people looking into an action will know this (perhaps some legal minds are involved) and have worked out a way to show that they (the fans) have suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of Rangers cheating, and, or, the game’s governors negligence/complicity.
Of course, anyone can report what they believe to be a criminal act, and the police must investigate it if enough evidence of a crime is produced. If I remember correctly, and I do, FIFA had a few knocks on doors by the police after someone reported a criminal act…
One thing’s for sure, if they do successfully take this to court, the SPFL and SPFL will wish they’d listened to us all from the start, and the board members will wish they’d never offered themselves for election!
View Comment
AllyjamboPosted on10:11 pm - Jul 26, 2017
A short update from Strip the Titles. Seems we have some eminent QCs on our ‘side’! I really hope we do.
https://stripthetitles.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/keeping-it-real/
View Comment
bad capt madmanPosted on10:21 pm - Jul 26, 2017
i’m no lawyer, so no idea about the prospects for a judicial review, UEFA or CAS route or some other kind of action, but it seems to me that we don’t necessarily have to win a case.
The details of the authorities’ actions and inactions being made public in court would be enough to sicken the majority of fans, make clubs act to improve the SFA, and hopefully chase the wrong ‘uns out of town.
Perhaps even the prospect of it all coming out – if we can get even close to a court process – would force change as the main protagonists will likely not relish their court appearances.
Hopefully the folks putting the legals together will find a route to get things moving enough to scare the authorities shitless.
Would be great to win in court though!
goosygoosyPosted on11:56 pm - Jul 26, 2017
A lateral thought
Do SPFL rules require every club to take a predetermined allocation of away tickets for the League and Cup competitions?
Or put another way
If Celtic announce they will not sell tickets to their support for away games until the upcoming Judicial Review is successfully completed would this break any SPFL rules?
Or would it simply encourage all other Clubs to do likewise( Hopefully)?
John ClarkPosted on12:37 am - Jul 27, 2017
AllyjamboJuly 26, 2017 at 21:50
‘…….One thing’s for sure, if they do successfully take this to court, the SPFL and SPFL will wish they’d listened to us all from the start, ..’
__________
They will wish above al,Aj, that they had exercised their offices of trust in an honest and truly objective manner.
They did not do so.
They were so desperately in thrall to ‘Rangers’ and their money that they denied that that club had died( there was no ‘holding company’, no simple change of ‘ownership’) and entered into a dirty wee fix with a new club to create and propagate a lie , namely, that SevcoScotland/TRFC Ltd is the undead Rangers of 1899 registration.
They got themselves into a right rotten fix, and now think they can insult the rest of us even more: the SFA by its two paragraph statement, the SPFL by its statement that they will have an ‘independent’ (God Almighty, who woud believe, who will believe?) that anything declared by that shower to be ‘independent’ would be so?) review, utterly toothless,to find out ‘how we got here’ and ‘what had happened’.
Meanwhile, a new club is allowed to claim not just the legitimate honours and titles of the deceased club, but also the titles and honours that were, under the rules, falsely obtained.
I have little doubt that there are bad, evil men in the world, and that some of them are to be found in the world of Scottish Football governance and in football clubs.
I will not go so far as to wish such men the tortures of the damned.
But I do want their ars.s burnt!
View Comment
StevieBCPosted on7:20 am - Jul 27, 2017
When back in Glasgow, I always take my wife and kids to SPFL games.
I also buy my kids tops etc. each season.
No more.
Done with Scottish senior football.
View Comment
upthehoopsPosted on7:48 am - Jul 27, 2017
GOOSYGOOSYJULY 26, 2017 at 23:56
A lateral thoughtDo SPFL rules require every club to take a predetermined allocation of away tickets for the League and Cup competitions?Or put another wayIf Celtic announce they will not sell tickets to their support for away games until the upcoming Judicial Review is successfully completed would this break any SPFL rules?Or would it simply encourage all other Clubs to do likewise( Hopefully)?
=============
A few seasons back Rangers, under Charles Green, were actively involved in supporting a fan boycott of an away Scottish cup tie at Tannadice. No action was taken, however rules are not applied to Rangers so Celtic or indeed any other club may well be punished for doing the same thing.
View Comment
upthehoopsPosted on8:00 am - Jul 27, 2017
Quotes from Ralph Topping in today’s Herald. Where do you start with this?
RALPH Topping, the outgoing SPFL chairman, last night called on the SFA to cooperate fully with an independent review into how Scottish football’s authorities dealt with the Rangers crisis.
The SPFL yesterday announced they had no legal power to punish the Ibrox club further for their use of Employee Benefit Trusts despite the Supreme Court ruling in favour of HMRC in the Big Tax Case earlier this month.
The governing body released a lengthy document outlining the advice they had received from Gerry Moynihan QC and called for a review into how Scottish football handled the issues arising out of the affair.
Topping believes the SFA must follow the SPFL’s lead and embrace a wide-reaching investigation into how they acted and the rules and regulations that are in place.
“If we are going to have a successful review we need our SFA colleagues to aid that process,” he said. “I would be very surprised if there was not a demand for that from the press, public and football clubs.
“If they don’t that’s their decision. I think they would find it hard to have Aunt Harriet approach and sweep it under the carpet or stonewall it. We don’t want Aunt Harriet to have her way.”
Topping added: “Who now sits on the review body? There is a lot of work to be done in that area. We need to work with the SFA on that. That is an absolute imperative.
“There are a lot of good people along at the SFA. There is not one single person in Scottish football who set out to bring about an outcome that suited them.
“We all need to go through that process of scrutiny. I am happy to go through it. The board of the SPFL are happy to go through it. I think everybody in Scottish football should have their opportunity to have their say and the review body report on it.
“I am satisfied that we have gone through the legal process and we have done the responsible thing in terms of getting wiser minds than I’ve got to look at it from a legal perspective. We have taken that advice and we have acted on it.
“People can be critical all they want, but we haven’t set out in anything other than in a sincere fashion to try and do the right thing. If I haven’t or the body hasn’t then it’s a fair criticism.”
SmugasPosted on8:27 am - Jul 27, 2017
I can’t disagree with Ralph at all there. If you accept that they wished to set out in 2010 to recreate the duopoly but with one side* “legally clear” of 30m of debt and 50m of tax having not contributed 1p (ok £250k deducted from winnings – they got to keep the other £79,750,000) towards it with not one person on either side* losing their job/pension over the head of it you would have to say they’ve done a damn fine job of it. I wonder if they’ll insist that the review gives them that stupid line of honour clappy thing as they enter to answer only the questions they fancy answering, you know, legally n’that.
* for the absence of doubt the two sides are the rule makers and the rule breakers.
View Comment
upthehoopsPosted on8:46 am - Jul 27, 2017
SMUGASJULY 27, 2017 at 08:27
Much more from Doncaster on the BBC website. The cynic in me says they are hoping that if a fans group petition the CoS for a judicial review, the court may look favourably on the actions they are already taking and say a JR is not required. That then leaves them free to gerrymander the review to the exact people and outcome they want.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40735324
View Comment
jimboPosted on8:51 am - Jul 27, 2017
In answer to Question 3. (Whether LNS could be revisited) the QC answered:
14.
“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.”
So it is a possibility. A bit contradictory from what he says elsewhere.
Well I can think of two sufficient differences. Include the DOS payments this time and consider that the EBTS are now known to be illegal. Is that enough to be going on with?
LUGOSIPosted on8:58 am - Jul 27, 2017
UPTHEHOOPS July 27, 2017 at 08:00
“Where do you start with this?”
Where does this end?
Is the outgoing Chairman of the SPFL wearing a squirrel costume for the remainder of his term in office? After his recent Solicitor/QC guff today’s Herald interview is just bonkers.
The Chairman of the SPFL is warning the SFA not to sweep anything under the carpet or stonewall anything? Does he have an ounce of self awareness?
“We don’t want Aunt Harriet to have her way.”
Pardon? Is this serious? Are we really reading an article in The Herald quoting a footballing authority official referencing Batman? At the very least you’d expect the interviewer to clarify the quote with a simple question such as “What daphuq are you on about?”.
I’ll tell you where I started with this. Yesterday evening in the BBC Radio Scotland prematch coverage from Celtic Park they broadcast an interview by Chris McLaughlin with Neil Doncaster and Ralph Topping. Mr Doncaster was glib and shameless and was selling Snake Oil. Mr Topping said things which were definitely all words but from the order he put them in I couldn’t tell what he was saying. At one jawdropping moment he appeared to issue a rallying call to Scottish football fans to act as they did in South Africa. Given his word salad approach it’s not clear if he meant South Africa during the worst excesses of Apartheid or South Africa now, as in where Dave King lives. Either way even on the radio you could sense that Mr Doncaster was squirming. And that takes some doing.
Well, now that I’ve had it explained to me I believe nothing can be done.
Mind you, I also believe that Barry Ferguson has only got three thousand pounds in the whole, wide world.
jimboPosted on9:06 am - Jul 27, 2017
Just to be clear, I would prefer a full Judicial Review. I don’t trust anyone at Hampden to set up an impartial second commission. I was just pointing out that there is the possibility of one IF they wanted to do so.
View Comment
upthehoopsPosted on9:14 am - Jul 27, 2017
LUGOSIJULY 27, 2017 at 08:58
==============================
I expect any review may well be a mixture of legal, political and football people. I don’t know which legal people they may have in mind but would it be a shock if people like Alex Salmond were involved? The former first minister has a bit of time on his hands, and previously showed a great interest in Rangers tax affairs during his time in office! Then we have respected football people like Gordon Smith who could take part.
I’m sure you can see what I think of any such review!
View Comment
jimboPosted on9:28 am - Jul 27, 2017
I don’t get where all this ‘legal’ talk comes from in the first place. The LNS commission was not held in a court of Law. It may have been headed up by an ex judge and had QCs on it but I view it as having internal jurisdiction within Scottish football. It’s results didn’t become the law of the land as far as I know.
View Comment
goosygoosyPosted on9:29 am - Jul 27, 2017
UPTHEHOOPS
JULY 27, 2017 at 08:00
Quotes from Ralph Topping in today’s Herald. Where do you start with this?
“There are a lot of good people along at the SFA. There is not one single person in Scottish football who set out to bring about an outcome that suited them.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Two consecutive lies in consecutive sentences
upthehoopsPosted on9:35 am - Jul 27, 2017
JIMBOJULY 27, 2017 at 09:06
Just to be clear, I would prefer a full Judicial Review. I don’t trust anyone at Hampden to set up an impartial second commission. I was just pointing out that there is the possibility of one IF they wanted to do so.
==========================
A review in my view will not look at why certain evidence was deliberately withheld from LNS. It will not make public the secretive Five-Way-Agreement. It will not examine whether they said they simply had to find a way to protect ‘Rangers’ at any cost. It will not pose questions about why a different interpretation of player eligibility was applied in this single case only. Questions could be asked of each of these things and many more via a Judicial Review. A Judge would not be willing to be treated with the contempt they treat football fans with either.
View Comment
Shyster Flywheel ShysterPosted on10:15 am - Jul 27, 2017
The high heid yins of the SPFL are a self servient bunch, whom I never expected anything other than smoke and mirrors. But the SFA is a different kettle of doo-doo. It was the SFA that fined & expelled Dunfermline from the Scottish Cup for minor breaches of the rules.
It was the Italian Football Federation that punished Juventus for game fixing, not Seria A.
It was the French Football Federation that punished Marsellies and Nice for financial irregularities, not the Ligue de Football.
it was the Spanish Football Federation that punished Elche for unpaid taxes, not La Liga.
If there is any punishment to be handed out then it will be by the (wishy washy) Stewart Regan.
John ClarkPosted on10:44 am - Jul 27, 2017
goosygoosyJuly 27, 2017 at 09:29
‘….There is not one single person in Scottish football who set out to bring about an outcome that suited them.'(Ralph Topping)
__________
‘.Firstly, the payments were not made to players.They were made into a trust and then the sub-trust lent the money to the families of the players.'( Mr Rod McKenzie, lawyer)
‘..Nobody in football understood understood that one of its clubs was going to use a tax scheme like this for players” (Mr McKenzie, lawyer).
What, not even an ex-President of the SFA who might just have had personal knowledge of the wizard wheeze: ‘remuneration by non-repayable loans from a ‘Trust’,accompanied of course by a wee indemnity guaranteeing that should the deception be uncovered [ ha, ha, we’ll hide tell-tale documents, though, so it won’t be found out, trust us)and tax turn out to be payable, the club would pay it?
These three quotes which tell us all we need to know about the honesty, integrity, business savvy, general competence of our Football Governance people.
And this statement tells us a whole lot more about attitudes ;
“Did anyone in football see this coming?.. The biggest assumption about the set-up in the SPL would be that you would have Rangers and Celtic playing in it in perpetuity-nobody thought those TWO [???]bastions of football would ever be involved in anything like this and nobody flagged it up, hypothetically or otherwise.” ( Ralph Topping)
What, Ralph, not even a person on the SFA board who knew from personal experience that Rangers had a nice wee tax avoidance scheme going?
No, we really have to get at these distorters of truth and incompetent bunglers.
It might be too late already, of course, for the game has been so mucked up, trust so terribly destroyed, that it’s hard to see why any of us should or would be bothered supporting , broadly, such utterly shameless betrayers of Sport.
Bad cess, and very bad cess to them individually and collectively.
Shyster Flywheel ShysterPosted on11:10 am - Jul 27, 2017
JOHN CLARKJULY 27, 2017 at 10:44
What, Ralph, not even a person on the SFA board who knew from personal experience that Rangers had a nice wee tax avoidance scheme going?
————————————————–
I give you Campbell Ogilvie who in March 2012 admitted to being a member of the Employee Benefit Trust scheme at Rangers when he was both a Director of Rangers as well as the treasurer of the Scottish Football Association.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9144140/Campbell-Ogilvie-admits-he-was-aware-of-Rangers-EBT-scheme-but-had-no-role-in-player-contracts.html
Oglivie also tried to bring in an EBT scheme at Hearts when he joined them as Managing Director under Romanov in 2005.
Flywheel
View Comment
DunderheidPosted on11:32 am - Jul 27, 2017
UTH @ 09:14
Your observations on ‘suitable’ candidates for the super-duper new SPFL review of all thing LNS caught my eye.
Maybe the bampots at SFM Towers can help Neil Doncaster with some suggestions: starting with (former) football luminaries who may presently have time on their hands and could well be keen to help with such a review.
In addition to Gordon Smith or Alex Salmond, how about George Peat, or Walter Whatsisname, 2 people of impeccable football standing whom I feel sure would be delighted to help set the record straight …
View Comment
scottcPosted on12:24 pm - Jul 27, 2017
ALLYJAMBO
JULY 26, 2017 at 21:50
There is no such thing as a class action in UK law, not even something similar. I’m afraid too much attention is paid to the novels of John Grisham on this side of the Atlantic leading people to believe such a course of action is possible.
I know that, AJ. There is, however, scope for a group action against one or more clubs with other potential lawsuits lined up in the background. The effect would be the same
View Comment
DarkbeforedawnPosted on12:32 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Would a new review on which the outcome resulted in whole scale restructuring of Scottish football, but involved Rangers still retaining the titles, be deemed a success?
Were the SPFL and SFA to be purged of their current members, new rules to be put in place to ensure this never happens again, but with no title stripping be accepted?
I am just playing devils advocate because I know many on here say it is not about title stripping. So if a line was drawn under this, but the overhaul of the governing bodies you champion happened, would this be a success and allow Scottish football to move on?
View Comment
HomunculusPosted on12:43 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Reported in October 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34402483
View CommentA newly introduced law allows British courts to hear US-style class actions – where one or several people sue on behalf of a much larger group.
easyJamboPosted on1:15 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Darkbeforedawn July 27, 2017 at 12:32
Would a new review on which the outcome resulted in whole scale restructuring of Scottish football, but involved Rangers still retaining the titles, be deemed a success? Were the SPFL and SFA to be purged of their current members, new rules to be put in place to ensure this never happens again, but with no title stripping be accepted?
I am just playing devils advocate because I know many on here say it is not about title stripping. So if a line was drawn under this, but the overhaul of the governing bodies you champion happened, would this be a success and allow Scottish football to move on?
==========================
I would accept it if there was an acknowledgement that the LNS Commission findings were invalidated by the SC Decision, that the whole set up of the Commission, including the terms of reference were flawed from the outset and everyone who had a part in it were sanctioned and barred from holding any office in Scottish football. that would include Ogilvie, Regan, Doncaster McKenzie et al.
bluPosted on1:19 pm - Jul 27, 2017
DarkbeforedawnJuly 27, 2017 at 12:32 Would a new review on which the outcome resulted in whole scale restructuring of Scottish football, but involved Rangers still retaining the titles, be deemed a success? Were the SPFL and SFA to be purged of their current members, new rules to be put in place to ensure this never happens again, but with no title stripping be accepted?
I am just playing devils advocate because I know many on here say it is not about title stripping. So if a line was drawn under this, but the overhaul of the governing bodies you champion happened, would this be a success and allow Scottish football to move on?
It’s a fair enough question Darkbeforedawn and one that I suspect the newbies at the SPFL such as Ann Budge might like people to take on. The problem I have with this though, is that the SFA/SPL/SPFL seem happy enough to be seen to be not applying the rules and applying sanctions in a consistent way. Other, smaller clubs, were docked points and removed from cup competitions for lesser infractions than RFC were found to be guilty of in respect of player mis-registration. It is (or certainly should be) a fundamental precept that the rules of an association are applied consistently and without favour for all member, irrespective of size or perceived wealth. The second problem is that whilst the chairs may be re-arranged from time to time, the same people will still be around from all 42 clubs and committees.This doesn’t inspire confidence.
There might be a chance of peace breaking out if TRFC either:
1. Publicly renounced any claim to any trophies awarded to RFC
2. Acknowledged that RFC was awarded trophies it shouldn’t have been because it didn’t comply with the rules of the SPL/SFL and SFA and that TRFC would not wish to lay claim to that tainted part of RFC’s history.
SmugasPosted on1:27 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Darkbeforedawn.
i had started a Long winded response but have decided to summarise it thus.
You cannot have your cake and eat it when the starving can all see the cake, have paid for the cake and can all see you eating it whilst simultaneously the cake shop you’ve just paid are denying there is a cake, you’re not eating it and even if you were which you’re not, there is no direct link between the two anyway.
And in in case you think I’m being too flippant let me put it more directly.
This was never about the titles but I will acknowledge it’s about the results that gave rise to them. In circumstances where we’re being unashamedly asked to believe that the only thing that does stick to a (C)lub is titles and everything else can be miraculously shed tell me what other response is merited?
View Comment
John ClarkPosted on2:36 pm - Jul 27, 2017
bluJuly 27, 2017 at 13:19
‘….There might be a chance of peace breaking out if TRFC either:1. Publicly renounced any claim to any trophies awarded to RFC2. Acknowledged that RFC was awarded trophies it shouldn’t have been because it didn’t comply with the rules of the SPL/SFL and SFA and that TRFC would not wish to lay claim to that tainted part of RFC’s history.’
_______________
blu, Smugas 9July 27, 2017 at 13:27) makes the critical point that “..we’re being unashamedly asked to believe that the only thing that does stick to a (C)lub is titles and everything else can be miraculously shed .
The Football Authorities in defiance of commercial law and practice,football rules application, and plain common sense elected to create and foster the myth that Rangers FC ( incorporated in 1899) was sold out of Administration, and all that happened was that, just as Craig Whyte had done , Charles Green had become just the new owner, and the club had merrily carried on.
This is so blatantly NOT the case.
When Rangers 1899 was incorporated, there was no parallel club incorporated as its ‘holding company’
One club/company went into Administration, the directors/owner of that club lost any control of it under the law, and the Administrators ( currently being taken through the Court of Session for alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties as Administrators) sold off the assets, and let the only entity that was there, the club,drop into Liquidation, where it still is.
Charles Green’s vehicle for the purchase, on 14 June 2012,of the assets, and NOT for ‘bringing the club out of Administration’, was SevcoScotland Ltd [leave aside Sevco 5088 Ltd!)
That company ( no.425159) was not a football club until it was admitted into the then SFL. (So little was it a football club that the Administrators had to be asked for permission to use players registered as players of the Rangers1899(IA) in their first game; while some players, their contracts annulled by Administration, were legally free to walk away, and did so)
The football authorities finally accepted SevcoScotland Ltd ( by now renamed The Rangers Football Club Ltd) keeping the same company number, 425159 as a new member club of the SFL, and therefore entitled to membership ( the vacant membership, not the ‘Rangers share’!)
Previously, on 16 November 2011, CG had set up another company, named Rangers Football plc.( co.no 437060)
When he got hold of the assets of TRFC ltd, he sold shares in TRFC Ltd to a number of other investors, and worked with them in selling, in a one-for-one exchange , all the shares to Rangers Football plc( 437060) which, on 27 November 2011, changed its name to Rangers International Football Club plc and was the vehicle through which the IPO was issued ( and I recently pointed out the sneaky way the origins of Sevco Scotland were omitted from the Prospectus of that IPO)
The result of the share-exchange was that RIFC plc became a holding company of TRFC Ltd.
It is not, any more than SevcoScotland was, the holding company of Rangers 1899, which, name changed to Rangers 2012 plc on 31 July 2012, was allowed to disappear into Liquidation.
Not until the Football Authorities acknowledge the truth, that TRFC Ltd is NOT the original Rangers of 1899 can there be any ‘peace’.
That they did not do so, and continue to refuse to do so,lies at the heart of their refusl to strip the UNMERITED titles from Rangers 1899, because they have deceitfully and deliberately, right from the off, allowed TRFC LTD to claim to be Rangers 1899.
And the authorities are afraid to face up to the monster and monstrous situation they created.
Let them get back to the truthful basics and deal with the facts as they should have been dealt with, and integrity will be restored, whatever about ‘peace’!
It will not, could not possibly be, restored without getting back to the truth , acknowledging it and facing down those who bogusly ‘enjoy’ the fruits of a dead club’s honest paricipation in our game
upthehoopsPosted on2:41 pm - Jul 27, 2017
DARKBEFOREDAWNJULY 27, 2017 at 12:32
Would a new review on which the outcome resulted in whole scale restructuring of Scottish football, but involved Rangers still retaining the titles, be deemed a success?Were the SPFL and SFA to be purged of their current members, new rules to be put in place to ensure this never happens again, but with no title stripping be accepted?
I am just playing devils advocate because I know many on here say it is not about title stripping. So if a line was drawn under this, but the overhaul of the governing bodies you champion happened, would this be a success and allow Scottish football to move on?
=============================
For me the bare minimum is an acknowledgement on the records for ever that certain Rangers titles were won when they were using an unlawful tax avoidance scheme to employ better players. To put nothing on record means they completely got away with it. Murray has stated under oath what their intention was and quite unbelievably they have got away with it.
I guess it all depends on where you sit in terms of the current position. My view is quite clear in that as soon as Rangers were liquidated the SFA and SPL/SPFL were prepared to move heaven and earth to ensure that Rangers were regarded by them as the same club. with all trophies won during the EBT period intact. They have done that, and they have tried to make it final. Short of a Judicial Review it will be final so it is job done. Now they seem to be saying ‘well we might have been wrong in how we dealt with this so we will ask others to take a look, but we will get to pick the others and what they take a look at, but remember, it is cast in stone that Rangers titles remain forever, and the records will show they were won fairly’.
It is quite disgraceful how they are behaving, but completely expected.
View Comment
DarkbeforedawnPosted on2:42 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Smugas, I would actually say the opposite was true, that the only thing not still attached to the club is (wrongly) the debt. The fans, staff, stadium, colours, songs (again not always a good thing), the name, the history, the trophies, the training ground, the crest all retain with the club.
For what it’s worth, I do believe that the entirety of the SFA and SPFL should be cleared out – not because they are corrupt towards either Rangers or Celtic as most would suggest, but because they are completely inept. They continue to preside over shambles after shambles and should never have allowed the situation to arise in the first place.
View Comment
goosygoosyPosted on2:56 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Early Warning
This post might be unpopular
But
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong
IMO
If there is one thing suspicious in all of this corrupt saga it`s the convenient emergence on the public stage of the SFSA in the last fortnight
This self-appointed body with apparently no funds is stuffed with self-appointed politicians One of them at least has been found guilty of having dirty hands. It has created a community company appointed its own Board and defined its own remit before its public launch. It doesn`t once use the words morality or integrity or fairness or corruption to justify its existence. It doesn`t even mention a goal of being transparent to its members It has invited German football academics to tell their unelected Board what sort of questions Scottish fans should be asked about. It has went on to unilaterally approve a bland survey questionnaire that will consume a few months help dissipate the anger of some fans and tell us nothing we don`t know already.
The official SFSA top down remit will take years to completion. It smacks strongly of how the English Child Abuse Enquiry was set up years ago by politicians determined to protect politicians and their establishment allies. Its Terms of Reference were deliberately set so wide that many of the accused and their victims passed away before their case got considered. And that`s exactly what could happen here.
Or put more simply
It’s not an organisation claiming the simple raison d`etre of upholding sporting integrity
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Survey Document
The survey document smacks of long term civil service thinking. It starts from the premise that things might actually be hunky dory, so let’s take the next few months to quantify the “general level of disquiet”. This top down approach is a recipe for time wasting and switching off the members. It is frankly smacks of the sort of approach you would expect from Soviet era Trade Unions. The festering sore that is the Rangers tax case doesn`t qualify for a mention. SFA and Police management of sectarian behaviour is ignored, Nothing is asked about how our corrupt governing bodies are paralysed about physical intimidation in football.how keeping the peace outranks morality. This is despite letter bomb training, street assaults and threats to torch a football ground. Most of all is the complete absence of an SFSA declaration of transparency.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Corrupt SPFL Statement
Its early days for the SFSA
So far they have not commented on the SFA and SPFL Statement. Does their Board have no opinion?
Or
Is it because the leadership of the SFSA is well aware it is not a “Fan Elected Body”?
Meaning
It has no mandate to speak for its members. So they are obliged to keep quiet.
However, having no mandate also means they should not respond to any appeals from our corrupt authorities to engage in private discussions
It is clear that the governing bodies wish to avoid discussing the corruption crisis in terms of sporting integrity. Their strategy is moving the goal posts from integrity to legal mumbo jumbo. Their aim is to confuse the peasants. Their premise is that limited knowledge of the judicial system will force the peasants into disgruntled forelock tugging compliance
Meaning
Move along peasant
If its legal and immoral then its ok
If it’s against integrity but within the rules its ok
Sometimes rules have to be bent if we think it’s necessary
Trust Us. That`s what happens in business
They forget that we peasants have simple minds. We see issues in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. We expect integrity to be the backbone of organisations who claim to be trustworthy.
Whats more worrying
I would not be a bit surprised if the SFSA are the first to be invited by the corrupt SPFL and corrupt SFA to come and talk to them in private about their forthcoming “Independent” meaning corrupt Review. Indeed they might even end up as “Representing the Fans ” on this stitch up.
That would be outrageous
Unelected politicians one with dirty hands representing you on integrity issues with that lot
Summary
I don`t see the SFSA fulfilling the role of speaking for fans in the specific one off battle against the corruption witnessed over the past few years.
In particular
The current un-elected SFSA Board may attempt to act in this role by cooperating with the so called SPFL Independent Review or try to subvert the timetable of the Judicial Review that is currently gathering momentum
If this happens
it will be a sign that they see themselves as budding members of the establishment. People who are in cahoots with the corruption we are trying to root out.
And as for representing fans to the governing bodies on any other issues.
The acid test will be whether they replace the SFSA Board with elected fan representatives BEFORE they have their first formal meeting with the SG or football governing bodies.
bluPosted on2:59 pm - Jul 27, 2017
John ClarkJuly 27, 2017 at 14:36
SmugasJuly 27, 2017 at 13:27
Thanks smugas and John for the additional details. For reasons of time and brevity my response was limited to the narrow question from darkbeforedawn.
blu
ZilchPosted on3:34 pm - Jul 27, 2017
DarkbeforedawnJuly 27, 2017 at 12:32
Would a new review on which the outcome resulted in whole scale restructuring of Scottish football, but involved Rangers still retaining the titles, be deemed a success? Were the SPFL and SFA to be purged of their current members, new rules to be put in place to ensure this never happens again, but with no title stripping be accepted?
—————————————————————————————————–
Good question that reflects the best-case interpretation of the SPFL statement.
Short answer: No.
Reason: It is not enough to say things will be better in the future. To do so credibly would require clear recognition of past (and present) failings. It is well within the powers available to the SPFL to act on those historical (and current) failings. To fail to do so would crucially undermine the process.
My 2p.
View Comment
CrownStBhoyPosted on3:37 pm - Jul 27, 2017
goosygoosy
“Early WarningThis post might be unpopularButI`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong IMOIf there is one thing suspicious in all of this corrupt saga it`s the convenient emergence on the public stage of the SFSA in the last fortnight”
“I would not be a bit surprised if the SFSA are the first to be invited by the corrupt SPFL and corrupt SFA to come and talk to them in private about their forthcoming “Independent” meaning corrupt Review. Indeed they might even end up as “Representing the Fans ” on this stitch up.That would be outrageousUnelected politicians one with dirty hands representing you on integrity issues with that lot”
Excellent comments g/g
Maybe it’s my cynical mind at work but I too am very sceptical at the timing of the SFSA’s formation and wouldn’t be at all surprised in some sort of collusion with/by the corrupted SFA/SPFL.
I hope I’m wrong and if so apologise without reserve in advance but until I see and “like the cut of their jib” (as coined by a so-called famous radio commentariat), I’ll reserve definitive judgement.
WullieBroonPosted on4:52 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Hi everyone, newbi here but have followed for a few years.
I was at the SFSA launch at Holyrood and subsequently have been chatting to Paul Goodwin.
I’m thoroughly convinced that the SFSA is the way forward.
Big shout out to Auldheid and BRTH. 
theredpillPosted on5:07 pm - Jul 27, 2017
“Early WarningThis post might be unpopular”
Not with me I feel the same.
upthehoopsPosted on5:13 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Not all media people are on message with the SFA and SPFL.
View CommentPhil Gordon @PJG_SportIf SPFL docked Livingston 5 points for £30k undeclared bonuses in 2014, then what price £47million of Rangers EBTs? Damning evidence!
Jimmy BonesPosted on5:30 pm - Jul 27, 2017
From the BBC:
” Scottish Professional Football League chief executive Neil Doncaster says the governing body will meet fans with views on their handling of Rangers’ use of Employee Benefit Trusts.”
Will anyone be taking Doncaster up on this?
CitibhoyPosted on6:26 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Goosy Goosy.
I have signed up for the SFSA – However I had and still do have reservations pretty much around the issues you identified above.
Its like the sham that is “patient centric” care in the NHS – where its the Clinicians and Management who determine exactly what the parameters for that are. Sod all input from the patient!
Sergio BiscuitsPosted on6:32 pm - Jul 27, 2017
UP THE HOOPS @ 17.13
So by my basic calculations Rangers (IL) should have been hit with a points deduction of 7,865pts and a fine of £15,666,666, as I’m sure Livi got a £10,000 fine as well.
CitibhoyPosted on6:34 pm - Jul 27, 2017
DBD. Your Devils Advocate Q.
The devil as always is in the detail.
The promoter of whatever competition is bound by the rules of the SFA and they by Uefa rules.
If as happens in other sports the rules have been mis-applied/broken/avoided etc etc then when this is found out the record is amended according to the rules..
In this case 3-0 against Rangers in every match they fielded a player who had a defective registration.
Its Simple – it works in every other Sport – (see Jessica Ennis) and is given effect efficiently by CAS
No need for deals and more backroom blazer bollocks
View Comment
Cluster OnePosted on7:00 pm - Jul 27, 2017
having the LNS report before the legal process was actually completed. it took 4 years for the SC final verdict.
having the LNS half way through before a final verdict shows just how flawed it was,and now we have the SPFL that there will be no further disciplinary proceedings taken by the SPFL connected with the use by Rangers of EBTs and other tax schemes.
But there will be an investigation into the SPL/sfa handling of the situation.
What happens if they find the spl and sfa were corrupt with there handiling of the situation.will they say we can’t go back?
Why not learn from the LNS cart before the horse and have a an independent review concerning the way in which Scottish football’s authorities have dealt with non-payment of tax and hidden letters and miss registration.Then have a look into Rangers use of EBTs and other tax schemes.and side letters ans miss registration.
why put the cart before the horse again.
Hope you get where i’m coming from as i’m in a bit of a rush.
Silent PartnerPosted on7:27 pm - Jul 27, 2017
There is just so much wrong with the SPFL statement that it’s difficult to focus on any one aspect of it which, on its own, provides the greatest source of frustration for me.
One thing did occur to me though :
Imagine that the FTT found against Murray/Rangers, and (no laughing at the back) LNS had determined that Rangers had gained a competitive advantage and that affected results become 0-3, resulting in the reallocation of titles to the second placed teams.
Further, that Murray/Rangers had eventually won on appeal at the Supreme Court.
Would the SPFL claim their hands were tied by the original decision with no appeal possible, and despite being innocent of any rule breaches, the records would reflect the LNS findings?
That’s a rhetorical question.
Who knows, maybe Neil and/or Rod could give their views at their open question and answer session.
View Comment
jimboPosted on7:32 pm - Jul 27, 2017
I will not be commenting on the Aberdeen Euro tie tonight for obvious reasons. However I will be broadcasting my pod cast SFMJimbo on PM service from 7.40. I will be joined by Willie M, big Shug and Sammy to bring balance. Cmon the Dons!
View Comment
bigboab1916Posted on7:42 pm - Jul 27, 2017
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/15672375
Contract error costs Spartans Scottish Cup place
Spartans have been thrown out of the Scottish Cup for fielding an ineligible player in their 2-0 win over Culter.
Striker Keith McLeod signed a new contract in the summer but it was dated only once and the Scottish Football Association want it to be signed twice.
Spartans chairman Craig Graham said the club were “disappointed” by the ruling, adding: “We wish Culter well against Partick Thistle [in round three].”
Spartans have also received a £4,000 fine suspended for 12 months.
Scottish Division Three side East Stirlingshire were expelled from the competition last season for fielding an ineligible player in their fourth-round win over Buckie Thistle.
Goalkeeper Michael Andrews featured despite the SFA not having received registration documents for the extension of his loan from Falkirk.
Would be unfair to these teams to allow one club to flourish at the expense of our smaller teams, finance is what they relied on and the SFA took it away so the rules must apply across the board. These teams never hid nothing they suffered the fate of the rules this is integrity, apply without fervour or favour, this is what you get paid for.
View Comment
John ClarkPosted on8:30 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Jimmy BonesJuly 27, 2017 at 17:30
‘… Neil Doncaster says the governing body will meet fans with views on their handling of Rangers’ use of Employee Benefit Trusts.”
_____
Will he answer questions such as:
was Charles Green promised as part of the 5-way agreement that
a) the SPL would regard TRFC Ltd in every respect( except debts other than football debts) as Rangers (of 1899)?
b) that there would be no attempt to amend the football records to show that a number of titles and honours were won in matches in which players were actually ineligible to play on account of the deliberate withholding of the truth about remuneration paid them ?
c) will he now resign if only on the grounds that as CEO he carries much of the blame for the odium and distrust that now attaches to Scottish Football and is, in effect, a busted flush?
and perhaps another couple of dozen such questions?
No?
I thought not.
View Comment
goosygoosyPosted on8:38 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Oh Dear as PMG might say
I fear I may have tripped over a can of worms in my previous post at 14.56
Thinking back to the sterling work done by the combined efforts of talented posters on the RTC Blog
I thought it might be fun to have a look at SFSA in a bit more detail
Current Office address 4 Woodside Pl, Glasgow G3 7QL
Interestingly
If you Google Earth this address and postcode there`s a man walking along the pavement who looks awfully like a member of the SPFL. Can`t be sure of course as faces are blurred with Google Earth but the odd way of walking seems familiar.
It was enough to pique my curiosity so I had a look elsewhere on the web
Lo and behold
Up comes the following
SFSA
Official Launch early April 2015
BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32229672
“The SFSA, which says it has reached 40,000 pledges of support from Scottish fans’ groups at club level, will include a national advisory group.
It will contain experts on football and governance matters, including former First Minister Henry McLeish and Maureen McGonigle, founder of Scottish Women in Sport, and from academia and the business world.
They will work with a football advisory group that so far includes fans from Aberdeen, Ayr United, Celtic, Dumbarton, Hearts and Rangers”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Question
Does 40,000 pledges of support from a Club Group mean every member of that Club has registered an email address with SFSA?
Or does it mean one person from each supporters group registered on behalf of their members with or without their consent? Does this explain why the SFSA had 40000 members before it was launched ?
Question
“Whereabouts on the current website can you find the names of the fans on the Advisory Group from Aberdeen, Ayr United, Celtic, Dumbarton, Hearts and Rangers”
And
Why are members of the Advisory Group selected by the unelected CEO and Chairman of the SFSA Board and not elected by the members?
The Fans’ Manifesto
Fans want change
Scottish football needs and deserves a future. As a movement of some 50,000 fans (and growing) the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) believes that it really is possible to renew, reform and reclaim the game. But the engine of that transformation has to be those who love and follow the game. That is what this Fans’ Manifesto is all about.
In 2015 we asked football supporters across Scotland what they wanted to see for the future. We got an amazing 10,000 responses.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Among the mass of ideas and comments there were aspirations large and small. In this document we have distilled some of the biggest ones, and combined them with ideas that have now been in circulation – buttressed by a number of other surveys – for some time. This Manifesto contains nine key pointers towards the future of football game in Scotland. It is intended not as an end, but as the beginning of a renewed national conversation that needs to reach out well beyond the established boundaries if it is going to bring credible action
RENEW THE GAME
01 Bring back the fans through competitive pricing and family facilities at every club
02 Make football in Scotland media-friendly and innovative at every level
03 Re-market the Scottish game, pressing for financial fair shares and transparency REFORM THE GAME
04 Rebuild the game with larger divisions, more variety and improved competition
05 Equip every club to be a ‘community hub’ for wellbeing and entertainment
06 Re-invest in youth through fresh plans for training and education
RECLAIM THE GAME
07 A ‘diversity drive’: 25% fan representation on all governing bodies in five years, 50% women, a permanent place for the national fans’ body
08 Regular, independent auditing and review of the performance of governing bodies and clubs
09 Extend community and collaborative ownership, create a fans’ right to bid or buy when clubs are for sale, create a fans’ bank or fund
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Question
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention that there might be a problem with corruption at the SFA and SPFL?
If so
Were they so few in number that their concerns were excluded from the Fans Manifesto?
Question
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention sectarian singing, intimidation of officials, letter bomb training, assaults in the street as potential issues being ignored by the governing bodies?
Or in a nutshell
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention dissatisfaction at the manner in which the SFA and SPFL were handling the Rangers situation?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Or to summarise the above
Did the SFSA sanitise the 10000 responses of their own volition or did they do so at the request of a 3rd party?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
There are stacks of angles to the above which could be addressed by many of the fine posters who inhabit this blog
Whats clear so far is that SFSA are not a democratic organisation despite being in existence for well over a year
Its also clear that despite their “plan” to eventually become democratic they are unfit in the immediate term to represent Fans concerned about the way the Rangers saga has been corruptly managed by the governing bodies
Indeed their own manifesto specifically ignores the biggest scandal in Scottish football in living memory
gunnerbPosted on9:03 pm - Jul 27, 2017
I have to agree with GOOSYGOOSY here regarding the SFSA. I haven’t `joined up’ as I was waiting to see the reaction to whitewash Wednesday. I can understand to a degree the SFSA not wanting to alienate any supporters but they can’t be all things to all men when leadership is required. We are at pivotal moment with regards to the future of the professional game in Scotland and if the SFSA don’t want to offer anything positive in turns of action or comment then they will quickly prove to be irrelevant. I note that the call has gone out for crowdfunding a judicial review and would be willing to subscribe to such action but it must be coordinated and overseen in the correct manner rather than by well meaning individuals. I will take my lead for this from the SFM and other respected sources.
View Comment
wottpiPosted on9:20 pm - Jul 27, 2017
bigboab1916July 27, 2017 at 19:42
It is these kind of genuine admin errors and subsequent hard hitting fines and bans for smaller clubs that makes the whole dishonest practice of the non-disclosed side letters and what were either taxable directs payments (as per the SC ruling) or, at the time, third party payments to players (via the EBT trustees), that sticks in the craws.
Similarly Craig Whyte , an innocent man, gets fined and banned sine die for what you could easily argue was an admin error by not providing the correct information re his directorship status. However the like of SDM and CO as instigators of a dodgy scheme that they never thought to seek any advice form the footballing authorities and actually denied the existence of side letters to the relevant authorities don’t even get a mention.
Stuff the SPFL’s QC and all the legal sophistry.
As SDM said to the old Airdrie when they owed him £30k ‘business is business’ and the one he was operating at Rangers was the dirtiest and smelliest and everyone and their uncle knows it, yet even now people within the game can’t bear to say it.
Meanwhile all other 41 clubs and those in other branches of the game still have the potential to get hammered for far less.
View Comment
Cluster OnePosted on9:24 pm - Jul 27, 2017
GOOSYGOOSYJULY 27, 2017 at 20:38
Good post and good research
AuldheidPosted on9:27 pm - Jul 27, 2017
gunnerbJuly 27, 2017 at 21:03 (Edit)
One of my jobs part time after retiring was a capacity builder and the reason we are waiting for somebody else to or a small group of individuals to take a lead is that the very capacity to do so simply does not exist!
That includes the SFSA at present who are trying to build that capacity. Is there any other means of bringing supporters together in an organised form? I don’t see it and in the SFSA the opportunity exists to build it.
Think of SFSA as an aeroplane with one wing. Its not ready to fly yet but the other wing is being built the more who join and do the survey. They are having success with supporters groups joining up and they have a plan, an essential part of which will be having folk at the SFA who are ready to talk to them. Join the dots, they want what you are after but on a more long lasting level not a single issue movement but one that will be around after the SFA/SPFL are sorted.
The latest from the SFA/SPFL is just another indicator of how desperately the supporters need the capacity to speak as one. The SFSA represent the best, if not the only, opportunity to build it.
AuldheidPosted on9:32 pm - Jul 27, 2017
goosygoosyJuly 27, 2017 at 20:38 (Edit)
Read my post about capacity building. Have you anything better to suggest be done in their place? Are you going to do the work those volunteers do or are you happy just to snoop and snipe?
View Comment
AuldheidPosted on9:39 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Goosey Goosey
I think folk can make up their own minds about unfit the SFSA are.
They aren’t democratic simply because they have not matured to that level and a prime reason is that Supporters Direct funded by the SFA (think about that) have been promoted to give the appearance of giving supporters a voice.
Have you checked SD out and their stance on improving governance and what plans they have for doing so?
A bit of balance in your research might change your view.
gunnerbPosted on9:45 pm - Jul 27, 2017
AULDHEIDJULY 27, 2017 at 21:27
With respect Auldheid I see the “single issue” as the keystone. Deal with this and everything else follows naturally. The single issue is the unifying force and we have had too many years of softly softly. If the SFSA is the answer then let them at least come out and condemn the cheating. If you believe they are the only game in town then I am saddened by that.
View Comment
goosygoosyPosted on9:47 pm - Jul 27, 2017
AULDHEIDJULY 27, 2017 at 21:32 goosygoosyJuly 27, 2017 at 20:38 (Edit)
Read my post about capacity building. Have you anything better to suggest be done in their place? Are you going to do the work those volunteers do or are you happy just to snoop and snipe?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Auldheid
i have great respect for you and your track record in opposing corruption
I am too long in the tooth now to believe platitudes without checking the facts. I am happy to contribute to a crowd funding initiative seeking a JR of the corruption associated with the recent past
I`m not snowed either by face to face meetings with people who have proven they lack integrity.
Thats a virtue you either have or you don`t have
I`ve yet to meet the person with 80% integrity
So as far as SFAS are concerned
I`m out
AuldheidPosted on9:57 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Goosey Goosey
If they are not fit to represent fans views on SFA governance/corruption etc why have Strip the Titles decided to drop that name and support the SFSA.
Did you research what strip the titles said? Enough from me.
wottpiPosted on9:59 pm - Jul 27, 2017
As an aside from the main debate I was just looking n the BBC scores page for the Aberdeen result and report.
Looking at who are in the Europa cup at this stage confirms what has been discussed previously. That being that go get to the group stages for any Scottish team (and I include Celtic were they in that tournament just now) would be no mean feat.
I , for one, wouldn’t be hedging my financial security on the chance of progression.
AuldheidPosted on10:04 pm - Jul 27, 2017
gunnerbJuly 27, 2017 at 21:45 (Edit)
I’m not blind to a JR forming but there are lots of problems and it may not happen, but if it happens and once done what capacity to hold SFA to account will remain?
If it helps I understand Regan was blazing at the Video. Any group that upsets Regan gets my vote.
AuldheidPosted on10:11 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Goosey Goosey
When there is 0% chance of opening the door, 20% is worth backing.
Cluster OnePosted on10:11 pm - Jul 27, 2017
I still believe Goosey Goosey did a good bit of research.Maybe if Goosey Goosey has a bit of time on his hands he could do a bit of research into Supporters Direct and why Strip the Titles decided to drop that name and support the SFSA.
All for a bit of balance of course.
I’m a little short on time just now or would research myself but happy to read any research from SFM contributers
Also a good responce from Auldheid about seeking balance
Cluster OnePosted on10:14 pm - Jul 27, 2017
AULDHEIDJULY 27, 2017 at 22:04
If it helps I understand Regan was blazing at the Video. Any group that upsets Regan gets my vote.
———–
my vote also
BlackstarPosted on10:39 pm - Jul 27, 2017
Mr Goosey Goosey,
I have just mothballed a very successful attempt to bring fans from all clubs together. “Strip The Titles”. I ran it for 3 weeks exactly and built a group of 9,000 supporters from every club in Scotland. (barring one club who’s supporters just spent their time hurling pretty vile abuse).
The group was ready to go and challenge the clubs on the handling of the Dos/EBT years. Plans were at an advanced stage. We could have had the titles stripped with in a year. The problem was the game would not have been in better hands and our football teams inc the National team would still be on a downward spiral. So there’s a bigger picture out there rather than a single issue.
I was at the SFSA at Holyrood and subsequently held a week long discussion with them. I have looked these people in the eye and asked awkward questions. Every question was answered at length and to my satisfaction. I was representing the views of thousands of football fans who gave me their trust.
This is no sham, no inside job. The SFSA have the dedication, resources and integrity to improve the lot of Scottish football. There is no other independent fans game in town.
It is neither the SFSA or my problem that your research is limited to googling on a pc. If you had been following developments instead of being negative on the internet you would have known that the SFSA have been building a consensus across football for the last few years, and did not just appear out of nowhere.
All the best
View Comment
AuldheidPosted on10:52 pm - Jul 27, 2017
STV Grant had an interview with Neil Doncaster and to Grants credit asked why LNS did not look at the wee tax case.
ND said that it did and Rod McKenzie had covered it.
I know its been nearly three years since SFM asked questions of McKenzie and SPL which were ran past a lawyer for accuracy beforehand , but you would expect ND to remember that McKenzie failed to provide satisfactory answers.
LNS conflated the wtc ebts with the big tax case ebts by treating them as continuous. This was an error because whereas the btc ebts at the time were lawful the wtc ones were not. Also whilst LNS could say there was no question of honesty regarding the failure to provide side letters to SFA (although the SC seem not to have accepted that defence for btc ebts) he could not say that for the wtc ebts precisely because it was on the basis of evident dishonesty that a QC (no less) advised RFC to accept the £2.8m liability. All of this was drawn to SPL and Harper MacLeod attention by SFM in 2014.
So whilst LNS may have dealt with the wtc, he did so in ignorance and his judgement in that respect is unreliable and had he been aware that it was the same parties who thought it was OK not to inform the SFA of side letters that were afraid to reveal their existence to HMRC, he might have been prepared to accept there was a question of dishonesty applicable to the btc ebts side letters not being provided to the SFA as well.
What may have confused Harper MacLeod is that whilst Flo and De Boer were both paid by DOS ebts(for which HMRC sought the side letters) they were both paid by btc ebts as well. De Boer switched to latter in 2001/02 and Flo who left in 2001 and whose side letter of 23 Nov 2000 in respect of the DOS ebt that was provided, was paid via a btc ebt after joining Sunderland. Thus whilst both types of ebts were considered as having been dealt with by LNS in fact the wtc ebts were not.
An easy mistake to make but an avoidable one had Duff & Phelps provided the other documentation relating to ebts that they were asked for, especially HMRC letters of Feb and May 2011 that set out the difference and why the difference and the basis on which liability was accepted by RFC.
The SPL were notified of this omission by SFM in 2014 but for some reason did not accept it made any difference to the LNS case in spite of it being set out.
The reasons for the later unwillingness in 2014 to reconsider LNS are easy to guess, LNS, as time has shown, is the keystane of their defence of cheating, but the wtc was never properly dealt with because of Duff and Phelps negligence or dishonesty, but I suppose that when you are trying to flog a company in administration you don’t want to highlight the negatives do you?
It is this failure to understand that the wtc has not been dealt with and the implications arising , that makes the LNS Decision, as a whole, unreliable
Interesting aspect though is that since the wtc was not dealt with, should it have its own separate commission or will it not matter as no rules for dishonesty and consequent sanctions exist for cheating of the type indulged in by RFC?
View Comment
goosygoosyPosted on11:56 pm - Jul 27, 2017
AULDHEIDJULY 27, 2017 at 22:11
Goosey GooseyWhen there is 0% chance of opening the door, 20% is worth backing.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Like I said
I`ve yet to meet the person with 80% integrity
Or put another way
I don`t trust people who have proven untrustworthy on an integrity issue on even one occasion
Sometimes I have no choice but to put my fate in their hands
Some worked out. Some didn`t work out
But because I had no choice I went along with it unwillingly
However
That wasn`t trust. It was Hobsons choice
When I have the choice not to trust them because there are other options
I don`t trust them and go for an alternative
Having said that
Its a free country (apart from what we both agree on)
So
People may put their trust in SFAS using whatever criteria they deem most important
For me when dealing with corruption there is zero room for compromise.
Its an issue of integrity, right or wrong ,good or evil, black or white
I won`t trust SFAS
So as I said before
I`m out
Big PinkPosted on12:09 am - Jul 28, 2017
Goosy
I am perhaps not as enthusiastic about the SFSA as Auldheid, but there is no conspiracy with regard to timing. Myself, Auldheid, EJ and Finloch have had discussions with the SFSA over the course of the last year. I have made some points on the blog regarding their attitude to the elephant in the room, but this is not by any stretch a means of derailing the fight for justice over the SFA/SPFL handling of the RFC debacle.
The SFSA is I think the way forward for fans as a whole, but sadly probably not the way forward for our overarching priority.
The timing
View Comment
Big PinkPosted on12:18 am - Jul 28, 2017
Gunnerb
As I said, the SFSA needs to grasp the nettle if it is to retain our support, however although failure to react may make them less relevant to us, they are still a better alternative than what is available through SD
CitibhoyPosted on1:29 am - Jul 28, 2017
Blackstar
un-mothball it !
A governance landscape devoid of integrity and the acceptance of and/or complicity in wholesale cheating is the coo’s arse.
Hit that and the edifice will fall – Then rebuild
Right the Wrong – then we can move on
The long game simply isnt an option any more- the cat is out of the bag
Fail to do so and next season there will be many fans like me who will cease to participate anymore.
(in my case that is 6 season books covering 3 generations)
- TWM Episode 24 30/07/2019David Low (@Heavidor) talks about the revival of foreign interest in Scottish clubs, and why Rangers won't be one of them - for now.
- TWM Episode 23 04/11/2018John talks to David Low about the Big Two's published accounts, the breakaway Euro league and SFA's fitness for the modern world.
- TWM Episode 22 04/12/2017This week, John talks to George Galloway, politician, broadcaster, and football fan. hear george's views on the SFA, Sky & BT coverage of football and the duty of care that football is failing to give to our heroes.... and some other stuff! We also discuss the conflicts arising from Rangers pursuit of Derek McInnes, the […]
- TWM Episode 21 20/11/2017On the agenda this time; Hearts 'Standgate', SFA Euro-licencing, major managerial vacancies, and Judicial Review of SFA procedures; guests are Hearts blogger Matt Leslie (https://mattleslie74.weebly.com/) and Auldheid,
About the author