Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey

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.

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

roddybhoyPosted on11:39 pm - Aug 1, 2017


justbecauseyoureparanoid
 I too have many doubts Im usually a glass half full kinda person but with this I have been a glass half empty guy . The cheating and collusion is so in your face , so obvious so feking scandalous that surely surely surely Celtic cant let this go.They will lose a lot of loyal fans if they sit on their asses and ignore . Im hoping upon hope that they are ready to take aim and go for the jugular and cleanse our game . It would be so much easier though if The ALL the club chairman got together and dealt with it . I can understand Individual clubs not wanting to to go out on a limb so why not have a closed shop meeting and basically tell the SFA / SPL they are not fit for purpose and run them out of town . Simples

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:09 am - Aug 2, 2017


Very Well then – alone

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on1:17 am - Aug 2, 2017


Don’t know if Celtic are gonna be active or not, but as RTC says, ducks are currently being put into rows. 

Expect notification of developments very soon. 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:14 am - Aug 2, 2017


EASYJAMBOAUGUST 1, 2017 at 20:37 =====================

If the SFA do have a review then a JR could be put on the back burner until it is over, or could a Judge say no to any JR at all based on the SFA agreeing to the SPFL request to have a review?

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:37 am - Aug 2, 2017


Fans for Judicial Review

Fans for Judicial Review. A group have secured funding and counsel with a view to seeking a Judicial Review of the Nimmo Smith Commission. No crowdfunding is being sought at the moment, although that may be sought later.

For now we need to build a coalition of right minded fans who seek answers to the questions over how LNS was run, how the terms of reference were set, and how the Supreme Court decision on EBTs affects the key elements of Nimmo-Smith’s conclusions, which were based on the premise that RFC’s use of EBTs were lawful and open to other clubs.

View Comment

DunderheidPosted on9:04 am - Aug 2, 2017


That’s tremendous news, BP.

I hope attempts to build a coalition of ‘right minded’ fans turns out to be a huge success.

Note to self: order more popcorn.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:37 am - Aug 2, 2017


JUSTBECAUSEYOUREPARANOIDAUGUST 1, 2017 at 22:45 If Celtic have any intention of standing up to the cheats what are they waiting for?Can you imagine a Fergus McCann / Paul McBride double act sitting back and allowing this farce to continue? 
————————————————————————————————-
Well actually yes I can. I think some folk suffer from a bit of myth building around McCann.

I believe McCann was an honest businessman and had integrity but he was also a shrewd one. His interest was Celtic and Celtic alone and he would have done what was in the best interest of that particular club.

Had he been at the helm today he would have judged if title stripping and re-opening issues re Rangers would have had a positive or negative effect on Celtic and then taken it from there.

Like the current board who are dragging their heels, I believe he would most likely have held the same position we see from the SFA and the SPFL today.

That is not to say he didn’t trust the footballing authorities but I believe this was only when they harmed Celtic.

In fact is views on Rangers and Scottish Football are pretty clear from interviews given as recently as 2014 and 2016. (My highlights)

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13148727.The_saving_of_Celtic__20_years_on__Part_III__Fergus_McCann/ 

Another instructive point in the interview is McCann’s refusal to criticise Rangers, even failing to mention them by name, yet surely he must feel a sense of vindication about the way in which Celtic were run in contrast to their rivals? He was, after all, decried as a dictator and a skinflint who was restricting the progress of the club.
He contents himself with the observation about the need to manage risk and the “temptation of expensive, short-term deals”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37204507

“All the small clubs hate Celtic and Rangers, who basically feed them,” he says. “It comes down to human nature, but it also speaks to the structure in Scottish football.
“A lot of things have changed in 30 years: television habits, media, salaries, worldwide brands, Champions League, all these new things. In Scotland, not much has changed.
“They fiddle around with deck chairs, but you have still got 42 supposed-to-be-professional clubs in a population of five million.
“There are five million people in Greater Manchester, who have only got two clubs. There are five million in Boston, who only have one club.
“Don’t forget your dwindling potential audience. I watched a game, Celtic against Kilmarnock, 6,000 people, with close to 5,000 Celtic fans. What are Kilmarnock bringing to the game?
“They should maybe talk about British football. Celtic can take its place in British football. That’s maybe where they belong.”

Lets be clear on this McCann was refreshing but his main concern was Celtic and his own fans opinions didn’t necessarily come into it when it came to his view of doing what was required to protect and build the clubs business. He clearly has little or no regard for the feelings, views and concerns of fans of other Scottish clubs.

As for Paul McBride, I am sure he was an honest man as well. However a QC’s personal moral compass only exists up to the point he accepts instruction in a case from a client. They have no personal choice in whether or not to pursue matters just because they feel it may be unjust or otherwise. That is for their clients to decide.
If they don’t like the look of something they can turn down the instruction on the basis they cannot bring themselves to be involved.
However once they have stepped over that line then it is ‘gloves off’ and it comes down to arguing points of law and that does not necessarily equate to what the rest of us believe is right, wrong or morally correct.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:31 am - Aug 2, 2017


 
RODDYBHOYAUGUST 1, 2017 at 20:00
‘..Here’s an extract from a letter I sent to Celtic’s chairman around three weeks ago..’
_____________________
Superb letter.

Bankier’s “We have taken notice of the response of the Scottish Football Association and will continue to assess the situation” is just about capable of being seen as a ‘we’ll keep our powder dry’ response till they work out the practicalities of taking action.

I hope that is the case.
And it’s great news about the progress of plans to try to mount a Judicial Review.

Maybe Celtic will find way to underwrite the cost!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:22 am - Aug 2, 2017


 wottpiAugust 2, 2017 at 09:37
‘..Had[Fergus] .. been at the helm today he would have judged if title stripping and re-opening issues re Rangers would have had a positive or negative effect on Celtic and then taken it from there.’
________________
He certainly would, wottpi.
There is every possibity, of course, that his judgment (based on principle)  would have been that more damage would be to done to  Scottish Football   if he sat back and let wholescale cheating by the Football Authorities in collusion with one club lie at the festering heart of Scottish Football Governance.
He might ,on the other hand  have judged from a business point of view, blowing the whistleon the cheating would lead to its expulsion, and that the deth of Rangers 1899 might make it a litte easier for the English FA to accept an application from Celtic to join the them!
Either way, I think he might have had plenty to say!
You are 100% correct in your view o fhow Paul McBride as  QC would have related to matters.If he accepted a brief he would have had to go to the most legally stretchable interpretation of laws and rules to argue a case , no matter if it was to defend a Hitler or Goebbels or any of the vile specimens of humanity who ran the concentration camps.point legally

View Comment

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on11:36 am - Aug 2, 2017


Cheers JC
The Chairman’s response could indeed be taken that way – just.
However with every passing day /week of apparent inaction I find it more and more difficult to believe so.
As for Woppti’s analysis of how Fergus may have reacted, my own view is that of course he was a businessman and a very good one too. He saved the club but don’t forget he did so the honourable/expensive way at considerable personal cost.
He was, and I am sure still is, an extremely principled individual who in my opinion would have pounced on LNS (in particular the Bryson nonsense).
Like Woppti that’s just my opinion and who knows if either of us is right.
Bring on the Judicial Review.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:47 am - Aug 2, 2017


Sorry but that second point of McCanns really grinds my gears.  What do the diddies bring to the game is essentially his point.  And yet when faced with the opportunity to do something about it as the model imploded the authorities decided to dig in and move heaven and earth plus a few pesky laws and rules to recreate it.  And go entirely unchallenged in doing so.  Which is just as well as they didn’t feel the need to justify their position in any case.

this new model, built on a dangerous combination of fan apathy, underlying mistrust and, lets be honest, more widespread antagonism than any time since the 70-early 80s is built on exactly the same pillars of sand that the old financially doped model was. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:31 pm - Aug 2, 2017


I wonder if the powers that be at Hampden ever ask themselves how it is that they can hold honouring a very dodgy, secret, agreement, made with an even dodgier owner of a company, not at the time a member of Scottish football, above the very basic and logical rules, virtually set in stone, of Scottish football? (Assuming that secret agreement exists.)

It beggars belief (or it should) that the protection of titles won by, at the very best, underhand financing of players, should take priority over the very basic premise of honesty and fairness in sport!

The search for a satisfactory end to what any decent person would see as gross cheating of a massive scale has been ongoing for some five years now, and still it is left to the supporters to press for, and to finance, a judicial review.

Remember, despite all their efforts to brush it all under the carpet and move on, not one mouthpiece from Hampden has ever dared to say, ‘Rangers did not cheat’, nor that there is no case to answer!

The more the protectionists wrap themselves around Rangers, the more ‘moving on’ becomes an impossibility, and no more than a figment of their imagination.

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on2:07 pm - Aug 2, 2017


Pardon the intrusion guys, but Leigh Griffiths has just become an internet sensation!
“Yir club’s deid, … Noo beat it!”
https://i.imgflip.com/1tgaex.jpg 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:20 pm - Aug 2, 2017


It beggars belief (or it should) that the protection of titles won by, at the very best, underhand financing of players, should take priority over the very basic premise of honesty and fairness in sport!

And to what end AJ?
Keeping Rangers’ support in the game?  Horse sh!t.  They would have stayed regardless.  They cling to a mantra that didn’t exist until our game makers created it out of thin air literally in spite of the rest of us.  Its like someone on the Titanic pushing someone off as they watch the last lifeboat disappear over the horizon.  “I fully realise there are no more boats sir but if I wish hard enough an imaginary one might appear and by god I’m getting on it.  Now everyone, wish hard….”
Saving us from Armageddon?  Think we’ve disproved that one as long as you can swallow one club being ‘invincible’ which as long as it is done fairly and within the rules is not an integrity issue no matter how uneasily it sits with some.
Keeping the remaining supporter base on board?  Well that was never an aim per se.  If anything they have ostracised what little credibility they had left in this regard.
Being transparent, open, honest etc etc per mandate?  Yeah right! 
 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:28 pm - Aug 2, 2017


Remember, despite all their efforts to brush it all under the carpet and move on, not one mouthpiece from Hampden has ever dared to say, ‘Rangers did not cheat’, nor that there is no case to answer!

Just one point on this btw.  Messr’s D&R being the sleekit h… they are, to my understanding there are actually precious few direct quotes or suchlike actually directly supporting the continuation myth per se.  Rather there’s just increasing amounts of intangible ‘stuff’ that seems to float around like history websites, ASA verdicts etc.  ‘Stuff’ that wouldn’t be as difficult to defend in literal court if challenged as simple honest mistakes.

At least that’s how I see it. 

View Comment

wottpiPosted on2:34 pm - Aug 2, 2017


JOHN CLARKAUGUST 2, 2017 at 11:22
The analysis and options you outline McCann may have considered are relevant, as we speak, for the current Celtic board.
 
If we are all sure McCann would have had plenty to say, any thoughts on why the likes of Desmond and Lawwell apparently remain so quiet and have done for years?

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on2:41 pm - Aug 2, 2017


Oops, try again, …
Pardon the intrusion guys, but Leigh Griffiths has just become an internet sensation!
“Yir club’s deid, … Noo beat it!”
https://i.imgflip.com/1tgaex.jpg

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:12 pm - Aug 2, 2017


I’m not on safe ground how the law works.  but suppose you have the resources to retain the services of a QC.  I think it works on the principle that he/she is representing your personal interests regardless of their own feelings and morality involved.  I couldn’t do it but everyone is entitled to a defence.

Donald Findlay seemed to me, to do a splendid job for Craig Whyte.  Even although it made previous Rangers Boards and members off complete incompetents.  From a man who sang a naughty song at a Rangers bash.  Well done that man for putting that behind him, joining the Blue Brazil, telling some home truths about continuity, and defending Craig Whyte the way he did.

It wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if he was engaged in the upcoming Judicial Review.  I just hope that our legal eagles have a good eye for points of law and so called rules at Hampden.  There will be no jury to appeal to on an emotional sense.  The morality will not come into it. Cold rule observance will win or lose the day.  As a by line, integrity may be implied.  Resignations or sackings are a surely. 

For the sake of Auldheid’s aspirations I hope their is also mass resignations from club CEOs.  A new single body to run Scottish football with fan representation on a 50/50 split with club reps.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:27 pm - Aug 2, 2017


BIG PINK
AUGUST 2, 2017 at 08:37

Fans for Judicial Review. A group have secured funding and counsel with a view to seeking a Judicial Review of the Nimmo Smith Commission. No crowdfunding is being sought at the moment, although that may be sought later…
===========================

So, what will the blazers at Hampden do now ?

I’m guessing they have already paid the ‘bestest / most expensive legal brain in the land’ – to tell them that a JR is just not possible.

They can happily continue to play dominoes in the Hampden bunker, unworried.

Except, another legal brain has probably asserted that a JR is a perfectly reasonable course of action for Scottish football supporters.

Are the blazers only going to take notice if/when the crowdfunding actually starts – and accumulates to a sizeable fighting fund ?
 
…and then hastily throw out soundbites about having ‘a proper, independent review’ – to try and stymie the fans’ efforts ? 

When the crowdfunding is initiated, I do hope that any engagement sought from Hampden is then politely declined.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:45 pm - Aug 2, 2017


Can anyone remember the great and good at Hampden making contrary statements at the time that the likes of Walter Smith were welcoming the new Rangers into the world ? Is there a statement of denial from that period from SFA/SPL/SPFL that didn’t make it into SMSM ?

View Comment

JoeninhoPosted on4:52 pm - Aug 2, 2017


If I remember correctly, Fergus McCann’s approach was to send the SFA a bill for income lost due to the exit from the Cup. Caused by Farry delaying Cadette’s transfer.
He only went to court when they laughed it off, with the media cheering them on.
He would probably do the  same again.

View Comment

jimboPosted on5:07 pm - Aug 2, 2017


just think for a moment that Doncaster asked that QC GM was asked before the Supreme Court judgement to provide for two different scenarios.  1/ BDO lose.  2/ BDO win.

Given that BDO lost and QC GM came out with such a strong defence (ha ha)  I would love to see what his response was had BDO won.

Publish it and be damned Dunkey!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:19 pm - Aug 2, 2017


SmugasAugust 2, 2017 at 14:28  
Remember, despite all their efforts to brush it all under the carpet and move on, not one mouthpiece from Hampden has ever dared to say, ‘Rangers did not cheat’, nor that there is no case to answer! Just one point on this btw.  Messr’s D&R being the sleekit h… they are, to my understanding there are actually precious few direct quotes or suchlike actually directly supporting the continuation myth per se.  Rather there’s just increasing amounts of intangible ‘stuff’ that seems to float around like history websites, ASA verdicts etc.  ‘Stuff’ that wouldn’t be as difficult to defend in literal court if challenged as simple honest mistakes.At least that’s how I see it. 
_________________________–

The thing is, quotes from Doncaster, Regan, ASA, ECA and every other body are of no consequence anyway, for anyone can say anything they like, it doesn’t make something a fact, unless it is backed up with documentary evidence. Even the revamped rules of the SPL (SPFL) don’t make something factual, for they can be no more than the chosen way in which that one, single body views whatever it is that it is ruling on, and is, anyway, only valid within the confines of it’s own competitions. The reason that I find it noteworthy that virtually no relevant body is stating anything along the lines of ‘they are the same club’, ‘they didn’t cheat’, or, ‘there is no case to answer’ is that they would not be able to support such claims because they have nothing with which to back up such claims. We can be sure that they would not hold back from doing so, if only they could.

There is a reason why no football body, other than the SPL(SPFL), mentions liquidation in it’s rules (but they do mention administration or insolvency), and that is that no one ever contemplated the possibility of a liquidated club continuing, and so it was irrelevant to the rule makers. There is a reason why the SPL felt it desirable to amend it’s rules to include the word (liquidation) – either because it anticipated that a club, of particular, perhaps singular, importance to the SPL, might one day face such an event, or because there was some need to amend them to facilitate something else, and the change was made without thought as to the status of a club that actually enters liquidation, in which case it was made with no thought to the legal standing of a (liquidated) football club, and is merely being used to facilitate a lie.

For what it’s worth, the SPL could have written into it’s rules that tax avoidance by a member club is an acceptable way of financing players it could not otherwise have afforded to sign, but that wouldn’t have made Rangers’ use of EBTs lawful!

Even if the rules, from the very top, at FIFA, all the way down through UEFA, the SFA and the SPL (SPFL) stated that they viewed a liquidated club as continuing (how they’d word that is beyond me), that wouldn’t make TRFC the same club as Rangers, though we’d probably all just have to accept it. Only the law of the land can make it so! 

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on5:29 pm - Aug 2, 2017


Have any of our Hearts loving friends written to Ann Budge expressing their disappoint with her remarks the other day? If they did have any of them received a reply?
I think all Hearts supporters that read/write on here should keep pressing for an explanation from Ms Budge to justify her stance in the ongoing situation.
We know that the Aberdeen boys are up against it as Milne has succumbed to the blue pound threat against his business interests. Perhaps some similar threats have been made against Ms Budge’s business’s  and she has to obey instructions.
The lady at Hibs seem to have escaped criticism on here for some unknown reason and although she didn’t give an interview she has been conspicuous by her silence.
Come on guys, from every club, write to your club’s CEO asking what his/her views are and why they are silent on this subject.
Raith Rovers made a stance with Turnbull Hutton but has kept a golden silence since, again someone from the club’s support please ask why.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:00 pm - Aug 2, 2017


ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 2, 2017 at 17:19
Even if the rules, from the very top, at FIFA, all the way down through UEFA, the SFA and the SPL (SPFL) stated that they viewed a liquidated club as continuing (how they’d word that is beyond me), that wouldn’t makeTRFC the same club as Rangers, though we’d probably all just have to accept it. Only the law of the land can make it so! 
——————–
that wouldn’t makeTRFC the same club as Rangers,
But then they would
Have to pay all that money to the tax man and creditors.
They could have played in europe the following year.
They would have been seeded in the scottish cup the following year.
Players would not have to have TUPED over.
The debenture seat holders would still have their seat for life.
They could have played kelty hearts.
shareholders would still have shares in the club.
They would not have to have bought the titles they had won.
TRFC would not have to have done so many things if they were the same club as rangers.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:05 pm - Aug 2, 2017


Interesting point that.
Things TRFC would not have to have done if they were the same club as rangers

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:20 pm - Aug 2, 2017


AJ. You’re preaching to the converted here!

i was just responding to several comments on here that consider that Doncaster and Regan are chief architects of the continuity myth with which I would agree. but id argue they aren’t it’s chief proponents not least for all the incontrovertible evidence you and Cluster 1 list.  Instead theyre like the wee playground nyaff who starts the rumour and then steps back and revels in its impact all the time shrugging their shoulders and claiming its nowt to do with them.  

View Comment

Kilgore TroutPosted on6:30 pm - Aug 2, 2017


Cluster One

“Things TRFC would not have to have done if they were the same club as rangers”

Gone on and on anything like as much about being the same club as rangers. 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:34 pm - Aug 2, 2017


Going to be interesting watching the Neymar transfer saga play out with FPP issues being specifically mentioned.  Surely buying a player of that value on the never never won’t affect their sporting advantage anyway will it?

Although, in all seriousness, it is a bit like two keen Sunday drivers watching  a Lamborghini line up against a Maserati.  All good and interesting but utterly irrelevant to your day to day existence.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:35 pm - Aug 2, 2017


BallyargusAugust 2, 2017 at 17:29

I have written to Ann Budge in the past, and despite receiving a very pleasant acknowledgement of my email from her assistant, I received nothing from the woman herself. Towards the end of last season she issued an update of how things are going at the club and included a mention that she was too busy (club and SPFL business, I think it was) to respond to supporters’ communications.

I’ve written previously of how, in that same update, she said that she was surprised at the supporters affection for the old stand (many supporters were expressing how much it would be missed) in a way that suggested to me that she doesn’t quite ‘get’ football, and what it is that keeps bringing supporters back at a club that is more often starved of success than harvesting trophies.

In short, I doubt she ‘gets’ the issues around Rangers use of EBTs, and views it in a way that she asks herself, ‘will Hearts benefit from any sort of review?’ and, sadly, I’m sure the answer she gets from her business brain is, ‘no’. There are also issues around Hearts’ building of the new stand that might be bringing pressure to bear on her. In the run up to the FFP Euro place shenanigans, she was desperately trying to get agreement to have Hearts first four matches played away from home, along with an agreement to use Murrayfield should Tynecastle not be ready for the first home game (against Aberdeen we now know). Could you imagine what might have happened should Hearts have appealed for that Euro spot at the disadvantage of TRFC? The fixtures hadn’t been announced, so what are the chances that Hearts first home match would have seen TRFC as visitors, and what are the chances of them agreeing to a change of venue?

Now, I am not suggesting that that’s how it would have worked out, but it wouldn’t take much to put that fear into someone’s head while looking down the barrel of a £12m plus investment going wrong!

Football people, that’s you and me, couldn’t understand why Ann Budge didn’t go for that Euro spot, but to me the reason was most likely one of money. Hearts were more likely to lose money (a home gate maximum of around 12,000) than make any; and unlikely to progress with such an unsettled squad. So Mrs Budge had little incentive, of the kind she understands, to battle it out with the SFA and their favoured club.

I have never been of the opinion that Ann Budge (or Leanne Dempster) was going to be ‘good’ for Scottish football, any more than any other new arrival on the scene might be. I do, though, think she will be good for Hearts, and is only going to use her position at the SPFL to ensure that Hearts are fairly represented in everything that goes on there. If she thinks TRFC are being benefitted at Hearts, and every other club’s, disadvantage, then she will act, I am certain of that, but she is not going to do any more than anyone else to right old wrongs that won’t benefit Hearts now!

These are all my own thoughts, and I don’t know the woman any better than anyone else on here, but my cynicism towards the people who run our game, and towards all those incredibly successful business people, like Ann Budge, knows no bounds.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:40 pm - Aug 2, 2017


Ballyargus August 2, 2017 at 17:29 
Have any of our Hearts loving friends written to Ann Budge expressing their disappoint with her remarks the other day? If they did have any of them received a reply?
=========================
Yes (copied to FOH chairman Stuart Wallace) and not yet.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on6:47 pm - Aug 2, 2017


Seen the Neymar deal £515,000 per week, i am becoming disullisioned with football this is obscene. What are we watching now there is no magic, nothing different of value in this type of football anymore its nonesense.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:15 pm - Aug 2, 2017


wottpiAugust 2, 2017 at 14:34
‘..If we are all sure McCann would have had plenty to say, any thoughts on why the likes of Desmond and Lawwell apparently remain so quiet and have done for years?.________
________
Well, obviously McCann was a quick-thinking, quick acting businessman, who could make up his mind and be prepred to get angry (once he felt he was on solid ground).

Celtic’s ‘excuse’ for delay, or dithering, or trying to ride two horses simultaneously, is that the SC decision had to awaited so that  good legal grounds would be available to challenge Nimmo Smith’s premise that other clubs could have used EBTs. 

They have not exactly moved with speed, but then again, sound legal preparation takes some time.

It’s taking longer than I would have hoped for,but  even I can understand a hesitancy in ‘going to law’ Precipitate action  not to be recommended-and it has been (in terms of legal proceedings)  a very short time since the SC judgment.

I just wish they had moved on the ‘failure to disclose’ front, which there was abundant evidence of. There was no need even to think of whether Murray used clean money or dirty money: he was in serious and serial breach of a significant Article of Association of both the SPL and the SFA.

In my view that would have been enough to nail him.That was the main football cheating and, in context of sport, worse than cheating the taxman!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:21 pm - Aug 2, 2017


BIGBOAB1916
AUGUST 2, 2017 at 18:47 
Seen the Neymar deal £515,000 per week, i am becoming disullisioned with football this is obscene. What are we watching now there is no magic, nothing different of value in this type of football anymore its nonesense.
============================

Yes, and supposedly that’s GBP 515K…AFTER TAX !  
[And no EBT’s required.]
Mental.

And the expanding transfer fees / wages bubble will continue to be obscene – until the TV money dips.
[Or for certain club owners: until the ‘depressed’ oil price starts to really bite?] 

Might take a few years, but liquidation of some of the ‘top European clubs’, and smaller clubs – along with emptier stadiums – seems inevitable, IMO.  18

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:44 pm - Aug 2, 2017


StevieBCAugust 2, 2017 at 16:27
‘….…and then hastily throw out soundbites about having ‘a proper, independent review’ – to try and stymie the fans’ efforts ? ‘
___________
Naw, by their own assertion ( based on crap advice) any independent review they set up could not deal with the issue -only  Court ( they in effect said) could judicially review the soundness of the legal basis of Nimmo Smith’s decisions.
If the Court grants permission for a JR and ‘learns’ in the course of its examination of the point of law that Nimmo Smith’s judgment was in the event based on an unsound view of the law, it’s difficult to see how they could let his decision stand.
At the very least, they would have to refer it back to him for his application of the ‘true’ law to the facts of the case. 
And that woud be fun and games!

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on12:33 am - Aug 3, 2017


StevieBCAugust 2, 2017 at 19:21Might take a few years, but liquidation of some of the ‘top European clubs’, and smaller clubs – along with emptier stadiums – seems inevitable, IMO.
Hope so.
I remember someone telling me the games better, you have fitter players and sport science and tactics. the old football was shit.
I remember been told CDs were the way forward digitital music, quality. Amazing vinyl is making its way back, hope this is an omen.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:05 am - Aug 3, 2017


bigboab1916August 3, 2017 at 00:33
‘…..Amazing vinyl is making its way back, hope this is an omen.’
____________
Serendipity or what!

This very morning my windae cleaner ( fundamental Hearts man) told me that he had a huge collection of vinyl records, and was into the business of keeping tabs on ‘artistes’ who might die, because the vaue of the the particular recording’s sleeve seems to rocket! Not the actual record itself!

This conversation led on to the question of storage in attics.

And, very off topic, (but it’s been so bloody quiet tonight!) this leads me to ask: can I safely attach brackets to my roof rafters to hold bookshelves  on which might perhaps  two or three hunert weight of books  could be safely shelved, evenly spread over the rafters on each side?

Is there a structural engineer out there?

The wife’s going nuts at the prospect of the roof collapsing!
( No, that’s SMSM speak!&nbsp! Mrs C has simply asked me to ensure that putting the extra weight on the rafters will not cause them to bend, buckle and give way)

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on3:32 am - Aug 3, 2017


JC(e) @ 01:05
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

the only advice I can offer is that vinyl most definitely sounds so much better. I would imagine that sensibly spread your vinyl collection may be hung from your diagonal joists. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:45 am - Aug 3, 2017


I used to have a top of the range stereo system which I bought from a shop across the road from Central Station.  Happy days.

I have a few hundred vinilys up the loft alongside my old records System.  Cant manage up there no more! Probably covered in birds shit!

Utube is my saviour.

Celtic done well tonight although it was scary.  Hope Aberdeen do well tomorrow night.
Gnight folks.

View Comment

whiteseatbhoyPosted on8:12 am - Aug 3, 2017


john,
i’m no structural engineer but I’ve built a few roofs in the last 49 years. don’t load your rafters, they are designed to take the weight of the tiles/slates.On the floor of your loft you should be able to board over the joists where they sit over the wall below. If it is an old property the best place is where the joists cross each other, this is usually the load bearing wall.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:39 am - Aug 3, 2017


John,
As a rule of thumb, the roof trusses are only capable of holding the sarking and tiles. In modern kit houses, even the joists in the roof are barely capable of taking even the load of flimsy flooring. This subject to a safety factor of 1.4-1.6.

Definitely don’t hang shelves on the trusses to take books or vinyl!

View Comment

HelpumootPosted on11:56 am - Aug 3, 2017


EasyJambo, any idea who is doing the building work at Tynecastle, who is supplying the steel etc.. ? (I know Daltons did the demolition.) Can’t find anything on line about it.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:15 pm - Aug 3, 2017


causaludendiAugust 3, 2017 at 03:32
Big PinkAugust 3, 2017 at 10:39
________
Gentlemen, I write this from my hospital bed1819………….
No, only kidding. Thanks for the advice.
To which I will listen.
And add housebuilders to the list of cheapskate minimalist contributors to the sum total of human happiness, a list which of course is headed by Scottish Football governance people!

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on1:55 pm - Aug 3, 2017


John Clark
August 3, 2017 at 01:05
 
Books 
I had a similar quandary, 5222 books, so I “digitised” them.
Now I use a nexus tablet to read them.
 
Storage details above.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:07 pm - Aug 3, 2017


woodsteinAugust 3, 2017 at 13:55
‘…, 5222 books, so I “digitised” them.Now I use a nexus tablet to read them.’
_________________
Wow!
Does that mean you scanned every page etc? And got shot of the physical books afterwards?
Perhaps, not to bore other posters, you might PM me with details, some time at your leisure?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on2:13 pm - Aug 3, 2017


HELPUMOOTAUGUST 3, 2017 at 11:56
Google – BSB Structural Ltd, Facebook, Tynecastle

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:15 pm - Aug 3, 2017


Helpumoot August 3, 2017 at 11:56 
EasyJambo, any idea who is doing the building work at Tynecastle, who is supplying the steel etc.. ? (I know Daltons did the demolition.) Can’t find anything on line about it.
======================
The main contractor is BSB Structural Ltd.  They have a load of photos of the development on their Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=bsb%20structural

I think that there was a deliberate decision taken to favour local (and Hearts minded) companies when awarding contracts.

The seating sections are made of some lightweight composite material sourced from South Korea and are due to arrive next week.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on2:15 pm - Aug 3, 2017


John ClarkAugust 3, 2017 at 14:07
—————————————————

Certainly will JC, meantime the “boss” is calling for a taxi. 10

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on2:23 pm - Aug 3, 2017


jimboAugust 3, 2017 at 04:45 
I used to have a top of the range stereo system which I bought from a shop across the road from Central Station.  Happy days.
 Would that have been Hutchisons, back door of the central or front door of central Hi-Fi corner and would that stereo have been a Denon.
I had Denon from Hutchinson and Dual turntable from Hi-Fi corner, £50 for my stylus, who says CDs are better nothing beats a diamond and shine on you crazy diamond.Ha Ha

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:51 pm - Aug 3, 2017


BIG PINK
AUGUST 3, 2017 at 10:39

As a rule of thumb, the roof trusses are only capable of holding the sarking and tiles. In modern kit houses, even the joists in the roof are barely capable of taking even the load of flimsy flooring. This subject to a safety factor of 1.4-1.6….
=============================

BP, that roofing info went right over ma heid !

…I’ll get my hi vis jacket…  14

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on6:30 pm - Aug 3, 2017


John ClarkAugust 3, 2017 at 14:07

Back from “taxi” duties, you have mail.16

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:16 pm - Aug 3, 2017


On the question of justifying a JR this conversation from CQN might be of interest

Original Point from
Dexter P. Bampot on 2nd August 2017 10:29 am

Different Counsel can reach different conclusions depending on- what information has been provided to them; what they have been asked to consider, and there own interpretation of the law/ precedent.
The opinion will remain privileged unless privilege is waived.
 
We do not know what body(ies) is(are) the subject of a potential JR- whether it is a JR of the SFA/SPL or the LNS commission.
However basic principles dictate that the findings of LNS could be quashed if, for example, same considered irrelevant or incorrect material or knowingly ignored relevant material. Similarly if the decision was one reached which no reasonable tribunal could have reached based on the evidence sane may be liable to JR.
=====================
Response from Auldheid 
 I think based on the SPFL response to a journo regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the wee tax case in the LNS Commission, that a matter considered irrelevant and so not properly examined was excluded. It was not just the lawfulness of the ebts that was left out but the omission of actual dishonesty, that was obvious from Rangers accepting, on QC advice , that RFC were liable to pay the tax owed under the DOS (wtc) scheme, the situation where they lied to HMRC about holding side letters for two players whilst at the same time (in Apr 2005 ) having 16 players on the books and  another 13 who had left, all with side letters at the time of enquiry.
 In the very act of passing the buck to the SPL to investigate the SFA avoided any charge under
Article 5
5. Obligations and Duties of Members
5.1 All members shall:-
(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play
 (b) be subject to and shall comply with:-
(i) these Articles;
(ii) the Judicial Panel Protocol;
(iii) the Challenge Cup Competition Rules;
(iv) the Registration Procedures;
(v) International Match Calendar;
(vi) Club Licensing Procedures; and
(vii) any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport; 
(c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA Statutes;
 (d) respect the Laws of the Game;
 (e) refrain from engaging in any activity, practice or conduct which would constitute an offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Bribery Act 2010; and
 (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.
 Specifically a) and particularly f).
 It has always bemused me why the Judicial Panel charged CW of bringing the game into disrepute for a number of reasons including non payment of PAYE and VAT but not non payment and failure to meet his undertaking to pay the wtc bill. 
Further in the JP charge sheet Art 5.1 a gets a mention amongst a list but 5.1.a)and f) do not appear in the actual charges themselves.
What this means is that CW was found guilty by the JP but Rangers as a club and SFA member have never been charged with breaches of 5.1a and f.
What the wtc shows is evidence of dishonesty, but it is but one example of which Res12 evidence is so full there is even a map of dishonesty which would suggest to a criminal court that there was
” previous” (as in behaviour.)
It is because dishonesty is denied, in fact  LNS says there was no question of dishonesty, personal or corporate, regarding registration, in spite of it never been asked, that the attempts to put the matter to bed (which is what LNS appears to be an attempt at, have failed. The proper charge has been avoided but then again how could you allow any club with office bearers carrying that reputation into Scottish football, certainly without proper controls on it?
Ooops they just did.
==================================
Dexter
The SFA or SPL would arguably be liable to JR if they deliberately stymied LNS or were procedurally incorrect in establishing LNS or acted wholly unreasonably.
 ========================
 Auldheid
 See my first comment. Although it was an SPL Commission that was no excuse to avoid SFA Articles. Indeed in recent interviews that has been the SPFL defence – as in that was not our job.
 =============================
Dexter
I should also add that the JR court would also look to whether any alternative remedy was open to the Applicant. I don’t know if UEFA or FIFA or CAS may have been approached.
 ========================
 Auldheid
It was my view from the off that the SFA should have been the commissioners (it was their registration witness that swung things) and CAS the court of appeal.
 
I don’t know why they pay thousands for lawyers – we just made the case fur nuthin!
  
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/a-judicial-review-of-the-lord-nimmo-smith-commission/comment-page-11/#comment-3097738

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:25 pm - Aug 3, 2017


John Clark

” And add housebuilders to the list of cheapskate minimalist contributors .”
I have coined a term for the maximalist of contributors whom I affectionaly think of as lads in deference to them no longer being so by age but not in spirit.

The Lads of The Summer Whine. 06

(If ye canny laff at yersel by oor ages, ye might as well be deid.)06

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:05 pm - Aug 3, 2017


  bigboab1916August 3, 2017 at 14:23
..’I had Denon from Hutchinson and Dual turntable from Hi-Fi corner,
____________
For some extraordinary reason, I hear in my head a voice crying ” Glens Hutchison Robertson and Stepek!” and am taken back to the early 1970s.
I can’t remember whether that was an advert on STV, or just a radio advert on the old, original Radio Clyde ( of “were you at the game, caller” days) : a programme that made me often wonder whether Richard Park or Jimmy Sanderson had been at the same game as I had been!
It was always a joy to read Ian Archer and John Rafferty as a kind of reality check.
And what would those intrepid, careful, balanced sports writers have written about the disgraceful cheating of SDM, and the even more disgraceful repone of the Football ‘Establishment’ to that cheating?
And who doubts what would have been their reaction if their respective  editors tried to  shut them up?
What a pity guys like that were not around in the summer of 2012!

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:41 pm - Aug 3, 2017


Bigboab 1916,

Yes it was Denon amp, Denon tape recorder, Dual turntable, Mission speakers.  You daren’t play at full volume the neighbours would call the police!  Can’t remember the name of the HiFi shop, it was Hope St.

Shame about the delay with the Tynecastle stand but it’s not the end of the world!  Read an article earlier saying that Hearts have put the league fixtures into turmoil.  No it hasn’t!  The only club disadvantaged (slightly) is Hearts!

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:50 pm - Aug 3, 2017


Building/ civil engineering projects often go over budget and are late on completion.  I think back to the Ninewells hospital in the 70s, the Scottish parliament building, the Edinburgh trams system.  Seems to be par for the course.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on12:09 am - Aug 4, 2017


John ClarkAugust 3, 2017 at 23:05 
“Glens Hutchison Robertson and Stepek “0404 step back in time below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4tqZXXjELI&spfreload=10

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:29 am - Aug 4, 2017


jimboAugust 3, 2017 at 23:41
‘…an article earlier saying that Hearts have put the league fixtures into turmoil. No it hasn’t! The only club disadvantaged (slightly) is Hearts’
___________
From the outside, I would give the Hearts board the credit for anticipating a possible delay ( they are Edinburgh folk after all, and they know what a f.c. up Edinburgh City Council made in respect of the ‘trams’)

They would have to have checked long ago with Murrayfield; and with the other clubs about where their ‘home’ games were to be played in the (certain!) event that Tyncastlewouldn’t be ready.

And of course there is absolutely no way the ‘Football Authorities’ could have dared refuse anything, so heavily compromised as honest ‘governance’ as they have made themselves.

And if Ms Budge has managed to get either the SPFL or the SFA ,or both, to cover the payments to the SRU, I wouldn’t be surprised: after all, another, now dead ,club had been deceitfully put in the way of a few million quid without a blush by our deceitful Football Governance folk.

[ footnote:(and nothing at all to do with my post)] I love the Dorothy Parker quote, which came into my mind while writing this post:
If all the girls attending [the Yale prom] were laid end to end, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.” )

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:00 am - Aug 4, 2017


whiteseatbhoyAugust 3, 2017 at 08:12
‘…don’t load your rafters, they are designed to take the weight of the tiles/slates.On the floor of your loft you should be able to board over the joists where they sit over the wall below.’
___________
Sorry, wsb,for what I’ve just noticed:not including you in my post thanking folk for their advice on the shelving matter.
My books have for years lain quite safely on my own ‘flooring’ in the attic ( e.g old wardrobe doors and ex-library shelves and such like laid over what my late and very dear brother-in-law ( a brickie by trade) called ‘the jeests’).
They are again lying safely ( and not at all damaged by damp, or cold, or vermin or bugs) on that flooring.
And Mrs C is sleeping soundly even as I write.19

View Comment

Pat ByrnePosted on1:12 am - Aug 4, 2017


Another one in the mould of old school reporters was Alan Heron, he once spoke at a charity golf outing at Alloa’s Shawpark and told how he was commentating on a Scotland v Russia game when his fellow commentator a certain Bob Crampsay asked him who the Russian Nr 4 was to which he replied F*cked if a know, Crampsay carried on with his in depth description and duly informed the listeners that Fuctavano has just booted the ball into touch for a Scotland throw, oh aye and I missed a 2 ft put on the 18th which cost me a 2 week all in golfing holiday for two in the Algarve, loosing it with the same score as the guy that won it but with a worse inward 9, nice brolly though for second place.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on7:40 am - Aug 4, 2017


Talking of journalists, below is an article from 2013 by Graham Speirs on the subject of new club/old club.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13110164.Spiers_on_Sport__Rangers__new_club_or_old__and_the_BBC/

The acrimonious debate continues about whether Rangers FC is a new club or not.
 
BBC Scotland is just the latest to feel the hot wrath of some angry Rangers fans railing at its editorial stance.

In fact, those Rangers fans have scored a notable victory in having a complaint to the Editorial Standards Committee about BBC Scotland upheld

At least two supporters objected to the BBC in Glasgow occasionally referring to Rangers in terms of “old club” and “new club”, and their complaint was upheld.

What was thrown out was the daft accusation, frequently cited among some Rangers cyber zealots, that the BBC was biased against the club.

My point here is not to defend BBC Scotland. In this complex Rangers saga, it has become obvious to me, speaking to various insolvency practitioners, that “new club” or “same club” Rangers is a highly subjective issue. I’ve heard the entire gamut of interpretations on it.

Where Rangers struggle to be angry or insulted by the suggestion that their organisation is a “new club” is in this context: at least four Rangers principals, men who have been lauded by supporters, have expressed just such a view of Rangers as a new club.

First, Charles Green. Prior to Rangers’ descent into liquidation last year, Green was aghast at the attitude of Dave King, a long-standing Rangers director, who had urged that a CVA be voted down by the club’s 276 creditors.

Incredulous at this, Green went on television and said: “What he [King] is suggesting is that, rather than get a CVA through that retains all the history and tradition, that instead we should vote against it and go down the newco route. I mean…why would a true Rangers fan suggest that?”

In this, the view of Green, the man to whom many Rangers fans swooned, appears none too different to that of BBC Scotland and others.

Arguably, no Rangers figure in this debate finds himself in a more excruciating position than James Traynor, the club’s Director of Communication.

Time and space here doesn’t allow for the sheer number of times that Traynor, in his previous role as a journalist, emphatically pronounced Rangers to be a new club once liquidation became a reality. Yet he has the temerity now to argue the complete opposite.

Of the numerous times Traynor weighed in on this subject, just two quotes here will have to suffice.

With liquidation looming, Traynor wrote in the Daily Record: “Some Rangers fans believe the club’s history, which would end with liquidation, must be protected. But any newco should make it clear that a new beginning means exactly that: a new club open to all from the very beginning.”

Later on, with the Rangers CVA being rejected, Traynor wrote: “Rangers FC as we know them are dead.” Caustically, he added: “No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out, Rangers as we know them died.”

Reading this type of stuff, I would urge Rangers to exercise supreme caution in railing against anyone who dares to call their club a new club; none other than their own Director of Communication has made his view perfectly clear on the subject.

Many a Rangers fan expressed the view that the club died with the descent into liquidation. Typical of this was Ibrox debenture holder Stewart Boal who, having stumbled out of the CVA meeting of June 2012, was quoted by Richard Wilson in The Herald as saying: “We’re in shock. The club is gone. We’ve got to start again and move on.”

Wilson, a fine reporter, himself wrote of that nine-minute creditors’ meeting where the CVA was rejected: “In those few minutes 140 years of history had been rubbed out.”

I could go on and on here. Richard Gough, one of Rangers’ greatest ever captains, wrote in a newspaper column: “The club I gave blood, sweat and tears for is dead.”

Walter Smith, one of the greatest figures in Rangers’ history, and now the club’s chairman, said of Green’s consortium taking over: “I wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune.”

This is a painful subject. Many Rangers fans are agonised at the thought of their club being new – they simply rule it out. “It’s the company, not the club,” became the mantra. Other Rangers observers – like me – find it hard to escape the view that the current club is a new club.

Rangers FC itself should think twice about laying into BBC Scotland or anyone else over this old club/new club debate. The more so when its own oral history on the subject is so weak.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on7:48 am - Aug 4, 2017


Does anyone else remember the game at Ibrox in 2012, before the CVA was rejected, when 50,000 fans held up red cards which carried the message “No To Liquidation”?

Now, just why would they be so upset about the prospect of a meaningless, expendable company going into liquidation?

Unless of course……………..

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on9:55 am - Aug 4, 2017


Have been gone for a while.
In the sin bin.
Test.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:17 pm - Aug 4, 2017


HighlanderAugust 4, 2017 at 07:40

The thing is, Highlander, that not one of those luminaries quoted has ever attempted to explain what it was that caused them to change their mind on the subject. All anyone who supports the myth ever says, is, ‘so and so says they are the same club…!’

Anyway, here’s a wee thought. Why was it that neither Doncaster, nor any member of the SPL, pointed out, prior to the failure of the Rangers CVA, that, according to it’s own rules, a liquidated club carries on regardless? Could it be that that ‘get out your coffin free clause’ was only ever going to be used to the benefit of one club, and if Rangers hadn’t died, no one would have ever thought to introduce it as a lifeline for a corpse?

View Comment

erniePosted on1:02 pm - Aug 4, 2017


Allyjambo:  you make an excellent point, and the reason that, I quote,
“… neither Doncaster, nor any member of the SPL, pointed out, prior to the failure of the Rangers CVA, that, according to it’s own rules, a liquidated club carries on regardless?”
is, of course, that it is not the case. What the question highlights is how ridiculous the whole scam is, not really in terms of any SPFL rules (they can do what they want, they are merely a group of companies) but primarily because the reality of liquidation, i.e. one ceases to exist, is the whole bloody point and is intended to be a drastic, non reversible last resort for businesses in distress.

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:19 pm - Aug 4, 2017


It’s a funny old game playing in Europe.  Celtic will travel about 4,000 miles to central Asia to play Astana.  Mind you I saw it coming years ago when Israel was allowed to enter the Eurovision song contest.  I think I read recently that Australia is now in that competition!

The world is shrinking right enough.

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:27 pm - Aug 4, 2017


Just checked it’s 4k miles driving (about 70 hours),  3k miles flying (about 9 hours)

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:12 pm - Aug 4, 2017


ERNIEAUGUST 4, 2017 at 13:02

‘…the reality of liquidation, i.e. one ceases to exist, is the whole bloody point and is intended to be a drastic, non reversible last resort for businesses in distress.’
____________

And it is there, Ernie, that we see the what makes the concept of limited companies, and the insolvency laws surrounding it, acceptable to society. It is also what made it possible for lenders (banks) to lend to football companies (clubs) to a level not backed by their commercial prospects or heritable assets.

Even Bank of Scotland wouldn’t have lent the millions it did to Rangers if it was possible for the club to be seperated from the company in the event of insolvency. The biggest factor in lending way past the value of it’s security and/or commercial prospects to Rangers Football Club plc, was the words ‘football club’. For the bank knew, that under the law, it could have no recourse to shareholders, regardless of how wealthy they were, other than the (unspoken) threat that it would mean the death of the club. They would undoubtedly have believed that the directors would automatically dig deep (as has so often been the case) to keep the club alive, or someone else would. There is no way on earth that any football club would ever have received the level of bank support they all have, if there was ever the remotest possibility that a club could continue past liquidation! It is a nonsensical fantasy, and that is why the argument continues, for there can be no evidence of this continuation, and it is impossible to get people who believe in fantasies to accept the truth, especially when their belief is supported by those who fear the consequences of that truth.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:23 pm - Aug 4, 2017


Unintended consequences and all that…

If crowdfunding is initiated for a JR, then the expectation is that fans from many / most [?] senior clubs would contribute.  Who knows, even some TRFC supporters might contribute, but for different reasons ?

And this coming together for a common cause could generate more goodwill amongst the fans of all clubs…but it could also further entrench the division between TRFC fans and everyone else.

The SFA, SPFL, and the clubs want us all just ‘to move on’ for the good of the game.

Yet their continued inaction has forced this proposed JR as possibly the last resort before a fans’ boycott.

When will the penny drop amongst the Hampden blazers that ‘moving on’ requires input from themselves?
They can’t simply instruct the fans to forget everything that has happened in recent years.

Alternatively, frustrated fans could choose to help themselves to ‘move on’ by supporting a JR.

And regardless of what does or doesn’t happen: TRFC will always be a negative influence on the Scottish game, IMO, and there’s b*gger all we can do about that, [self-inflicted liquidation aside]. 

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on3:35 pm - Aug 4, 2017


Allyjambo
August 4, 2017 at 12:17
7 Votes
HighlanderAugust 4, 2017 at 07:40
The thing is, Highlander, that not one of those luminaries quoted has ever attempted to explain what it was that caused them to change their mind on the subject.
————————————————————————————————
Well here is one of these luminaries making himself look even more foolish by trying to explain his revisionism (grovel) to Ally McCoist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmFtPE2_9V4
For the faint hearted start at 23 minutes to 26 minutes.1111

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:06 pm - Aug 4, 2017


Quote from the TRFC MD, Stewart Robertson.

“…
”Rangers is a modern, balanced and fair football club. It is crucial all fans appreciate they are representing an institution that has been in existence for 145 years and it is their duty to enhance and protect its reputation…”
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/follow-with-pride-6/
==========================================

Think Pedro must have slipped him some altar wine into the MD’s coffee… 15

View Comment

tonyPosted on6:10 pm - Aug 4, 2017


WOODSTEIN
boak

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on6:38 pm - Aug 4, 2017


tonyAugust 4, 2017 at 18:10
______________________________
My sentiments exactly.

View Comment

jimboPosted on6:42 pm - Aug 4, 2017


Boak, I hate coffee !

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:23 pm - Aug 4, 2017


WOODSTEINAUGUST 4, 2017 at 15:35       5 Votes 
AllyjamboAugust 4, 2017 at 12:177 VotesHighlanderAugust 4, 2017 at 07:40The thing is, Highlander, that not one of those luminaries quoted has ever attempted to explain what it was that caused them to change their mind on the subject.————————————————————————————————Well here is one of these luminaries making himself look even more foolish by trying to explain his revisionism (grovel) to Ally McCoist.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmFtPE2_9V4For the faint hearted start at 23 minutes to 26 minutes
——————
Ally was not the only one trying to explain his revisionism

View Comment

Comments are closed.