Saying the last couple of weeks has been colourful for Scottish Football would be an understatement.
We are now in a position where we have a Taskforce co-chaired by the heads of two clubs to look at what needs to be done in the Covid 19 landscape right now and into whatever future unfolds.
Representatives of the clubs first convened last Monday and Graham Tatters, Elgin City chairman told BBC Saturday Sportsound that the 2nd division has already agreed unanimously to back 3 leagues of 14 as their preferred option.
On the same show Iain McMenemy, Chairman of Stenhousemuir effectively told us among other things that nothing in Scottish Football is ever easy, and mentioned that he believed the fans should be involved in any process.
Around the same time a very welcome conversation was underway between Les Gray, Taskforce co-chair and Paul Goodwin of the SFSA with Les asking for and welcoming fan input.
Dave Allen Called Our Future Years Ago
His oft quoted “I wouldn’t be starting from here joke” is a remarkable insight into where we find ourselves.
Our game is on the cusp of internecine war following the confusing combination of events we’ve all see playing out.
The hastily convened Taskforce has co-chairs who have also been quoted in the MSM as having different agendas, one for an immediate solution and one for a long-term plan.
Nothing wrong with that, in fact brilliant, we need both because they are interrelated.
Collectively we have to ask not just how do we minimise the economic and social impacts of the pandemic but also how do we start to shape our game for a better future?
Both these needs are right nows and both are the remit of the current Taskforce.
Now is the Time to Circle Our Wagons
This unique, open-ended, revenue-winter hit our clubs unexpectedly and overnight.
It is already brutal and will get worse with no current exit plan and no future certainties.
We know Dave Cormack’s Aberdeen is currently burning £1M per month.
No club has Covid immunity and a world of salary reductions, deferrals furloughed staff, little in the coffers and no exit strategy or road map out is a stark reality.
It’s hard to imagine that footballers have become liabilities rather than assets in a blink of an eye.
But it’s not hard to foresee that the financial stress on our clubs will see casualties.
Never before have we needed inter and intra-club teamwork for the common good.
But not in Scottish Football where an internecine spat is about to flare big time.
Civil War Breaking Out?
The record will show the recent SPFL Good Friday vote got an 80% plus backing vote from the clubs but in reality became a farce as Dundee eventually changed their “casting” vote.
This was paralleled by the “whistleblower” outburst by Rangers interim chairman Douglas Park demanding immediate suspension of Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie and an independent inquiry that sort of happened but not to the satisfaction of some.
One week later it rages on in the media with words today like “damning evidence, serious concerns, lack of fair play, coercing and bullying” being the vocabulary fed to the MSM to share with their audiences.
It seems some clubs have become unhappy with how our game is run and want to do something about it, so welcome to our world guys, – us fans have been saying that for a long time.
Our game needs big change but it won’t happen overnight and a pandemic crisis is maybe not the best timing for internecine strife.
Closing Down 2019 – 2020
This season is already ended for all Scottish clubs outside the Premiership.
UEFA didn’t do much to help and could have been more proactive in stopping inter club squabbling but plus ca change.
Most football people I have spoken to (with their self-interest hats off) were not totally happy with the implications of closing the season early and pro rata-ing points to decide champions but pragmatically accept it is the best answer or the least worst solution.
Asked about teams being relegated while having a bona-fide chance of fighting back there is less support and indeed genuine heartfelt pushback.
Some more enlightened leagues like the Lowland League who took the decision to avoid further damage on some of their members at this time through a no relegation policy and a wait and see what’s best are seen as wiser.
What Needs To Be Done Today?
We all know that out of the Budge/Gray Taskforce there will be a few options put on the table.
There is always the status quo of 4 leagues 12, 10, 10, 10.
A 14, 14, 14, setup was discussed and voted on by the current second division clubs last Friday.
Our own similar suggestion published on your SFM was 14, 14 and a bottom league of 16 to keep the integrity of the pyramid.
Two weeks on, a more pragmatic option and one to be considered by all might be to agree no relegation for now and to wait until more is known over the next crucial weeks.
We have time on our hands and no need to rush.
Why not take our lead from the sages at the Lowland League?
As a fan what do you think?
Should we plan for an interim period?
Should it be status quo?
Do we apply parameters (like no relegation) but accept that any other plan has to be kept flexible till more is known and agreed?
Your insights and views are welcome by Ms. Budge, Mr. Gray and their team either on this forum where I’ll read and collate them or if you prefer sent to me at
andrew@scottishfsa.org
What Needs To Be Done for Our Tomorrows?
We live in the real world and that means money is and always will be the prime driver and starting point.
Money is entwined with self-interest, status, power, politics and sometimes greed.
A given is every club will always want more and that is the easiest of several elephants in any room when looking at change to impact positively on the future of our game as a whole.
But maybe, just maybe now is different.
Post Covid many clubs will be on their knees financially and it will be a different world.
Les Gray’s Million Pounds Question For all Fans
No surprise it’s not an easy one
If you were charged with helping to create a sustainable and healthy future for Scottish Football is what would you do?
How would you advise Les, Ann and their Taskforce team about the right moves to make?
Once again insights welcome on SFM or to
andrew@scottishfsa.org
As a starter for 10 some stuff that has come up in previous SFSA fan surveys about our game (in alphabetical order) includes –
Better Communication, Bigger Leagues, Community Involvement, Council Telly live games, Gate Sharing, Grass Roots Investment, Fairness, Family Friendly, Fewer clubs, Integrity, Kids Free, Leadership, Less leagues, No Bigotry, Openness, Outside expertise, Same rules for all, Schools Football, Simplicity, Standing Sections, Summer Football, TV Kick-off times, Regional Lower Leagues, Reserve League, Strict Liability, Transparency, Wholesome Sponsors etc.
The list is not exhaustive. Please feel free to add any others.
Some will be contradictory, some nice to haves but the crucial thing to do is to find the smartest moves and build on them.
We’re responding to Les and Ann in good faith
Never before have we the fans been asked in such an open way.
Collectively we have a short-term end of season issue and a need to set up our game for what comes next which might include an interim period.
The background to any responses you offer is uncertainty exacerbated by growing internecine chaos and increasing vitriol.
I’ll end with some wise and hopeful words by a Taskforce Co- chair
Without openness, transparency and pragmatism we will simply keep making the same mistakes.
Ann Budge
Fresh news on the release of the evidence to the 41 clubs.
According to The Sun (Devlin) it will be within 72 hours.
That would give the clubs ample time to consider the contents. A damm sight longer than the SPFL gave the clubs to consider the resolution in question.
Not long to wait now………
paddy malarkey 3rd May 2020 at 14:22
Allyjambo 3rd May 2020 at 12:37 Perhaps I should have said "credible".
======
I think the going concern warning and the statement of the £10m hole were very credible.
I guess that gives TRFC a final 72 hours then,
to negotiate / threaten / dare I say bully?
the SPFL and other clubs,
to get what it wants / concessions,
in return for dropping its complaints.
Otherwise, TRFC would have happily released their 'evidence' immediately – you would think…?
wottpi 3rd May 2020 at 14:24
Corrupt official 3rd May 2020 at 12:44
The fact the we and others are still debating this is proof positive that Doncaster did not address the matter of ;-
a) Was the option if advance payments ever considered? and
b) If not why not?
=============================
To be fair he was battling an agenda laden interview that was only looking for certain answers, and as a result, limited and repeated questions. Most of what I have said has been gleaned during lockdown, from various sources, which is a timeframe not available for radio.
However he did point out that hundreds of pages were studied by himself and fellow directors/ staff, with many issues discussed and addressed in an attempt to come up with suitable options.
I would imagine those discussions would not be dis-similar to discussions/debates on SFM, and with a similar spectrum of fan widths, only differing in so much as they would have a wee bit more insider knowledge ….They even have a wee disruptive troll in Robertson.
100% agreement is simply not always possible and sometimes its the lesser of two evils that prevails. I think that as things go, timeframes available, and target aims, they are genuinely doing their best. In unprecedented circumstances perfection is a big ask.
If all of the fees had been paid – but the season left open, there are a couple of scenarios that I imagine could play out.
Under the first scenario and the season actually restarts (say, June/July), some clubs may not be in a position to do so and be forced to forfeit some/all remaining games.
Under either option, insolvency events may occur before the season is finalised and clubs would automatically incur points penalties. Such penalties can be appealed, but those appeals would open up a new set of hugely expensive and potentially explosive choices for the appeal bodies.
Again, under either scenario, some clubs may cease trading and be expelled from the league.
Until the league season is finalised, the positions can change quite substantially (even if no further games are played) and underpayments/overpayments would need to be reconciled.
Clubs falling into liquidation cannot be compelled to refund overpayments.
Whether you think it is possible, probable or certain that clubs will go under before the season is finalised, the SPFL would have been at that same risk of having made fee overpayments that could not be recovered.
As a positive choice, that would not have been a responsible position to adopt.
I think the chance of getting the clubs to agree to reconstruction at the same time as finalising positions was slim to none. And Slim had left the building.
In all honesty, I believe the choice to ‘call’ the league in the terms it did was the right one. I just cannot see how it could have taken any other course of action.
StevieBC 3rd May 2020 at 15:07
'…
I guess that gives TRFC a final 72 hours then,
to negotiate / threaten / dare I say bully?
the SPFL and other clubs,
to get what it wants / concessions,
in return for dropping its complaints.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
It's a pleasant situation to be in, I have to say: sitting on the sidelines while the Club that is a Living Lie has a go at one of the Governance bodies that helped manufacture that lie and has run with it for 8 years!
What's not to enjoy?
The SPFL, like the fox in the fable, chose in 2012 to carry the scorpion TRFC over the river and is now being stung by that scorpion, faithful to its inherent poisonous and malicious nature.
When the baddies fall out and start sniping at each other, I can rejoice in their discomfiture.
Corrupt Official
To be fair he was battling an agenda laden interview that was only looking for certain answers, and as a result, limited and repeated questions.
%%%%%%%%%%%
Poor Mr.Doncaster, perhaps we should give him a raise on his 350K salary for his limited answers to repeated questions.
Maybe if he hadn’t insisted on refusing interjections from others, the questions may have been more varied.
Maybe if he and his colleagues had conducted the whole rushed affair with good governance, competence and a fair approach regards not inflicting extra pain on (relegated) clubs when there was no need to……we wouldn’t be here 4 weeks later and the SPFL wouldn’t have needed to firstly sit in a bunker for a fortnight or so, then undergo a PR blitz that has been big on words but small on satisfactory answers.
“Agenda driven interview“…. wow, just wow !!
Unless the agenda was journalists looking to hold power to account.
I’d send him an e-mail to apologize and suggest John Nelms is next to be put in front of Richard ‘Paxman’ Gordon but it would probably just go into quarantine.
John Clark 3rd May 2020 at 15:30
=================
The statement below is an extract from an e-mail response Mr Doncaster sent to me in 2017. He said it was the SFL who were responsible. Mr Longmuir and Mr Ballantyne if I recall correctly made the decision, which was akin to the Fox getting the key to the Henhouse! However, I don't doubt for a minute that the SPL (as they were at the time), would have made exactly the same decision. It was all part of the gerrymandered fix, and it's not called the Five-Way-Agreement for nothing!
'When Rangers Newco joined SFL3 in 2012, the SFL recognised Rangers Newco as possessing all of the title history – this is evidenced by the SFL handbook for season 2012/13 and the SFL website at that time.'
Charles Paterson, Sky journalist tweeted the following at 20:18 on the evening of Friday 10th of April (day of first public vote count).
It appears that there may be “a technical question-mark” over the competence of Dundee’s no vote”…
https://twitter.com/charlesp_sky/status/1248691865882447872
%%%%%%%%%%%%
How does that fit in with the Deloitte timeline (below) ?
“Sequence of key events on 10 April 2020.
“1. An SPFL Board Meeting commenced at 17:00 on Friday 10 April 2020. At the start of the meeting 38 returns had been identified as received, and 1 further return was received during the meeting at 17:10, bringing the total number of returns to 39.
“Ladbrokes Premier: 10 returns in favour, 1 against
“Ladbrokes Championship: 7 returns in favour, 2 against
“Ladbrokes Leagues One and Two: 16 returns in favour, 3 against
“It was noted during the meeting that one vote remained outstanding from the Premiership, one from the Championship, and one from Leagues One and Two.
“2. The Board meeting concluded at around 17:15.
“3. At 17:15, Neil Doncaster called Dundee FC Managing Director, John Nelms, and left a message asking whether Dundee FC intended to submit a return.
“4. At 17:39, Neil Doncaster had a conversation with John Nelms and confirmed that as far as he knew, no vote had been returned from Dundee FC.
“John Nelms thought Dundee FC’s vote may have been returned, but would make enquiries.
“5. At 17:50, Eric Drysdale (Dundee FC Club Secretary) spoke to Iain Blair (SPFL’s Company Secretary and Director of Operations) asking whether Dundee FC’s return had been received. Iain Blair confirmed that it had not.
“6. At 18:00, a text was received by Iain Blair, from Eric Drysdale, intimating that the Dundee FC vote should not be considered as cast.
“7. At around 20:30, Ian Blair accessed the SPFL’s email quarantine system (which is a feature of the email system operated by a separate third party) at the suggestion of Rod Mackenzie and identified an unread email from Eric Drysdale that had been sent at 16:48 on 10 April 2020.
“Iain Blair released the quarantined email and it appeared in his SPFL email inbox at 20:55.
“Prior to identifying the quarantined email at around 20:30, no one from the SPFL had seen the email from Eric Drysdale.
“Deloitte’s examination of phone records, mobile communications (including texts) and email data has identified no evidence of improper behaviour by SPFL personnel concerning the submission of the Dundee FC vote.
upthehoops 3rd May 2020 at 15:39
'..an extract from an e-mail response Mr Doncaster sent to me in 2017. He said it was the SFL who were responsible. Mr Longmuir and Mr Ballantyne if I recall correctly made the decision, which was akin to the Fox getting the key to the Henhouse.'
"""""""""""""""""""""
Well remembered, uth!
I've always meant to have a look back at that merger (or rather, takeover: the SPL simply registered change of name to SPFL)
Where did it come from and why? That is, was it innately connected with the 5-Way agreement as part of some deal with Longmuir or had it been on the stocks long before the Liquidation and death of RFC of 1872
reasonablechap
3rd May 2020 at 16:06
0 0 Rate This
……….
Not sure who you are directing your question to, but I don't understand its premise.
How is it you think a tweet from a Sky reporter relates to the Deloitte investigation?
Are you saying that there is some conflict? If so, what is it?
Allyjambo 3rd May 2020 at 13:59
HirsutePursuit 3rd May 2020 at 13:38
HirsutePursuit 3rd May 2020 at 15:15
I agree with AJ.
@HP, you are now getting into remote possibilities.
The season was scheduled to end and all monies paid out two weeks from now. All Premiership clubs will have budgeted to receive all remaining funds around that date. I cannot envisage a decision to end the season being delayed any longer than a few days beyond that point.
If clubs did become insolvent, having received funds, but with games still to play then, 1) any points penalty would be subject to appeal for reasons of force majeure, with, in my opinion, a high likelihood of success. 2) any funds distributed wouldn’t be at the cost to any other club, as they would have agreed to receive what was appropriate to their position at the time.
Any club, or the SPFL itself, that sought to recover funds from an administrator / liquidator would be free to do so. The benefit of doing so would be marginal, at best, at this stage of the season.
As a have pointed out previously, the SPFL is a members organisation. They are free to change their Articles of Association as they wish. (as they did re the use of PPG to determine the final league positions). They could have changed the articles about promotion, relegation, play-offs, number of teams in the league, financial distribution for this season and next season only, if they wanted to.
PPG, for example, was only one method that was available to determine final positions. Although it may be viewed as the fairest option by many fans, it doesn’t take account of the split of home/away games and the difficulty or otherwise of the games played to date or future games cancelled.
The league could have been called a number of ways: on current standings, the standings as they were when teams had played the same number of games, the position at the completion of the second round of games when all teams had played home and away against every other team. All those options could have been accommodated by changes to the Articles. I do hope that they were all considered before PPG was put to the clubs. However, why PPG had to be attached to decisions on promotions, relegations, abandoning play-offs etc. still isn’t clear to me.
HP
In relation to Deloitte timeline.
How does Charles Paterson know there had been a technical question-mark regards the Dundee vote and that the vote was a No vote by 20:18 ?
EasyJambo
@HP, you are now getting into remote possibilities.
%%%%%%%%%%%
Very
Being an auld geezer, I struggled with the use of the word ‘quarantine’ in relation to emails!
In my day it meant what every child in the country now knows what it means because of covid-19!But when the word was used in relation to a technical procedure in the world of email communications, it had me baffled.
Dundee’s vote went into ‘quarantine.’
Was this a deliberate attempt by SPFL to hide an unwelcome ‘NO’ vote?
I read up that ‘quarantine’ can be part of the business of automatically separating out ‘spam’.
Technical glitches are the order of the day, and there is nothing untoward about emails going astray into somewhere other than they were addressed.
But most importantly, a ‘no’ vote can be changed even after it is cast, right up to the official deadline!
Dundee could have sent 100 emails stating their vote was ‘NO’ and still have been perfectly entitled to change it to a ‘yes’ right up to the end of the 28 day balloting period.
John
But most importantly, a 'no' can be changed even after it is cast, right up to the official deadline!Dundee could have sent 100 emails stating their vote was 'NO' and still have been perfectly entitled to change it to a 'yes' right up to the end of the 28 day balloting period.
%%%%%%%%%%
Not according to the legal opinion sought by Partick Thistle.
When sent (not arrived or received), it was a No and at that point the resolution lapsed.
reasonablechap
3rd May 2020 at 16:26
0 0 Rate This
HP
In relation to Deloitte timeline.
How does Charles Paterson know there had been a technical question-mark regards the Dundee vote and that the vote was a No vote by 20:18 ?
……….
Surely a question for Charles Paterson. Does he post here?
Do you know how he sourced his info?
Still don't understand, whatever answer he may provide, how it would be relevant to the Deloitte investigation.
How do you think it would be so?
Please, please don't feed the aspen bachelor.
Its just a road to nowhere.
Really boring and utterly self defeating.
There are more interesting things going on.
reasonablechap 3rd May 2020 at 16:34
‘..Not according to the legal opinion sought by Partick Thistle.
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
I think the Companies Act is actually quite clear:
Under Section 296 of the Companies Act 2006:A vote is not signified until
” 296 Procedure for signifying agreement to written resolution
(1)A member signifies his agreement to a proposed written resolution when the company receives from him (or from someone acting on his behalf) an authenticated document—
(a)identifying the resolution to which it relates, and
(b)indicating his agreement to the resolution.
(2)The document must be sent to the company in hard copy form or in electronic form.
(3)A member’s agreement to a written resolution, once signified, may not be revoked.
(4)A written resolution is passed when the required majority of eligible members have signified their agreement to it.
AND Section 297 :
297 Period for agreeing to written resolution
(1)A proposed written resolution lapses if it is not passed before the end of—
(a)the period specified for this purpose in the company’s articles, or
(b)if none is specified, the period of 28 days beginning with the circulation date.
By any unstrained reading, it is clear enough that a full 28 period must elapse before any vote counts.Thus, at any point before the end of that period a vote received is NOT ‘signified’ legally.
Been lurking for a long, long time but happy to read and learn.
This, however, is starting to feel somewhat familiar.
We have one particular team/entity/engine room subsidy being very aggrieved at a particular issue and leading a crusade against…well everyone, a whole host of supplicant "journalists" willing to push that particular line of questioning despite there being far more relevant issues which apply to all of Scottish football as opposed to one particular team, and lastly, the re-emergence of a specific type of poster on this forum who continuously deflects, denies and contorts.
It's almost as if there is a determined effort going on here to disguise or distract our attention from something that they don't want to admit or acknowledge.
The end is nigh.
This latest announcement re a merchandising partner made me feel I'd seen something similar a few days before the lockdown started; so, does anyone remember the name of that guy from the Far East who was about to buy megabucks worth of shares and had a foot in the door of the Blue Room?
Was he called Deja Vu Alloveragain, or something? Or was it Ezztees Forsale?
Finloch 3rd May 2020 at 17:48
'…Please, please don't feed the aspen bachelor'
"""""""""""
A moment of weakness, Finloch: he talks such ill-informed balls that I shouldn't really respond.
I will not do so again, because there is no reasoning with 'invincible ignorance', the blindness that can't see because it chooses not to!
Supporters of the Big Lie fall into that category, I believe.
Allyjambo 3rd May 2020 at 17:59
'. so, does anyone remember the name of that guy from the Far East..'
"""""""""""""
There have been so many, Aj, that it's hard to keep track.
Are you thinking of the guy originally from Greenock or Port Glasgow, who's in the logistics business in Japan and is always looking for land near good roads for storage /transport purposes?
I've actually forgotten his name, and it was on the tip of my tongue when I began to post this!
John Clark 3rd May 2020 at 18:29
Allyjambo 3rd May 2020 at 17:59
==============================
I think that it was Bill Ng who you were thinking about.
Like most of the other interested parties looking to buy RFC before it was liquidated, he's had a chequered back story.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/prospective-former-rangers-owner-bill-10297531
Allyjambo 3rd May 2020 at 17:59
This latest announcement re a merchandising partner made me feel I'd seen something similar a few days before the lockdown started;
===========================
Stuart Gibson Ally…….Good at the hokey-Cokey I believe. ……No so much the "In", bit, but brilliant at the "ooties".
Corrupt official 3rd May 2020 at 12:44
I don’t know if Sevco do, or don’t want a loan, or even if it would be granted, nor do I know if they wanted position payments forwarded without calling the league. I’m not sure they even know what they want, as they have changed stance on numerous occasions.
……………….
That saves me going back over the last weeks to look out all their statements (I’m not sure they even know what they want)
Re the sky tweet.
it was common knowledge that Dundee were part of the first division bloc voting no. The Record had ran their eckshclusif on the “Championship Battleground” 48 hours previously. It became common knowledge quite quickly through SPFL clumsiness that Dundee’s intended no vote (intended in so far as the SPFL were subsequently told to disregard it) and which Mr Gardiner was so quick to protect/advertise 18 hours later (sorry 17.5 because the westie needed out) and the missing vote at ten past five was one and the same. Hence the Sky tweet later to say the Dundee vote (and hence the overall result) wasn’t the given everyone had previously thought. Tweet then follows. No?
Smugas
3rd May 2020 at 11:07
3 0 Rate This
Sorry to the blog if Im being incredibly slow. My memory was SPL cash was forwarded to Gretna to complete their fixtures? Did they not do that, and thus forfeited the 12th place fee that would have been due to them anyway? Im still not following how moneys were forwarded AND lost. Confused.
……………….
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1257025777100611586/photo/1
Smugas 3rd May 2020 at 13:31
14
0
Rate This
No arguement from me there. But they dont get to pick and choose which elements they wish to be transparent on, nor do they get to selectively pick which they will be questioned on, nor, for that matter, do the journalists get to either!
……………..
I remember Warburton getting removed from a presser when journalists were told not to ask questions about Joey Barton, but they did.
John Clark 3rd May 2020 at 15:30
As you say, what's not to enjoy.
Seeing the new club biting the hand that helped con it into existence, and threatened every other club with financial Armageddon if they didn't let it into the top league (as was), then tried to get them in at the top of the lower league (as was), then eventually managed to get them into the bottom division of that league.
There was a lot of threatening, bullying, coercion going on back in the day.
Watching said club have a real go at them is fecking hilarious if you are honest.
And all because they thought they had a chance at stopping Celtic win 9 in a row, when they couldn't do it himself. Then really started throwing the toys out of the pram when 80% of the clubs said nah, we'll finish the league.
They are absolutely raging that the SFA are insisting on finishing their competition as well.
Here's the great bit, bring on the independent inquiry as well.
As you say, what's not to like.
reasonablechap 3rd May 2020 at 16:06
How does that fit in with the Deloitte timeline (below) ?
“Sequence of key events on 10 April 2020.
“1. An SPFL Board Meeting commenced at 17:00 on Friday 10 April 2020. At the start of the meeting 38 returns had been identified as received, and 1 further return was received during the meeting at 17:10, bringing the total number of returns to 39.
…………………….
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1257032517137371136/photo/1
…………….
The rangers 17.10pm
Cluster One 3rd May 2020 at 20:45
The rangers 17.10pm
========================
I think that it may have been Hearts voting just after 5pm. Apparently Hearts had tried to submit their vote around lunchtime, but ending up resubmitting it just after 5pm.
John Clark 3rd May 2020 at 16:07
I’ve always meant to have a look back at that merger (or rather, takeover: the SPL simply registered change of name to SPFL)
Where did it come from and why? That is, was it innately connected with the 5-Way agreement as part of some deal with Longmuir or had it been on the stocks long before the Liquidation and death of RFC of 1872
………………
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1257040546088005633/photo/1
………….
This could be a good start for you JC. The part that is highlighted. Also remember he got a bonus that there were some question marks over.
……………………….
Not related but just a bit of information while looking that up.
Rangers Retail ltd was born 2 days later
reasonablechap 3rd May 2020 at 16:34
John
But most importantly, a ‘no’ can be changed even after it is cast, right up to the official deadline!Dundee could have sent 100 emails stating their vote was ‘NO’ and still have been perfectly entitled to change it to a ‘yes’ right up to the end of the 28 day balloting period.
%%%%%%%%%%
Not according to the legal opinion sought by Partick Thistle.
When sent (not arrived or received), it was a No and at that point the resolution lapsed.
Been reading your comments all through this thread and come to the conclusion you are either a troll digging for info or looking to sh*t stir, if you have evidence or a source, without naming the source at least put up the statement or shut up.
If Partick Thisle had a legal position why did they not pursue it, as it stands they are relegated and may not come up from the lower division, thus, you would have thought they would have fought their corner.
Partick, ICT and Dundee, never carried through what they had whatsapped, and Dundee and the other two could have changed their vote as the man who replied stated this was a resoloution and was compliant with company law, 28 days before it fails and even if it was not official, if a club wanted in reverse of what others have been saying Dundee’s no should have been a no, any club could have insisted Dundee must register again as they never followed procedures for casting the vote as laid out and they sent their vote to spam, which is a spoiled ballot paper.
Partick Thistle were in my opinion told they do not have a leg to stand on and best save what they would have lost in a legal dispute and hope for change. So instead of taking your argument around in circles why not take the night off and stop posting he said and they said you are now behaving like a sevco rep.
Cluster One 3rd May 2020 at 21:19
John Clark 3rd May 2020 at 16:07
I’ve always meant to have a look back at that merger (or rather, takeover: the SPL simply registered change of name to SPFL)
I can't recall ever discovering the outcome of Longmuir's bonus's.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/spfl-investigate-claims-secret-bonus-2169597
Just another add-on to above to late to Edit
As the Newco rangers were invited into the bottom tier the SPL were trying to hatch a plan for a SPL2 and get a rangers into it.
Back in the day they were really making it up as they went along.
Cluster One 3rd May 2020 at 21:19
John Clark 3rd May 2020 at 16:07
I’ve always meant to have a look back at that merger (or rather, takeover: the SPL simply registered change of name to SPFL)
Where did it come from and why?
================================
It originated in the second half of 2010 when SPL 2 was being considered, i.e. before RFC’s demise. Had it happened, then much of the two lower tiers of the SFL would have been left behind. That was also the situation that prompted ND to mention “financial armageddon” if clubs didn’t vote for his plan.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1338087/Neil-Doncaster-urges-SPL-clubs-grab-cash-lifeline.html
Stewart Regan only repeated ND’s comment when RFC hit the buffers.
RFC’s collapse triggered a rethink of the planned split and ended with a merger of the SFL and SPL. It provided an easier path for TRFC to the top flight, while protecting the critical TV deal.
Note: The linked article talks about “financial Armageddon”, but also reflects clubs’ complaints about “emotional blackmail” being applied.
Plus ça change
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52515606
easyJambo 3rd May 2020 at 21:37
It originated in the second half of 2010 when SPL 2 was being considered,
……………
Round about the same time HMRC were asking questions i believe.
Corrupt official 3rd May 2020 at 21:32
………….
I HAVE THAT SOMEWHERE
……………………..
bigboab1916 3rd May 2020 at 21:31
…….
I read Partick Thistle released a very good statement.
John
A moment of weakness, Finloch: he talks such ill-informed balls that I shouldn't really respond.
I will not do so again, because there is no reasoning with 'invincible ignorance', the blindness that can't see because it chooses not to!
Supporters of the Big Lie fall into that category, I believe.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
You'd better send one of those "invincible ignorance" e-mails to the QC and junior counsel who gave Partick Thistle the legal opinion (link below / you might have to C&P it into the address bar). I thought after spending all that time in court, you might have learnt by now that barrack room lawyers have their limitations and can easily make a fool out of themselves.
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Rev_Redacted-Joint-Opinion-PTFC-.pdf
Cluster One 3rd May 2020 at 21:19
"….This could be a good start for you JC. The part that is highlighted. Also remember he got a bonus that there were some question marks over."
"""""""""""""""""""""
It all comes flooding back, Cluster One! Thank you.
EJ
Two weeks ago, there was still earnest yearnings for extending the season into July/early August. Some were (still are) even suggesting a later start for euro competitions could give national leagues to September/October to finish.
I agree that those options now appear to hold just the remotest of possibilities (in Scotland at least), but the position was not as clear cut at the time the board's resolution was put forward.
Force majeure can certainly be a defence if an insolvency event occurs, but, the penalty is automatic and the process of appeal is not as straightforward as you might think. It would be expensive, opaque to the general public and hugely controversial. Can you imagine the wailing outrage if a club gained promotion or escaped relegation following a successful appeal whilst another, in apparently similar circumstances, had its appeal rejected.
Imagine that the league had made advance payments – based on a provisional league position. Regardless of how the final league positions were ultimately determined, the board could not have any certainty that the final positions in the weeks or months ahead would be the same as they are right now. Only by absolutely finalising the positions, could the fee due to each club be finalised.
The SPFL has not changed its articles.
Article 103 says,
The board shall, …:
…
103.9 in relation to the operation of the League, the League Cup and any other Competition operated by the Company, be entitled to make such arrangements, adopt such procedures and make such determinations as it considers appropriate in circumstances where the Rules or Regulations, as the case may be, do not direct or provide for the manner in which the League, League Cup or other Competition operated by the Company should proceed or be operated;
…
103.13. make such recommendations to the Members on such matters as it considers appropriate.
From the above, you can see that the board could have taken the decision itself. Instead the board chose to make a recommendation to the members. The members accepted the board's recommendations and the RULES have been updated accordingly. No change was required for the Articles.
All of the changes were related to making specific determinations within the operation of the league competition in circumstances were it was considered the existing Rules did not provide clear (enough) guidance.
Personally, if it had been up to me, I would have made a determination that all remaining games were given a 1-1 scoreline. That would have met the expectation of a 38 game season. However, I have no insight into what methodologies were considered and why PPG was the preferred determination. In all honesty, unless the final positions were determined by a formula that was grossly unfair, I don't think it matters too much.
I suppose, from a Premiership perspective, the formula would need to meet UEFA's requirement for 'sporting merit'. So, perhaps the board felt that PPG is most representative of the actual playing record of each club over as much of the season as was actually played. In the circumstances, I find it difficult to find fault with that logic.
In terms of promotion, relegation and the play-off competitions, the starting point is that the league positions have been established. What are the options if Dundee United are deemed to be winners of the Championship and Hearts finish bottom of the Premiership? Promotion and relegation are simply consequences of those facts. For those clubs, there is no real decision to be made.
For clubs in play-off positions, at least a decision (determination) needed to be made. In all the prevailing circumstances, was that determination perverse? No, I don't think so.
Will the board have considered other options? In theory, I suppose so. But, in all honesty, what was the prospect of achieving sufficient consensus to enable fairly substantial changes to the articles?
Perhaps I am too pessimistic. I just feel the idea that there could, in short order, be agreement around changes to fee distribution and league reconstruction, is a tad optimistic …at best.
John Clark 3rd May 2020 at 22:12
Must have felt like christmas to Longmuir.
HirsutePursuit 3rd May 2020 at 22:31
The SPFL has not changed its articles.
===========================
Mea culpa
Apologies, but it was the “Rules and Regulations” that changed. However, any changes to the R&R are subject to the AoA.
Alterations to Rules
A2 Any alteration, deletion or addition shall be made in or to these Rules including the Appendices only in accordance with the Articles.
reasonablechap 3rd May 2020 at 22:07
‘.The Dundee Rejection Vote was therefore deemed to have been cast at 4.48pm when it was sent.’
“””””””””””””””””””””””
With apologies to Finloch of this parish, I reply:
It may have been ‘cast’ but under the Companies Act it manifestly was not legally ‘signified’ and could not be legally signified until the expiry of 28 days!
Messrs Thomson and Anderson, in my opinion, have like some layman taken the ‘casting’ of a vote as meaning that the vote has been ‘signified’ as defined in the Companies Act.
A very basic mistake, to assume that a word or expression used in everyday speech has the same meaning as a quite different word used in an Act of Parliament!
easyJambo
3rd May 2020 at 22:39
0 0 Rate This
………..
The gentle point I was trying to make is that changes to the rules are made to ensure its competitions are operated as effectively as possible in the prevailing circumstances.
A change to the articles could be much more profound as it may involve altering the contractual and commercial consequences of the nature and outcome of those competitions.
Seeking to get approval for making determinations in the context of the completion of a competition shouldn't be particularly contentious. Though, of course, it has proven to be just that!
Trying to change the commercial consequences of the competition outcome at the same time seems overly ambitious.
I listened today to Mulraney of Alloa's observation that
"The full-time clubs are going to be presented with problems that are very, very significant. Some of our larger clubs are going to face some real, real searching questions over the coming months."
And I wondered: is there already some enterprising real journalist getting right in there to try to predict which full-time clubs will be the first to go under, and why?
Are the betting companies offering odds?
And, being on a promise from Mrs C, I'm off to bed now.
The promise being, of course, that she'll kick ma heid in if I don't get aff that blog!
Easy Jambo
On your last point first which arises as result of seeing where you are coming from in your reply:
I had some sympathy for Michael Stewart's arguments at the time but I think events have overtaken them, which is I think where I came in.
I think we are all finding the same arguments as tiresome and repetitive, but the way you describe events as having overtaken them is akin to saying that "decisions have been made so we should move on". With your own experience of "moving on" in the context of the Res 12 issue, I'm sure that you still harbour hopes of righting the wrongs that were done in 2011 and thereafter and you want structures put in place that can prevent such errors being repeated. That's where I came in.
==========================
1. To clarify: by moving on I didn't mean dropping the point you made about who decides the desired objective and how to reach it, that battle for transparency goes on by asking questions about the 5 Way Agreement that meant Celtic, who would be a part of a desired shared aim of keeping crowds turning up at Ibrox and continuation of a poisonous rivalry to attract TV money, having to lie to shareholders at last AGM and pretend for over 7 years they were unhappy with the SFA in respect of the UEFA licence 2011beacuse of their involvement in the 5 Way Agreement.
Given it is the same point you make, it is a long term battle. No, by "moving on" I meant we need to concentrate on the battle for survival facing all top tier clubs with players on contracts they can no longer afford for as long as football is impossible to play to an attending audience.
I was influenced by what is going on in the USA to enable sport to continue as reported by The Washington Post and New York Times that I linked to. Its grim and somehow supporters have to be persuaded to pay to keep their clubs alive with no guarantee of when they will have a game to watch, which is the basis of my reply to Andrew Smith's main blog feature about selling membership in return for a meaningful vote on club business.
Perhaps "park the questions arising from the voting issues for now" better covers it, although now that Hearts have been bitten by the same opaqueness, Anne Budge might realise it was a mistake not make a fuss using Res12 as a reason for an SFA clear out with an introduction of domestic FFP which I think would be good for all challengers for best league positions.
The modus operandi of both SFA and SPFL is as clear as day based on previous SFA/SPFL investigations and the key question is who decides on the desired outcome the SPFL or SFA CEO is asked to deliver?
Res12/ 5 Way Agreement pursuit has been parked, not dropped because its aim is transparency and accountability and it is ironic that now Rangers think they are on the wrong end of a decision by one of those bodies they now want what they have derided since Res12 was first lodged.
Easy Jambo
If alternative was dependent on playing the outstanding games, which everyone wanted, rather than placing teams on current position, how realistic is that position now and is it not a bridge that will have to be crossed anyway?
I agree it is no longer realistic to expect games to be played so the split of prize money would have been based on current positions (or PPG) as above. The argument against early distribution that clubs might go bust is a red herring. The money would be due to clubs anyway as soon a the season was called. Neither the SPFL or the other clubs would be losing out in cash terms. The SFA/SPFL rules on insolvency would ensure that football creditors are repaid in full following any CVA or in TRFC's case phoenixing.
================
I think that because of what happened at Rangers and the loss of income from self isolation , the SPFL Board used a justifiable principle to support not giving loans, even if they had other motivations and the eventual adjustments after league is called are small.
Put another way, had there been another outcome they wanted that raised the same argument/principle, they would have said the cost of the risk was minimal. That is what they do. That is Doncaster's job to justify the unjustifiable. An example at Celtic. Refusing to pursue SFA JPDT to complete investigation into UEFA licence 2011 on the grounds its between the SFA and Rangers, totally missing the point Celtic could be owed compensation and deserve an answer.
I can understand the annoyance of Hearts (and Thistle) and sympathise but what other solution would have kept Hearts (and Thistle ) up that did not affect the league structures? Hearts stay up but Dundee Utd don't get promoted or they do creating a 14 team top tier that a number of clubs might have objected to?
There are solutions that would have saved Hearts and Thistle without reconstruction. "Null and void" and "no promotion or relegation" are two, although I wouldn't advocate either. In my view a "no relegation and a temporary reconstruction" (although I would prefer a permanent change) was an eminently, fair, practical and sensible one in the exceptional circumstances. Even the Lowland League, East of Scotland League and the new West of Scotland League, all within the pyramid, have adopted that approach.
==============
Agreed on no relegation but at the other end of the table successful clubs would have to be promoted so reconstruction by the back door which The SPFL Board might not did not want to happen for cake slicing reasons. (I'll cover rest if if needed later today)
John Clark 3rd May 2020 at 22:41
It may have been ‘cast’ but under the Companies Act it manifestly was not legally ‘signified’ and could not be legally signified until the expiry of 28 days!
Messrs Thomson and Anderson, in my opinion, have like some layman taken the ‘casting’ of a vote as meaning that the vote has been ‘signified’ as defined in the Companies Act.
A very basic mistake, to assume that a word or expression used in everyday speech has the same meaning as a quite different word used in an Act of Parliament!
………………….
That took me back to the time Charles Green said he got the Nod.
Auldheid 4th May 2020 at 04:10
The modus operandi of both SFA and SPFL is as clear as day based on previous SFA/SPFL investigations and the key question is who decides on the desired outcome the SPFL or SFA CEO is asked to deliver?
Res12/ 5 Way Agreement pursuit has been parked, not dropped because its aim is transparency and accountability and it is ironic that now Rangers think they are on the wrong end of a decision by one of those bodies they now want what they have derided since Res12 was first lodged.
===============================
The frustration for both of us is that nothing has changed or looks likely to change in the foreseeable future in terms of the governance of the game and the key question you pose gets to the heart of the matter. Who decides on the desired outcome?
I’m sure that much of the furore over the current machinations will be forgotten about once football does resume in a meaningful way, although the recriminations will remain for a year or two longer. Your own fight about events nine years ago has all been forgotten by all but the most fervent followers of the campaign (I include myself among such followers). As each year passes the relevance diminishes, but I still support what you are doing.
May the 4th be with you.
EJ You have just said what many of us have been thinking.
I concur with your response to Auldhied.
The thing for me though and I don't mean this in a lookback 20/20
kind of way, rather it was something I had predicted at the very
beginning. The mistake has all along been to take the long route.
One thing that the SFA and Sevco have been better at than all
others is "kicking the can down the road", indeed if there were
ever to be a medal for said sport my money would be on them.
The only way to go, in my opinion was down the court/legal
route. That is the only way. Again just my opinion.
BTW, Two crackers, May the 4th be with you and from JC,
"I am on a promise" very funny indeed.
Furthermore, Rangers will begin the 2020/21 football season with a new kit and retail operations partner, following the conclusion of all existing contracts.
James Bisgrove, Director of Commercial and Marketing said: “The club is incredibly excited to introduce its new kit & retail partner to Rangers supporters world-wide imminently.
The above is taken from the most recent statement from Ibrox (May 2nd) . Firstly, “following the conclusion of all existing contracts” is being interpreted as having got rid of SDI where the reality is the contracts with Hummel and Elite were the existing contracts that have now been terminated and were done so by a Judge ruling in Ashley’s favour. For him to now walk away , ditching his matching rights contract and dismiss any award due to him is fantasy land moonbeams .
Secondly , why would Bisgrove not announce its new kit and retail partner right now ? Imminently can be an inordinate length of time when it comes to Ibrox affairs , there’s the share issue , the far east investment , partnerships with Dallas Cowboys and even NOMADS that have been described as imminent and that’s before mentioning the dodgy dossier that the Press seemed to have moved on from.
Meanwhile it’s worth looking at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08142409 where David Cunningham King remains the one and only active Director and whose accounts are long overdue (March 20 2019)
What will arrive at Ibrox first ? the RIFC interim accts , Rangers Retail accounts or the Christmas card to Charles Green from Dundee Utd ? My moneys on the Christmas card.
Auldheid 4th May 2020 at 04:35
We got ourselves in trouble with our performances on the park and would have liked the opportunity to play our way out of it . Merde arrive, just got to cope with it . Not as bad as all the doings Falkirk got years back , and they are still with us .
easyjambo
May the 4th be with you.
————————————————
The 4th May 1985 was the final Saturday of the Scottish Premier Division and on that day Aberdeen finished their league season by beating Hearts 3-0 (McDougall 3) at Tynecastle. I think we had already won the league before that but the significance is that it remains the last time any team other than one playing out of Celtic Park or Ibrox have won the top league in Scotland (Celtic were 2nd, Dundee Utd 3rd and Rangers 4th, on the same points as St Mirren, being 21 points behind us at a time when it was 2 points for a win). I bring this up, not to remind ej, but in connection with a Highlander post last week in relation to how our game could be improved by a more equitable distribution of the money in the game. My memory was that there was nothing like the disparity in resources available to clubs in these days and the destination of the league title was much less likely to be determined by money. Alas I fear that we will never get back to that situation and that any changes to distribution of funds will be "tinkering at the edges".
This 'imminent' deal with 'leaked drawings' of home / away / third / goalkeepers and even training ground 'potential' kits,
has the whiff of a Dallas Cowboys deal, the Apple stadium naming rights, and the 500M fan base.
No contracts signed, but it's a good news story for Ibrox – and this unknown supplier Castore receives a lot of free publicity.
What are the odds that the Ibrox club plays in unbranded kit next season…?
From the BBC "gossip" page today. "Up to" £20m over 5 years they say
Rangers have signed a new kit deal with sportswear brand Castore worth around £20m (Sportcal via Scottish Sun).
Aye borderdon, remember it well! The thing isAberdeen doing what they did back then was made possible by a “ perfect storm” of factors. An ambitious and competent board, an ambitious and outstanding manager, decent players extant and good youths coming through. More importantly an old firm doing (paying) just a bit more than the diddies: where the money was going is not of interest to me but it wasn’t going on the football side! Even more important to the point of being crucial the gap between us and England was much narrower. A player like Archibald, for example, could double or treble his money by joining Spurs but now it’s a multiple of 40 and more. Scotland based players can double or treble their wages going to a mid to lower championship side. Short of a collapse of the game across the uk aberdeen will not win the league again which makes it quite remarkable that they, and others, even get close now and then.
I have no problem with the gap between Celtic and the rest, they sell 50000 season tickets, get 50000 at euro games, win stuff, buy low and sell high AND have owners with a bit of dough! Whether it would be better for them also for some of the rest of us get to the trough is another argument.
what I do have a problem with is all those years I, my fellow supporters and my club shelled out good money in an attempt to compete only to find out the old Rangers shafted the lot of us with their tax dodges and improperly registered players they otherwise couldn’t afford. The fact they were liquidated is no comfort. The fact that we’re supposed to consider the current bunch as some sort of continuation is just taking the piss.
Re SEVCO’s new kit ‘deal’.
Great news is that Mike Ashley’s out of the frame – all profits to Govania! Aye right!
SMSM accurately (?) reported that CFC would get ca £ 5m per year from new, landmark Adidas (market leader) deal.
SMSM accurately reporting that SEVCO will ‘pocket’ £4m from their deal with hitherto unheard of outfit.
Somebody’s sums ain’t right.
bordersdon 4th May 2020 at 16:07 From the BBC "gossip" page today. "Up to" £20m over 5 years they say Rangers have signed a new kit deal with sportswear brand Castore worth around £20m (Sportcal via Scottish Sun).
__________
Hmm, I wonder if SDI might feel able to match that deal, I mean, £4m a year for a kit deal with 'the world's most successful club' must seem mightily attractive to a company with SDI's infrastructure and financial resources. I'm not sure, but unless the 'matching rights contract' with SDI has been set aside by the courts then Big Mike must be pretty happy at the prospect of matching such a deal.
Unless. of course, the truth is that TRFC are paying Castore £4m per annum to make the kits
Ernie: Absobluminlutely.
Bordersdon @ 15.45: take that post and add on the earlier comment made by EJ (who may himself have been quoting Auldheid) along the lines of, the problem is not the befuddling of the vote to achieve the desired outcome, but in discovering who/what the creator of the desired outcome is.
In your context I suspect “the desired outcome” is to avoid the very storm you describe and I also remember with such fondness. That’s not an anti Old Firm cheek thing. It’s just to say that I suspect the unhealthy duopoly is considered by many to be far superior to a clearly unhealthy monopoly – but crucially that’s to the deliberate exclusion (certainly suppression) of any other possible outcome.
If the net cost (excl of VAT) of a replica shirt is around £50, it would take 80,000 sales each year to achieve revenues of £4m.
If you account for manufacturing, advertising, distribution and retail costs one would imagine that, with a fair wind, a profit of £1 – £1.5m might be achievable.
We know that a kit manufacturer might pay a football club on the basis of a licensing fee – payable as a fixed percentage of each sale. Alternatively, it might share the profits through some sort of joint venture.
Either way, a deal that splits the profit 50:50 from the whole enterprise, is likely to represent an excellent outcome for a club with limited alternative retail opportunities.
Let's assume that TRFC have negotiated such a deal.
On that basis, and regardless of the actual licensing methodology, its probably a reasonable estimate to say that the sale of 80,000 shirts (total revenue of £4m) the net income to TRFC will be in the region of £500k to £750k.
If TRFC are expecting to receive £4m as its cut, it's likely that Castore would need to sell around £30m of its merchandise. That would represent up to 600k replica shirts.
Imagine, for a moment, that such latent demand exists.
For a small company with no significant retail infrastructure, do such numbers sound realistic?
StevieBC
Apparently Mike Ashley owns them
bect67
https://mobile.twitter.com/Yogi_theTim/status/1257284111716306944/photo/1
Thanks for that Tony!
How could they SMSM be so far out with their figures? Mmmmm.
They do love their sour grapes I think!
Ernie
——————————————————————-
We could have a long discussion about the first part of your post, some of which I agree with but others not so much. However for the avoidance of doubt I totally share your position on the "old" Rangers EBT / not properly registered players. That's a whole different issue.
bect67
Click the photo in the post below those figures
Help ma boab!
Now, I’m more confused.com. than ever.
So Big Mike will sort it all out – now that King’s away!
My education continues apace!
That’s a wee dampener on the ST launch Tony/Bec. …..And frankly, deplorable deception and misdirection from the club towards their own support……I mean all clubs have their wee tricks and planning campaign sales…..But OMG !….There will be rage.
.
Corrupt official
Did they not even consider no one would look into it
Let's not believe what we want to believe re that tweet from…. 'Yogi the Tim'. Seriously?!
I searched for Business Live and found what I think is the current accurate listing that his tweet seems to refer to. https://www.business-live.co.uk/enterprise/mike-ashley-sports-direct-newcastle-16723204
I can see no mention of Castore being connected to MA or Sports Direct. Happy to be proved wrong.
tony 4th May 2020 at 20:51
It's beyond doubt they would have expected it be uncovered T, (maybe not so quickly), but a few ST's would have left the shelf, and somebody else will get the blame….They have been blaming their dearly departeds since 2012….From wee Craigy onwards, its always the guy who just left who did it…….Just pap it in the paper. As predictable as Scooby Doo…..Much funnier but.