Look Back to Look Forward

Avatar ByFinloch

Look Back to Look Forward


[mp_span col=”12″]

Everyone on this site has football experiences, views, stories and opinions. Everyone also wants things to be better in the future too. These are bonds that make us who we are and this forum what it is.

I’ll share a few experiences with you now.

I will never forget an impromptu and inspirational 60 minute Q. and A. masterclass by Davie MacParland to a group of relative youngsters at Hampden in 1975 after Scottish Unis had played a friendly with his team.

It was “over the moon Brian” time for me on finding a £5 note in my shoe. This was after I played my first game (unexpectedly) as an S form in the Highland League when my club’s  Aberdeen-based players had been held up by a road incident.

So happy and corrupted was I that I never questioned the widespread practice of giving money to amateur players thereafter so I’m part of the problem.

I also sat next to a young Jim Leyton who came to Butchart to watch himself on a match video after he had let in two goals when we dumped Deveronvale (where he was on loan) out of the Aberdeenshire Cup.  It was the very early days of video and Jim had never seen himself on a tv before.

Every person in the SFM community will have equally diverse and interesting experiences and I’m going to share one more with you now in a little more detail.

In the mid 90s I was given an amazing insight into how Scottish football really worked. In many ways it hasn’t changed much since.

Back then I was part of a small group brought in to help find funding for the upgrade of Tynecastle with the urgent need to construct three new stands. At the time it was a massive requirement for a very financially challenged organisation and at a push there were potentially just about enough pots of monies available from several sources to trigger the investment from the Football Trust and squeak over the line.

The most critical pot was mobilising the fans.

My role was to find a way of getting them to come aboard working with some fine lifetime Hearts fans like the late Alex Kitson so it would all look like a Hearts Community rather than a Mercer initiative.

The then, colourful Hearts majority owner was under constant pressure on other fronts at the time.

The team was not really performing with relatively new manager Jim Jeffries trying to get best out of predecessor Tommy Mclean’s mixed bag of old pros and kids. Making things worse was a growing, highly critical and very vocal consortium of local business people trying to get Mercer out (and themselves in).

I guess you could say in today’s parlance that they were RHM and civil war was very much happening down Gorgie way.

Anyway I can’t now recall all the detail and apologies if my memories have fused a little but a key AGM type meeting for Hearts shareholders at Ingliston was coming up and there was an agenda that looked like it might hurt “The Chairman” as Wallace liked to be called.

Never any flies on him though, he had seen the danger signs and was ready in his own way.

He turned up with his trusted few and simply yet quite brilliantly hijacked the negative agenda and ignored the real issues. He didn’t have a solution for them and couldn’t implement the changes that were in reality needed but quite simply he kicked all the trouble into the long grass.

He did this because he fundamentally understood that most shareholders in the room were just ordinary football fans and wanted nothing more than to be able to talk about football the game, Hearts their club, who they were due to play next and who would be playing.

It was that simple.

Mercer’s message to all that night was “Yes things have been tough but our best possible future is with me”.

He rammed this home by confidently telling the assembled body that Hearts were on the up because we had a new manager who needed time and then blew everyone away by announcing he just signed three amazing new players for them, Giles Rousset, Bruno Pasquale and Hans Eskilsson. After the applause and mayhem died down he had won.

Bruno and Rousset were newsworthy in any Scottish football context one being a French International and the other an ex Juventus tough guy with a EUFA and a couple of Coppa Italia winners medals.

Oh and Eskilsson had amazing hair.

Mercer’s simple bit of insight, showmanship, brinksmanship, call it what you like, led to the survival of his regime.

In a parallel maybe to what the SFA did after their meeting with Craig at the Hotel Du Vin in Glasgow, Mercer had enough time to be ready for the trouble he knew was coming and used his power to ignore the real issues and the detail and move on with a big gamble.

Looking back Wallace got a lot right .

He understood what the majority of ordinary football fans wanted. He’d also learnt that good press was needed and came from feeding the football writers enough tasty exclusives so they’d look after him in a symbiotic relationship, the kind of relationship that remains much the same today.

Even back then in the days when there were less full-colour pages pre-allocated to certain teams to fill and  more able journalists to fill them, the sports pages were about game reports and gossip rather than insight.

The packs of hacks all craved being handed tasty semi-exclusive stories.

It was and ever is thus and in those days the Daily Record was a wee gem with circulation nearer 700K than the 200K-ish today and amazingly all its costs were covered by it’s advertising revenue alone. The proud boast of Endell Laird was the purchase price was pure profit.

With hindsight Wallace may only have postponed the inevitable campaign by the RHM rebels that night at Ingliston. History tells us that the Robinson/Deans rebellion eventually forced their chance. They did have to dig much deeper financially than they ever wanted when their time eventually came, and soon fell out too, but that’s another story.

Wallace’s long grass was just never going to be deep enough to hide the issues he wanted to ignore but to his credit on his watch the stadium was upgraded and the first Scottish Cup since 1956 was paraded to the fans.

Mr. Mercer was an operator who like others before and since could see personal and business value in owning a club.

He cultivated friendly football writers.

He learned that the SFA could be difficult to deal with but much less so when you placed people on their various management boards. That was key to the inner power sanctums and brought you at best influence and at worst early warnings.

He may have been autocratic but knew you needed powerful friends at other clubs too and was always close with David Murray in particular.

So what has this little piece of retrospection and a handful of Finloch football stories got to do with a blog on SFM?

Last week I met Big Pink for the first time over a few coffees.

It was like meeting an old friend in the pub because of all the stuff we’ve lived through and shared over the last 5 or so years.

We talked about stuff and traded stories and opinions on life, football and about SFM what it does and what we are.

We got on to the subject of it’s future and with my business background he asked me to consider a piece for the blog about where the SFM, our fledgling business might go from here.

I maybe agreed too hastily because I have found it challenging to gather and spell out my thoughts.

So this is very much a starting couple of steps to bring in the SFM minds and set up future discussions following this blog and when we meet in Perth in April.

My starting point was to first consider what we are today.

It’s a personal view but to me SFM is a valued medium I come to most days. It’s for when I want to find out or to discuss what is happening.

It is populated with a bunch of people with different backgrounds, skills and insights, is always polite and often very funny.

I’d actually like to see more headline blogs because I enjoy them but our biggest value will always be analysis discussion and good humour.

SFM is fundamentally different to the MSM back pages that still offer us all a mono diet of whatever day-to-day gossip they have been spoon-fed by the Level 9’s of this world or made up and maybe embellished with a random phone call for a quote.

Yes their world is declining and will inevitably see fundamental restructure and change but that change has in reality nothing to do with how they cover and will continue to cover Scottish football.

I’d even posit (to use a wee word I’ve learned from the excellent JJ site I visit sometimes) that the red tops currently see their style of football coverage as a way of slowing their inevitable declines because it delivers the difficult to reach male audience their advertisers crave access to.

As a spectator I’d say the MSM in Scotland mostly seem to suffer from a polarised demographic focus/ bias too but that can never excuse their revisionism or the Spiers and Haggerty episodes we’ve just witnessed.

There is one benefit though. One you maybe hadn’t thought about from all the dreadful MSM football reportage.

The stuff they collectively generate enables all of us to have daily conversations with friends and strangers without actually saying anything about anything.

It gives us our daily top-up for the international language of football minutiae we all converse in every day.

I’ve been able to speak it fluently since I was in my teens. You know the kind of thing – the ins and outs, the ups and downs, the comings and goings and the toings and froings.

The good news, the bad news the made-up news – its all part of being involved with a team or indeed just being a football fan and it’s all conversation for the males of our species.

There are plenty of places I can and do get access to that kind of stuff but SFM isn’t and never has been a source.

I quickly found out that most of my pals don’t want to talk about side letters in the pub on a Friday, or the need for asterisked titles because they are more interested in tomorrow’s match and who will be out of contract at the end of the season.

Without being disrespectful in any way I think they are cut from the same wood as the majority of Mr. Mercer’s Hearts shareholders and if I’m honest part of me is too.

That has given our administrators and clubs too easy a ride.

Beyond the gossip it is fair to say in the last 40 or 50 years football has changed beyond all recognition.

It has become a source of power and money and as we know proverbially and in real life power can corrupt and money can be the root of all-evil.

The stuff happening at FIFA now can be no surprise to any fair-minded fan and I’d be inclined to think that there have been finagled decisions at the top for longer than the current stewardship of Mr. Blatter.

Way longer.

Football-land is a dirty world. A world where all the transparency is for show and real stuff has always been controlled and rewarding for those in the right places.

Closer to home football in Scotland is no different. Power and money have been the origins of our own North of the Border soap opera saga.

Its sometimes been very funny, often been entertaining too but is ultimately tragic and a sad indictment on our country.

Being Scotland nothing is ever as simple as it should be.

We started from a unique kind of place where for over a century we have had to live with an unhealthy, quasi-tribal, two-club duopolistic domination of all things football including the fans, the trophies, the money, the media attention and the administrators controlling our game.

The stark reality of 2016 is our biggest club/economy now finds its real ambitions thwarted, potentially forever, by its location in our restrictive league structure. It has nowhere currently to go and annoyingly the biggest league in the world is just over the border and part of the same country in political terms.

This is a destabilising influence on our game that won’t go away until change allows the next evolution.

Our second biggest economy as we now know had to cheat a little to keep up, post Fergus, and is now making its way back to the top end but with some truly nuclear baggage that I guess we still really only know the half of. Nothing will be simple in its return to what we’re told everyday is its rightful place. It too is a latent destabilising influence awaiting like a grumbling volcano.

What depresses me is the fact that the much-vaunted return of our dysfunctional duopoly is not a formula to recreate  the European success we all took for granted for so long. Those days will never return.

The decline of the Scottish giant that was and is Rangers has dominated our thoughts because it encapsulates so much more than what is wrong with our game.

It is a huge business and establishment fall from grace. A shocking story that has become an elephant in the room to our politicians, our media and many of our fellow fans and is still playing out to deafening silence in some quarters.

In the manic run up to the decline of David Murray’s club we benefitted from insights from the seminal RTC and were bombarded with mass denials from almost everywhere else.

We witnessed the £1 sale to Craig Whyte, the subsequent McCoist European failure, the eventual slide into messy liquidation with tax issues etc.

Our administrators failed us all the way through because they had a different agenda.

Our MSM didn’t want to know partly because it involved more than regurgitating press releases and partly because it was real news for real reporters and not back pages gossip.

Their editors failed us there too, big time.

Now the revisionism and invention of the post-liquidation ephemeral club and company scenarios has been creative to say the least.

I remember Mr. Traynor’s  initial headline and smile how he and others are now wading in a contradictory swamp of their own making. It’s all confusion when it needn’t be.

I only know the kind of stuff that really happened because of this site and its RTC predecessor.

Four or five years on and I think these guys (SFA, SPFL) acted like Wallace Mercer did at Ingliston and ran roughshod over process to “win”.

These well paid admin staff were never off-piste though and our clubs share complicity for their actions to varying degrees.

If I was Regan’s or Doncaster’s devil’s advocate I could just about comprehend that they acted because they feared for their TV revenues. The prospect of being without half of their duopoly ace card and the blue fans scared them and they were mandated by the clubs to maintain the status quo.

I don’t mean all the clubs but if we look at the key committee structures we’ll easily see who were in that inner sanctum at the time. They collectively decided to throw their rulebook out the window and there is no grass long enough to bury their collective actions because truth always outs.

Cast yourself back a few years not long before the St Valentine’s day 2012 news when the push was all for a 10 club league.

I remember Stewart Milne aggressively trying to sell us all a 10-club league because of the TV revenue it delivered (to the few).

At that time there seemed to be a collective “TV Gold Fever” prevailing in the cabal of top club chairmen that makes the real decisions and tells our administrators what to do.
Luckily they failed.

They nearly failed again too in 2012 with their tawdry 5 way agreement  and we all owe a debt of gratitude to the late Turnbull Hutton whose personal integrity, bloody-mindedness and leadership meant a significant change to the premeditated 5 way plan that our top clubs had all signed off.

Since then we’ve all suffered from Armageddon and long may it stay.

SFM has been at the forefront of the last five years. A place where fans from all the clubs come together to question, analyse, give insight, balance, consciousness on all aspects of the meandering road that has been this story so far.

It’s all recorded on our archives somewhere too. We’ve noted and discussed the following and more –

  • Two different signatures from the same club on the 5-way agreement
  • Two different and concurrent memberships of the SFA
  • Players TUPE-ing for free and no lawyers getting rich in trying to get them back
  • Pre-season games being cancelled because of registration and insurance issues
  • The Brechin game coming too soon for the paperwork
  • The entry-round in The Ramsdens Cup for the old club or is it the new club?
  • Record crowds, an even more aggressive songbook
  • Ian Black getting a surprise call-up and a bit of a game to legitimise  The New Rangers with their first cap
  • Millions raised from a gullible city and desperate fans but still several last gasp saves needed to avoid new financial stramashes
  • A charity that pays for holidays in America
  • Quasi-legal stuff with dodgy parameters for questionable enquiries like Nimmo Smith
  • Bryson and his logic that Spartans could and should have used to stay in the cup
  • A “Hopelessly Conflicted Chairman” re-elected and a new one who has fitted in seamlessly
  • Real legal stuff like HMRC appeals, and phrases like side-letters
  • Charlotte Fakes and maybe even Fake Charlotte Fakes
  • Fit and proper persons running our clubs
  • Recorded conversations
  • Onerous contracts
  • Metaphysical concepts of what football clubs in our courts with big bucks being spent on our behalf by our administrators

There is and has been a whole lot more and more to come on the schedules too.

How much of this would I have found on our MSM?

Very little – so thanks to those who go the extra mile for us including John Clark, EasyJambo and others at the courts,  Phil who will never go away, James Doleman and others too including JJ – all playing blinders where the hacks don’t dare.

Finally fast-forward to today.

Most Scottish fans probably know a little about the stuff I’ve touched upon and we’ve debated in depth. Not enough though.

But we have Darryl Broadfoot who is the SFA so we can all sleep rest assured each night.


Going forward we must address how we communicate as a medium to spread the word.

Ask yourself – Is what we do more important than knowing Rangers signed Dean Windass’s son from Accrington Stanley on a free because he’s going to play for England one day and stuff like that?

I’d say it is different although both have a place.

Our challenge is to create more impact with ours.

In finishing I have one serious starting proposal to make as a community but first a thank you.

Thank you to all the blog writers and posters because we have collectively created a site where real stuff can be dissected and discussed politely and in a non-partisan way.

Well done to the mods in particular and to our community In general


My simple proposal as our first step forward is to start a Wikipedia style library of the facts and keep it on our site.

Dates, happenings, people and all the stuff that will not allow any of it to stay buried forever in the long grass. The kind of detail that is in Auldheid’s amazing and resolute Resolution 12.

Chapter and verse whys and wherefores with dates and names.


This will achieve three things.

  • It will create bedrock for us as a trusted media channel whatever we decide to become.
  • It will put stuff factually into the public domain forever.
  • It will contradict any highly paid revisionists trying to change what really happened for their own agendas into the future.



About the author


Finloch author

Finloch has been a member of SFM since it's inception. A Hearts fan, he also penned the blog, Look Back to Look Forward

1,978 Comments so far


John ClarkPosted on12:43 pm - Mar 9, 2016

neepheid 9th March 2016 at 12:07 pm
‘..JJ’s latest http://johnjamessite.com/2016/03/09/constructive-criticism/..’
johnjames cannot, any more than any other ‘denier’, see the flaw in his statement that 
‘  It follows that all 114 titles had been transferred to Charles Green’s corporate vehicle..’
The flaw is that neither the SFA, nor the SPl, nor the SFL had power to transfer the sporting achievements of the liquidated football club to a brand new football club.
It was an exercise in infantile  nonsense to think for a minute that that was possible.Worse, it was the act of frightened, complicit, football administrators, some of whom were compromised (I believe) and who were willing to sell their integrity and the integrity of Scottish Football and mount and sustain a propaganda campaign to perpetuate the lying nonsense.

View Comment


AllyjamboPosted on12:51 pm - Mar 9, 2016

tony 9th March 2016 at 12:26 pm # John Clark they won’t ??? why did they go yesterday ? forgive my ignorance on this john 

I would imagine John is basing his expectation on the similarities within the two cases and that this victory for HMRC covers the point of law raised by BDO. I suspect that by passing the appeal to the SC that it may now result in a Supreme Court ruling that a precedent has been set, an absolutely wonderful result for HMRC, and the rest of us, of course (as tax paying citizens and nothing to do with football).

But, as with everything in the Rangers Scandal, nothing ever seems to come to and end06 and so I suspect that this might be John (and me) being a wee bit optimistic 14

Might also explain why it only took a five minute ‘huddle’ for the judges to reach their decision. It did all seem a little bit too ‘summary’ a procedure!

View Comment


ReiverPosted on12:54 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Big Pink

Filled in a request on the contact page of the site and was just wondering whether it posted successfully. Having been involved in a couple website change overs myself I am very aware how unpredictable things can become.



View Comment


AllyjamboPosted on1:19 pm - Mar 9, 2016

I’ve had a look at the TRFC ‘accounts’ published by the club. Referring to EJ’s analysis if the income, and excellent that was, I am wondering if the same might be possible for the expenses, though I’m not really wondering, for I have severe doubts that it would be possible. A football club’s income streams are always going to be fairly predictable and, for those with the ability, easy to calculate, while the club’s expenses will be wide and varied between each year – and each club.

We know that in it’s short history, TRFC has had many more varied expenses than most and that some of them went unidentified, some, or all, may well have been eradicated, but some maybe not. There is also the thorny question of accruals!

From my uneducated position I might suggest that it is quite easy to hide accruals of expenses when you do not produce a balance sheet, and we know of at least one large accrued debt, due to their wifi provider – and that isn’t included in the £9.25m (but now £10.75m) of shareholders’ ‘funding’. How many more similar instances are unknown, but would have to be included, even in an unaudited balance sheet. There is sense in unaudited accounts where a business might have difficulty in meeting the auditors fees, but there is no good reason for not producing a draft balance sheet, especially when looking for loans from people not particularly versed in business matters! Unless…

And lo and behold, a couple of days later, the proposal for the merger of supporters’ organisations funds is published. Who wouldn’t want a sugar-sweetened sight of how well the club is doing when considering this?

View Comment


Jungle JimPosted on1:33 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Apologies for going off topic.  Can anyone shed any light on the lack of recent output from James Forrest?  There has been no activity on ‘onfieldsofgreen’ for quiet a while.  I hope all is well with him.

View Comment


SmugasPosted on1:33 pm - Mar 9, 2016

John Clark 9th March 2016 at 12:43 pm #                 

John.  Its not up to me to fight JJ’s battles but, on the basis he’s obviously a little busy today I’ll fight this one for him.  His point (if I was understanding him correctly) re the transferral of the 114 titles echoed yours precisely, that it most certainly did not aotomatically”follow,” were such a transfer even possible and with who’s authority was said transfer made.

I have just made the point (badly no doubt) on his site that the choice of Div1 (or even SPL11) without titles or Div 4 with titles was never ever in their possession to offer.

The club was liquidated because of irresponsible debt.  The club was caught cheating with regards to player registration.  The two points are entirely isolated.  They were never conditional on a specific division OR, if they were, I want to know who penned that little ditty, whether all of the voting clubs were told about it and ultimately why no club, not one of 41 (or 43 for that matter) thought to go public, then or now, on the differentiation.

View Comment


neepheidPosted on1:43 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Allyjambo 9th March 2016 at 1:19 pm
And lo and behold, a couple of days later, the proposal for the merger of supporters’ organisations funds is published. Who wouldn’t want a sugar-sweetened sight of how well the club is doing when considering this?

There are clearly things going on in the background, and of which I know nothing. Evidence for which, King’s unexpected issue of  “accounts”, followed rapidly by Merlin’s damascene conversion to the pure faith of the King camp, rapidly followed by JJ’s recantation and promise to be good in future. (yes, that’s the price of absolution, folks- a sincere intention to sin no more- I know these things).
The most notable feature of the “1872” statement is the new found ability of the merged fans’ groups to lend their £800k to Kingco interest free and immediately, with the promise of shares in exchange at some indeterminate time in the future. Happy days for King! No need to dip into his Kids’ inheritance- his “co-investors” will bridge the gap. 

View Comment


SmugasPosted on1:53 pm - Mar 9, 2016

It was the bit about loaning the funds to the heavily loss making undercapitalised company led by the dubious chairman and ONCE THEY ARE REPAID they will be converted to equity that bothered me neeps! 

Would you lend your best jacket to a lemming on the way up a hill on the basis  that he says he’ll give you an even better jacket on the way back down? 

View Comment


jockybhoyPosted on1:55 pm - Mar 9, 2016

John Clark: re your post “‘ It follows that all 114 titles had been transferred to Charles Green’s corporate vehicle..’The flaw is that neither the SFA, nor the SPl, nor the SFL had power to transfer the sporting achievements of the liquidated football club to a brand new football club. It was an exercise in infantile nonsense to think for a minute that that was possible.”

Some time ago, around the time of Green’s acquisition, Nobby Stiles sold his World Cup Winner’s medal. Slightly oddly it was sold by an Edinburgh auction house, but that is not my point. At the time I wrote on RTC that I could buy Nobby’s house, I could buy Nobby’s World Cup medal, I could even change my name by deed poll to Nobby Stiles (or Norbert Peter Stiles), but that doesn’t mean I am Nobby Stiles World Cup Winner.

Ditto: buying Ibrox, being allocated “titles” and changing the name, doesn’t make NewGers, currently winners of no trophies by sporting achievement, OldGers winners of lots of things…

View Comment


jimboPosted on2:16 pm - Mar 9, 2016

jungle jim,

James Forrest posts every day on ‘The Celtic Blog’ and is as hard hitting as usual.

View Comment


Bogs DolloxPosted on2:19 pm - Mar 9, 2016

John Clark 9th March 2016 at 12:21 pm #Hoopy 7 9th March 2016 at 10:49 am ‘…Another victory for HMRC against Tax evasionFull Judgement can be seen here:-https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0151-judgment.pdf’ ________ It seems to me that BDO will not now proceed with their appeal to the Supreme Court.(  I wonder whether their Lordships of the CoS knew that that decision of the Supreme Court was to be released today?) But what do I know?

I think you could be right and I see Lord Hodge was one of the SC judges.

The Court appear to be taking a dimmer view than usual on artificially inserted steps in tax “avoidance” schemes.The EBT case was a simple transfer of cash and not shares with conditions attached. What happened next regarding the EBT structures, grant of loans etc can easily be ignored just as the conditions on the shares were. Interesting times.

View Comment


neepheidPosted on2:26 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Smugas 9th March 2016 at 1:53 pm #It was the bit about loaning the funds to the heavily loss making undercapitalised company led by the dubious chairman and ONCE THEY ARE REPAID they will be converted to equity that bothered me neeps! 
I just assumed that Chris Graham wrote that bit- or maybe all of it. And got it a bit wrong. They will never, ever, be repaid. They are simply chucking money into a botomless black hole (called King’s pocket?)
These peepil are being taken for a ride all over again. And how many will see it? Very few, in my opinion.

View Comment


Jungle JimPosted on2:51 pm - Mar 9, 2016

jimbo 9th March 2016 at 2:16 pm

Many thanks, some great reading to catch up on.

View Comment


tonyPosted on5:21 pm - Mar 9, 2016

i suppose if they have withdrawn then shareholders will have to be told first before keef gets an exclusive and level 5 a chance to put spin on it like a victory,or am i being cynical(they have made me this way)

View Comment


ianagainPosted on5:57 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Agree with JC. After perusing the  SC decision and listening to various types on the radio.
BDO will lose if they proceed.
It would seem an outbreak of common sense has taken place in the judiciary.
What was parliament s intention stands out for me, plus the emphasis on common reason in brushing aside any disguising of the payment as being just that. An attempt.to hide remuneration.

View Comment


ekt1mPosted on6:09 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Bogs Dollox at 2.19pm.  “The Court appear to be taking a dimmer view than usual on artificially inserted steps in tax avoidance schemes” I think that  HMRC accepting £130m. from Amazon as payment for 10 years of avoidance, then seeing France screwing £3.4 billion from Amazon for the same avoidance has caused such a ripple in Whitehall that I am not surprised at this latest judgement from the Supreme Court.

View Comment


HomunculusPosted on6:59 pm - Mar 9, 2016

HMRC sit on the Rangers liquidation committee.

If they want a precedent from the highest court in the UK then they may decide to keep BDO going.

However if they think they have won (see what I did there) there may be no point in a further appeal.

Forgive me but I haven’t had a chance to read the link yet.

View Comment


upthehoopsPosted on6:59 pm - Mar 9, 2016

ianagain 9th March 2016 at 5:57 pm #Agree with JC. After perusing the  SC decision and listening to various types on the radio.BDO will lose if they proceed.It would seem an outbreak of common sense has taken place in the judiciary.What was parliament s intention stands out for me, plus the emphasis on common reason in brushing aside any disguising of the payment as being just that. An attempt.to hide remuneration.

Do you think there is still a chance BDO may not proceed with the appeal? 

View Comment


neepheidPosted on7:45 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Homunculus 9th March 2016 at 6:59 pm #HMRC sit on the Rangers liquidation committee.
If they want a precedent from the highest court in the UK then they may decide to keep BDO going.
However if they think they have won (see what I did there) there may be no point in a further appeal.
I agree.
BDO could only have appealed the CoS decision with the consent of HMRC. I would go further, and suggest that HMRC, as the largest creditor, are behind the appeal. If this was “all about Rangers”, then HMRC would have accepted the CoS win, collected what they could, and taken whatever action (if any) they deemed necessary regarding the individuals involved. BDO were appointed by HMRC, and I’m pretty sure HMRC call the shots.
Confirmation of that CoS decision by the Supreme Court would be worth billions to the exchequer. That, of course , is why the tax avoidance “industry” chaps are getting so animated. The RFC/MGH cash is a sideshow by now. The Revenue have bigger fish to fry.
If today’s Supreme Court judgement (I haven’t looked at it yet, by the way) conclusively nails the principle that HMRC want established, then the RFC appeal will not proceed.  BDO couldn’t justify the expense, for starters, and HMRC would already have the precedent they want. 

View Comment


jimboPosted on8:22 pm - Mar 9, 2016


That would make sense of a strange statement from HMRC at the COS yesterday (from a James Doleman tweet):
“HMRC counsel notes petioners have logged a guarantee they have funds to take case to Supreme Court”  It’s almost encouraging!
Why would THEY say that?

View Comment


jimboPosted on8:33 pm - Mar 9, 2016

I should have added as I did yesterday, context is everything.  I don’t know the context of why it was said.  Maybe John Clark or Easy Jambo are more aware.

View Comment


easyJamboPosted on9:06 pm - Mar 9, 2016

jimbo 9th March 2016 at 8:33 pm #
I should have added as I did yesterday, context is everything.  I don’t know the context of why it was said.  Maybe John Clark or Easy Jambo are more aware.
IIRC Lord Menzies had engaged the HMRC QC in a discussion whether or not “redirection of earnings” had been raised at the FTTT or UTTT. Lord Menzies had indicated that it was a fair challenge that if something had only been discussed at the CoS appeal then it was reasonable that it could be appealed.  At that point, it was clear the way the tide was going and that leave to appeal would be granted. The HMRC QC then closed his arguments and raised the issue of costs, adding that he was aware of the appellants guarantee. I certainly didn’t take anything from that remark, as the decision was already inevitable.

I think all he was doing was to saving the court time by avoiding the need for the other side get back to their feet.  The three Judges immediately went into their huddle for a couple of minutes and announced their decision.

I didn’t think that HMRC really provided any strong arguments against taking the matter to the Supreme Court and probably expected the decision that was given in advance of the hearing.    

View Comment


HomunculusPosted on9:24 pm - Mar 9, 2016

easyJambo 9th March 2016 at 9:06 pm

I know people probably won’t like this however having walked about parliament hall in the Court of Session with Advocates discussing things it really is nowhere near as adversarial as people might think.

It’s much more like then agreeing things in advance and then going in to put it before the actual Judges.

It would not surprise me one bit if they had a gentlemanly chat about it, agreed that the appeal would be allowed then went in to go through the actual rigmarole. Though from what I have read it doesn’t sound as if the procedure was long enough to describe it as a rigmarole.

View Comment


jimboPosted on9:39 pm - Mar 9, 2016

easy jambo,

Thanks for that explanation.   So in context it was nothing really.  Certainly not conspiratorial .

View Comment


John ClarkPosted on9:40 pm - Mar 9, 2016

jimbo 9th March 2016 at 8:33 pm
easyJambo 9th March 2016 at 9:06 pm
‘….. Lord Menzies had indicated that it was a fair challenge that if something had only been discussed at the CoS appeal then it was reasonable that it could be appealed. ..’
Yes. Towards the end of Mr Thomson’s spiel , when he had just said “..what commentators say[i.e. the tax experts writing about the CoS judgment]  is not the issue. I think the Court got the principle right . And….” , Lord Menzies cut across him with ” What’s your response to the observation that HMRC won on an argument that was NOT presented earlier..’
To which Mr Thomson’s reply was ” We don’t accept it was the very first time . Detailed discussions took place…” , and finished up quite lamely, in my opinion.
I didn’t hear , or rather, I wasn’t listening to what he had to say about expenses, but Mr Dunlop also had something to say about expenses ,but again I wasn’t really listening ( I tend to switch off when these QCs start talking about money and costs and fees- which is at the drop of a hat!)All I heard was Lord Carloway saying “Well, that would follow, wouldn’t it?” or words to that effect.

View Comment


easyJamboPosted on9:47 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Homunculus 9th March 2016 at 9:24 pm #
Both sides had already provided the judges and the other side with written notes of arguments and answers to the other sides’ challenges.
The proceedings were brief with the above being the first statement from the appellants QC and that he would keep his comments brief, which he proceeded to do, only highlighting what he saw as the key points.

HMRC’s response was even shorter, basically reinforcing how the previous decision was correct and highlighting specific paragraphs from that decision, which countered some of the points raised by the appellants.

I always find it funny watching the advocates marching up and down parliament hall discussing matters at hand, rather than finding a quiet corner or seat.  

View Comment


justshateredPosted on9:53 pm - Mar 9, 2016

I to noticed JJ’s comments today regarding titles transfer.
I have also noticed that his opinion is that the fix is well and truly in with regards to the bigger clubs, not companies, accepting the continuation myth.
Sometimes his articles come across, to me anyway, as ‘We are Rangers, we can do what we like and F@$k the rest of you because the fix is in’. It is, to me, a more eloquent WATP sentiment.
I’ve often thought of posting on his site and asking the following question that if he really does believe what he is writing, and he does seem to, then what is the point in our sport?
Indeed it could be debated that it isn’t actually a sport at all but a predetermined spectacle where regardless how much effort, how well coached, how better your players are, you simply are not going to be allowed to win. So another question really is what is it he really expects fans of other clubs to do to give them their junkie superiority fix and what possible enjoyment can he derive from that type of accomplishment?
I’m supposed to pay north of £400 to be conned?
Thanks but I’ll pass.
My own personal view is that despite all of our disgust and contempt for the people in charge of our sport, clubs and media the allowing of the appeal delays another outcome. By the time this appeals process comes to an end you will probably be looking at the best part of seven years since administration. By that time ‘The Rangers’ will have been back in the Premiership two years and we will all be told to move on.
I think I will have moved on long before then. My brother and I have been talking recently of going to watch games in Europe twice a season. I will sell my shares in my club, since I’m no longer convinced that I can own shares in a club, and invest it elsewhere. I will of course tell my club exactly why I’m leaving after financially contributing for almost thirty years. The fact that I have witnessed corporate corruption not only by the authorities but by the club I own shares in leaves me little choice. That is what happens when you neglect the truth and abandon any principles you have.

View Comment


John ClarkPosted on9:55 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Homunculus 9th March 2016 at 9:24 pm
‘….It’s much more like then agreeing things in advance and then going in to put it before the actual Judges.’
I think they are required to submit their ‘notes of argument’ to the Court and each other, and also required to list any and all precedents that have a bearing on their arguments, even those that seem not to support their case. There can be no question of trying to spring a surprise on the opposition, merely trying to convince the Court that their legal reasoning on how the law relates to the facts of the case is more sound than their ‘learned friend’s’.
The more they can agree common ground, the easier and shorter. But I think it is unthinkable that either party would agree between themselves beforehand to ‘lose’, or not put up as strong a case and argument that he can.
Whether any one party , on instruction from those for whom he is acting, deliberately loses by making a hames  of his case in order to create an opportunity for an appeal to a higher court………….who knows?

View Comment


ianagainPosted on9:57 pm - Mar 9, 2016

upthehoops 9th March 2016 at 6:59 pm #
ianagain 9th March 2016 at 5:57 pm #Agree with JC. After perusing the  SC decision and listening to various types on the radio.BDO will lose if they proceed.It would seem an outbreak of common sense has taken place in the judiciary.What was parliament s intention stands out for me, plus the emphasis on common reason in brushing aside any disguising of the payment as being just that. An attempt.to hide remuneration.———————————-
Do you think there is still a chance BDO may not proceed with the appeal? 

Possibly, as I view it as a car crash about to happen. 07
Or equally they may have individuals who believe they can make a name for themselves by retrieving the dregs of the tax avoidance game.
As was stated in court they are fully funded and ready to go.
Equally encouragement may come from within the avoidance industry to keep the plates spinning as long as possible.
I think I hear the sounds of trusts being wound up in far off places as we speak though.

View Comment


HomunculusPosted on10:12 pm - Mar 9, 2016

John Clark 9th March 2016 at 9:55 pm

I’m not suggesting for a second that they would “deliberately lose” JC. Just that they would agree in advance what the outcome of their arguments would be.

In instances like this where it isn’t a criminal prosecution or appeal they are very likely to save a lot of time in Court by pretty much agreeing the outcome in advance. The Judges appreciate that as it makes the whole thing move much more quickly and easily. We have seen how slow these things move just now, imagine what it would be like if they didn’t do this.

It’s all a big club mate, and really not what people seem to think it is. The Court of Session and the High Court are both very civilised. Nothing whatsoever like your average Sheriff’s Court with people having a real go at each other.

It’s worth bearing in mind that most Advocates will work for either side, so long as they are willing to pay their wages. So they can be working for the prosecution one week and for the defence the next. It’s really just business to them.

View Comment


tonyPosted on10:17 pm - Mar 9, 2016

will this be the case that sees BDO stay away from SC

View Comment


ianagainPosted on10:19 pm - Mar 9, 2016

I note the case took from Appeal in 2014 only until yesterday to be resolved.
Fairly rapid in my experience.

View Comment


John ClarkPosted on10:31 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Homunculus 9th March 2016 at 10:12 pm #
‘..I’m not suggesting for a second that they would “deliberately lose” JC. Just that they would agree in advance what the outcome of their arguments would be…’
I’m sure you’re right, but there must be a point ( or at least, if I was bringing an action, I’d hope there would be a point!) where an Advocate has to advise his instructing client that he has a hopeless case, or little chance of winning, and that it might be better if he dropped the action . It wouldn’t at all do for an advocate to admit to his opposite number that his oppo would very likely win, but then to incur the expense to his client of proceeding to trial or hearing ( unless the client, knowing the circs, expressly insisted. Even then, his ethical ( and possibly career hopes) might require him to stand down and refuse the brief.
Or am I living in that wonderful world of ‘manifestations’ , ‘the spirit of the thing’  the ‘idea’ of things?0202

View Comment


rougvielovesthejunglePosted on10:43 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Well put Just Shattered at 9.53pm.

I gave up watching my team in the summer of 2012 and ironically
it’s coincided with an upturn in my teams fortunes but not a penny
more will I spend on Scottish fitba irrespective whether the Dons go
on and take the title ….?

My decision to walk away was based purely on the position of Campbell Ogilivie as president
of the SFA. A  confirmed recipient of an EBT allowed to keep his position despite being up 
to his neck in it. And then he got re-elected! At that moment, we all should have walked 

Armageddon has taken a while to arrive. For me , it should have happened 
in 2012 following the carve up of the rules in the 5 way agreement of crooks
and corrupt organisations but will undoubtedly arrive in the near future as 
more and more principled individuals walk away from a clearly corrupted
game. You will definitely find better things to do with your time and money
Just Shattered! If you’re taking in European games, I’d recommend trips
to Germany!

View Comment


ianagainPosted on10:49 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Reference our nawtiness in the play offs our response to the axe hanging over our head until next year.
I may point out this last game of the season “invasion” (normally 50 – 60 bois dancing about) has been going on at FP for years. Importantly win lose or draw. Usually followed by a wee chat with the players and families.
I wonder if it was anything at all to do with who we were playing and what the result was?
Following the SPFL statement dated 8th February 2016, Motherwell Football Club has today released the following update.
“Motherwell Football Club notes the decision of the SPFL Commission in relation to the Premiership / Championship Playoff 2nd Leg on May 31st 2015.
The club robustly defended itself during the lengthy process and, at its conclusion, agreed to take forward the various action points set out in the decision.
Although much of what is required of the club by the commission is being addressed by the club, it is important to emphasise the role of our supporters in helping meet the requirements of the commission.
While the club acknowledges that the end of season pitch incursions at Fir Park, by predominantly young supporters, have almost always been celebratory and without malice, incursions themselves are considered to be ‘unacceptable conduct’ and may give rise to further disorder.
In particular, the incursion on 31st May 2015 was found to be disorderly by the commission.
It is clear that the league will no longer accept these incursions and the club could face extremely serious sanctions should there be a repeat.
It is absolutely paramount that no fan enters the pitch or trackside area at any game in future, either at Fir Park or elsewhere. Should this instruction be ignored, the club will reluctantly be left with no other option but to take appropriate action against those concerned, which may include a significant ban from the stadium.
Motherwell Football Club is immensely proud of its supporters and appreciates every single fan that follows the club each and every week. We would ask supporters take heed of the message and work with us to ensure no further issues or problems.
In return, the club will continue to work hard for supporter’s rights and the often valid concerns that are frequently raised in response.”

View Comment


John ClarkPosted on10:52 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Auldheid, I have pm’d you , if you’ll pardon the intrusion.

View Comment


jimboPosted on11:19 pm - Mar 9, 2016

Correct me if I’m wrong but as I understand it, the COS granting BDO leave to appeal to the Supreme Court does not guarantee that the Supreme Court will accept the appeal?

That being the case, if the SC accept the appeal, they have already discussed the arguments and therefore there must be some merit in the eg. BDO case?

I’m confused again.  If, as has been spoken about above, the case is almost decided before the hearing, and it would be ‘bad form’ to spring any surprises on the day of the trial, how come we get decisions like today when HMRC won a handsome victory at the SC?  Why wasn’t the application thrown out by the judges before trial?

Or is it just a case of formalising it for the statutes.  Have a 5 minute huddle, announce the verdict, and that is the end of it?  Case closed.  And we mean CLOSED ( until the next attempt!)

In other words, what are the point of these trials? Is anything truly decided on the day by argument?

View Comment


woodsteinPosted on1:02 am - Mar 10, 2016

Since around early afternoon why are all the posts missing the letter I it is quite amusing to read, but has it been banned? We should be telt.15

View Comment


killie1962Posted on1:08 am - Mar 10, 2016

Because there is no I in team !!

View Comment


woodsteinPosted on1:18 am - Mar 10, 2016

kIllIe1962 10th March 2016 at 1:08 am #

I know you meant F 🙂

View Comment


HirsutePursuitPosted on1:50 am - Mar 10, 2016

I have quickly scanned the recent Supreme Court judgement and just a couple of initial observations, based on my limited view.
Firstly, the HMRC case was made with several points of attack. One of these was that the entire scheme should be disregarded as artificial and employees should be treated as if the purchase of shares by the employer should be treated as a simple payment of cash to the employee. This was the view of the FTTT- though not the UTTT nor the Court of Appeal.

The proper basis of taxation: shares or cash?90. Since the restrictive conditions attached to the shares do not make provision to which section 423 applies, it follows that the shares are not “restricted securities” within the meaning of that section. Is that the “end result”, in Lord Brightman’s phrase, or is it appropriate to go further and disregard other steps: namely, the use of the bonus funds to buy shares in the vehicle companies, the award of the shares to the employees, and the subsequent redemption of the shares for cash? Those steps were disregarded by the First-tier Tribunal, so that the end result was that the employees were treated as though they had been paid in cash.
91. In the broad version of its Ramsay argument, the Revenue invited this court to adopt the same approach. The schemes, it argued, were simply vehicles for passing cash bonuses to employees without paying income tax and national insurance contributions. The shares, although genuine, functioned merely as a cash delivery mechanism. They were not designed or intended to have any other function.
92. In agreement with the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, I find this argument unpersuasive. In the first place, the employees actually received shares, not cash. Subject to one qualification, the vehicle companies did not hold cash. The qualification is that ESIP held cash during the period prior to 27 February 2004; but the cash was not at the disposal of the employees, since they could not redeem their shares until almost four weeks later. Throughout the intervening period, ESIP’s funds were invested in UBS shares. Dark Blue’s assets were invested in low-risk investments. In both cases, therefore, the realisable value of the shares depended on the performance of the assets in which the companies’ funds were invested, as shares normally do. The amount of cash for which the shares might be redeemed was neither fixed nor ascertainable when the shares were acquired, and was unlikely to be the same as the bonus which had initially been allocated to the employees. In the event, the difference turned out to be modest in the case of the employees who redeemed their shares at the earliest opportunity, but matters could have turned out differently.

On the face of it, this Supreme Court judgement seems to me to actually strengthen BDO’s case in its appeal against the Court of Session decision.
As I understand it, the CoS decided that it did not matter where the payment went or what it was used for: it was sufficient that payment was made by Rangers and other Murray companies for the work of individual employees. That it was paid into Trust companies made no real difference as the PAYE & NI became payable immediately on the amount paid by the company for its employee’s work.
The Supreme Court appear to be saying the it does matter where the cash goes. It appears that the value when cash becomes “at the disposal of the employee” is the starting point for the calculation of PAYE & NI.
If we are considering these cases in parallel, I can’t see how these differing views could be reconciled. Although, DB and UBS ultimately lost the case, the SC did not take the same view as the CoS on the very point that HMRC relied upon in the last round of the Rangers/Murray EBT case.
Having said that…
UBS and DB were seeking to fit their schemes into specific legislation that could have given their employees a genuine tax advantage. As such, the Supreme Court had to consider whether or not the conditions of the schemes met the requirements of the legislation. Ultimately, they decided that the scheme conditions could affect the amount made available to the employee and the amount subject to PAYE & NI should be calculated on the adjusted figure – rather than the original amount paid out by the company.
UBS and DB lost their case because the conditions that could have made their schemes eligible for the more favourable tax assessments had no real purpose other than to reduce their assessment for tax.
Interestingly, the scheme conditions the companies introduced were not held to be shams, they were real and had fiscal consequences. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court decided that the schemes failed the required test that would have otherwise allowed the employees to have benefited from a lower rate of tax on these earnings. Almost Poon-like in its logic.
It is perfectly possible that this ruling helps HMRC’s original case as presented at the FTTT. It doesn’t, as I read it, support the rationale of the Court of Session.
…interesting though!

View Comment


Kilgore TroutPosted on6:58 am - Mar 10, 2016




View Comment


tayredPosted on8:35 am - Mar 10, 2016

The case of the absent I’s got me to thinking what the EnglIsh word that has the most of these letters. So, scholars of the language here we have the answer – You have to now try and place the absent letters unfortunately.


The word does have uses for our debates as a well known web page says that the meaning be:
“the act1on or hab1t of est1mat1ng someth!ng as worthless.”

So  – Doncaster, Regan, OgIlvIe, Collum etc the queue of names gets rather long when you put the old grey matter to work. Putting the message together sans I’s has taxed my grey matter thats for sure!

Edit: Argghhh!! After all that the problem has been fixed!! *sob*

View Comment


neepheidPosted on9:02 am - Mar 10, 2016

From a Celtic forum, KDS. I wouldn’t normally post a link to a fan forum, but this seems to me to be close to the heart of what this forum is all about.
The latest on the Celtic Board and Res 12- it doesn’t make for happy reading.

View Comment


hen1rikPosted on9:06 am - Mar 10, 2016

Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan supports Oscar Knox, MacKenzie Furniss and anyone else who fights Neuroblastoma on 9th March 2016 10:06 pm
Good Evening.
I can now confirm that Celtic PLC have not written to UEFA and asked them to intervene in any respect re the matter of the UEFA licence granted by the SFA in March 2011 to Rangers Football Club.Celtic PLC did raise concerns about the process with the SFA prior to Res 12 coming before the Celtic AGM in 2012 and, subsequent to the resolution being adjourned by agreement, the board of the PLC have openly accepted that information has come to light which is worthy of further discussion with the SFA.They have discussed this with the SFA compliance officer informally and formally, and were very keen in encouraging shareholders to write to the SFA formally intimating both complaints and concerns regarding the licensing process.On being advised that this had been done through a large corporate firm of solicitors retained by the shareholders for this very purpose, those representing the board advised that they would now be keen to discuss the matter further with the SFA.A copy of the solicitors letter was obviously copied to Celtic PLC.The SFA’s response to that letter and subsequent correspondence was that they would only discuss the issues raised with, by and through the member club – namely the board of Celtic PLC.There have been discussions between the SFA and Celtic on the matters raised but neither party has seen fit to advise shareholders on the nature of those discussions and their outcome, or what progress, if any, has been made in clarifying what was and what was not submitted to the SFA in support of the licence applications.Nor has there been any comment or fresh information provided on whether or not those discussions have clarified the steps taken – or not taken – by the SFA during the licensing process or the reasoning behind those decisions and actions.The SFA conduct in relation to these matters remains of considerable concern.At the outset, you will recall that the Celtic PLC board took the view that Res 12 was not necessary. That view was then changed as it became apparent that the board were not fully conversant with either the salient facts and information surrounding the application, nor the rules surrounding UEFA compliance procedures.Following the resolution being adjourned, the board and shareholders worked together to put presuure on the SFA to address various issues including documents which were sent out by HMRC which, on the face of it, had not been disclosed to the SFA or UEFA as part of the then licensing process.As mentioned above, the shareholders, with the agreement of the Celtic PLC Board and the compliance officer of the SFA, formally intimated all matters directly to the SFA. Consequently, the SFA said they were happy to take up all of the matters raised with the board of Celtic PLC.Those discussions, may or may not, be ongoing.In the interim, the board of Celtic PLC have encouraged shareholders to write to UEFA and in particular the CFCB who regulate licensing matters, and bring that body up to date with the correspondence sent to the SFA by the shareholders and the replies received from the SFA compliance officer – including those replies which state that the SFA will discuss the matter with the Celtic Board and only the Celtic Board.The shareholders will write such a letter through their solicitors.However, shareholders believe that this is really a function that should properly be carried out by the executive board of Celtic PLC. There is ample scope for the PLC board to explain their current position and ask that UEFA take note of the discussions and explanations provided by the SFA in correspondence and at meetings. Further, they are free to ask UEFA to examine all the documentation thus far presented and compare that documentation with their official records in relation to the licence application concerned.If necessary that communication could have been sent in confidence with a request that the procedures to follow remain confidential during the course of the criminal proceedings instigated by the Crown Office.For whatever reason, Celtic PLC have not written any such letter and are not, apparently, currently considering writing any such letter – but are encouraging the shareholders to do so instead.Personally, I can’t fathom why that should be.The executive function of the board of directors is to preserve, protect and maintain the interests of shareholders in the company.It seems odd that the same board, who previously said that they would take all necessary steps to look after the interests of shareholders in realtion to matters of Governance in Scottish Football, should ask shareholders to formally write to UEFA instead of doing it themselves.If they felt there was no merit in such correspondence they would surely say so?If they had felt there was no merit in writing to the SFA in relation to these same matters they would not have facilitated and encouraged, such correspondence between shareholders and the SFA, have met with the SFA to discuss the matters concerned, or have taken such an active and supportive part in the Res 12 process from the outset.If , as a result of that process and the subsequent correspondence between all parties, the board of Celtic PLC had received information from the SFA which persuaded them that everything to do with the 2011/2012 licensing processes had been completed in accordance with the UEFA rules and regulations, then surely they would have advised shareholders of their conclusions and on what facts and circumstances those conclusions were now based? Equally, had they been provided with such an explanation they would not be encouraging shareholders to write to UEFA as of today’s date?For the avoidance of doubt, the Celtic PLC Board have never intimated that they have received satisfactory explanations in relation to any of the matters raised by them, or by the shareholders, and have at all times encouraged shareholders to further press the SFA for answers to the points raised.Accordingly, the position of the board in not seemingly wishing to write to UEFA with regard to these matters and the application of UEFA rules is baffling in the extreme under these circumstances.Some of us will be writing to Celtic PLC to advise that this stance is incongruous with their previous statements to the shareholders and raises serious concerns about the board’s desire to actually have the matters raised independently investigated.For the avoidance of doubt, what is or should be the subject of independent investigation and scrutiny is the information submitted, and processes followed and considered by the SFA or the UEFA Licensing officials, in realtion to the UEFA licenisng applications presented in season 2011/12.The same information and documentation concerned would have been germane to the commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith and would have been considered by that commission had the original dates of reference for the commission not been changed prior to the start of the hearings.Why the oriiginal dates of that commission were changed has never been explained to shareholders.If any shareholders wish to express their opinion on the board’s stance re this then obviously they are free to write to the chief executive, the liaison officer or any other representative of the PLC.I wish to reiterate again, that the board of Celtic PLC have been fully supportive of the aims and objectives of Res 12 and have played a full and active part in having shareholders press the SFA for satisfactory answers which have not, thus far, been forthcoming.However, the same board are not willing to take the same matters up with UEFA on any kind of official basis but are instead relying on the activities of individual shareholders.
Why are Celtic Football Club asking shareholders to write to UEFA ?

View Comment


ReiverPosted on9:39 am - Mar 10, 2016

Neepheid, Henr1ck

Looks like a set back but action is still underway following the petition. Perhaps all the more reason for people to help in promoting the petition. Be aware though that it is completely club independent so no argument will be made to support any one club’s claims.


View Comment


ReiverPosted on9:42 am - Mar 10, 2016

Where are all the “i”s going in the posts?

In between the inverted commas is the 9th letter of the alphabet should it have disappeared also

View Comment


jimboPosted on9:53 am - Mar 10, 2016

Very funny al the lc Is gone missing.  I reckon Big Pink & Tris are having a laugh! 03

View Comment


shugPosted on10:33 am - Mar 10, 2016

 just a test i

View Comment


essexbeancounterPosted on10:59 am - Mar 10, 2016


View Comment


essexbeancounterPosted on11:00 am - Mar 10, 2016

…not an “eye” to be seen…09

View Comment


essexbeancounterPosted on11:01 am - Mar 10, 2016

…off to Specsavers for a “eye” test… 07

View Comment


yakutsukiPosted on11:30 am - Mar 10, 2016

Regards res 12, shame on the Celtic board. I thought they had a duty to shareholders to vigourously pursue any alledged jiggery pokery? Or at least be transparent if they have contacted UEFA and there’s nothing to see, aye right!

  Lest we forget… Celtic AND the rest of Scottish football were treated with the utmost contempt to pander to
one club/holding thing. It certainly seems to be that way to me. But who am I? Merely a dupee – one of the many.

  Sometimes this board ignores the fact that they are merely custodians of the club I support for the generations to come. How they will be remembered is their choice. Now is the time to stand up and be counted and be forever be mentioned with the Turnbull Huttons of this world.
 I won’t hold my breath. Sad, sad times indeed!


View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on12:42 pm - Mar 10, 2016

Res 12 seemed to be progressing, slowly, but steadily, albeit with a wee bit of reluctance from the Celtic board.
   At the end of March last year, the Rangers(I.L.) board of old, took over the Sevco board. Prior to, or around the same juncture, it was rumoured that the CFC board would be in contact with UEFA. 
   Now, 1 year on from that, with the old Rangers(I.L.) board, and possibly intimate knowledge, safely ensconced, they say they will not. 

View Comment


valentinesclownPosted on12:42 pm - Mar 10, 2016

yakutsuki 10th March 2016 at 11:30 am #Regards res 12, shame on the Celtic board
Resolution 12 is an issue for ALL clubs in Scotland.  Has any other club raised this issue at all?

View Comment


Cygnus X-1Posted on1:35 pm - Mar 10, 2016

With regard to BRTH’s post re Res 12 & the inaction of the Board of Celtic PLC, that’s me out. Over 40 years a supporter, I will now switch my allegiance to many of the other interests that I’m lucky enough to have. Not one thin dime, will I now spent on a sport, which is corrupt & which it appears my club wish to collude & conspire with….  

View Comment


normanbatesmumfcPosted on1:50 pm - Mar 10, 2016

yakutsuki 10th March 2016 at 11:30 am #
Regards res 12, shame on the Celtic board……..

I could not agree more. I know this is a problem for all of Scottish football but Celtic is my club and has been for 50 years, however I am seriously considering renouncing all ties to the club unless they get their act together. I gave up contributing to club and country back in 2012 and was hoping for a good reason to come back. Nothing that has happened in the last 3-4 years has tempted me, in fact the opposite is the case.

Some people hanker for the good old days when the club and the game was thriving, I only wish Fergus McCann was still in charge of Celtic back in 2012. I’m sure he would have had this sorted out years ago and would not have been afraid to call out the disgraceful behaviour of the SFA and league governing bodies.

Come on Lawwell et co. Grow a spine! Do your duty as custodians of the club and representatives of the shareholders. Burying your head in the sand, or hiding in the bunker is behaviour I expect from the SFA, not my once proud club. As far as I’m concerned the Celtic board are perfectly happy with and probably party to most of the things that disgust us on here.

Expecting a group of supporters/shareholders to do their jobs for them is nothing short of disgraceful. 

View Comment


yakutsukiPosted on3:19 pm - Mar 10, 2016

valentinesclown 10th March 2016 at 12:42 pm #yakutsuki 10th March 2016 at 11:30 am #Regards res 12, shame on the Celtic board ————————————————————————– Resolution 12 is an issue for ALL clubs in Scotland.  Has any other club raised this issue at all?


I’m not sure. CFC lost the most out of this and they are procrastinating (At best) so I would doubt if others are pursuing it. I would love to be wrong though!

  I read somewhere that a Donegal based journalist mentioned that Celtic had, in fact contacted UEFA. I would be very surprised if this was true. Again, I hope I’m wrong.

View Comment


yakutsukiPosted on3:24 pm - Mar 10, 2016

Cygnus X-1 10th March 2016 at 1:35 pm #With regard to BRTH’s post re Res 12 & the inaction of the Board of Celtic PLC, that’s me out.


 Cygnus, I know where you’re coming from – I’m gutted about how far the old tentacles of the monster are reaching in our society. Perhaps against my better judgement, I will probably renew for next season. Celtic are in my blood, and I refuse to let the Quislings on the board take this from me!

View Comment


HomunculusPosted on3:37 pm - Mar 10, 2016

yakutsuki 10th March 2016 at 11:30 am #

Sometimes this board ignores the fact that they are merely custodians of the club I support for the generations to come.

The board of a PLC are elected by the shareholders of that PLC to run it on their behalf and in their best interests. Non-executives are employed to bring specific things to assist that board in doing it’s job.

Neither is a “custodian” that is just romanticism. The shareholders are the owners and the board are the managers. The owners will remain just that until they choose to sell their shares, the board will stay in place until the shareholders fail to elect them, or for non-executives sack them.

The board’s job is to protect the interests of the shareholders and that is what they will do. In that respect the board of Celtic PLC are doing a decent job. They are balancing the books, to a large extent through doing decent deals in the transfer market, obtaining excellent sponsorship packages and selling large numbers of season tickets.

Describing something as a “fact” does not make it true. The board of Celtic PLC are not “merely custodians of the club”, they are the elected / employed representatives of the owners of the PLC.

View Comment


KopwebPosted on4:00 pm - Mar 10, 2016

Homunculus 10th March 2016 at 3:37 pm #
But, but, but… What are you saying? You mean that CFC is NOT a metaphysical construct? 13

I agree entirely. It’s business. But you do have to weigh that against the possibility that (professional) ‘Football Without Fans Is Nothing’.

I suspect that club boards might soon start to behave very differently if ST renewals and walk-up attendances slumped dramatically because fans walked away from the professional game. Because the business imperative would become very different.

It’s not just about income at the gate. The TV companies sell games for crowd atmosphere as much as football content. That’s why the BPL can command such huge broadcast-rights deals. And sadly, that’s why the SMSM, $ky, BT, etc. want to stoke the fires of ‘old firm’ games.

It’s business. No intense ‘atmosphere’, no big bucks.

View Comment


StevieBCPosted on4:07 pm - Mar 10, 2016

essexbeancounter 10th March 2016 at 11:01 am #
…off to Specsavers for a “eye” test…  07
Well, whoever said that accountants aren’t very funny…was correct !
A well deserved yellow card for that wince-inducing effort ebc. 22

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on4:11 pm - Mar 10, 2016

Homunculus 10th March 2016 at 3:37 pm
    “The board’s job is to protect the interests of the shareholders and that is what they will do. In that respect the board of Celtic PLC are doing a decent job. They are balancing the books, to a large extent through doing decent deals in the transfer market, obtaining excellent sponsorship packages and selling large numbers of season tickets.”
      I understand the structure, but believe the Res was put on hold. 
Are you saying that despite what they were originally told, the Res 12 shareholders, have now been out-voted by the other share-holders, or is it the case that as the Res was not formally passed, it is non-existent, without an EGM being called to have it voted upon? 

View Comment


Cygnus X-1Posted on4:16 pm - Mar 10, 2016

yakutsuki 10th March 2016 at 3:24 pm
Cygnus, I know where you’re coming from – I’m gutted about how far the old tentacles of the monster are reaching in our society. Perhaps against my better judgement, I will probably renew for next season. Celtic are in my blood, and I refuse to let the Quislings on the board take this from me!
I have every sympathy with your dilemma & quisings are what they are. However, logically for me, I see no other recourse, being only one supporter. I can complain, shout & moan until doomsday, but the only power at my disposal, is to withdraw my money, my interest & my co-operation in a sport, which is corrupt & it seems that the Celtic PLC Board( who don’t speak for me, either as a fan and/or shareholder) wish to ignore, when they could and should do something about it?

View Comment


HomunculusPosted on4:40 pm - Mar 10, 2016

Corrupt official 10th March 2016 at 4:11 pm

Sorry I don’t know enough about it to make comment. I was more talking about the generality and the romantic notion a lot of people seem to have about the board of a PLC being “custodians”.

I think it’s just another example of people thinking of a football club as somehow different from other businesses. I suppose if they can survive liquidation they can do pretty much anything.

View Comment


HomunculusPosted on4:46 pm - Mar 10, 2016

Kopweb 10th March 2016 at 4:00 pm

Exactly, couldn’t agree more, and that is why the board must balance things.

They can’t for example spend stupid money to bring in players to please the fans but destroy the business. On the other hand they need to keep the support onside (pun intended) or there will be no business at all.

None of that makes them “custodians” though. It makes them businessmen running a business for it’s owners.

View Comment


tonyPosted on4:50 pm - Mar 10, 2016

The board’s job is to protect the interests of the shareholders and that is what they will do. In that respect the board of Celtic PLC are doing a decent job. They are balancing the books, to a large extent through doing decent deals in the transfer market, obtaining excellent sponsorship packages and selling large numbers of season tickets.

well surely when shareholders where cheated out of the CL money and the board knew this,are the shareholders entitled to some monies? or at least an answer as to why they won’t get any?
P.S. i’m just learning day to day on these matters

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on4:56 pm - Mar 10, 2016

Homunculus 10th March 2016 at 4:40 pm #Corrupt official 10th March 2016 at 4:11 pm================================
Sorry I don’t know enough about it to make comment. I was more talking about the generality and the romantic notion a lot of people seem to have about the board of a PLC being “custodians”  
  Fair enough, but it seems strange to me that the board of CFC have left it so late in the day to make their position known. There is a cut off date wrt UEFA being informed. (I haven’t the exact date, except the end of March), but that is not enough time to demand an EGM to meet that cut-off.

View Comment


tayredPosted on4:57 pm - Mar 10, 2016

Strachan taking the chance to try out new things with his two squads…? Nah – Charlie Mulgrew in both squads. Sorry, he isn’t worth a place in either, let alone both!  Strachan certainly isn’t going to learn anything new about him is he! One or two new names, but left bewildered at some he is taking and some he has left behind. 

Now if I was a trouble-making, conspiracy driven type of guy I’d be wondering about the 5 other Celtic players being in the at home squad, while the only Aberdeen player is off on a jaunt to the Czech republic. Just as well I believe all is well and above board in Scottish football then! 0914

View Comment


HomunculusPosted on5:15 pm - Mar 10, 2016

tony 10th March 2016 at 4:50 pm #Homunculus
well surely when shareholders where cheated out of the CL money …

Can anyone categorically say that, or how much money that would actually have been. It’s all very well making assumptions about Celtic having qualified for the group stages and losing out on say £15m.I think that is a big assumption.

Equally the club could have lost out after a home and away match against weak opposition. If I remember correctly Celtic played in the Group stages of the Europa that season. So between qualifiers and those games there would have been several home and away matches.

The only thing that can be said with any certainty in my opinion is that Rangers should not have been competing in Europe that season.

View Comment


tonyPosted on5:41 pm - Mar 10, 2016

i agree they could have lost to weak opposition and even if they did they would have still went to europa group stage,so i think money lost,just my opinion though 04

View Comment


AllyjamboPosted on6:17 pm - Mar 10, 2016

As a non-Celtic supporter I am loath to be critical of their board, but if it is the case that the opportunity to take the matter up with UEFA disappears at the end of March, it looks rather like the board have strung the Resolution 12 guys along until it is too late to do anything.

I do wonder, though, if the shareholders pushing for the resolution have looked into whether or not fraud took place? It seems to me that a company deliberately gave wrong information to it’s governing body in a successful effort to gain money at the expense of one or more competing companies. Not only that, it did so while already deeply in debt with overdue income tax payments and well on the road to insolvency.

It may well be that Police Scotland would consider it not worth investigating (or not want to) but if there is the possibility, and the police were advised by Celtic shareholders that they have reason to believe their company was defrauded by a competitor, it might force the hand of Celtic’s board, and perhaps even force the SMSM to write about it in their rags, something they’ve been able to avoid doing so far.

Regardless of how much money Celtic might have lost as a result of Rangers deliberate lie, there can be no doubt that Celtic missed out on the opportunity to make money, and Rangers certainly did make money they would not otherwise have made.

View Comment


tonyPosted on7:00 pm - Mar 10, 2016

did the res 12 guys know about the cut off date or just made aware of it by celtic with just a couple of weeks to spare

View Comment


John ClarkPosted on7:01 pm - Mar 10, 2016

A good laugh on Sportsound tonight: the idea of the SFA taking anti-doping measures seriously! It surely cannot be expected that a cheating administration will bother about players taking drugs? And if they did, who wouldn’t laugh them to scorn? Some woman representing I think the UK anti-doping agency said:, presumably with a straight face ” Given the profile of Scottish Football generally it might be thought that there was no need for concern”.
How wrong is she?  The guys who signed the 5-way agreement and told ‘inaccuracies’ to UEFA are guys who would give grounds for plenty of concern about their commitment to fair play and genuine sporting competition.

View Comment


Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:20 pm - Mar 10, 2016

John Clark 10th March 2016 at 7:01 pm

I thought STVGrant did a decent little piece on the subject this evening. Eight players tested seems a horribly low number & the SFA’s (Darryl?) response involving cost seemed a little disingenuous. (Perhaps if a certain club paid outstanding fines then that could be directed towards testing?)

However, some of the turgid dross I’ve witnessed this season would suggest that performance-enhancing stimulants are indeed unknown in the Scottish game.

It’s more likely that some players (and teams) have taken to eating a couple of ‘creeshy’ pies as ‘stoppers’ before kick-off & then ‘topped-up’ at half-time09092121

What’s the testing procedure for that?

View Comment

Comments are closed.